Srom f^e feifirari? of 
 
 (J)rofe66or ^amuef (gXiffer 
 
 xxK (jytemoti? of 
 
 3wi>ge ^amuef (gliffer QBrecftinrtbge 
 
 (presented 6l? 
 
 ^amuef (ttltffer QBrecfttnribge feong 
 
 to t^e feifirari? of 
 
 (Princeton C^eofogtcaf ^eminarj 
 
 BV 665 .B6 
 
 Boardman, Henry A. 1808 
 
 ^^®^* T-tical doctrine o£ 
 

 y-^-<^/ 
 
THE 
 
 PEELATICAL DOCTRINE 
 
 APOSTOLIC.IL SUCCESSION EXAMINED: 
 
 WITH A DELINEATION 
 
 HIGH-CHUECH SYSTEM. 
 
 By H. a. BOARDMAN, 
 
 PASTOR OF THE TEXni PRESCYTEniAN CHURCH, PHILAEELPHIA. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM S. MARTIEN. 
 
 New York : Robert Carter. — Boston : Crocker & Brewster. 
 
 Pittsburgh : Thomas Carter. 
 
 IS44. 
 

 ^ ' ..>J.> 
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1844, by William 
 S. Martien, in the Office of the Clerk of the District Court of the 
 Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 P.VGE 
 
 Preface, 5 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 Higii-Church Pretensions, 13 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 Statement of the Question, 29 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 The Argument from Scripture, 35 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 TiiE Historical Argument, 99 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The Succession tested by facts, 170 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 The True Succession, 182 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Characteristics and Tendencies op the High-Church Sys- 
 tem : — The Rule of Faith, 224 
 
4 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 r.voE 
 The Church put in Christ's place, 249 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 The System at variance with the general tone of the New 
 Testament, 263 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Tendency of the System to aggrandize the Prelatical 
 Clergy : — and to substitute a ritual religion for true 
 Christianity, 273 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 Intolerance of the System, 292 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 The Sciiismatical tendency of the System, 321 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Aspect of the System towards Inquiring Sinners, — Conclu- 
 sion, 334 
 
PREFACE 
 
 I MAKE no apology for writing a book on the 
 Prelatical controversy. Matters have reached 
 such a pass that Non-EpiscopaUans must either 
 defend themselves, or submit to be extruded 
 from the house of God. The High-Church 
 party have come into the Church of Christ, 
 where we and our fathers have been for ages, 
 and gravely undertaken to partition it off among 
 themselves and the corrupt Romish and Ori- 
 ental Hierarchies. They say to us, and by us 
 I mean^ thirteen out of fourteen of all the evan- 
 gelical ministers, and thirty-three out of thirty- 
 four of all the evangelical Christians, of this 
 country — "You are no ministers, but schismati- 
 cal intruders into the sacred office — You have 
 
 ' See page 312. 
 1* 
 
6 PREFACE. 
 
 no ordinances, no part in the promises, no cove- 
 nanted title to eternal life — You are out of the 
 Church, mere ' sectaries' and ' dissenters,' and 
 if you are saved at all, it must be through ' un- 
 co venanted mercy.' " They must count upon 
 our having at least one Christian grace in per- 
 fection, whether we are in the Church or out 
 of it, if they expect us to bear all this in silence. 
 But we are not at liberty to be silent. If it 
 were a mere personal matter, we could put 
 up with abuse from this quarter as well as 
 from any other. But this is the least import- 
 ant aspect of the movement. We regard it 
 as a systematic and violent attack upon "the 
 faith once delivered to the saints" — as a daring 
 attempt to seize upon " the crown rights of 
 THE REDEEMER," and entail them upon the 
 Bishops. We look upon it as an organized 
 scheme for establishing an exclusive and 
 LORDLY hierarchy in this country. We be- 
 lieve the whole tendency of the system is to 
 substitute a mere ritual religion for true 
 Christianity. We feel called upon, there- 
 fore, by every consideration of patriotism, of 
 fealty to the Great Head of the Church, and of 
 fidelity to the spiritual interests of those around 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 US, to bring the pretensions of this party to the 
 test of Scripture and History. 
 
 These remarks will explain the design of 
 the present volume — the substance of which 
 has been laid before my own congregation, in 
 a course of Lectures. The standard works 
 of the Rev. Drs. Miller and Mason, have long 
 been before the public, and are not likely, on 
 the main question between Prelatists and their 
 opposers, to be superseded by any future pub- 
 lications. To the writings of these eminent 
 divines, the author has been largely indebted — 
 especially in conducting the first branch of 
 the argument. I have also consulted freely 
 the works of the Rev. Dr. Smyth of Charles- 
 ton, S. C, whose learned and elaborate volumes 
 on the "Apostolical Succession," and ''Pres- 
 bytery and Prelacy," with his numerous smaller 
 treatises on kindred subjects, entitle him to 
 the cordial gratitude of the Non-Prelatical 
 Churches. My object has been to do some- 
 thing towards supplying a deficiency which 
 appeared to me not to have been fully met 
 by any of the able and valuable w^orks I have 
 named, nor, indeed, by any other which has 
 as yet fallen under my observation. I have 
 
8 PREFACE. 
 
 felt the want, and the inquiries put to me as 
 a Pastor, have convinced me that it v^as felt 
 by others, of a worh comj^rising within a single 
 portable volume, a concise discussion of the lead- 
 ing points at issue between High- Churchmen and 
 ourselves, and adapted to the present stage of the 
 controversy. I cannot flatter myself that I have 
 succeeded in producing the v^ork that is needed 
 to fill this hiatus. But flooded as the country 
 is with High-Church publications, of all grades 
 and dimensions, I trust the present volume may 
 answer a useful purpose ybr the time, until some 
 one more competent and with more leisure, shall 
 furnish a work better adapted to meet the exist- 
 ing deficiency. 
 
 As to the plan of this work, it will be seen 
 by a glance at the table of contents, that it 
 comprises two parts, the first of which treats 
 of ''the Apostolical Succession;" and the 
 second, of "■ the characteristics and tenden- 
 cies OF the High-Church system." I set out 
 with the intention of discussing the former of 
 these topics only ; but I found it impracticable 
 to do justice to that subject, without sketching 
 the other features of the system to which it 
 belongs. They mutually illustrate each other. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 I have aimed throughout, not at novelty, hut 
 utihty. My book is for the people. Famihar 
 as the scriptural argument against Prelacy is 
 to the learned, there are many intelligent lay* 
 men who have nes^lected to make themselves 
 acquainted with it. In so far as I have gone 
 into that argument, I have presented it in the 
 usual form, — not caring to affect an air of 
 originality where originality was out of the 
 question, nor solicitous to strengthen by new 
 authorities, a position which, though often as- 
 sailed, has thus far proved impregnable. The 
 other sources of argument are still less familiar 
 to the general reader ; but these also have been 
 so well explored of late, that the chief labour 
 an author has to perform, consists in the mere 
 selection and arrangement of materials. 
 
 It may, perhaps, be objected to the work, 
 in certain quarters, that it confounds High- 
 Church-ism with Puseyism. I am aware that 
 while all Puseyites are High-Churchmen, all 
 High-Churchmen are not Puseyites. I would 
 not impute to individuals sentiments they do 
 not hold. I am dealing, however, with the 
 High-Church system. No one, I presume, 
 will deny that this system and the system of 
 
10 PREFACE. 
 
 the Oxford Tracts, are identical in all their 
 essential features. It was the publication of 
 those Tracts, which revived the torpid High- 
 Chnrch-ism of the Episcopal clergy. They 
 are read, quoted, recommended, as the best 
 exposition of the system extant. They are the 
 armory from which its champions have furnish- 
 ed themselves for their present attack upon the 
 Non-Prelatical Churches. To allege, there- 
 fore, that there are High-Churchmen who reject 
 a part of the mummeries and a part of the 
 Popery of some of the Oxford writers, while it 
 releases them as individuals from the responsi- 
 bility of those tenets which they disclaim, does 
 not touch the fact that the High-Church and 
 Tractarian systems are substantially one. In- 
 deed, the very circumstance here urged in 
 abatement of the condemnation pronounced 
 upon the High-Church system, to wit, that cer- 
 tain of the leading expounders of it have well- 
 nigh become Papists, furnishes a legitimate 
 ground of argument against the system, as dis- 
 closing its strong afiinity for Popery. 
 
 As to the tone of this book, I have only to 
 say, that I have endeavoured to treat the party 
 whose views I have controverted, with candour, 
 
PREFACE. 11 
 
 and shall deeply regret it if I have, in any in- 
 stance, done them injustice. I have, however, 
 felt it due to all concerned, " to call things by 
 their right names." 
 
 I commit the work to the press, praying that 
 it may please God to use it as an humble in- 
 strument in checking the progress of error and 
 formalism, and promoting the cause of truth and 
 righteousness. 
 
 Philadelphia, April, 1844. 
 
THE 
 
 HIGH-CHURCH DOCTHINE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 HIGH-CHURCH PRETENSIONS. 
 
 The controversy which now agitates the Church of 
 England, and. its daughter in this country, has a two- 
 fold aspect, — one internal, the other external ; or a 
 domestic and a foreign aspect. Viewed in its domes- 
 tic relations merely. Christian courtesy would forbid 
 other churches to interfere in it. But regarded in its 
 more general characteristics and tendencies, it is not 
 only their right, but has become their imperative duty 
 to notice it. 
 
 Owing to causes which need not now be specified, 
 there has always been — as candid and inteUigent 
 Episcopalians have admitted — a party in the Church 
 of England, whose doctrinal sentiments and personal 
 sympathies, have had a marked bias towards the 
 Church of Rome, associated with a corresponding 
 hostility to Protestantism. This party, after placing 
 
 2 
 
14 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 themselves at the head of the late Oxford -Tract 
 movement, avowed it, in so many words, as their ob- 
 ject, to " Unprotestanize the National Church." 
 " We cannot," is their language, " stand where we 
 are ; we must go backwards or forwards ; and it will 
 surely be the latter. And as we go on, ive must re- 
 cede mo7^e and more from the principles^ ^f any such 
 there he, of the English Reformat ion.^^^ This pre- 
 diction, or purpose, has been faithfully carried out. 
 The Puseyite party, on both sides the Atlantic, has 
 gone on assimilating itself to the Church of Rome, 
 until at length there seem to be only a ic\Y impedi- 
 ments, and these mostly circumstantials rather than 
 essentials, to a formal union between them. 
 
 It has been part and parcel of this movement, from 
 the beginning, to disparage all unprelatical churches, 
 or rather to deny their very existence as churches. 
 The doctrine of its authors and abettors, is, ?2o (Dioce- 
 san) Bishop, no Church. No matter though a Chris- 
 tian denomination may hold, in simplicity and purity, 
 the distinctive doctrines of the Bible, and abound in 
 those fruits of holiness which inspired men have made 
 the sure evidence of a genuine faith and of the pres- 
 ence of the Spirit ; if they are without prelates de- 
 scended in an unbroken line from the Apostles, they 
 have only the outward semblance of real Christianity; 
 they are no part of the Church of Christ. The mere 
 possession of prelacy, on the other hand, is held to 
 countervail the grossest corruptions of faith and prac- 
 tice, in so far, at least, that the body thus distinguished 
 is to be recognised as a genuine branch of the church. 
 
 This doctrine, so repugnant to Scripture and rea- 
 son, and so revolting to every sentiment of humble 
 
 1 British Critic, for July, 1811, pp. 44, 5. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 15 
 
 piety, has not been thrown out in mere hints and im- 
 plications; nor is it now confined to the ultra-Puseyites 
 of Great Britain, and a few vain and noisy individ- 
 uals inoculated with the semi-popery virus in this 
 country. It is the doctrine of the school — openly 
 avowed, and zealously disseminated by the pulpit 
 and the press. That there are multitudes in the 
 Episcopal Church who detest the doctrine and the 
 whole system of which it is a part, is shown by the 
 state of that Church at the present time. What pro- 
 portion these may constitute, of that communion, it is 
 neither practicable nor important to determine. It is 
 undeniable that the system in question has the appro- 
 bation of many of their bishops, and a large number of 
 the inferior clergy, including some who two or three 
 years ago, were regarded as Evangelical Low Church- 
 men. The writings of the sect find a large and ready 
 sale here. A "\;^ry influential portion of the Episcopal 
 periodical press, is devoted to the propagation of their 
 principles. And, not content with public and official 
 agencies for disseminating their views, a meddlesome, 
 proselyting spirit has diffused itself among the laity. 
 The courtesies of social intercourse are pressed into 
 the service of " the church," and private homilies on 
 the Apostolical Succession, the divine right of Bishops, 
 and the nullity of Presbyterian Sacraments, are de- 
 livered from house to house by fluent lecturers and 
 lecturesses, the sum of whose theological reading 
 amounts, perhaps, to three or four polemical tracts ! 
 
 The Protestant Churches can ill afford at the pre- 
 sent juncture to fall out among themselves; and a 
 controversy whh this party cannot, in the nature of 
 things, be carried on, without producing some inci- 
 dental evils. But the responsibility of it belongs ex- 
 
16 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 clusively to those who have commenced the warfare. 
 On the part of non-Episcopahans, it is a work of 
 SELF-DEFENCE. The alternative is forced upon us, 
 either to vindicate our poUty against the repeated and 
 furious assaults of Piiseyites and High-Churchmen, 
 or to leave our people exposed to the insidious in- 
 fluences of a system which would substitute a foun- 
 dation of sand for the rock, Christ Jesus. — How foreign 
 a controversy respecting points of ecclesiastical order 
 is from the ordinary tastes and habits of our ministry, 
 must be known to every enlightened Presbyterian. 
 We are trained from infancy to regard points of this 
 kind as of very subordinate importance. The truth 
 we are jealous of. Believing as we do that no Church 
 can enjoy permanent spiritual prosperity, which toler- 
 ates grave theological errors, we are more rigid than 
 most of the Churches around us, in insisting upon sub- 
 stantial uniformity of doctrine among^our ministers. 
 But questions of form and organization, are seldom 
 discussed in our pulpits. It is a rare thing— too rare, 
 indeed — to hear a Presbyterian pastor preach on the 
 disthictive features of our own polity; still rarer, to 
 find one bringing the polity of a sister-church to the 
 test of Scripture. J>^evertheless, we have our polity, 
 and in its place and for its appropriate ends, as a 
 framework and scaffolding for the spiritual, uses and 
 functions of the Church, we set a high value upon it. 
 We believe that it is more nearly conformed to the 
 primitive model than any other. And we should be 
 faithless to our Master, if we were not prepared to 
 defend it when it is assailed. 
 
 The assault we have now to repel, is not, it is true, 
 directed against our own Church alone. It is a war- 
 fare waged against all Churches which hold to the 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 17 
 
 parity of the ministry. The party engaged in it — 
 confessedly large, weahhy, and inflnential — have 
 come forward in the face of the world, and challenged 
 for their own and other Prelatical Churches, a mono- 
 poly of all the rights, privileges, and endowments of 
 the Church of Christ. With a sacrilegious hand they 
 would sever the cords which have hitherto bound the 
 Episcopal Church to the sisterhood of the Reformed 
 Churches, and link her in interest and in destiny to 
 the corrupt Romish and Oriental Churches. They 
 style their Church in this country, in official docu- 
 ments, "The Church op the United States;"* 
 and with an insolence equalled only by its fatuity, 
 they designate non-Episcopalians by the epithet of 
 dissenters. They claim to be the only Church in the 
 Union, except the Roman Catholic, their '^ Roman 
 Sister," as they are fond of calling her. They affirm 
 that all other societies claiming to be Churches, are 
 "schismatical organizations" — that our ministers are 
 " self-appointed teachers," without authority to preach 
 or to administer the sacraments — that our ordinances 
 
 ' The "Church Almanac," for the year 1843, contains a list of 
 the Episcopal Bishops and Clergy, under the head of " Dioceses op 
 THE Church of the United States." The Hon. Judge Jay, himself 
 an Episcopalian, in his recent letter, rebukes the arrogance and 
 absurdity of this title, in terms of just severity. "You will with me 
 (he says) thank God that there is no Church of the United States, and 
 that there can be none so long as the Federal Constitution is in force. 
 The fanatics assembled in the city of Nauvoo have as much right to 
 assume this arrogant title as we have. 
 
 "And by what authority is this false and impudent title substituted 
 for our constitutional name, the * Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
 United States of America?' The Almanac professes to be published 
 by the Protestant Episcopal Tract Society. And who is the Pre- 
 sident of tliis society ? Tiie gentleman who ordained Mr. Carey." 
 
 (Seethe whole UUer.in the Presbyterian of December 2d, 1843.) 
 2^ 
 
18 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 are invalid — that it is " unlawful to attend our minis- 
 try," and that to hear us, is "rebellion against God." 
 You shall judge for yourselves whether this picture 
 is overdrawn. 
 
 Dr. Hook, the Vicar of Leeds, in his sermon entitled, 
 " Hear the Church," says of this country, " there you 
 may see the Church, like an oasis in the c/e^er/, blessed 
 by the dews of heaven, and shedding heavenly bless- 
 ings around her in a land where, because no religion 
 is established, if it were not for her, nothing hxd the 
 extremes of infidelity or fanaticism would prevail." 
 If the sermon containing this sentence had not been 
 republished here with the endorsement of one of the 
 Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church, it would 
 not be worth noticing. As it is, it must strike every 
 sensible American (Pnseyites always excepted,) as a 
 very ludicrous statement, that if it were not for the 
 Episcopal Church, the smallest of the four leading 
 denominations, there would be nothing here but " the 
 extremes of infidelity or fanaticism." 
 
 We have Dr. Hook's figure repeated by Bishop 
 Brownell, of Connecticut, in his late charge: — "The 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in this country appears 
 as ^an oasis in the desert.' " (p. 9.) 
 
 " It is not," say the Oxford Tracts, " merely that 
 Episcopacy is a better or more scriptural form than 
 Presbyterianism, (true as this may be in its-elf) that 
 Episcopalians are right, and Presbyterians are wrong, 
 but because the Presbyterian ministers have assnined 
 it poioer mhich teas nexer entrusted to them. This is 
 a standing condemnation from which they cannot 
 escape, except by artifices of argument which will 
 seVve equally to protect the self-authorized teachers 
 ofrehgion." — (Tract No. l.p. 2.) 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 19 
 
 Again: "So far from its being a strange thing that 
 Protestant sects are not ' in Christ' in the same ful- 
 ness that ive are, it is more accordant to the scheme 
 of the world that they should, lie between us and 
 heathenism.''^ ( Tract No. 47.) 
 
 High-Churchmen in the United States are no longer 
 timid about maintaining that there is no Church in 
 this country except the Roman Catholic and their own. 
 While these sheets are passing through the press, the 
 Rev. Dr. Wainwright of New York is publishing in 
 the newspapers a series of elaborate articles in vindi- 
 cation of the sentiment uttered by him at the late 
 dinner of the "New England Society ,'Mhat "/Aere 
 cannot be a Church ivithout a Bishop.^^ 
 
 " I have lived," says Bishop Doane of New Jersey, 
 " in a land peopled by those who emigrated from this 
 country. It is the fashion to call some of them the 
 Pilgrim Fathers — men who fancied themselves some- 
 Avhat straitened in the enjoyment of religious liberty — 
 who, in the claim of greater freedom in God's worship 
 and service, set out for distant shores, and planted 
 themselves in a region now called New England. I 
 enter not into the inquiry as to the character of these 
 men, the justice of their complaints, or the motives 
 for their proceedings. 1 will accord to them all that 
 charity can ask. They went from here, as they 
 thought, and truly believed, the true followers of the 
 Gospel of Jesus Christ; preaching, as they thought, 
 the very principles of the Reformation; but without 
 a Church — without a liturgy — with no transmitted 
 authority from God to minister in holy things.^' 
 (From a speech made in St. Mary's Hall, Coventry, 
 England.) 
 
 The same prelate, in his sermon entitled, " The Office 
 
20 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 of a Bishop," says: "Yes, could I swell my voice 
 till it should reach from Canada to Mexico, and from 
 the Atlantic to the Pacific shore, it should be lifted up 
 to entreat all who heard it, not to be content with the 
 word of God without that ministry and those sacra- 
 ments, which are equally his ordinances, and equally 
 essential to salvation.^^ (p. 26.) 
 
 Again: "The seeming harshness of the inference, 
 the conclusion that the loss of salvation must follow 
 the failure in any of these essentials, may be safely 
 left to the depth of the riches of grace." — [Bishop 
 Doane: Office of Bishop, p. 2S.) 
 
 " The attempt, (says Mr. Froude,) to substitute any 
 other form of ordination for it, (Episcopal ordination,) 
 or to seek communion with Christ through any non- 
 Episcopal association, is to be regarded not as a 
 schism, but as an impossibility.^^ (Froude'' s Re- 
 mains, iii. 43.) 
 
 "A person not commissioned from the bishop, 
 may use the words of baptism, and sprinkle or bathe 
 with water on earth, but there is no promise from 
 Christ, that such a man shall admit souls into the 
 kingdom of heaven. A person not commissioned, 
 may break bread, pour out wine, and proceed to 
 give the Lord's Supper, but it can aftbrd no com- 
 fort to any to receive it at his hands, because there is 
 no warrant from Christ to lead communicants to sup- 
 pose that while he does so here on earth, they will be 
 partakers of the Saviour's heavenly body and blood. 
 And as to the person himself^ who takes upon him- 
 self without warrant, [that is, without having had the 
 hands of a Diocesan Bishop laid upon his head,] to 
 minister in holy things, he is all the while treading 
 in the steps of Korah, Dathan, and Jlbiram, whose 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 21 
 
 awful punishment we read of in the book of Num- 
 bers." {Tract No. 35.) 
 
 Tlie following passage is given in the Oxford 
 Tracts from Dodweli, and copied into one of their 
 organs in this country. 
 
 " None but the Bishops can unite us to the Father 
 and the Son. Whence it will follow, that whosoever 
 is disunited from the visible communion of the Church 
 on earth, and particularly from the visible com- 
 munion of the Bishops, must consequently be dis- 
 united from the whole visible Catholic Church on 
 earth ; and not only so, but from the invisible com- 
 munion of the holy angels and saints in heaven, and, 
 what is yet more, from Chi^ist and God himself. It 
 is one of the most dreadful aggravations of the con- 
 dition of the damned, that they are banished from the 
 presence of the Lord, and the glory of his power. The 
 SAME is their condition also who are disunited from 
 Christ, by being disunited from his visible repre- 
 
 sentative: 
 
 t" 
 
 Seldom has a poor worm of the dust gone further 
 in challenging to himself the prerogatives of Jehovah, 
 than this writer has in thus dealing out damnation to 
 all of every character and condition who happen not 
 to belong to a prelatical sect. The late Episcopal 
 Bishop of one of the neighbouring dioceses was not, 
 however, far behind him. 
 
 " But where the Gospel is proclaimed (he says in 
 one of his works,') communion with the Church, by 
 the participation of its ordinances, at the hands of the 
 duly authorized priesthood, is the indispensable condi- 
 tion of salvation.^^ He afterwards makes an excep- 
 
 ' See Bishop Hobart's " Companion for the Altar." 
 
22 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 tioii in favour of those who separate themselves from 
 the regular priesthood through " involuntary ignorance 
 or error," provided they be" humble, penitentjand obe- 
 dient." But every one can judge how far this should 
 be regarded as modifying the offensive statement. 
 
 The present Bishop of the same diocese has in- 
 herited his predecessor's principles, and is equally 
 explicit in avowing them. 
 
 "None but the bishops (is his language) can unite 
 ns to the Father, in the way of Christ's appointment, 
 and these bishops must be such as receive their mis- 
 sion from the first commissioned Apostles." 
 
 This Bishop has softened his arrogant claim of ex- 
 clusive salvation for prelatical churches, by throwing 
 in a qualifying clause: "None but the bishops can 
 unite us to the Father, i?i the way of Christ'^ s appoint- 
 menty Other High-Church writers in this country 
 have usually done the same thing. Shrinking from 
 the direct affirmation that all non-Episcopalians will 
 certainly be damned, and aware that in a country 
 where people think for themselves, such a senti- 
 ment would recoil upon them, they are accustom- 
 ed to make over sincere and well-meaning mem- 
 bers of other churches, not to the wrath, but to the 
 " uncovenanted mercies" of God. But " uncovenant- 
 ed mercy" is a non-entity. ^11 i\\Q mercy manifested 
 towards our race is manifested in and through Jesus 
 Christ, our Saviour, in virtue of th€ eternal covenant 
 between the Father and the Son. And as to union 
 with the Father, the Saviour uses this strong lan- 
 guage: "All things are delivered unto me of my 
 Father: and no man knoweth the Son but the Father: 
 neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, 
 and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." — 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 23 
 
 (Matt. xi. 27.) And again, (John xiv. 6,) "Jesus saith 
 unto him, 1 am the way, the truth, and the Ufe; no 
 MAN co7}ieth unto the Father but by me.^^ If the 
 Bishop whose words have been quoted did not know 
 what is here so plainly asserted, that there can be no 
 union with the Father, except •' in the way of Christ's 
 appointment," what is to be thought of his theologi- 
 cal attainments? If he did know it, what is to be 
 thought of his candor?^ 
 
 These quotations may serve as a sample of the 
 manner in which the great body of the Christian peo- 
 ple of this country, and their pastors, are spoken of by 
 this Puseyite party in the Episcopal Church. Their 
 great and apparently increasing influence in their own 
 communion, the arrogance of their claims, the violence 
 of their attacks upon the rights and liberties of other 
 Churches, the pernicious tendency of their doctrines, 
 
 1 The author has recently met with a pamphlet from the pen of a 
 distinguished Episcopal writer and divine, in which the notion of 
 uncovenanted mercy is thus disposed of: — 
 
 "As to the consignment of all who are not favoured with Episco- 
 pal ordinances, '■to the uncovenanted mercies of God,^ Mr. M. knows 
 no such mercies ; he can find nothing in the Bible about any mercy 
 for sinners, but that which the precious blood of the everlasting cove- 
 nant has purchased, and which God hath promised but to members of 
 the covenant of grace. Should he offer his Christian brethren of 
 other churches no better consolation than ' uncovenanted mercy,^ he 
 would think it equivalent to an opinion that their souls are utterly 
 destitute of hope. But, blessed be God, he is not obliged to regard 
 them as in a condition so miserable. With all his heart he can carry 
 to them, as beloved brethren in Christ, the overfloviring ' cup of bless- 
 ing ;' and can say to all that ' love the Lord Jesus in sincerity,' of 
 whatever name or form, * He that believeth in the Son hath everlast- 
 ing life;' and 'there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ 
 Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit,' " — Statement 
 of'''' the Rev. Mr. (now Bishop) Mcllvaine, in answer to the Rev. (now 
 Bishop) H. U. Onderdonky D. Z?.," dated West Point, Oct. 15, 1827. 
 
24 THE niGH-CHURCir DOCTRINE OF 
 
 and their activity in labouring to substitute a lifeless 
 formalism for genuine Christianity, have left it no 
 longer an open question, whether it is the duty of true 
 Protestants, both in the Episcopal and other Churches, 
 to use all appropriate means for repelling their bold 
 and dangerous aggressions. If we refuse to do this, 
 we betray the cause of truth and righteousness, the 
 defence of which is committed, in his measure, to 
 every friend and follower of the Saviour. 
 
 The author yields to no one in the respect he enter- 
 tains for the fcehngs of those excellent persons who 
 deprecate religious controversy, and to whose minds 
 a discussion like the present suggests no idea but that 
 of an attack on another denomination. But surely a 
 Presbyterian is not to be charged with disturbing the 
 harmony of the Christian sects, because he ventures, 
 in the face of many rude and flagrant allegations to 
 the contrary, to maintain that he is a member of the 
 Church of Christ! If our title to a place at the Lord's 
 table is not worth vindicating, it is not worth having. 
 And let it not be supposed that these lordly preten- 
 sions against which we are contending, will die away 
 of themselves. This is not the course of such things. 
 The doctrines in question are too congenial to corrupt 
 human nature, and find too much nutriment in the 
 love of pomp and power so characteristic of hierar- 
 chies, to be readily relinquished. It is only a few years 
 since they re-appeared, in their present offensive form, 
 in this country; and their progress has, up to this time, 
 been as rapid as it has been desolating among the 
 clergy of our sister-church. Not a few even have 
 been carried away by them, who, before the publica- 
 tion of the Oxford Tracts, were regarded as the de- 
 cided opposers of all such exclusive and unscriptural 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 25 
 
 sentiments. And, besides, if these usurpations are 
 not resisted, it will soon come to be taken for granted 
 that they are well-founded. Let this party have the 
 public ear to themselves, and go on for a few years 
 longer proclaiming with ceaseless iteration that they 
 are " the Church," and that all others are " sectaries," 
 and " dissenters," and the world will believe that it 
 is so. Our protest, to be effective, must be made 
 now. — And even if we could forget ourselves, some- 
 thing is due to the sainted dead. The doctrine we 
 are opposing goes to declare, that " all those glorious 
 churches which have flourished in Geneva, Holland, 
 France, Scotland, England, Ireland, &c., since the Re- 
 formation; and all which have spread and are spread- 
 ing through this vast continent; that those heroes of 
 the truth, who, though they bowed not to the mitre, 
 rescued millions from the man of sin, lighted up the 
 lamp of genuine religion, and left it, burning with a 
 pure and steady flame, to the generation following; 
 that all those faithful ministers and all those private 
 Christians, who, though not of the hierarchy, adorned 
 the doctrine of God, their Saviour, living in faith, 
 dying in faith, scores, hundreds, thousands of them, 
 going away to their Father's house, under the strong 
 consolations of the Holy Ghost, with anticipated hea- 
 ven in their hearts, and its hallelujahs on their lips; 
 that all, all were without the pale of the visible 
 Church; were destitute of covenanted grace; and 
 left the world Avithout any chance for eternal life but 
 that unpledged, unpromised mercy which their ac- 
 cusers charitably hope may be extended to such as 
 labour under involuntary or unavoidable error !"^ — 
 
 > Dr. Jolm M. Mason. 
 3 
 
26 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 It would be treachery to the dead, then, to remain 
 silent. 
 
 Opposition, able and vigorous, this party does meet 
 with from the evangelical portion of their own com- 
 munion. If any of this class of Episcopalians are 
 surprised that ivc should begin to resent the unchris- 
 tian treatment we have met with from their High 
 Church brethren, let me put the case to them in the 
 language of one of their own ministers— the late ex- 
 cellent Rector of St. Andrew's Church, Philadelphia, 
 m whom his own denomination has lost a faithful and 
 zealous pastor, and the " common Christianity" a 
 pious, able, and resolute defender. " How would it 
 strike us (asks Dr. Clark, in his ' Letters on the 
 Church,') if another denomination were to assert, to 
 preach from the pulpit, and publish through religious 
 papers, that the Episcopal Church was no Church at 
 all — a mere unauthorized human institution — that it 
 had no valid or authorized ministry — that its preach- 
 ers were nothing more than laymen — that it had no 
 sacraments — that baptism and the holy supper, being 
 administered by unauthorized hands, were of no effi- 
 cacy; and that if any belonging to this body were 
 saved, it would not be because they had been brought 
 within the covenant promises, but because God in his 
 sovereignty, 'will have mercy on whom He will have 
 mercy.' Were a large and influential denomination 
 of Christians, to assume this stand and proclaim these 
 views, would not our prejudices be aroused ? Would 
 you not then say, with some reason, ' Shall we sit still 
 and see ourselves swept off the face of Christendom 
 by the restless spirits of the age?' " Such, precisely, 
 is the course the High-Church party has been for 
 several years pursuing towards all the unprelatical 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 27 
 
 churches. The indications are numerous and decisive 
 throughout the country, that these churches have 
 borne with it until their meekness and patience are 
 well-nigh exhausted. And it may be safely left to 
 candid Episcopalians to say, whether they can with 
 reason be required to keep silence any longer. We look 
 upon the party which is spreading such ruin through 
 their communion, notwithstanding their strong protes- 
 tations against Popery, as virtually in league with 
 Rome. We regard the scheme of religion they are 
 inculcating, as a system of formalism emuiently adapt- 
 ed to ensnare and destroy the souls of men. And when 
 we see them putting forth the most strenuous exer- 
 tions to propagate this system, and, as a means of 
 bringing people to submit to it, proclaiming in sermons 
 and in pamphlets, in the house and by the way, 
 that their Church is the only true Church, and that all 
 the Christian Ministers in this land, except the Romish 
 Ecclesiastics and themselves, are " treading in the 
 steps of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram," we cannot, in 
 justice to the Master we serve, remain silent. We 
 cannot suffer them to disseminate their pernicious 
 heresies, without lifting up a warning voice agahist 
 them. We cannot see them abetting the Papal Anti- 
 Christ in his warfare against Christ and his Church, 
 without doing what we can to convince Protestants 
 of every name, that it is as much their duty to oppose 
 the Popery of Puseyism as the Popery of Rome. 
 
 Such are some of the considerations which have led 
 the author to undertake the preparation of a small 
 volume, on the High-Church doctrine of the Apos- 
 tolical Succession. It is his purpose to bring the 
 lofty and exclusive claims which have been of late, so 
 ambitiously thrust upon the public attention, to the 
 
28 THE HIGII-CHURCH DOCTaiNE OP 
 
 test of Scripture and history. If in doing this, the 
 question between Prelacy and Parity shall be found 
 to require a somewhat minute investigation, it will 
 be borne in mind, that there can be no controversy 
 between non-Episcopalians and those who disavow 
 the arrogant assumptions which have been advert- 
 ed to, and who, with the British as well as conti- 
 nental Reformers, acknowledge the scriptural cha- 
 racter of Churches organized on the principles of 
 ministerial parity. With Episcopalians of this sort, 
 we desire to cherish that intimate and sacred fellow- 
 ship which ought ever to prevail among the various 
 branches of the one household of faith. We cheer- 
 fully concede to them the privilege we claim for our- 
 selves, of choosing that form of ecclesiastical polity 
 wiiich they believe to be most conformable to the 
 Apostolic model. We look, it is true, upon Diocesan 
 Episcopacy, as incompatible with the perfection of 
 a Church ; but we admit that it is compatible with 
 the being of a Church. While lamenting that our 
 Episcopal brethren should be .deprived of the ad- 
 vantages of that " more excellent way" which we 
 find laid down in the word of God, we are far from 
 believing that they are no part of the Church of Christ. 
 Our controversy is not with that portion of their com- 
 munion who reciprocate the truly catholic senti- 
 ments on this subject, which have ever characterized 
 the Presbyterian Church, but with those who main- 
 tain that Prelacy cvlone is authorized by the word of 
 God, and that there is no Ministry excepting that 
 which has descended from the Apostles through an 
 unbroken and distinctly traceable line of Prelates. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 29 
 
 CPIAPTER II. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION. 
 
 We come now to inquire into the doclrine of tlie 
 *^ Apostolical Succession/' as held by High-Church- 
 men and Puseyites. This shall be stated in their own 
 words. 
 
 "We live in a Church (says Bishop Beveridge^) 
 wherein the Apostolical line hath, through all ages, 
 been preserved entire, there having been a constant 
 succession of such Bishops in it as were truly and 
 properly successors to the Apostles by virtue of that 
 Apostolical imposition of hands which, being begun 
 by the Apostles, hath been continued from one to 
 another, ever since their time, down to ours. Bt/ 
 ivhich means, the same spirit which was breathed 
 by our Lord into his Apostles is, together with their 
 office, transmitted to their lawful successors, the pias- 
 ters and governors of our Church at this time ; and 
 acts, moves, and assists, at the administration of the 
 several parts of the Apostolical office in our days as 
 much as ever.'' 
 
 Dr. Hickes, denominated Bishop and Confessor by 
 the Oxford Tract writers, thus speaks: — "Bishops are 
 appointed to succeed the Apostles, and like them to 
 stand in Christ's place, and exercise the Kingly, 
 
 1 This and most of the following quotations are given as furnished 
 cither by Mr. Powell, the able Methodist Episcopal writer, or by Dr. 
 Smyth, in his elaborate and valuable work on the Apostolical Suc- 
 cession. 
 
 3* 
 
30 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 Priestl)^, and Prophetical office over their flocks 
 
 They stand in God's and Christ's stead over their 
 flocks ; the clergy as well as the people, are to be 
 snbject to them, as to the Vicc-Gerents of our Lord." 
 
 Dr. Hook, the present Vicar of Leeds, already men- 
 tioned, says, — " The officer whom vi^e now call a 
 Bishop, was at first called aa Apostle, although after- 
 wards it was thought better to confine the title of 
 Apostle to those who had seen the Lord Jesus, while 
 their successors, exercising the same rights and 
 AUTHORITY, though uueudowed with miraculous pow- 
 ers, contented themselves (!) with the designation of 
 Bishops. After this, the title was never given to the 
 second order of the ministry. . . The Prelates who at 
 this present time, rule the Churches of these realms, 
 were validly ordained by others, who by means of an 
 tmbroken spiritual descent of ordination, derived their 
 
 mission from the Apostles and from our Lord 
 
 Our ordinations descend in a direct, unbroken line 
 from Peter and Paul." 
 
 "Before Jesus Christ left the world, he breathed 
 the Holy Spirit into the apostles, giving them the 
 po\ver of transmitting this precious gift to others 
 by prayer, and the imposition of hands : the apostles 
 did so transmit it to others, and they again to others ; 
 and in this way it has been preserved in the world to 
 the present day." ( Outline of the doctrine, as drawn 
 by Bishop Meade, himself an opposer of Puseyism.) 
 
 "The real ground of our authority (say the Oxford 
 Tract writers) is our Apostolical descent." "The 
 spirit, the sacred gift, has been handed down to our 
 present bishops." "We must necessarily consider 
 none ordained, who have not been thus ordained." 
 
 " The supposition is, (says Dr. How, of New York,) 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 31 
 
 that Christ established distinct grades of ministers, and 
 conferred upon the highest grade the exckisive power 
 of ordaining. When a minister of the highest grade, 
 then, ordains, Christ ordains ; when a minister of the 
 second grade ordains, it is not Christ that ordains, but 
 man. Thus Episcopal ordination confers the sacer- 
 dotal office; Presbyterial ordination does not. If, 
 therefore, the former ordination be laid aside, and the 
 latter be substituted in its place, the sacerdotal office 
 must cease to exist ; and as there can be no church 
 without a ministry, the church must cease to exist 
 also." Again he says, "Wilful opposition to Episco- 
 pacy is certainly rebellion against God, and must, 
 therefore, exclude from his presence.'' 
 
 The views of Dodwell and of the Bishop of the 
 Diocese of New York, have already been presented, 
 to the effect, that " the bishops alone can unite us with 
 the Father," and that all who are not connected with 
 prelatical churches, are in a fair way to be lost. 
 
 It should be added, that many Episcopalians who 
 hold to the doctrine that their prelates are lineal suc- 
 cessors of the Apostles, reject the sentiment that salva- 
 tion is restricted to churches under Diocesan Bishops. 
 The passages that have been quoted, however, exhibit 
 the High Church doctrine, so popular just now, on 
 both sides the Atlantic. According to this theory, the 
 Christian Ministry was originally established in three 
 orders, called, ever since the apostolic age, bishops, 
 presbyters or elders, and deacons. The first of these 
 orders, are the successors of the Apostles, and can 
 trace up their spiritual descent in an unbroken per- 
 sonal line to the twelve. They possess, miraculous 
 gifts alone excepted, the same authority and powers 
 with the Apostles. They have received, by regular 
 
32 THE HIGII-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 transmission, that peculiar gift or grace, sometimes 
 called "the grace of the Episcopal order," and at 
 other times the "gift of the Holy Ghost." This gift 
 was communicated hy our Saviour to the Apostles 
 when he breathed on them, and said, "Receive ye 
 the Holy Ghost," and it has been transmitted from 
 one generation of Prelates to another, down to the 
 present day, by prayer and the imposition of hands. 
 All Avho have been properly ordained, have inherited 
 it and the capacity of communicating it to others, 
 irrespective of their moral characters. Impalpable 
 and undefinable as it is, this gift is a real depositum, 
 by virtue of which the recipient "obtains the power 
 of enduing the element of water in the Sacrament of 
 Baptis-m with mysterious efficacy for the remission of 
 sins, and of converting bread and wine in the Lord's 
 Supper into the real body and blood of Christ;" while 
 these, in turn, (not the word of God,) become the 
 instruments of regeneration and justification. With 
 this extraordinary endowment, is associated the sole 
 power of ordination and of governing the church. 
 The church is committed to the exclusive control and 
 guardianship of the Bishops. They are the only 
 channel through which God communicates grace to 
 mankind. No man is ordained who has not been 
 ordained by a Prelate. No organization which de- 
 clines prelatical jurisdiction, is a branch of the church. 
 No individual who is disconnected with a Bishop, can 
 Safely conclude that he is in the way of salvation. 
 
 Such is a summary of the High-Church theory. It 
 is incumbent on them ta establish every one of the 
 positions just stated. If they fail in a single instance, 
 the whole system falls to the ground. Their proofs, 
 too, must be cogent and irrefutable. They must pro- 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 33 
 
 duce a Divine right for the system. Conjecture, 
 probability, mere human authority, will not suffice. 
 If they have not a "Thus saith the Lord," to rest 
 upon, they have nothing which we are bound to 
 respect. They must have this in an explicit form. 
 "Whatever binds Christians (says the learned Stilling- 
 fleet,) as a universal, standing laiv, must be clearly 
 revealed as such, and laid down in Scripture in such 
 evident terms as all who have their senses exercised 
 therein, may discern to have been the will of Christ 
 that it should perpetually oblige all believers to the 
 world's end, as is clear in the case of Baptism and the 
 Lord's Supper."^ Every impartial judge will admit 
 the reasonableness of this canon, as applied to the 
 case under consideration. Here is a scheme which 
 challenges universal acquiescence and obedience, un- 
 der penalty of everlasting perdition. It looks with 
 complacency upon the Greek and Roman Churches, 
 and pronounces four-fifths of Protestant Christendom 
 to be without ministers, churches, or ordinances. It 
 differs in so many and such radical particulars from 
 the commonly received doctrines of Christianity, that 
 the two systems may be fairly regarded as two 
 Gospels. Now such a scheme, we maintain, must 
 be able to vindicate its high and exclusive preten- 
 sions, by clear and undoubted scriptural authority. 
 It is not enough to adduce isolated texts which will 
 bear a construction favourable to it. It is not enough 
 to bring forward indirect and inferential arguments 
 in support of it. It will not answer to prove 
 merely (if that could be done) that the Christian 
 ministry was originally instituted in three distinct 
 orders. It must be shown by express Scripture testi- 
 
 ' Stillingfleet's Ircnicum, part i. chap. i. 
 
34 THE niGH-CIIURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 mony that the apostolic office was intended to be j?;er- 
 mancnt ; that diocesan bishops were ordained to be 
 their successors, and their sole successors; that they 
 were to receive and transmit through an unbroken 
 line of prelates, the gift of the Holy Ghost; that the 
 grace and mercy of God were to be dispensed only 
 through these bishops, and from them, through the 
 church over which they were to preside as a visible 
 corporation; and that God, instead of dealing with 
 men individually, and regenerating them by means of 
 his truth, designed to renew and justify and save tliem 
 only through the sacraments duly administered by a 
 prelatic priesthood. Since this, I say, is affirmed to 
 be the way of salvation provided for man, its advo- 
 cates must be able to show that it stands forth on the 
 pages of the Bible, with a distinctness and prominence 
 which leave without excuse any humble and diligent 
 reader of the Scriptures, if he fails to discover it. This 
 doctrine, indeed, of the Church and the Apostolical 
 Succession, ought, if the theory before us be correct, 
 to be the great theme of the New Testament. For, 
 on the principles of this school, the great question 
 with every man must be, not *'what must I do to be 
 saved?" but '^loliere is the chu7'ch?^^ This being the 
 case, it is preposterous to suppose that the sacred 
 writers would thrust into a corner a subject of such 
 fundamental and absorbing interest to every human 
 being. It is an impeachment of the wisdom and 
 benevolence of the Deity, to pretend that in a volume 
 designed to instruct men as to the plan of salvation, 
 He would assign the essential parts of that plan to a 
 subordinate place, and teach them only in an informal 
 and obscure manner. On this ground, therefore, as 
 well as others, we demand a clear and authoritative 
 Divine warrant for every part of this system. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 35 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 
 
 We proceed now to inquire, hoio this requisition for 
 proof is met. And here, at the outset, we encounter 
 a very curious division among the advocates of High- 
 Church principles. For while one class contend for 
 their polity as the only form of Church Government 
 sanctioned in the Scriptures; another, including the 
 leading Puseyites, affirm that the Bible furnishes no 
 adequate ground for their system, and that it can be 
 vindicated only by the authority of tradition. Thus 
 in Tract No 8, the Oxford writers say, " there is no 
 part of the ecclesiastical system which is woi faintly 
 traced in Scripture, and no part which is much more 
 than faintly traced.'^ In Tract 85, it is conceded 
 that " the divine right of Episcopacy, the Apostolical 
 Succession, the poiuer of the Churchy &c., are want- 
 ing in direct or satisfactory proof, and are to be estab- 
 lisheid if at all, only by the aid of vei^y attenuated and 
 nicely managed inferential arguments.''^ ^' Every 
 one must allow," observes the writer, "that there is 
 next to nothing on the surface of Scripture about 
 them, and very little even under the surface, of a 
 satisfactory character, — a few striking texts at most, 
 scattered up and down the inspired volume, or one or 
 two particular passages of one particular Epistle, or 
 a number of texts which may mean, but need not 
 mean, what they are said by Churchmen to mean, 
 which say something looking like what is needed, but 
 with very little point and strength, inadequately and 
 unsatisfactorily." — Such, in the view of many of its 
 
36 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 most learned and able expounders, is the scriptural 
 warrant for a system which all men are required to 
 believe on pain of damnation ! — Two observations 
 may be made respecting them and their doctrine, be- 
 fore we proceed with our argument. 
 
 1. Every one will see the substantial identity be- 
 tween this system and Popery. The radical question 
 between Protestantism and Popery, is that respecting 
 the rule of faith: and on this point, these writers main- 
 tain, with the Church of Rome, that tradition is 
 equally a part of the rule of faith, with the Bible. 
 
 Where this principle is recognised, a door is opened 
 which must eventually let in all the errors and abomi- 
 nations of that apostate Church. 
 
 2. It is evident that this class of High- Churchmen 
 and the other, are more at variance iviih each other, 
 in relation to their ecclesiastical polity, than either of 
 them is with the Protestant world. ^ Neither of them 
 "can succeed in establishing their own position with- 
 out subverting the position of the other." The one 
 party " cannot possibly demonstrate that Episcopacy, 
 though divine in origin and absolutely binding, is 
 known to be so only by tradition, without thereby 
 disproving that its necessity is taught in Scripture." 
 Nor can the other party demonstrate that it is clearly 
 and adequately taught in Scripture, without thereby 
 nullifying the argument drawn from the alleged ab- 
 sence of any such scriptural warrant, in favour of 
 tradition. — Such is the harmony on this point among 
 those who glory in their " Catholic unity," and who 
 agree in consigning all unprelatical Churches to " un- 
 covenanted mercy." 
 
 With these comments, we take our leave of that 
 
 • See on this point, Bib. Repertory, vol. xv. p. 402. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 37 
 
 portion of the Piiseyite body whose views have been 
 quoted; for argument could add nothing to the force 
 of their confession, that their system is not to be found 
 in the Word of God. This position we are now to 
 vindicate against the other division of the High Church 
 party, who contend that the system is distinctly and 
 exclusively taught in the Scriptures. 
 
 The first position it is incumbent upon those to 
 establish, with whom we are now to argue, is, that 
 the Apostolic office was designed to be permanent. 
 We do not ask for proof that a permanent govern- 
 ment of some kind was prescribed for the Church, 
 but we want the point specifically made out, that the 
 •Apostolic office was designed to be, not extraordinary 
 and temporary, but ordinary and perpetual. No 
 direct Scripture statement to this efiect has yet been 
 produced. It is not pretended that the sacred writers 
 say, in so many words, that this was to be a perma- 
 nent office. All the evidence adduced in support of 
 the opinion is inferential. Before we examine this 
 evidence, it is necessary to inquire into the qualifica- 
 tions and powers of the Apostleship. It may be 
 well to note, in passing, how well the qualifications 
 and powers of the so-called Apostles of our day, cor- 
 respond with those of the primitive Apostles. 
 
 The simple, primitive meaning of the term apostle, 
 is, one sent, a messenger. In this general sense it is 
 several times used in the New Testament. Thus, 
 2 Cor. vni. 23, the persons chosen and sent by the 
 Churches to carry the money collected in Greece to 
 the poor brethren at Jerusalem, are called Apostles. 
 " Whether our brethren be inquired of, they are the 
 messengers (Gr. a?to9ro?iot, Apostles,) of the Churches, 
 and the glory of Christ ^' Paul also apphes the term 
 
 4 
 
38 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 to Epaphroditus who had been sent to him by the 
 Church at Philippi, during his imprisonment at Rome. 
 " Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphro- 
 ditus, my brother and companion in labour, and 
 fellow -soldier, but your messenger (Gr. ajioaroxo^, 
 Apostle,) and he that ministered to my wants." 
 (Phil. ii. 25.) In this general sense it is applied, in 
 one instance, to our Saviour himself, as being sent 
 of the Father to be the Saviour of men. (Heb. iii. 1.) 
 " Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly 
 calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our 
 profession, Christ Jesus." 
 
 The word, however, is usually employed in the 
 New Testament in a more restricted sense, viz. to 
 denote the twelve *^postles, or those who were Apos- 
 tles by way of eminence. When our Saviour sent 
 forth the twelve, " he named them Apostles." (Luke 
 vi. 13.) They are thenceforward nspoken of as " the 
 Apostles," ''the Apostles of Christ," and ''the 
 Twelve." To this band, on the death of Judas, 
 Matthias was added: "He was numbered with the 
 eleven Apostles:" — and, after him, Paul, who, in all 
 that he says in his epistles on the subject of his Apos- 
 tleship, is evidently to be understood as using the 
 expression in that peculiar and emphatic sense in 
 which it was applied to the twelve. As this is the 
 sense in which modern prelates claim to be their suc- 
 cessors, it is of radical importance to ascertain what 
 were the functions and powers of the original Apos- 
 tles. 
 
 This subject has been well treated by various wri- 
 ters; but no one has presented the scriptural account 
 of the Apostleship in a more lucid and comprehensive 
 manner, than Dr. Isaac Barrow a learned and candid 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 39 
 
 Episcopal Divine, in his treatise on the Pope's Supre- 
 macy. ^ I am happy to borrow the argument which 
 he wielded so effectively m confuting the Pope's pre- 
 tensions to the Apostleship, to repel those of the High 
 Church Bishops of his own sect. 
 
 " The Apostolical office, as such, was personal and 
 temporary ; and therefore, according to its nature and 
 design, not successive or communicable to others in. 
 perpetual descendence from them." 
 
 " It was, as such, in all respects extraordinary, con- 
 ferred in a special manner, designed for special 
 purposes, discharged by special aids, endowed with 
 special privileges, as was needful for the propagation 
 of Christianity and founding of Churches. 
 
 To that office it was requisite that the person should 
 have an immediate designation and commission 
 from God; such as St. Paul' so often doth insist on 
 for asserting his title to the office : " Paul, an Apostle, 
 not from men or by man" — " Not by men," saith 
 Chrysostom; " this is a property of the Apostles." 
 
 It was requisite that an Apostle should be able to 
 attest concerning our Lord'^s resurrection or ascen- 
 sion, either immediately, as the twelve, or by evident 
 consequence, as St. Paul: thus St. Peter implied, at 
 the choice of Matthias : " Wherefore of those men 
 which have companied with us — must one be or- 
 dained to be a ivitness with us of the resurrection:" 
 And, "Am I not," saith St. Paul, "an Apostle? Have 
 I not seen the Lord?" According to that of Ananias, 
 " The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou 
 shouldest know His will, and see that Just One, and 
 shouldest hear the voice of His mouth; for thou shall 
 
 1 Vide pp. 201-4, Hughes' Ed. Lend. 1831. 
 
40 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 bear witness imto all men of what thou hast seen and 
 heard." 
 
 It was needful also, that an Apostle should he en- 
 dowed with miraculous gifts and graces, enabling 
 him both to assure his authority and to execute his 
 office: wherefore St. Paul calleth these ■ the " marks 
 of an Apostle," the " which were wrought by liim 
 among the Corinthians in all patience (or persever- 
 ingly) in signs and wonders and mighty deeds." 
 
 It was also, in St. Chrysostom's opinion, proper to 
 an Apostle, that he should be able, according to his 
 discretion, in a certain and conspicuous manner, to 
 impart spiritual gifts ; as St. Peter and St. John did 
 at Samaria, which to do, according to that father, was 
 " the peculiar gift and privilege of the Apostles." 
 
 It was also a privilege of an Apostle, by virtue of 
 his commission from Christ, to instruct all nations 
 in the doctrine and law of Christ: he had right and 
 warrant to exercise his function every where — " His 
 charge was universal and indefinite ; the whole world 
 was his province;" he was not affixed to any one 
 place, nor could be excluded from any, he was (as St. 
 Cyril calleth him) " an oecumenical judge," and " an 
 instructor of all the sub-celestial world." 
 
 Apostles also did govern in an absolute manner, 
 according to discretion, as being guided by infalli- 
 ble assistance, to the which they might, on occasion, 
 appeal, and affirm, "It hath seemed good to the Holy 
 Ghost and us." Whence their writings have passed 
 for inspired, and, therefore, canonical, or certain rules 
 of faith and practice. 
 
 It did belong to them to found churches, to consti- 
 tute pastors, to settle orders, to correct offences, to 
 perform all such acts of sovereign spiritual power, in 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 41 
 
 virtue of the same divine assistance, ^according to 
 the authority which the Lord had given them for 
 edification,' as we see practised by St. Paul." 
 
 Such, in the view of this learned and eminent 
 divine, was the Apostolic office. Many other Epis- 
 copal writers give the same account of it. Indeed, it 
 is one of those subjects on which there has been until 
 lately very little difference of opinion among Pro- 
 testants — (nor, indeed, is there among real Pro- 
 testants now, for the Puseyites consistently spurn 
 this appellation.) Accordingly on turning to the His- 
 tory of the Westminster Assembly of Divines,^ we 
 find that in that body, "the office of Apostles was 
 declared to be o\\\y pro tempore and extraordinary, 
 for the eight following reasons: — 1. They were im- 
 mediately called by Christ. 2. They had seen Christ. 
 
 3. Their commission was through the whole world. 
 
 4. They were endued with the spirit of infallibility in 
 delivering the truths of doctrine to the Churches. 
 
 5. They only by special commission were set apart 
 to be personal witnesses of Christ's resurrection. 
 
 6. They had power to give the Holy Ghost. 7. They 
 were appointed to go through the world to settle 
 Churches in a new form appointed by Christ. 8. They 
 had the inspection and care of all the Churches." 
 
 These authorities are quoted at length, because, if 
 they are to be relied U'gon, they settle thewhole ques- 
 tion. Unless the Protestant world has totally miscon- 
 ceived the nature of the Apostolic office, it is prepos- 
 terous to argue that that office is in existence still — 
 or, indeed, that it could be perpetuated without a 
 constant display of miracles. To prove this, it is only 
 necessary to take the specification of its powers and 
 
 ' Hethenngton, p. 138. 
 
 4* 
 
42 THE HIGII-CnURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 f auctions, as furnished by Barrow or any other com- 
 petent writer, and apply it to the lofty pretensions of 
 any modern Bishop. Who among them was " imme- 
 diately called'' to the " Apostleship" by Christ? Who 
 of them has seen Christ? Who was a witness of His 
 resurrection? Whose diocese is co-extensive with the 
 globe? Who possesses miraculous gifts? Who can 
 impart the Holy Ghost? The last of these functions, 
 it is true, is claimed : and it is not long since a Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Bishop was understood to assert on 
 a public occasion, that " the Holy Ghost was as really 
 communicated when a Bishop lays his hands upon 
 the head of a candidate for the priesthood in the ordi- 
 nation service, and says, * Receive the Holy Ghost, ^ 
 as it was bij the laying on of the hands of the Jlpos- 
 tles?^ But it will be time enough to believe a state- 
 ment which it revolts one's Christian sensibilities even 
 to repeat, when it is proved. And as regards the 
 power of bestowing "miraculous gifts,'^ if it be con- 
 ceded that Bishops lack this endowment, the ob- 
 vious reply is, that their office must, then, differ in a 
 very important particular from that of the Apostles. 
 And if it be still further conceded, that these Bishops 
 " were not called by immediate revelation" from 
 Christ — that they were neither " witnesses of his 
 resurrection," nor have " seen him" since — ^and that 
 their " commissions are not universal" — then, we 
 would ask on what conceivable ground they pretend 
 to have inherited the " Apostleship," when, on their 
 own confession, they lack several of the most essen- 
 tiai attributes of the othce. It is like a man's pretend- 
 ing to be a king, who is without royal descent, with- 
 out a crown, throne, kingdom, or subjects. 
 
 We do not, however, acknowledge their right to be 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 43 
 
 SO modest. If men^et themselves up to be apostles, 
 and challenge our homage as "the vicegerents of 
 Christ," we insist upon it that they shall authenticate 
 their claim to the Jipostleship, and not to a figment 
 of their own creation, which under the same name,they 
 would put in the place of it. Let them attempt this, 
 and the world will soon see the emptiness of their 
 pretensions, and will conclude, with Dr. Barrow, 
 (whose language I shall again quote,) that the Apos- 
 tles as such had no successors. 
 
 "Now such an office," he says, " consisting of so 
 many extraordinary privileges and miraculous pow- 
 ers, which were requisite for the foundation of the 
 Church, and the diffusion of Christianity against the 
 manifold difficulties and disadvantages which it must 
 then needs encounter, teas not designed to continue 
 hy derivation; for it containeth in it divers things 
 which apparently were not communicated, and which 
 
 NO MAN WITHOUT GROSS IMPOSTURE AND HYPOCRISY 
 COULD CHALLENGE TO HIMSELF. 
 
 " Neither did the apostles pretend to communicate 
 
 it: they did indeed appoint standing pastors and 
 teachers in each church; they did assume fellow- 
 labourers or assistants in the work of preaching and 
 governance; but they did not constitute apostles eqnal 
 to themselves in authority, privileges, or gifts; for, 
 <who knoweth not,' saith St. Austin, Hhat principate 
 of apostleship to be preferred before any Episcopa- 
 cy?' And, 'The Bishops,' saith Bellarmine, 'have 
 no part of the true apostolical authority.' " 
 
 With this conclusion of Dr. Barrow, agrees the cele- 
 brated Dodwell, a High-Churchman of very exten- 
 sive and profound erudition, who says, " The office 
 
44 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 of the A\)Osi\es perished with the Apostles; in which 
 ofHce there never was any succession to any of them, 
 EXCEPT TO Judas the Traitor.'^ 
 
 This conclusion is so well fortified that tho idea of 
 controverting it is out of the question. Aware of 
 this, Prelatists insist upon taking the term " Apostle- 
 ship" in a modified sense, as the only expedient by 
 which they can hope to make out their title to the 
 office. The Apostles, they tell M^^ioere clothed with 
 the exclusive jjowers of government and ordination. 
 In reference to these functions, their office ivas de- 
 signed to be perpetual. And Episcopal Bishops are 
 their true and only successors. These three proposi- 
 tions (which involve, it will be seen, a virtual abandon- 
 ment of all claim to the Apostleship,) comprise the 
 substance of their theory. Each of them must be 
 established separately. For the first does not include 
 the others ; nor do the first two include the third. 
 
 Before proceeding to the consideration of them, it 
 may be proper to state two or three principles in 
 which Prelatists and non-Episcopalians agree. 
 
 1. We agree that the Lord Jesus Christ mstituted 
 a Church, and appointed officers to minister in it. 
 2. We agree that the Church was designed to be 
 permanent, and to have permanent officers. 3. We 
 agree, (such at least is the view entertained by most 
 of the advocates for ministerial parity,) that the 
 Apostles were in some respects superior to other min- 
 isters, and that they were invested with universal 
 jurisdiction over the Churches. 
 
 Wherein we differ, shall be stated in connexion 
 with the three propositions which comprise the pre- 
 latic theory — as follows : — 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 45 
 
 1. " The powers of ordination and jurisdiction 
 pertained exclusively to the Apostleship.'^ 
 
 We admit that these powers pertained in a pre- 
 eminent degree to the Apostleship; but they were 
 also, we contend, exercised by Presbyters. 
 
 2. "The Apostleship, in reference to its preroga- 
 tives of jurisdiction and ordination, was designed to 
 be permanent." 
 
 As ordination and jm'isdiction were not, in our 
 view, functions pecuhar to the Apostleship, we main- 
 tain the perpetuity of those powers in the Church, and 
 yet deny the permanency of that office. In respect to 
 their distinctive gifts and powers as Apostles, they 
 were to have no successors: in their other powers 
 and functions, they were to be succeeded by the ordi- 
 nary Ministers of the word, called indilferently in the 
 New Testament, Presbyters, and Bishops. 
 
 3. "Episcopal Bishops are the only successors of 
 the Apostles.';^ 
 
 Denying as we do that the Apostles were to have 
 successors, in the sense here intended, we of course 
 deny that Episcopal Bishops succeeded them, or that 
 "the Episcopal Bishops'' of our day, can trace up 
 their ecclesiastical genealogy through a line of Pre- 
 lates to the Apostles. 
 
 I proceed now to examine these several propositions 
 in their order. — The first is, that " the powers of 
 
 JUPtlSDICTION AND ORDINATION PERTAINED EXCLU- 
 SIVELY TO THE Apostleship." 
 
 This proposition is the foundation of the High 
 Church theory. If they fail in establishing it, their 
 system is subverted : though if they succeed, they 
 have still to establish the other two propositions, which 
 are independent of it. 
 
46 THE IIIGH-CIIURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 The theory, it will be perceived, is, that ordination 
 and government, are higher functions than preaching 
 the Gospel, and administering the sacraments. The 
 difference between them is so great, as to mark, or 
 rather to demand, a diversity of rank in the ministry. 
 Ordinary ministers may preach and administer the 
 sacraments, but a superior grade must be created who 
 alone shall ordain and govern. Now there is ob- 
 viously nothing in the nature of the case, to suggest 
 such a distinction. If it is proper for physicians to li- 
 cense a physician — for lawyers to license a lawyer — 
 why may not those, who are authorized to preach the 
 Gospel, and administer the sacraments, ministerially 
 invest others with the same office ? Bishop Burnet 
 makes the administration of the sacraments, the high- 
 est function of the ministry. " Since the sacramental 
 actions,'^ he says, " are the highest of sacred perform- 
 ances, those that are empowered for them, must be of 
 the highest office in the Church.'^ The New Testa- 
 ment, in its general tone, certainly represents public 
 teaching and the " sacramental actions," especially the 
 former, as the chief business of the Christian ministry. 
 If then, it is alleged that these are only secondary func- 
 tions of the office, it must be a matter of positive insti- 
 tution, and we demand clear scriptural authority for it. 
 If such authority cannot be produced, we shall hold 
 that the Prelates who in the first instance wrested the 
 powers of jurisdiction and ordination from presbyters, 
 were guilty of a flagrant usurpation ; and that any 
 monopoly of those powers by Prelates, on a pretended 
 jure divino warrant, is in contravention of the inhe- 
 rent rights of the ministry. 
 
 It happens, very unfortunately for this theory, that 
 no hint of it occurs in the account of the original 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 47 
 
 calling of the Apostles, nor in the instructions the 
 Saviour gave them upon that occasion. Their ap- 
 pointment is mentioned by three of the Evangehsts, 
 and one of them (see Matt. ch. x.) records at length, 
 the charge addressed to them. We have no evidence 
 from these sources that the least intimation was given 
 them of such a diversity in their several functions as is 
 now claimed to have existed. Nay, the "charge'^ is 
 mainly occupied with the subject of preachings and 
 does not contain a syllable, except by implication, 
 about the higher duties of ordaining and governing. 
 This is a very remarkable omission on High-Church 
 principles. 
 
 It will be said, however, that the twelve, although 
 called at this period, and employed in preaching dur- 
 ing the Saviour's ministry, were not clothed with the 
 plenitude of the Apostleship, until after his resurrec- 
 tion : and we shall be referred to John xx. 21 — 23; 
 xxi. 15 — 17; and to the Saviour's final command, in 
 proof that ordination and government, were to be 
 restricted to the Apostles. The former of these pass- 
 ages is as follows : "Then said Jesus unto them again, 
 Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even 
 so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed 
 on them and saith unto them. Receive ye th« Holy 
 Ghost ; whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted 
 unto them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are 
 retained." The second passage is that in which the 
 Saviour addresses the injunction to Peter, " Feed 
 my sheep." The third is the commission, "Go ye 
 into all the v/orld," &c. In the first passage, he re- 
 news their appointment as his ambassadors and re- 
 presentatives. Some will have it, that in the clause, 
 " As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you," 
 
48 THE niGH-CIIURGH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 our Saviour actually trcmsfers his Headship over* the 
 Church to his Apostles, and delegates to them, in so 
 far as the government of the Church in this world is 
 concerned, all the power which He as Mediator, had 
 received from the Father. This extraordinary inter- 
 pretation, so derogatory to the Redeemer and to the 
 ministry — as stripping Him of his crown, and making 
 them the ministers, not of Christ, but of the Apostles 
 — will be noticed in another connexion. For the pre- 
 sent, it is sufficient to remark that the language neither 
 denotes the perpetuity of the Apostohc office, nor 
 hints at any distribution of their. powers among differ- 
 ent grades of ministers. It is a simple declaration, to 
 this etfect, — that as He had received an immediate 
 commission from the Father for his Mediatorial work, 
 so He immediately commissions them to disciple all 
 nations and teach whatever he had commanded. On 
 the principle of the opposite interpretation, it might 
 with equal propriety be urged that when our Saviour 
 says, (John xviii. IS,) "As thou hast sent me into the 
 world, even so have I also sent them into the world," 
 he means, that he has transferred his authority and 
 headship to his people severally; — for it is his jjeo- 
 plCy not the ministry as such, who are intended in 
 this verse. As an earnest of that baptism of the Spi- 
 rit they were about to receive on the day of Pentecost 
 as well as to show that the blessing would be bestow- 
 ed by Hirriy He breathed on them and said, " Receive 
 ye the Holy Ghost.'^^ He then authorized them to 
 
 1 Dr. Scott has this note on the phrase, "Receive ye the Holy 
 Ghost." " It does not appear that the Apostles, on any occasion, 
 used these words. Peter and John prayed for the disciples in Sa- 
 maria, that ' they might receive the Holy Ghost.' . . . ' Then laid 
 they their hands upon them, and they received thp Holy Ghost.' 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 49 
 
 declare the only method in which sin would be for- 
 given, and the character and experience of those who 
 actually were pardoned, or the contrary. Or, as 
 others interpret the words, he empowered them to in- 
 flict and remit Church censures — in conformity, of 
 course, to the rules prescribed by himself. — The in- 
 junction, ^* Feed my sheep," is usually taken to in- 
 clude the functions of teaching and governing the 
 Church. — The last command is in these words, "Go 
 ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghost : [or, as Mark has it, ' Go ye, into all 
 the world and preach the Gospel to every creature :'] 
 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
 commanded you : and lo, I am with you alway, even 
 unto the end of the world. Amen.'^ 
 
 -Now, what evidence have we in any or all of these 
 passages, that ordaining, and governing, were supe- 
 rior functions to preaching and baptizing ? What 
 countenance do they give to the doctrine, that the 
 Apostles were to retain the two former functions in 
 their own hands, and share the two others with an 
 order of inferior ministers ? Here, if any where, we 
 
 (Acts viii. 15, 17.) The language of authority used by our Lord on 
 this single occasion, seems exclusively appropriate to the great Head 
 of the Church, and marks the immense disparity between Him and 
 His most eminent servants. — How far the words, 'Receive ye the Holy 
 Ghost,' in some of the forms of our Church, is scriptural or warrant- 
 able, may be worthy the consideration of all persons more immediately 
 concerned in the important transactions referred to."--It may b^ add- 
 ed, that the formula to which these strictures relate, was not, as there 
 is good reason to believe, used in the ordination service, for upwards of 
 a thousand years after the Apostolic age, and that it was first introduced 
 by the Romish Church, when her corruptions were nearly at their 
 height, and has been borrowed from her by the Church of England 
 and the Episcopal Church in this country. 
 
 5 
 
50 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 might expect this classification of their powers to be 
 distinctly stated. Especially might we expect the 
 Saviour, in his last counsels and instructions, to give 
 great prominence to i\\Q paramount functions of the 
 Apostleship, and to the manner in which these should 
 be exercised. The theory is — let it be remembered 
 — that the powers of ordination and jurisdiction con- 
 stituted the DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTIC of the 
 
 office, and the sole ground for its being perpet- 
 uated. They made the Apostleship what it was : 
 and the only men to be recognized as the successors 
 of the Apostles, were to have that character solely 
 in virtue of their possessing these powers. What 
 more natural, then — what more unavoidable — than 
 that the Saviour, in issuing his final directions to them, 
 should assign to this topic the prominence so justly 
 due to it? What more natural, than that He should 
 at least remind them in solemn terms, that the powers 
 of ordination and of government, were confided to 
 them and their successors in the Apostleship alone, 
 while they might share with others the subordinate 
 functions of preaching and baptizing ? What would 
 be thought of the Federal Constitution, if in prescribing 
 the duties of the President of the United States, it 
 merely hinted at his Executive powers ? Or what 
 would be thought of a government, which in sending 
 out an ambassador, should include in his instructions 
 only a slight allusion to the most grave and important 
 objects of his mission ? Not less remarkable, are the 
 omissions in the case before us, if the Prelatic theory be 
 true. It is not denied that the powers of jurisdiction 
 and ordination, are by implication conveyed in these 
 passages. But it is denied that they furnish the slight- 
 est warrant for the idea, that the powers just named 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 51 
 
 are superior to the other ministerial functions, or for 
 the doctrine that the Apostles and their successors were 
 to retain those powers,, and communicate these to a 
 lower order of ministers. Nay, it is affirmed with 
 confidence, that there is nothing even in the record of 
 the effusion of the Spirit upon the Apostles on the day 
 of Pentecost, nor in the commission given by our Sa- 
 viour to Paul, which affords the least support to this 
 hypothesis of a division in the functions of the Apos- 
 tleship. The only peculiarity in all these cases, is, 
 that a great deal more is said about preaching, than 
 about ordaining or governing. It is the burden of the 
 Saviour's original charge to the twelve, " Preach the 
 Gospel." When he sends out the seventy, the in- 
 junction again is, " Preach the Gospel." The sub- 
 stance of his parting command to the Apostles still is, 
 '^ Preach the Gospel." And when another Apostle 
 is miraculously called and commissioned, the great 
 work his Master assigns to him, is, to " Preach the 
 Gospel," (see Acts xxvi. 16 — 18.) — On our principles, 
 all this is intelligible. Believing as we do, that " it 
 has pleased God by the foolishness of preaching, to 
 save them that believe," we should expect to see this 
 duty occupy the first place in the Apostolic commis- 
 sion. But no adequate or even plausible solution of 
 it has been given, on their principles who hold that 
 preaching the Gospel is one of the subordinate func- 
 tions of the ministry. 
 
 If there is anything in the nature of the case to sug- 
 gest a classification of these powers in respect to dig- 
 nity and utility, it is by no means clear that it would 
 be the one here contended for. Milton was not alone 
 in his opinion upon this point. " The employment of 
 preaching," he says, " is as holy (as ordination,) and 
 
52 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 far more excellent ; the care, also, and judgment to 
 be used in the winning of souls, which is thought to 
 be sufficient in every worthy minister, is an ability 
 above that which is required in ordination; for many 
 may be able to judge who is fit to be made a minister, 
 that would not be found fit to be made ministers 
 themselves; as it will not be dejaied that he may be 
 the competent judge of a neat picture or elegant poem, 
 that cannot limn the like. Why, therefore, we should 
 constitute a superior order in the Church to perform 
 an office which is not only every minister's function, 
 but inferior also to that which he has a confessed 
 right to; and why this superiority should remain thus 
 usurped, some wise Epimenides tell us. — Now for 
 jurisdiction, this dear saint of the prelates, it will be 
 best to consider, first, what it is. That sovereign Lord, 
 who, in the discharge of his holy anointment from 
 God the Father, which made him Supreme Bishop of 
 our souls, was so humble as to say, '• Who made me 
 a judge or a divider over you?" hath taught us that a 
 churchman's jurisdiction is no more but to watch over 
 his flock in season and out of season ; to deal by sweet 
 and efficacious instructions, gentle admonitions, and 
 sometimes sounder reproofs; against negligence or 
 obstinacy, will be required a rousing volley of pas- 
 torly threatenings; against a persisting stubbornness, 
 or the fear of a reprobate sense, a timely separation 
 from the flock by that interdictive sentence, lest his con- 
 versation unprohibited or unbranded, might breathe 
 a pestilential murrain into the other sheep. In sum, 
 his jurisdiction is to see to the thriving and prospering 
 of that which he hath planted. What other work the 
 Prelates have found for chancellors and suflragans, 
 delegates and officials, with all the . . rabble of sum- 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 53 
 
 ners and apparitors, is but an invasion upon the tem- 
 poral magistrate, and affected by them as men that 
 are not ashamed of- the ensign and banner of Anti- 
 christ. But true evangeUcal jurisdiction or discipline, 
 is no more, as was said, than for a minister to see to 
 the thriving and prospering of that which he hath 
 planted. And which is the worthiest work of these 
 two, to plant, as every minister's office is equally with 
 the Bishop's, or to tend that which is planted, which 
 the blind and undiscerning prelates call jurisdiction, 
 and would appropriate to themselves as a business of 
 higher dignity?"^ 
 
 Both the nature of the case, then, and the several 
 commissions given to the Apostles, furnish a strong 
 presumption against the doctrine that two or more 
 grades of ministers were to be appointed, the highest 
 of which only should be clothed with the powers of 
 jurisdiction and ordinatiorL We now affirm it, as a 
 matter of fact, that these powers icere conferred on 
 the ordinary^ stated ministers of the ivord, called 
 indifferently in the New Testament, Presbyters, or 
 Elders, and Bishops. 
 
 Let it be noted her^ that Prelatists now concede 
 that in so far as the scriptural use of the title Bishop 
 is concerned, the whole argument is in our favour. 
 They admit that this title is imiformly employed in 
 the New Testament to denote a Presbyterian Bishop, 
 not~ a Diocesan Bishop. Thus the Bishop of the 
 Diocese of Pennsylvania, in his Tract entitled, "Epis- 
 copacy tested by Scripture," says, "The name 
 ^Bishop,' which now designates the highest grade of 
 the Ministry, is not appropriated to that office in 
 
 • Animadversions upon the Remonstrant's Defence, &c. 
 
 5* 
 
54 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 Scripture. That name is there given to the middle 
 order, or Presb^^tcrs; and all that we read in the 
 New Testament concerning * Bishops,' (including of 
 course the words 'overseers' and 'oversight,' which 
 have the same derivation) is to be regarded as per- 
 taining to that middle grade." This is a very im- 
 portant admission. It is for Prelatists to show how 
 the highest grade of Ministers came to lay aside the 
 title, "Apostles," and to appropriate to themselves as 
 their exclusive designation the title of an inferior 
 order. If, as they contend, the Apostles were suc- 
 ceeded by "Apostles," why were not their successors 
 styled Apostles? If the Bishops of our day are really 
 Apostles, why do they not call themselves Apostles? 
 "It was after the Apostolic age," says the author of 
 the tract just quoted, (p. 12.) "that the name 'Bishop' 
 was taken from the second order and appropriated to 
 the j5rst ; as we learn from Theodoret, one of the 
 fathers." — If it had also been stated that Theodoret 
 lived/our hundred years after the Apostles, unlearned 
 readers of the Tract would have known better how 
 to estimate his authority on a question of this kind. 
 But even Theodoret does not say that Bishops were 
 of the same rank as Apostles. His language implies 
 the very reverse. His words are as follows: — "The 
 same persons were anciently called promiscuously 
 both Bishops and Presbyters; whilst those who are 
 now called Bishops were called Apostles. But shortly 
 after the name of Apostles was appropriated to such 
 only as were Apostles indeed, (a>.»7^Qj hTtoa-eo-Koi^ truly 
 Apostles;) and then the name Bishop, was given to 
 those who were before called Apostles." It appears 
 from this that the names. Bishop and Presbyter, were 
 originally used interchangeably. This is a point con- 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 55 
 
 ceded, as we have seen, by the writer of the Tract, 
 and admitted, it is beheved, by all the EpiscopaHans 
 of the present day. Again ; it appears that after the 
 Apostolic age, the title, Apostle, was restricted to 
 those who were "Apostles indeed,^^ or "truly Apos- 
 tles,'^ that is, those who had received their commis- 
 sions immediately from the Saviour. This implies 
 that those who now began to appropriate to them- 
 selves the exclusive title of "Bishops," were not 
 "truly Apostles." They were regarded as of a dif- 
 ferent rank from the Apostles ; otherwise they would 
 have retained the same title. They thought it " not 
 decent," as Ambrose says, to assume that title. This 
 was a confession of their inferiority — an acknowledg- 
 ment that they did not consider themselves as Apos- 
 tles. Jf they had thought otherwise, they must have 
 been very different men from some would-be Apos- 
 tles of our day, to lay aside voluntarily their appro- 
 priate title and take that of an inferior order. It is 
 the same as though the Prelates now living should 
 put away -the title of "Bishop," and adopt that of 
 "Presbyter" or "Elder" exclusively. Such an act 
 would import that they considered their true rank as 
 that of Presbyters only. So — allowing Theodoret's 
 statement to be correct — the relinquishment of the 
 title, Apostle, for that of Bishop, at a time when 
 Bishop and Presbyter denoted one class of offi- 
 cers, implied that the parties concerned in it viewed 
 themselves as belonging only to the order of Pres- 
 byters. We demand further testimony, however, than 
 has yet been furnished, that any class of oiRcers was 
 as such designated by the name Apostles, after the 
 death of the twelve. That the title continued to 
 be used in its general import as synonymous, or 
 
56 THE IIIGH-CHUilCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 nea-rly so, with our word ^^ missionaries,'^ is not ques- 
 tioned. But the evidence is yet to be adduced that 
 it was appropriated in its higher signification to any 
 except " the Apostles" mentioned in the New Tes- 
 tament. The disappearance of the name from the 
 early Church, shows that those who lived in the time 
 of the Apostles and immediately thereafter, were 
 much less positive about this doctrine of a perpetual 
 succession of Apostles, than some who live eighteen 
 centuries later. — Not to insist upon this point, how- 
 ever, let us see whether the Presbyters and Bishops of 
 the New Testament churches were officers without 
 any power of government or discipline. 
 
 These officers, let it be remembered, were the 
 officers statedly appointed by the Apostles in organ- 
 izing churches. Wherever a church was established, 
 there — as is allowed on all hands — one or more 
 Bishops or Presbyters were, after a suitable time, 
 ordained as its spiritual overseers. The legitimate 
 inference from this fact is, that it was as much their 
 business to exercise discipline as to preach the Gospel. 
 To invalidate this inference, it must be shown that 
 there is at least an antecedent presumption that disci- 
 pline was to be lodged in other hands — whereas the 
 presumption is all the other way. — Nor can it be of 
 any avail to prove that the Apostles in some few in- 
 stances exercised discipline in churches provided with 
 Bishops of their own. For (1.) A general jurisdiction 
 over the Church is conceded to the Apostles in their 
 extraordinary character. (2.) The circumstances of 
 the cases in question might have been so peculiar as 
 to take them out of the line of ordinary precedents. 
 Nothing, certainly, would appear more natural, in 
 the infancy of the churches and while tlieir own 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 57 
 
 officers were as yet inexperienced, than that they 
 should solicit, wherever it was practicable, the aid of 
 an Apostle in difficult cases of discipline. The church- 
 es composed of converted heathen, in the present day, 
 are in this way accustomed to invoke the assistance 
 of the missionaries by whom they have been planted, 
 in administering discipline. (3.) If Prelatists deny that 
 Presbyters exercised discipline in any of the Apostolic 
 churches, we demand the />roq/*of the position. The 
 presumption is against them; and this presumption is 
 not to be set aside by adducing two or three isolated 
 examples of interposition on the part of the Apostles, 
 out of perhaps one or two hundred churches. 
 
 Even this point, however, may be waived: for 
 there is direct evidence that the power of government 
 was committed to Presbyters or Bishops. ^ 
 
 There are three terms employed in the New Tes- 
 tament to express the authority which is to be exer- 
 cised in the Christian Church, and they are all appUed 
 to Presbyters. These terms are, 
 
 1. fjysoftac — To take the lead. 
 
 2. rt^ota-frjfio — To Stand before — to preside. 
 
 3. Ttoifiaivu — To act the part, to fulfil the duties, of 
 a Shepherd. 
 
 Every power which Christ hath deputed to his offi- 
 cers, is conveyed by one or other of these terms. Let 
 us now turn to a few passages in the New Testament. 
 
 Heb. xiii. 7. " Remember them which have the rule 
 over you'^ (t-cov J]you/tfvcov v.acov, your rulers.) The 
 context shows that the Apostle is speaking of their 
 deceased Pastors. Again, 
 
 Verse 17. " Obey them that have the rule over you, 
 
 > On this point and some others which follow, I have quoted freely 
 from Dr. Mason. 
 
58 THE HIGH-CIIURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 (same word) for ihey watch for your souls as they 
 that must give account." It is undeniable that the 
 reference here also is to their ordinary Pastors, i. e. to 
 Presbyters. 
 
 The general term here used is that employed in 
 Matt. ii. 6. " Thou, Betiilehem, in the land of Juda, 
 art not the least among the Princes (r^ye^oaiv) of Juda; 
 for out of thee shall come a Governor (ryovy-avos) that 
 shall rule my people Israel." 
 
 1 Tim. iii. 4. " A Bishop must be one that ruleih 
 ivell (rta^wj Tt^oiataiJLsvov) his owu house." This shows 
 not only the force of the term, but also that a capacity 
 to rule well is an essential characteristic of a scrip- 
 tural Bishop or Presbyter — for it is conceded, as we 
 have seen, that the names Bishop and Presbyter, in 
 Scripture, both belong to ordinary ministers. Again, 
 1 Tim. V. 17. " Let the Elders that rule well be 
 counted worthy of double honour; especially they 
 who labour in the word and doctrine." Not only is the 
 power of ruling here ascribed to the Eldership, but it 
 is represented as a less dignified and honourable func- 
 tion than preaching. Yet Presbyters, we are told, 
 may preach, but Bishops only can rule ! The same 
 term occurs 1 Thess. v. 12. " We beseech you, breth- 
 ren, to know them which labour among you and are 
 over you in the Lord." As there were several of this 
 class of officers at Thessalonica, they could not have 
 been Diocesan Bishops, but must have been ordinary 
 Pastors. 
 
 The word ;tot^atra means, according to the lexico- 
 graphers, not merely to feed, but to govern, to take 
 care of, as a shepherd does his flock. It is the word 
 translated rule in Matt. ii. 6, already quoted : " Out 
 of thee shall come a Governor that shall rule {rtoiy-avn) 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 59 
 
 my people Israel." This term, likewise, is applied to 
 Presbyters. 
 
 Acts XX. 17, 28, " From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephe- 
 sus and called the Elders (or Presbyters) of the 
 Church, and said unto them — Take heed unto your- 
 selveSiand to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost 
 hath made you ovei^seers (ErciBzoftov?, Bishops,) to feed 
 (TioifxaviLv) the Church of God which he hath purchased 
 with his own blood." 
 
 1 Peter v. 1 — 4, " The Elders (Presbyters) which 
 are among you I exhort, who am also an Elder 
 (Presbyter,) and a witness of the sufferings of Christ. 
 Feed (noifiavatt) the flock of God which is am.ong you, 
 taking the oversight {fnicxoTtovvifB^, discharging the 
 duty of Bishops) thereof, not by constraint but wil- 
 lingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind ; 
 neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being 
 ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd 
 shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that 
 fadeth not away." 
 
 "By instructing Presbyters, in this passage, hoio 
 they were to govern the Church, the Apostle (himself 
 a ' Presbyter') has decided that the poiver of g over n- 
 ment \YdiS committed to them. No higher authority 
 than he has recognized in them, can belong to the 
 
 order of Prelates The term which both Paul and 
 
 Peter apply to the cffRce of Presbyters, undoubtedly 
 expresses the power of government; seeing it is the 
 term which expresses the office of Christ, as the 
 Governor of his people Israel, (Matt. ii. 6, quoted 
 above.) And as this term, applied to the office of 
 Christ, expresses the highest power of government in 
 him as the chief Shepherd; so when applied to the 
 office of the under-shepherds, it expresses the highest 
 
60 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 power of government which he has delegated to be 
 exercised in his name for the welfare of his Church. 
 But this power is vested, Paul and Peter being judges, 
 in Presbyter's; therefore Presbyters, by the appoint- 
 ment of Jesus Christ, are invested with the highest 
 power of government known in his Church^^^ It 
 may be added, in confirmation of tliis view, that by 
 calUng himself ovtine^^aevti^oi (a fellow-presbyter) he 
 seems to intimate that they (/. e. Presbyters) possessed 
 all the authority in the Christian Church which was 
 to remain after the death of the Apostles: and the 
 introduction of the a^xiTtoiixriv (or chief Shepherd) ap- 
 pears inconsistent with the idea of the it^^aQv-ti^ot 
 (Presbyters) being accountable to any individual 
 teacher, after the Apostles ceased to represent the 
 authority of the chief Shepherd upon earth. 
 
 Thus much for the claim of Presbyters to the power 
 oi jurisdiction. Let us next inquire whether they had 
 the right of ordination. 
 
 Here, as in the former case, the burden of proof 
 properly lies upon the Prelatists. There is nothing in 
 tlie nature of the case to denote that ordination is a 
 higher function than preaching and administering the 
 sacraments. Nor is there (as has been shown) any 
 intimation in the Apostolic commission, that those 
 who were to be appointed as Overseers or Bishops iu 
 the churches, should be prohibited from ordaining. 
 But we need not rest the case here. 
 
 '^ In the first primitive Church," says the learned 
 Stilhngfleet,^ " the Presbyters all acted iu common for 
 
 • Irenicum, ch. vi. p. 298. As I shall have further occasion to 
 quote from the " Irenicum," it may be well to introduce here the fol- 
 lowing statement from the Rev. Dr. Miller's "Letters on the Chris- 
 tian Ministry," 8vo. ed. p. 173. 
 
 " To destroy the force of Dr. StiUingfleet's concessions, it is urged 
 
OF THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 61 
 
 the welfare of the Church, and either did or might 
 ordain others to the same autfiority loith themselves ; 
 because the iritrinsical power of order is equally in 
 them, and in those who were after appointed govern- 
 ors over Presbyteries. And the collation of orders 
 doth come from the power of order, and not merely 
 from the power of jurisdiction. It being likewise fully 
 acknowledged by the schoolmen, that Bishops are not 
 superior above Presbyters, as to the power of order." 
 If this view can be substantiated by the production of 
 a sohtary example of ordination by Presbyters in the 
 Apostolic Church, the whole High-Church theory is 
 prostrated — as they themselves admit. 
 
 Of the few instances of ordination described in the 
 New Testament, I shall examine only two. The first 
 of these is recorded in Acts xiii. 1 — 3. " Now there 
 were in the Church that was at Antioch certain pro- 
 phets and teachers; as Barnabas and Simeon that 
 
 that he afterwards became dissatisfied with this work, and retracted 
 the leading opinion which it maintains [that is, that no one form of 
 church government is exclusively prescribed in the word of God.] 
 To this suggestion I will reply by a quotation from Bishop White^ 
 of Pennsylvania, who in a pamphlet published a few years since, hav- 
 ing occasion to adduce the ' Irenicum' as an authority against High 
 Church notions, speaks of the performance and its author in the fol- 
 lowing terms : ' As that learned prelate was afterwards dissatisfied 
 with his work, (though most probably not with that part of it which 
 would have been to our purpose,) it might seem uncandid to cite the 
 authority of his opinion. Bishop Burnet, his cotemporary and friend, 
 says, {History of his Own Times, anno 1661,) ' To avoid the imputa- 
 tion that book brought on him, he went into the humours of an high 
 sort of people, beyond what became him, perhaps beyond his own 
 sense of things.' * The book, however,' Bishop White adds, • was, it 
 seems, easier retracted than refuted ; for though oflfensive to many of 
 both parties, it was managed (says the same author) with so much 
 learning and skill, that none of either side ever undertook to answer 
 it.' " 
 
62 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 Avas called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrcne, and Manacn, 
 which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, 
 and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, 
 the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul 
 for the work whereunto I have called them. And 
 when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands 
 on them, they sent them away.'^ 
 
 Many eminent Episcopalians, including Mr. Pal- 
 mer, in his treatise on the Church, Whateley, Wake^ 
 Potter, Jeremy Taylor, Beveridge, Hooker, Dr. Pusey, 
 and others,! have held that this was a case of ordi- 
 nation. The ordainers were " prophets and teach- 
 ers." Teachers were ordinary Presbyters : and the 
 same individuals might be both teachers and pro- 
 phets. The titles are not supposed to denote so much 
 a difference of rank as a difference of endowments 
 and functions : but they both ranked below Apos- 
 tles. If, then, this was an ordination, it was performed 
 by PreshyterSy not by Apostles. 
 
 Others, however, regard this transaction, and, as the 
 writer thinks, with more reason, not as an ordination, 
 but as the solemn designation of Saul and Barnabas, to 
 a specific and temporary mission. On this view, the 
 transaction was but one remove from an ordination, 
 and is not easily to be explained on prelatical princi- 
 ples. For how does it comport with those principles, 
 that Presbyters should "lay their hands" upon the 
 head of an Apostle ? Is there a High-Church Bishop 
 to be found, the world over, who would allow a com- 
 pany of his Presbyters to set him apart in this way to 
 a missionary or any other undertaking ? There are 
 some amonar them to whom the bare sus^sestion of 
 such a thing would probably appear sacrilegious. 
 To Presbyterians, however, the whole transaction 
 
 1 See Dr. Smyth. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 63 
 
 is perfectly natural and canonical. And the conclu- 
 sion we draw from it, is, that if Presb^^ters might law- 
 fully set apart an Apostle to a specific work, on so 
 solemn an occasion as this, it will be difficult to show 
 that' they have no right to officiate in an actual ordi- 
 nation. 
 
 The other instance referred to, is that of Timothy. 
 This is mentioned by the Apostle, in addressing him, 
 in the following terms: " Neglect not the gift that is 
 in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the 
 laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. ^^ 1 Tim. 
 iv. 14. To this verse may be added another from the 
 second Epistle, (ch. i. 6.) "Wherefore I put thee in 
 remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God which 
 is in thee, by the putting on of my hands.^^ 
 
 There are few verses in the Bible which have 
 given Prelatists more perplexity than the former of 
 these. All that learning, ingenuity, and zeal could 
 do, has been done, to make it say something else than 
 that Timothy was ordained by a Presbytery. It is 
 a fundamental principle of Prelacy, that Presbyters 
 cannot ordain. If Timothy was ordained by Pres- 
 byters, or by a Presbyter3^, this principle is subverted, 
 and the whole imposing superstructure built upon it, 
 is overthrown. Hence the solicitude to silence the 
 clear, straightforward testimony of this passage, to 
 the groundlessness of their assumptions. 
 
 There are strong reasons for doubting whether the 
 verse quoted from the second Epistle, refers to Timo- 
 thy's ordination at all. Miraculous gifts were usu- 
 ally imparted by the imposition of the hands of the 
 Apostles, and this seems to be intended by the Apostle 
 when he exhorts Timothy to " stir up the gift that is 
 in him by the putting on of his hands." The context 
 
64 THE HIGH-CIIURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 also favours this interpretation; and it has the sanc- 
 tion of many eminent critics, and of a number of dis- 
 tinguished Episcopal writers. I waive the question, 
 however, for the present. 
 
 Among the expedients reUed upon to destroy tlie 
 authority of the other passage, as a warrant for Pres- 
 byterial ordination, the following are the principal. 
 
 1. It is contended that the word fi^eGSvtT^^iov, trans- 
 lated Presbytery, denotes not the persons who or- 
 dained Timothy, but the office to which he was 
 ordained : so that the passage should read, " Neglect 
 not the gift that is in thee, even the Preshyterate, 
 which was given thee with the laying on of hands." 
 And Calvin's name is quoted in support of this inter- 
 pretation. On this construction, I observe, 
 
 (1.) That the established, habitual meaning of the 
 term as used in the Scriptures, is, an assemblage, 
 council, or senate of Presbyters. (2.) That this is its 
 true import in the place under consideration is allowed 
 by a great body of learned Episcopal writers. It will 
 be suflicient to mention Beveridge, Saravia, Lord Bar- 
 rington, and Dr. Bloomfield, who, in his Critical 
 Digest, says, " I camiot agree with Benson, that the 
 Elders did not confer this gift. They, it should seem, 
 contributed to confer it." (3.) As to Calvin, he 
 admits that the word will hear the interpretation 
 mentioned above, but declares, that " in his judg- 
 ment, those who think Presbytery to be a collec- 
 tive noun, put for the college of Presbyters, think 
 rightly." (4.) This interpretation, even if admitted, 
 goes to overthrow the Prelatic doctrine. For on 
 this construction, Timothy was ordained to the Pres- 
 hyterate, i. e. to the office of a Presbyter — as we 
 maintain. And we call for the evidence that he 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 65 
 
 received any subsequent ordination to the Prelacy or 
 t/lpostleship. 1 
 
 2. A second interpretation which it is sought to 
 force upon this text, is, that by the " Presbytery" tliat 
 laid hands upon Timothy, is to be understood a coun- 
 cil of Jipostles. — On this I remark, (1.) That it does 
 great violence to the language of the Apostle. The 
 word Presbytery denotes not a council of JlpostUs, 
 but a council of Presbyters. (2.) This construction 
 assumes the whole point in debate. We deny and 
 Prelatists affirm, that ordination could be performed 
 only by Apostles. We produce a passage in which 
 it is asserted that a certain ordination was performed 
 by a Presbytery. And hereupon they claim, without 
 proof and against the natural, legitimate import of the 
 
 'term, and the usus loquendl of the Scriptures, that 
 this Presbytery was a college of Apostles. (3.) If this 
 Presbytery was composed of Apostles, how could 
 Paul say (as they maintain he does say) that he alone 
 ordained Timothy — "iy the putting on of my 
 hands V^ For they argue, as we shall see presently, 
 that Paul was the ordainer, and the Presbytery laid 
 on hands merely to express their concurrence in the 
 act. Was it seemly in Paul to claim all the elTicacy 
 and honour of the ordination as his own, when seve- 
 ral of his fellow- Apostles united with him in the lay- 
 ing on of hands? Thus much for the second evasion. 
 
 3. The third has been hinted at. It is maintained 
 that Paul alone ordained Timothy, and that the Pres- 
 bytery only laid on their hands, to signify their appro- 
 bation of tlie act. In support of this view, we are 
 
 • We iniglit extend this call and ask for the production of a single 
 instance from the New Testament, of the ordination of a minister by 
 piece-meal. 
 
 6* 
 
66 THE IIIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 told that in speaking of his own part in the transac- 
 tion, the Apostle uses the preposition 6ta, signifying 
 the cause of a thing, — "which is in thee (§ia) bi/ the 
 putting on of my hands," — and that in speaking of the 
 agency of the Presbytery, he uses another preposition 
 fifta, denoting merely " nearness, concurrence, agree- 
 ment'' — "which was given thee by prophecy {^wta) 
 with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." 
 
 The obvious answer to this, is, that the prepositions 
 in question are frequently used interchangeably; and 
 that ixB-^a with a genitive often signifies bi/, or bi/ 
 means of. A single example will suffice. In Acts 
 ii. 43, we read that " many signs and wonders were 
 done by (Sia) the Apostles." While in Acts xv. 4, 
 we are told that Barnabas and Paul " rehearsed all 
 things that God had done with {^std) them." Here" 
 the prepositions are synonymous, and both signify the 
 instrumental cause. We reject the criticism, there- 
 fore, and with it the doctrine it is brought to establish, 
 that the Presbytery united with the Apostle in the 
 imposition of hands only to express their approbation 
 of the act. 
 
 Allowing that the two passages involved in this 
 controversy both relate to Timothy's ordination, he 
 Avas ordained by a Presbytery in which Paul jjre- 
 sided; the President, or, as we would style him^ 
 the Moderator, and the other members, uniting in 
 the imposition of hands. The outward act was the 
 same precisely on their part as on his; and the evi- 
 dence is yet to be adduced that the laying on o-f Paul's 
 hands signified one thing, and the laying on of their 
 hands signified something else. It is a palpable con- 
 fession of the weakness cA a cause, when such argu- 
 ments are resorted to to sustain it. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 67 
 
 Having thus exposed the fallaey of the various 
 expedients employed by Prelatists to ehide the fair 
 import of the verses we have been examining, we 
 affirm with confidence that Timothy's ordination was 
 a. Presbyterial ordination. This view, it may be 
 added, has been vindicated by eminent Episcopahans, 
 among whom it will be sufficient to name the learned 
 Dr. Whitaker, regius professor of theology at Cam- 
 bridge, a man of whom the pious Bishop Hall said, 
 " No man ever saw him without reverence, or heard 
 him without wonder." "This place," says Whitaker, 
 (referring to 1 Tim. iv. 14,) in arguing with Car- 
 dinal Bellarmine, " serves our purpose mightily; for 
 from hence we understand, that Timothy had hands 
 laid upon him by Presbyters, ivho at that time go- 
 verned the Church by a common council.^^ " Where- 
 upon," adds Dr. Calamy, from whom I quote, " he 
 falls upon Bellarmine and the Romanists, for deny- 
 ing the authority of ordaining to Presbyters and con- 
 iining it to Bishops. If this was right doctrine in the 
 Church of England in his days, we are certainly much 
 altered since." Dr. C's closing remark is too good to 
 be omitted. " Though some are unwilling to allow 
 of any inference drawn from hence in favour of Pres- 
 byters, yet had it been expressed accommodately to 
 their mind; had the Apostle said, 'Neglect not the 
 gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy 
 with the laying on of the hands of the Ejnscopate ;^ 
 we have little reason to question but that they would 
 triumphantly have concluded thence for the appro- 
 priating ordination to Bishops, and have warmly 
 inveighed against us, should we have offered to dis- 
 pute it."» 
 
 » Calamy's Defence of Mod. Non-Conf. i. 83. 
 
68 THE HIGH-CIIURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 This case is conclusive as to the point that the 
 right of ordination belonged as ivell to Presbyters as 
 Apostles. It also settles another point of great im- 
 portance in this controversy, viz. that Timothy was 
 ordained a Presbyter, not a Prelate. For he was 
 ordained, as has been proved, by Presbyters. Of 
 course, on High-Church principles, he could only have 
 been ordained a Presbyter. If, however, it is con- 
 tended that he was ordained an Ajiostle, it follows 
 that Apostles and Presbyters were really of one order 
 — for on no other principle could Presbyters ordain 
 an Apostle. Either conclusion is fatal to Prelacy. 
 
 This is not the place to inquire how the right of 
 Presbyters to ordain ever came to be denied. It may 
 be well to state, however, that according to the emi- 
 nent German Historian, Planck, that right "was never 
 called in question until the Bishops began, about the 
 middle of the third century, to assert the doctrine of 
 the Apostolical Succession. With the name it seemed 
 desirable also to inherit the authority of the Apostles. 
 For this purpose they availed themselves of the right 
 of ordination. The right of ordination, of course, 
 devolved exclusively upon the Bishops, as alone com- 
 petent rightly to administer it. As they had been 
 duly constituted the successors of the Apostles, so also 
 had they alone the right to communicate the same in 
 part or fully, by the imposition of hands. From this 
 time onward, to give the rite more effect,- it was 
 administered with more imposing solemnity." ^ 
 
 We have now finished our examination of the first 
 position which must be established in order to make 
 
 1 Cited by Mr. Coleman in his interesting work on the " Primitive 
 Church," wliicli has appeared while these sheets are passing through 
 the press. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 69 
 
 out the High-Church theory, to wit: that " the powers 
 of government and ordination pertained exclusively 
 to the ^postleshipJ^ Clear and decisive scriptural 
 authorities have been adduced to show that both these 
 powers were shared by Presbyters. The tesult of 
 this inquiry is destructive to the High-Church doctrine 
 of the ^Apostolical Succession. That doctrine is, that 
 the Apostolic order was to be perpetuated, because 
 Apostles alone could exercise the functions of ordi- 
 nation and government. The office being shorn of 
 the exclusive possession of these powers, the alleged 
 necessity for its being perpetuated, ceases. The pow- 
 ers in question having been proved to belong to 
 Presbyters, a succession of Presbyters is the only 
 Ministerial succession the Church requires, and (as 
 we maintain) the only one asserted in the Scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 The second position it is incumbent on High- 
 Churchmen to establish, was stated in these words : — 
 " The Apostleship, in reference to its prerog- 
 atives OF ordination and government, was de- 
 signed to be permanent." 
 
 This position assumes the truth of the first, viz. 
 that ordination and government, were exclusive attri- 
 butes of the Apostleship. This having been disproved, 
 the position built upon it falls to the ground. It may 
 be satisfactory, however, to notice a few of the argu- 
 ments relied upon to prove that the Apostolic office 
 was designed to be perpetuated. 
 
 Dr. Pusey and some of his associates frankly admit, 
 as we have seen, not only that there is no passage of 
 Scripture which affirms in so many words that this 
 office was to be permanent, but that the Bible fur- 
 nishes no clear and satisfactory warrant for the system 
 of which this doctrine is so radical a feature. Other 
 
70 THE HIGH-CIIURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 High-Churchmeu profess to find a warrant for the 
 perpetuity of the Apostleship,in the promise annexed 
 to the Saviour's last command — " Lo, I am with you 
 always, even unto the end of the world." It is, how- 
 ever, a mere begging of the question to assume that 
 this was designed exclusively for "Apostles." The 
 common interpretation is that it was intended both for 
 the Church, that is, the true Israel of God, and for 
 such a ministry as the commission itself describes, viz. 
 a ministry who should "preach the Gospel." The 
 promise can belong only to such ministers as comply 
 with the condition on which it is suspended. But 
 this has not usually been done by those who claim to 
 be the "successors of the Apostles." A large propor- 
 tion of them have not been statedly engaged in 
 " preaching ;" and of those who have preached with 
 more or less frequency, very many have preached 
 any thing beside the pure " Gospel" of Christ. High- 
 Churchmen must admit this ; for they know too well 
 the character of the great mass of the Romish prelates 
 for ages together, to say nothing of the Bishops of any 
 other Churches, to call it in question.' The promise, 
 then, cannot be restricted to " Apostles" or prelates ; 
 and it gives no countenance to the idea that the Apos- 
 tolic office was to be a permanent office in the Church.^ 
 The appointment of Matthias and Paul to the 
 Apostleship, has been urged as a proof that the office 
 was designed to be perpetuated. The fact is admitted, 
 but the inference reversed. We draw from these 
 cases an argument to show that the office was extra- 
 
 1 The same train of reasoning which would restrict the promise, 
 " Lo, I am with you always," to the Apostles, would prove that 
 they alone were to partake of the Lord's Supper. For if that pro- 
 mise was immediately addressed to the Apostles only, so also was 
 the command, " This do in remembrance of me." 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 71 
 
 ordinary and temporary. Peter lays it down, on the 
 occasion of JNIatthias^ appointment (see Acts i. 15 — 
 26) to fill the place of Jndas, that an individual must 
 be selected who could be, with the eleven, a ivitness 
 of the Saviour's resurrection. This was an essential 
 qualification for the Apostleship, and it was one 
 Matthias possessed. Then, in the second place, like 
 all the other Apostles, he received what may, under 
 the circumstances be fairly regarded as an immediate 
 desigJiation to the office from heaven: for he was 
 chosen by lot, after a solemn appeal to God. 
 
 Paul was not called to the Apostleship until several 
 years after the Saviour's ascension. Yet even in his 
 case an immediate vocation, and a sight of the Sa- 
 viour, to enable him to bear witness to the fact of his 
 resurrection, were recognized as indispensable requi- 
 sites to the office. Ananias says to him, '' The God 
 of our fathers hath chosen thee that thou shouldest 
 know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest 
 hear the words of his mouth." Paul himself men- 
 tions this fact in proof his Apostleship, 1 Cor. ix. I, 2. 
 *'Am I not an.^/?05//e.? Am I not free? Have I not 
 seen Jesus Christ our Lord?'' And in his speech 
 before Agrippa, Acts xxvi. 16, he quotes the words 
 addressed to him by Christ in his original commission : 
 " I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make 
 thee a Minister, and a Witness both of these things 
 which thou hast seen and of those things in the which 
 I will appear unto thee." 
 
 Here, then, we have the only clear and indisputa- 
 ble instances of appointments to the Apostleship, after 
 the Saviour's resurrection. ^ Do these examples coun- 
 
 1 There is a difference of opinion respecting the Apostleship of 
 Barnabas. Many Prelatists and others hold that he was an Apostle 
 
72 THE HIGH-CHURCII DOCTRINE OF 
 
 tenance the idea that the Apostleship was to be an 
 ordinary, standing office in the Church? So far from 
 it, the clear implication from the facts in each case, is, 
 that the office was not to be perpetuated. For these 
 facts show that no one could be an Apostle unless he 
 had SEEN Christ, and received his appointment to the 
 Apostleship by an immediate designation from heaven. 
 And as these qualifications will not be claimed for 
 those who are alleged to have been in the succession 
 since that period, not only must the argument drawn 
 from the cases of Matthias and Paul in favour of the 
 prelatical theory be given up, but we must be allowed 
 to plead these cases as furnishing a strong argument 
 against it. 
 
 The next witnesses brought forward to prove that 
 the Apostles were to have successors, are Timothy 
 and Titus. It is alleged that these ministers were 
 Diocesan Bishops, or, as the argument runs now-a- 
 days. Apostles, the former of Ephesus, and the latter 
 of Crete. The argument is in this form. The Apos- 
 tles alone possessed the powers of jurisdiction and 
 
 in the liigher sense, and was ordained to that office on the occasion 
 mentioned Acts xiii. 1-3. There are serious objections to that view, 
 but they need not be stated here. It is rejected, among others, by 
 Bishop II. U. Onderdonk, in his Tract already quoted, who maintains 
 that Barnabas was an Apostle prior to the transaction referred to. If 
 this was the case, we have no record whatever of his call to the office. 
 In the absence of all testimony, it cannot, obviously, be assumed that 
 he was made an Apostle without being qualified to bear witness to 
 the Saviour's resurrection, or in any other mode than by a direct 
 vocation from heaven. If he was an Apostle, it is fair to presume 
 that the same conditions were fulfilled in his case which we hnow 
 were fulfilled in that of each of the others. — Most persons, however, 
 will probably conclude, after a careful examination of his history, that 
 the title. Apostle, is given him in the New Testament only in its 
 secondary import. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 73 
 
 ordination. But these powers were exercised by- 
 Timothy and Titus. Therefore Timothy and Titus 
 were Apostles. 
 
 The major proposition of this syllogism, it will be 
 seen, involves a petitio principii. It assumes the 
 point in debate, viz. that government and ordination 
 were exclusive attributes of the Apostles — a doctrine 
 already examined and disproved. 
 
 However, we admit that the Apostles exercised a 
 general jurisdiction over the whole Church, and over 
 ministers as well as congregations. This power is 
 claimed for Timothy and Titus, in regard to the 
 churches and ministers respectively of Ephesus and 
 Crete. To the former, Paul says, " I besought thee 
 still to abide at Ephesus, that thou mightest charge 
 some that they teach no other doctrine." He specifies 
 the qualifications of Bishops or Presbyters, and Dea- 
 cons — directs him to " lay hands suddenly on no man" 
 — and " against an elder, to receive not an accusation, 
 but before two or three witnesses." To Tiius, the 
 Apostle says, " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that 
 thou shouldest set in order the things that are want- 
 ing, and ordain elders in every city." He tells him 
 further, " A man that is an heretic, after the first and 
 second admonition reject;" and, as in writing to 
 Timothy, he prescribes the proper qualifications of 
 Bishops or Presbyters* 
 
 These are the principal passages relied upon to 
 sustain the Prelatic doctrine. They teach, we are 
 told, the superiority of Timothy and Titus to the 
 other ministers of Ephesus and Crete; and thereby 
 establish the position that there was to be di perma- 
 nent order of ministers in the Church, superior to 
 Presbyters. 
 
 7 
 
74 THE HIGII-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 Our High-Church friends find it very convenient to 
 shift ever and anon the terms of their theory. The 
 doctrine they have to prove, is, that the Apostohc 
 office was designed to be permanent. Their method 
 of proof, is, to show that the Apostles actually ap- 
 pointed successors. We inquire who they were, and 
 they reply, (inter alios) Timothy and Titus. We 
 demand now the record of their appointment to the 
 Jipostleship. This they do not pretend to be able to 
 produce. Vital as the chain of succession is to the very 
 existence of the Church, and pre-eminently essential as 
 its first links are to its integrity; they are obliged to 
 confess that there is no clear and indisputable account 
 of the appointment of these early Apostles. Their 
 Apostleship, however, we are informed, is implied m 
 the powers ascribed to them. Let us see. An Apostle 
 must be one who has seen the Lord Jesus : was this 
 the case with Timothy and Titus? An Apostle must 
 receive an immediate vocation to the Apostleship, 
 from heaven: were Timothy and Titus thus called? 
 The Apostles were not restricted to particular dio- 
 ceses, but had universal commissions: had Timothy 
 and Titus such commissions? — Still, it will be main- 
 tained, they ^vere Apostles in respect to the functions 
 of ordination and. government. If this was the case, 
 they must of course have been independent of the 
 other Apostles, or, what amounts to the same thing, 
 clothed with co-ordinate powers: for the Apostles, it is 
 very certain, possessed equal powers one with anotlier. 
 But here, again, the theory and the fact are at vari- 
 ance ; for nothing is clearer than that Paul exercised 
 a controlling authority over Timothy and Titus. It 
 follows, therefore, that whatever these two ministers 
 were, they were not Apostles in the strict sense of that 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 75 
 
 term, and it is idle to bring them forward as links in 
 the pretended chain of the Apostolical succession. — 
 Aware of this flaw in the demonstration, Prelatists 
 quietly dismiss the term Apostle for the time, and 
 produce arguments to prove that Timothy and Titus 
 were sinjply Diocesan Bishops. Diocesan Bishops, 
 then, were subordinate to JlpostUs, on their own 
 admission. This control of the Apostles over them, 
 must have been either in virtue of an extraordinary 
 or of their ordinary authority. If they say the for- 
 mer, they concede that the Apostles were, in their 
 general jurisdiction over other ministers, extraordi- 
 nary officers, which is precisely our doctrine. If, on 
 the other hand, they allege that the Apostles governed 
 other ministers, these Diocesan Bishops included, in 
 virtue of an ordinary power, then it follows that 
 " there is a divine Avarrant for a permanent order of 
 ministers, in the Church, superior to Bishops, and 
 invested with authority over them; thus making/ot«r 
 instead of three orders of clergy. It is not possible to 
 avoid one or the other of these conclusions; and they 
 are equally destructive to the prelatical system."^ 
 
 The considerations just presented must be deemed 
 conclusive as to the question of Timothy's alleged 
 succession to the Jipostleship. Was he, then, a Dio- 
 cesan Bishop ? As the High-Church theory is admit- 
 ted by themselves to depend very much upon this 
 question, we require, for reasons already stated, that 
 the proof of Timothy's Diocesan character shall be 
 clear and decisive. It is incumbent on them to show 
 (1.) that the language addressed to Timothy, admits 
 of no rational solution on any other hypothesis than 
 that of his being the Bishop of Ephesus. (2.) They 
 
 1 See Dr. Miller's Letters, 8vo. ed. p. 59. 
 
76 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 must furnish the evidence that he actually made 
 Ephesus his permanent residence. (3.) They must 
 prove that he alone exercised the functions of ordi- 
 nation and government in the Ephesian churches. 
 And (4.) they must prove that provision was made 
 for a succession of Prelates in the " See" ofEphesus. 
 If they fail in establishing any one of these points, 
 the defect is fatal to their argument. We affirm that 
 so far from substantiating all of them, they can sub- 
 stantiate none. 
 
 The view taken of the characters of Timothy and 
 Titus, by the great body of the Protestant divines and 
 critics, including some eminent Episcopalians, is, that 
 they were Evangelists. That there was a class of 
 officers in the Primitive Church, bearing this title, is 
 indisputable. We read, (Eph. iv. 11,) that when the 
 Saviour ascended, "he gave some. Apostles; and 
 some. Prophets; and some, Evangelists; and some, 
 Pastors and Teachers." Philip, the Deacon, is men- 
 tioned as an Evangelist. Nay, Timothy is expressly 
 called an Evangelist, in one of these very epistles 
 relied upon to prove that he was a Prelate. II. Ep. 
 iv. 5. "Do the work of an Evangelist." Does this 
 mean, " Do the work of an Jlpostle?^^ Does it mean, 
 " Do the work of a Diocesan Bishop ?^^ If either of 
 these titles had been used, it is easy to conceive with 
 what a magisterial air the passage would have been 
 propounded to non-Episcopalians, as an irrefragable 
 proof of Timothy's Diocesan or Apostolic rank. On 
 this account Prelatists should learn to treat with more 
 lenity the iveakness of those who allow themselves to 
 believe that Timothy actually was, neither an Apos- 
 tle nor a Diocesan Bishop, but what an Apostle says 
 he was, an Evangelist. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 77 
 
 The Evangelists were extraordinary officers, ap- 
 pointed to be the assistants of the Apostles, and 
 clothed with powers superior to those of ordinary- 
 Pastors. Augustine describes them as " the substi- 
 tutes of the Apostles, >vho were almost equal to 
 them." Sometimes they preceded the Apostles, and 
 founded Churches which the Apostles subsequently 
 organized ; and in other cases, (as those of Timothy 
 and Titus) they followed them, and consummated 
 the gathering and organization of Churches which 
 the Apostles had commenced. This view of their 
 office is confirmed by an authority of the highest 
 repute among Prelatists, viz., the ecclesiastical his- 
 torian, Eusebius, who lived in the fourth century. 
 The passage in which he treats of the subject, has 
 been a fruitful source of embarrassment to High- 
 Churchmen. I quote a portion of it. Speaking of 
 some who occupied " the principal place among the 
 successors of the Apostles," he says, " These persons, 
 being the venerable disciples of such men, built up 
 the Churches in every jj lace of which the foundation 
 had been laid by the Apostles, promoting more and 
 more tiie preaching of the Gospel, and scattering 
 through the world the salutary seed of the kingdom 
 of heaven. For many of the disciples of that period 
 whose minds were inflamed by the word with the 
 most ardent attachment to the true philosophy, ful- 
 filhng the commandment of their Saviour, divided 
 their substance among the poor, and having been 
 sent forth with authority, performed the office of 
 EVANGELISTS to thosc who had never heard the word 
 of faith, being most desirous to preach Christ unto 
 them, and to deliver to them the writings of the divine 
 
 7* 
 
78 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 Gospels. These men, having laid the foundations of 
 the faith in some remote places, having ordained 
 also others to be Pastors over them, and having 
 committed to their care the cultivation of what they 
 had thus begun, hastened - to other countries and 
 7iafio)is, being accompanied by the grace and power 
 ofGod."^ 
 
 Tl]is account of the office, accords with the intima- 
 tions the New Testament gives us on the subject: 
 and it affords an easy and adequate explanation of all 
 the passages in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, 
 cited to prove that they were Diocesan Bishops, Does 
 the Apostle direct them to " set in order the things 
 that are wanting and ordain Elders in every city" — 
 to "lay hands suddenly on no man" — to "reject a 
 man that is an heretic, after the first and second ad- 
 monition?" All this is explained by a reference to 
 their commission and functions as Evangelists. We 
 do not, indeed, feel bound to admit that they ordained 
 alone at Ephesus and Crete respectively. The lan- 
 guage of the Apostle does not necessarily imply this; 
 and the fact that there is not an instance recorded in 
 the New Testament, of an ordination performed by 
 a single individual, furnishes a strong presumption 
 against it. Yet if this point were conceded, it would 
 derogate nothing from the force of our argument : be- 
 cause we hold that as Evangelists they were invested 
 with extraordinary powers — powers that were essen- 
 tial in the first planting and organization of churches, 
 but which are not needed in a settled Church state. 
 
 Prclatists attempt to fortify their theory of the Pre- 
 latic character of Timothy, by appealing to the ad- 
 dress of the Apostle to the Elders of Ephesus. (Acts 
 
 1 Eusebius, lib. iii. sect. 36. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 79 
 
 XX.) In that address (we are told) the Elders are 
 simply entrusted with the spiritual- oversight of the 
 Jlock^ i. e. \\\G people : while Timothy is charged with 
 the control of the Elders or the Clergy, as well as the 
 flock. To this we have two answers. (1.) We con- 
 tend that all the powers requisite to a settled Church 
 state, are recognized by the Apostle as belonging to 
 the Elders of Ephesus. They are styled overseers 
 (TiLGxoTioi, Bishops of the flock, and instructed to take 
 heed to themselves and to the flock, and to feed 
 the Church.- These terms have already been shown 
 to denote a general power of government over the 
 Churches committed to them, and, by necessary im- 
 plication, a joint jurisdiction of the Eldership over one 
 another. (2.) The language of Paul to Timothy, is 
 precisely such language as, on our principles, he might 
 be expected to' use in addressing an Evangelist, but 
 not such as he would employ in addressing a settled 
 Pastor. — We find no difficulty, therefore, in harmon- 
 izing with our views, the strain of his two charges 
 addressed respectively to the Ephesian Pastors and the 
 extraordinary officer appointed to fulfil a temporary 
 commission among their churches. 
 
 It must be evident from the foregoing considera- 
 tions, that the Scriptures aff"ord, to say the least, no 
 conclusive evidence that Timothy and Titus were 
 Diocesan Bishops. And ^'conclusive evidence" is 
 what we demand. Mere probabilities will not an- 
 swer in a case which involves the salvation or perdi- 
 tion of millions of human beings. But even "prob- 
 abilities'^ are wanting. While every difficulty ad- 
 mits of a ready solution on the supposition that Tim- 
 othy and Titus were Evangelists, there are very 
 
80 THE HIGH-CHURCII DOCTRINE OP 
 
 weighty arguments to show that they could not have 
 been Diocesan Bishops. 
 
 One of these is drawn from a verse which Prela- 
 tists have sometmics indiscreetly quoted in support of 
 their tlieory, viz., 1 Tim. i. 3, "As I besought thee 
 still to abide at Ephesus,'^ &c. Here, they tell us, is 
 evidence that Timothy was to reside at Ephesus. 
 Unhappily, however, the word translated abide is 
 of very vague import, and may denote indefinitely 
 a long or a very short period. It is amusing, too, 
 that such a passage should be brought forward to 
 prove Timothy a Bishop — "For who, (observes Mons. 
 Daille, the celebrated French Protestant Divine,) with- 
 out the aid of an extraordinary passion, could have 
 divined a thing so fine, and so marvellous, and could 
 have imagined that to entreat a man to abide in a city 
 was to appoint him the Bishop of it. . . . Without 
 exaggeration, the cause of these hierarchical gentle- 
 men must be reduced to great straits when they are 
 obliged to have recourse to such pitiful arguments. 
 As to myself, considering matters coolly, I should have 
 concluded, on the contrary, from the Apostle's be- 
 seeching Timothy to remain at Ephesus, that he could 
 7iot have been Bishop of Ephesus. For to what pur- 
 pose would it be to entreat a Bishop to remain in his 
 diocese ? Is not this to beseech a man to continue in 
 a place to which he is tied down ? I should not have 
 thought it strange if he had been entreated to leave it, 
 had there been need for his services elsewhere. But 
 to beseech him to stop in a place of which he had the 
 charge, and which he could not quit without dis- 
 pleasing God and neglecting his duty, to say the 
 truth, is a request which is not a little extraordinary, 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 81 
 
 and which evidently supposes that he had not his 
 duty much at heart, since he needed to be besought 
 to do it. But, however that may be it is very cer- 
 tain, that to beseech a man to remain in a place ^ does 
 not signify that he is constituted the Bishop of it.^^ 
 The language of Paul to Timothy and Titus, 
 shows that they were left at Ephesus and Crete only 
 for specific and temporary purposes — Timothy, to 
 oppose unsound doctrines, and each of them to com- 
 plete the organization of the Churches. In accordance 
 with this view, the Apostle directs Titus to come to 
 him at Nicopolis, (iii. 12.) on the arrival of Artemas, 
 and it cannot be shown that he returned to Crete. 
 It is certain, also, that Timothy left Ephesus; for a 
 few years after the time at which Paul's first Epistle 
 to him is generally supposed to have been written, 
 we hear of him as sharing the Apostle's imprison- 
 ment at Rome. And there is ample reason to believe 
 that he had departed from Ephesus before the writing 
 of the second Epistle. And herein, by the way, we 
 have an adequate answer to the objection urged with 
 so much vehemence by certain Prelatists. '^ If Timo- 
 thy was only an Evangelist," say they, "how happens 
 it that we find him still at. Ephesus when the second 
 Epistle was written to him — in which alone he is 
 styled an Evangelist? For by this time he must have 
 completed the organization of the Churches there, and 
 provided a sufficient number of Presbyters to take 
 charge of them." I answer (1.) that there might have 
 been difficulties in the Ephesian Churches, (see Acts 
 XX. 29, 30.) or a continual increase of converts, such 
 as to demand the presence and labours of an Evan- 
 gelist for several years. But (2.) let the objectors 
 prove that Timothy did remain at Ephesus untff the 
 
82 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 writing of the second Epistle. There is not a word 
 in that Epistle to intimate that he was there; but sev- 
 eral things which import that he was not. For ex- 
 ample, in Ch. iv. 12, the Apostle says, "Tychicns have I 
 sent to Ephesns." Had Timothy been there, he would 
 probably have said, " Tychicus have I sent to you 
 at Ephesus." And in the next verse, he requests 
 him to bring to him at Rome, his cloak, books 
 and parchments, which he had left at Troas, This 
 imports that Timothy was either at Troas or at some 
 place in coming from which fo Rome, he would pass 
 through Troas. But any one ,who looks at the map 
 will see that it would take him entirely out of his 
 way to visit Troas in going from Ephesus to Rome. 
 Dr. Whitby, one of the ablest of the Episcopal Commen- 
 tators, gives it explicitly as his opinion from these pas^ 
 sages, that Timothy was not at Ephesus but at Troas 
 at this period. The objection, therefore, falls to the 
 ground. — Both the nature of their duties, and thetr 
 itinerant course of life, then, are adverse to the notion 
 that Timothy and Titus were Diocesan Bishops. 
 
 It is another argument against the Prelatic doc- 
 trine, that while the Apostles specities, in these 
 Epistles, the qualifications essential to Bishops or 
 Presbyters, and Deacons,^ he says nothing of the 
 qualijications requisite to the Jipostleship or Pre- 
 lacy. On High-Church principles, this omission is 
 inexpUcable. Is it credible that the Apostle would 
 give minute directions as to the sort of men to be se- 
 lected for the two ^^ inferior grades^^ of the ministry, 
 and not write a syllable about the kind of men to 
 whose jurisdiction these ministers and all the Churches 
 of the Diocese were to be committed ? Was it ne- 
 
 1 See 1 Tim. iii. 1—13. Titus i. 5—11. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. S3 
 
 cessary to instruct Timothy so distinctly in relation 
 to Deacons, and could the selection and ordination 
 of his own successors iii the Jlpostleship^ be safely 
 left to his own discretion ? The credulity that can 
 believe this, must be the fruit of a very determined 
 zeal for Prelacy. Non-Episcopalians find in this re- 
 markable omission, a significant proof that there were 
 no higher officers than_ " Presbyter-Bishops" to be 
 appointed in the Churches of Crete and Ephesus. 
 
 Again, the address of Paul to the Ephesian Elders 
 or Bishops at Miletus, ( see Acts xx. ) furnishes a 
 conclusive argument against the supposed Diocesan 
 character of Timothy. 
 
 It is very convenient for Prelatists to assume that 
 Paul's first Epistle to Timothy was written several 
 years later than the date assigned to it by the best 
 authorities. It is agreed by the great body of learned 
 critics, ancient and modern, that this Epistle was 
 written about a.d. 58, when Paul had lately quitted 
 Ephesus on account of the tumult raised there by 
 Demetrius, and was gone into Macedonia. (Acts xx. 
 1.) Among others, this is the opinion of Athanasius, 
 Theodoret, Baronius, Ludovic, Capellus, Blondel, 
 Hammond, Grotius, Salmasius, Lightfoot, Benson, 
 Doddridge, and Michaelis.^ To these eminent au- 
 thorities may be added the name of one of the most 
 recent Episcopal writers in this department of sacred 
 literature, the Rev. George Townsend, of the Church 
 of England, whose ^'Harmony" of the Old and New 
 Testaments has been widely circulated in this coun- 
 try. In speaking of the date of the first Epistle to 
 
 ^ See the question argued in Doddridge's introduction to first Ti- 
 mothy, and in Hug's Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 534, 
 753. 
 
84 THE HIGPI-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 Timothy, he uses this explicit language: — "I have 
 preferred the early date for this reason, that the allu- 
 sion to the youth of Timothy — the fact that Timothy 
 was directed to ordain elders whom St. Paul after- 
 wards met — and the solemn declaration that he should 
 see their face no more, appear to be so plainly deci- 
 sive, that I can admit no theoretical arguments to 
 overthrow what seems to me the unforced deduction 
 from Scripture, that the Epistle was wrhten after St.. 
 Paul went from Ephesus, and left Timothy there, 
 when he went into Macedonia. ^^ 
 
 But if Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus at all, it 
 must have been ivhen this first Epistle ivas ivritten; 
 for it is this Epistle which furnishes oar Prelatical 
 brethren with very nearly all the evidence they have 
 that he was a Bishop. Of course then, he was Bish- 
 op of Ephesus when the Apostle had his interview 
 with the Eiders at Miletus. ■ Timothy was present 
 on that occasion. 1 Yet Paul, in so far as the narra- 
 tive informs us, did not take the least notice of him. 
 Instead of addressing himself to the "Bishop,'' he 
 delivers his whole charge to his Presbyters. With 
 their Bishop standing by, he commits the entire go- 
 vernment and control of the Church into their 
 hands. He does not so much as tell them how they 
 are to deport themselves towards their Diocesan, nor 
 even allude to the fact of their having one. — He who 
 can believe all this, must admit that the Apostle had 
 very different ideas of the rights and immunities of 
 Diocesan Bishops, from those entertained by some 
 modern advocates of Prelacy. 
 
 If, on the other hand, the ground is taken that 
 Timothy was not appointed Bishop of Ephesus until 
 
 ' ?ee Acts xx. 4, 15, 17. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 85 
 
 after the interview just mentioned, then it will fol- 
 low, that whatever powers are conceded to him 
 in Paul's first Epistle, he possessed these powers 
 without being a Diocesan Bishop ; for that Epistle 
 was written, as we have seen, prior to the interview 
 in question. Again, If he was not made Bishop of 
 Ephesus until after the interview at Miletus, it is 
 very surprising that the Apostle should have made 
 no allusion to this serious defect in their organization. 
 It would be quite out of character for a High-Church 
 Prelate of our day, to deliver a formal charge to the 
 assembled clergy of a vacant Diocese, without so 
 much as alluding to the fact of their having no Dio- 
 cesan. Yet this was done — if we are to> receive the 
 Prelatic theory— by so courteous and sound a Church- 
 man as the Apostle Paul, in his charge to the clergy 
 of Ephesus. This consideration will have due weight 
 with every impartial mind : but what I chiefly insist 
 upon as regards this transaction at Miletus, is the 
 dilemma previously stated. Either Timothy was 
 Bishop of Ephesus at the time Paul delivered his 
 charge to the Ephesian Elders, or he was not. If 
 he was, how happens it that the Apostle makes no 
 allusion to him, and commits the government of the 
 Churches into the hands of the Elders, and that in 
 \)ciQ presence of their Diocesan? If he was ^o/, then 
 he was not Bishop of Ephesus when Paul's first 
 Epistle to him was written, and all the supposed 
 evidences of his Prelatic character drawn from that 
 Epistle, are annulled. 
 
 There is only one possible way by which this di- 
 lemma can be eluded, viz., by proving that the first 
 Epistle was written after the interview at Miletus. 
 But this is a point which never has been, and which it 
 
 8 
 
86 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 is hazarding little to say, never can be, proved. For 
 — other arguments apart — Paul's address to the El- 
 ders contains a solemn prophecy that he^hould never 
 meet them again in this world. " I knoio,^^ he says, 
 " that ye . . . shall see my face no viore.^^ But his 
 first Epistle was written soon after his departure from 
 Ephesus, on some occasion, to go into Macedonia, (see 
 eh. i. 3, "As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, 
 when I went into Macedonia,") and it contains am- 
 ple evidence that he expected to return there. Thus 
 he says, ch. iii. 14, "These" things write I unto thee, 
 hoping to come unto thee shortly.^' And again, iv. 
 13, " Till I come, give attendance to reading, to ex- 
 hortation, to doctrine." This expectation of return- 
 ing to Ephesus, must have been prior to that inter- 
 view in the course of which he so impressively as- 
 sures them that they " are to see his face no more,^^ 
 The Epistle, therefore, was written before the trans- 
 action at Miletus : and hence the dilemma to which 
 Prelatists are reduced by this comparison of dates, 
 remains. Whichever horn of that dilemma is taken, 
 the argument against Timothy's prelatical character 
 is conclusive. 
 
 Such are some of the arguments which have sat- 
 isfied non-Episcopalians in the various Reformed 
 Churcheg, that Timothy and Titus were not Diocesan 
 Bishops. There is one other consideration which 
 ought not to be omitted in discussing the subject of the 
 apostolical Succession. The advocates of this doc- 
 trine profess to be able to trace up their descent to the 
 Apostles. They allege — with how much reason, we 
 have seen — that Timothy and Titus were successors 
 of the Apostles in the Apostolic office. We now re- 
 quire them to show that Timothy and Titus ap- 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 87 
 
 pointed pei'sons to succeed themselves in the v^postle- 
 ship. If they were, as we contend, extraordinary 
 officers clothed with a special and temporary mission, 
 we should not look for any instructions in the Epis- 
 tles addressed to them, in relation to successors. But 
 if they were the Bishops — XhQ first Bishops — of Ephe- 
 sus and Crete, we might reasonably expect to find a 
 great deal in these Epistles about the succession. 
 Which of these views is sustained b^ the tone of the 
 Epistles, will be manifest when it is stated, that the 
 diligence and zeal of Prelacy have not been able to 
 discover a syllable in the Epistle to Titus, so much as 
 hinting at the succession in the See of Crete; and 
 that there is but one solitary passage in the Epistles 
 to Timothy, which is claimed as bearing upon the 
 succession in the See of Ephesus. This passage, it 
 will surprise plain readers of the Bible to learn, is the 
 folio wmg: first Epistle, vi. 13, 14, " I give thee charge 
 in the sight of God that thou keep this com- 
 mandment without spot unrebukable, until the ap- 
 23earing of our Lord Jesus Christ. ^^ By the appear- 
 ing of the Saviour here, is meant, it is said, his ap- 
 pearing to judge the world; and hence it was design- 
 ed that Timothy's office should be perpetuated. 
 
 It seems a waste of time to stop to refute such spe- 
 cimens of exegesis as this : but as it is the best war- 
 rant that can be produced for the succession at Ephe- 
 sus, it may be well to notice it. Their own Stilling- 
 fleet shall furnish the answer. " First, ^^ he observes, 
 '^ it is no ways certain what this command was which 
 St. Paul speaks of: some understand it of fighting the 
 good fight of faith, [see context] others of the precept 
 of love, others most probably the sum of all contained 
 in this Epistle which I confess implies in it, (as being 
 
88 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 one great part of the Epistle,) Paul's direction of Tim- 
 othy for the right discharging of his office. But grant- 
 ing that the command respects Timothy's office, yet 
 I answer, secondly^ it manifestly appears to be some- 
 thing /?er5o;i«/, and not successive) or at least nothing 
 can be inferred for the necessity of such a succession 
 from this place which it was brought for ; nothing being 
 more evident than that this command related to TiTn- 
 othy^s personal observance of it. And, therefore, 
 Christ's appearing here is not meant of his second 
 coming to judgment, but it only imports the time of 
 Timothy'^ s decease. So Chrysostom, " Until the end, 
 until the departure." So Estius, "Until the termina- 
 tion of life." .... And the reason why the time of his 
 death is set out by the coming of Christ, is, as Chry- 
 sostom, and from him Theophylact observes, " that it 
 might incite him the more" both to diligence in his 
 work and patience under sufferings from the considera- 
 tion of Christ's appearance. The plain meaning of 
 the words, then, is the same with that. Rev. ii. 10, 
 " Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a 
 crown of life." Nothing, then, can be hence inferred 
 as to the necessary succession of some in Timothy's 
 office, whatever it is supposed to be.''^ 
 
 Such, in the judgment of this able and candid 
 Episcopalian, is the scriptural warrant for the notion 
 that the succession of Apostles or Prelates, was to be 
 perpetuated in the Church of Ephesus, — a conclu- 
 sion strongly corroborated by the fact mentioned by 
 the learned Dr. Campbell, in his Lectures on Eccle- 
 siastical History, that "neither Timothy nor Titus is 
 styled "Bishop" by any writer in the first three cen- 
 
 1 Irenicum, Chap. iv. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 89 
 
 turies." (Lect. V. p. 79.) Yet this "Diocese" is the 
 very citadel of High-Churchism. And it is from its 
 ramparts that they are for ever proclaiming the idle 
 and arrogant assumption, that to be disunited with a 
 Church which has had an unbroken succession of 
 Apostles from the days of the twelve, is to be aban- 
 doned to "uncovenanted mercy." 
 
 I have dwelt the longer upon the cases of Timo- 
 thy and Titus, because, as was jast intimated, Prelat- 
 ists usually rely more upon these two witnesses in 
 vindicating their system, than upon any other scrip- 
 tural argument. All that is necessary, as to these 
 cases, let it be remembered, in order to invalidate the 
 theory of the Apostolical Succession as held by High 
 Churchmen, is, to show that it is doubtful whether 
 Timothy and Titus were appointed to the Apostle- 
 ship. If Prelatists cannot establish the affirmative of 
 this proposition beyond a reasonable doubt, by clear 
 scriptural 2^roofs, their pretensions can only excite 
 the ridicule or the pity of intelligent men. For with 
 what decency can it be pretended that the alternative 
 offered to the world, is. Prelacy or perdition, if 
 there is the slightest defect in the scriptural evidence 
 on which the theory of Prelacy rests? Instead of 
 showing, however, that the alleged Apostleship of 
 Timothy and Titus is barely doubtful, it has, if I 
 mistake not, been proved that Timothy was ordained 
 by a Presbytery, and could not, therefore, on High- 
 Church principles, have been an Apostle or Prelate 
 — that there are insuperable objections to the hypoth- 
 esis that Titus and himself were either Apostles in 
 the appropriate import of that title, or Diocesan Bish- 
 ops — that they could only have been Evangelists 
 — and that whatever their office was, the Bible does 
 
90 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 not furnisli the least evidence that they were to have 
 successors. — From all which I conclude that Timo- 
 thy and Titus, instead of testifying that " the Jipos- 
 tolic office was designed to be permanent ^^ are good 
 witnesses to prove the very reverse. * 
 
 As this volume is not designed as a formal treatise 
 on Prelacy, I pass by, for want of room only, the 
 arguments drawn from the constitution of the Leviti- 
 cal Priesthood and from the alleged Diocesan charac- 
 ter of the Apostle James, to notice, briefly, the argu- 
 ment derived from the short epistles addressed to 
 the Seven Churches of Asia. (See Rev. ii. and iii.) 
 Prelatists find Apostles or Diocesan Bishops in the 
 '^ Angels^'' of these Churches. The epistles, they say, 
 are inscribed to them individually; they are address- 
 ed as having the exclusive control of the Churches; 
 they are held responsible for all the evils which pre- 
 vailed among them ; and the whole tone of the Sa- 
 viour's language to them is such as can be reconciled 
 Avith no other theory than that of their being Dioce- 
 san Bishops. 
 
 This argument depends on the two-fold assump- 
 tion that the titles "angel'' and "star" (the "se- 
 ven stars,'' ch. i. 20, being the emblems of the 
 "seven angels,") can be employed only to denote 
 single individuals, and that these individiials can 
 
 ' A single word on the postscripts to these epistles, before leaving 
 them. In the Postscripts to second Timothy and Titus, these Evan- 
 gelists are styled the "■Bishops'" of the Churches respectively '* of the 
 Ephesians" and " of the Cretians," It may be proper, therefore, to 
 state that all respectable writers admit that these postscripts are 
 interpolations. It is agreed tliat their origin is not earlier than the 
 fiflli century. Of course they arc not to be relied upon as authority; 
 and they arc never quoted in this controversy by Prelatists or their 
 Gpposers. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 91 
 
 only be Diocesan Bishops. To notice the latter of 
 these assumptions, first: — Let the origin of the ex- 
 pression, the " Angel of the Church,'' be considered, 
 as stated by that great Rabbinical scholar, Dr. Light- 
 foot. " Besides these," he says, (the three rulers of 
 the synagogue,) " there was the public minister of the 
 synagogue, who prayed publicly, and took care about 
 the reading of the law, and sometimes preached, if 
 there were not others to discharge that office. This 
 person was called Sheliach Zibbor, the Jlngel of the 
 Church, and the Chazan or Bishop of the congrega- 
 tion. . . The service and worship of the Temple being 
 abolished, as being ceremonial, God transplanted the 
 worship and public adoration of God used in the 
 synagogues, which was moral, into the Christian 
 Church ; to wit, the public ministry, public prayers, 
 reading God's word, and preaching, &c. Hence the 
 names of the ministers of the Gospel were the very 
 same, the Angel of the Church, and the Bishop, 
 which belonged to the ministers in the synagogues." 
 "As the Sheliach Zibbor, then, (adds Dr. Brown, ^) 
 or Bishop of the synagogue, had no authority be- 
 yond the single congregation in. which he minis- 
 tered, and as he exercised that authority along with 
 the rulers of the synagogue, (though he was not the 
 chief ruler,) it is plain that the application of the 
 name ^ Angel' to the minister of each of these Asiatic 
 Churches, even supposing him to be only a single 
 person acting on his own individual capacity, fur- 
 nishes no proof that he had authority over the minis- 
 ters of other congregations or Christian synagogues, 
 and much less would it justify any Bishop in the pre- 
 sent day for being invested with authority over a 
 
 On "Piiseyite Episcopacy," p. 226. Edin. ed. 
 
92 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 hundred or a thousand ministers and as many con- 
 gregations." 
 
 Some writers of great respectability have supposed 
 the jjresldents or moderators of the several Presby- 
 teries, to be intended by the *^ Angels of the Church- 
 es/' — the epistles being inscribed to them personally, 
 though intended for the body over which, though of 
 the same order, they presided. 
 
 Others, again, have held, as did Mr. Dodwell in 
 the latter part of his life, that the angels were proba- 
 bly itinerary legates, or special missionaries sent 
 from Jerusalem to visit these Churches. 
 
 A more popular opinion has been that these Epis- 
 tles, though addressed to the angels or ministers, 
 were designed for the ministers and people in com- 
 n^on — an opinion which is favoured by several ex- 
 pressions in the epistles. 
 
 The view, however, usually adopted by non-pre- 
 latic writers, is, that the titles, " star" and " angel," 
 denote the collective body of ministers in each of the 
 seven churches. — This brings me to the second as- 
 sumption of the Prelatists, viz. that these titles can 
 be used only to denote single individuals. In oppo- 
 sition to this view it may be observed, that the 
 "seven candlesticks (i. 20) are the seven churches." 
 Each candlestick represents one church. Now if 
 these seven churches embraced each but a single 
 congregation, their pastors or "angels" could not 
 have been Diocesan Bishops. If they embraced 
 more than one congregation each, still they are re- 
 presented by one candlestick. And if a plurality of 
 congregations may be represented by one candlestick, 
 why may not a plurality oi ministers be represented 
 by one star ? 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 93 
 
 As regards the other term, "angels," we have the 
 opinion of such men as Dr. Henry More, Joseph 
 Mede, Dr. Fulk, and Stillingfieet, that it is used in 
 the Apocalypse as a noun of multitude. "If many 
 things in the Epistles be direct to the angels, (says 
 StiUingfleet) but yet so as to concern the whole body, 
 then of necessity the ^ angel' must be taken as a re- 
 presentative of the whole body, and then, why may 
 not the word ' angeP be taken by way of representa- 
 tion of the body itself; either of the whole Church, 
 or, which is far more probable, of the Consessus or 
 order of Presbyters in that Church? We see what 
 miserable, unaccountable arguments those are which 
 are brought for any kind of government, from meta- 
 phorical or ambiguous expressions or names pro- 
 miscuously used." 
 
 A noted example of the use of the term here con- 
 tended for, occurs in the sixth verse of the fourteenth 
 chapter of this book. " I saw another angel fly in 
 the midst of heaven, having the everlasting Gospel 
 to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to 
 every nation and kindred and tongue and peopled 
 " Heaven" (observes Dr. Mason on this verse,) " in 
 this book, is the ascertained symbol of the Christian 
 Church, from which issue forth the ' ministers of 
 grace' to the nations. As the Gospel is preached 
 only by me?z, this angel who has it to preach to 
 ' every nation and kindred and tongue and people,' 
 must be the symbol of a human ministry. And as 
 it is perfectly evident that no single man can thus 
 preach it, but that there must be a great company 
 of preachers to carry it to ' every nation and kindred 
 and tongue and people,' the angel mentioned in the 
 
94 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 text is, and of necessity must be, the symbol of that 
 great company!'^ — It is for Prelatists to show that 
 the term may not in like manner be used in these 
 seven epistles as a collective noun, to signify the 
 ivh(fie body of ministers in each Church. That this 
 view of the import of the name harmonizes much 
 better with the various parts of these epistles than 
 that which makes the angels Diocesan Bishops, will 
 be evident from two or three considerations. 
 
 (1.) If the term "angels" denotes only the Bishops 
 of these churches, the Epistles contain no allusion 
 whatever to the other ministers. As these ministers 
 must have outnumbered the Prelates, and their influ- 
 ence for good or evil upon the churches have been 
 very potent, such an omission is not easily to be ac- 
 counted for. 
 
 (2.) If the Angel of the Church of Ephesus be ad- 
 dressed as a single person, and not as the representa- 
 tive of the whole of the ministers, is it not further in- 
 explicable that because he alone hdid '^ left his Jirst 
 love/' the Redeemer should threaten, if he did not 
 repent, to extinguish that Church, or remove its 
 candlestick out of its place ? 
 
 (3.) Some of the Epistles use the singular and 
 plural pronouns interchangeably — which shows that 
 the angels are not single individuals. Thus, the Sa- 
 viour says to the angel of the Church of Smyrna, " I 
 know thy works, &c. Behold the devil shall cast some 
 of you into prison that ye may be tried : and ye shall 
 have tribulation ten days : be thou faithful unto death, 
 and I will give thee a crown of Hfe." And to the 
 angel of the Church of Thyatyra, he says, " I know 
 thy works, &c But unto you {v^sii) I say, and 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 95 
 
 unto the 7'est in Thyatyra, as many as have not this 
 
 doctrine &c But that which ye have aheady, 
 
 hold fast till I come." 
 
 Prelatists try to evade this difficulty by saying that 
 where these plural forms of expression occur, the Sa- 
 viour addresses the people. But (1.) this is incompat- 
 ible with their prime principle that the angels must 
 be single individuals ; for whoever may be intended 
 by these plural pronouns, they must be iiicluded un- 
 der the term " angels." (2.) It is a fatal objection to 
 this interpretation, that while the peojjle of Smyrna 
 are told that they are to be '• cast into prison," the 
 promise^ " Be ihou faithful unto death and I will give 
 thee a crow^n of life," is given exclusively to the 
 Bishop. " If the * angeP is the collective body of the 
 ministry upon whom the persecution was to fall, then 
 the exhortations, " Fear none of those things which 
 thou shalt suffer" — " Be thou faithful unto death ;" 
 and the promise, ^' I will give thee a crown of life," 
 are in harmony with the premonition, that " the devil 
 should cast some of them into prison." The anticipa- 
 tion of evil is softened by the assurance of support. 
 But according to the Episcopal construction, the sor- 
 row goes one way, and the consolation the other. 
 The Bishop is exhorted not to fear : to be faithful 
 unto death : but it seems that the people only are to 
 bear the calamity." ^ It may be safely left to candid 
 minds to judge whether an interpretation can be cor- 
 rect which involves such absurdities as this. 
 
 On the whole, when the general tenor of the Book 
 of Revelation and the highly figurative language in 
 which most of it is written, are considered, it is a 
 
 1 Dr. Mason. 
 
96 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 great weakness, and argues a bad cause, to appeal to 
 these Epistles, as furnishing any decisive testimony 
 on the subject of Church-government. Prelatists may 
 assume, but it is certain they can never prove, that 
 the angels of these Churches, were either Apostles or 
 Diocesan Bishops. — Until they have proved this, and 
 with this have distinctly and conclusively shown that 
 these officers were instructed to appoint Successors of 
 apostolic rank, we must decline acknowledging the 
 seven angels as competent witnesses to establish the 
 perpetuity of the apostolic office. 
 
 Such is the scriptural argument for the second pro- 
 position embraced in the Prelatic theory, viz. that 
 
 " THE APOSTOLIC OFFICE, CONSIDERED IN REFERENCE 
 TO ITS EXCLUSIVE FUNCTIONS OF JURISDICTION AND 
 ORDINATION, WAS DESIGNED TO BE PERMANENT." 
 
 The proposition that " these functions belonged 
 
 EXCLUSIVELY TO THE APOSTLESHIP," WaS prCVioUsly 
 
 examined. Without taking up every argument at- 
 tempted to be drawn from the word of God in support 
 of these views, (a thing which is precluded by the limits 
 prescribed to myself in this discussion) I have selected 
 those on which the most reliance is usually placed, 
 and endeavoured to weigh them with candour. It is 
 sufficient to invalidate the High-Church doctrine, if 
 these propositions have been shown to be even doubt- 
 ful But may it not be claimed that something more 
 than this has been done, — that they have been fairly 
 and effectually disproved? It has been shown, if 
 I mistake not, that the powers of jurisdiction and or- 
 dination, were exercised as well by Presbyters as 
 by the Apostles ; and that the Epistles to Timothy 
 and Titus, and those addressed to the seven Asiatic 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 97 
 
 churches, so far from countenancing the, idea that the 
 Apostles were to have successors in the Apostleship, 
 contain passages that are irreconcilable with that hy- 
 pothesis. These conclusions might be fortified by a 
 great body of Scripture testimonies which have not 
 been brought forward : for all the passages that go 
 directly to prove \hG, j^arity of the ministry^ confirm 
 the results to which we have been conducted. 
 
 It will no doubt excite the surprise of individuals 
 who have not investigated the subject before, to find 
 that there, is so very little in the word of God to 
 favour the High-Church system. The confidence 
 and even arrogance with which the supporters of 
 that system^ pronounce all who reject it to be out of 
 the pale of the Church, have produced the impression 
 upon many minds that the Bible must at least fur- 
 nish a specious warrant for it. But the pretensions 
 of theorists, as well in religion as in science, are apt 
 to be in an inverse proportion to the strength of the 
 evidence on which their theories rest. — "For myself, 
 [I adopt here with some slight variations, the lan- 
 guage of the learned and venerable Dr. Miller,] I 
 most conscientiously declare that the arguments at- 
 tempted to be drawn from Scripture, in favour of Pre 
 lacy, do not appear to me to possess the smallest 
 degree of real force. I can truly say, that when I 
 first approached the investigation of the subject, I 
 expected to find much more in the sacred volume 
 appearing to favour the Episcopal cause, than I have 
 since been able to discover. It did not occur to me 
 as possible, that such confident appeals to Scripture 
 could be continually made, on grounds so entirely 
 unsolid. I might have recollected, indeed, the deci- 
 
 9 
 
9S THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 sive tone with which many ingenious and learned 
 men have resorted to the sacred oracles to estabUsh 
 the supremacy of the Pope, and the damning sin of 
 separation from the Church of Rome. Nor ought 
 we to be surprised that pious and learned men, of 
 other denominations, should fall into similar mis- 
 takes, and express equal confidence of finding sup- 
 port where none is in reality to be found. The late 
 Mr. Burke has somewhere said, *Let us only suffer 
 any person to tell us his story morning and evening 
 but for one twelve month, and he will become our 
 master.' Many zealous advocates of Prelacy have 
 been so long in the habit of saying, and of hearing it 
 said, that the Scriptures ^clearly,' ^strongly,' and 
 'unquestionably' declare in favour of their system; 
 and some of them are so little in the habit of reading 
 the refutations of this error, that they unfeignedly 
 believe it, and scruple not to stigmatize all who do 
 not see it, as given up to blindness and prejudice. 
 But, happily, we have the sacred volume in our 
 hands, as well as they; and after the most dispas- 
 sionate examination, are compelled to pronounce 
 their arguments from Scripture nugatory; their con- 
 fidence totally unwarranted; and the system which 
 they profess to found on the word of God, a fabric 
 resting alone on human contrivance." ^ 
 
 1 On the Christian Ministry, Let. III. 8vo. ed. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 99 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 
 
 I BEGIN this chapter with a brief extract from the 
 Westminster Confession of Faith. 
 
 Chapter I. Sect. 6. " The whole counsel of God 
 concerning all things necessary for his own glory, 
 man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set 
 down in Scripture, or by good and necessary conse- 
 quence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which, 
 nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new 
 revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men." 
 
 Section 10. "The Supreme Judge, by whom all 
 controversies of religion are to be determined, and all 
 decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doc- 
 trines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, 
 and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no 
 other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." 
 
 Applying these principles to the case in hand, the 
 author cordially concurs with the ecclesiastical head 
 of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, in these observa- 
 tions: — "The claim of Episcopacy to be of divine 
 institution, and therefore obligatory on the Church, 
 rests fundamentally on the one question — has it the 
 authority of Scripture? If it has not, it is not ne- 
 cessarily binding." .... " This one point should be 
 kept in view in every discussion of the subject; no 
 argument is worth taking into account that has not 
 a palpable bearing on the clear and naked topic — 
 the scriptural evidence of Episcopacy."^ The con- 
 
 > " Episcopacy tested by Scripture," p. 3. 
 
100 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 elusions to which the scriptural 3.rgument has con- 
 ducted ns, in this inquiry, are not to be invahdated 
 by any array of mere patristic and traditionary 
 authorities. Tlie Christian fathers are entitled to the 
 same respect as men of equal piety and intelligence 
 in other ages of the Church ; but the exorbitant vene- 
 ration entertained for them by Romanists and High- 
 Churchmen, has been a source of incalculable mis- 
 chief to the Church. The writer has no sympathy 
 with that class of persons mentioned by Milton, who, 
 "as if the divine Scripture wanted a supplement, 
 and were to be eked out, cannot think any doubt 
 resolved and any doctrine confirmed, unless they run 
 to that undigested heap and fry of authors which 
 they call antiquity." For, with him, he believes that 
 " whatsoever time, or the heedless hand of blind 
 chance, hath drawn from of old to this present, in 
 her huge drag-net, whether fish or sea-weed, shells or 
 shrubs, unpicked, unchosen, those are the Fathers." i 
 The assurance, however, with which Prelatists are 
 in the habit of asserting that the testimony of the primi- 
 tive Church is entirely in their favour, makes it pro- 
 per to dwell on this point for a little before proceed- 
 ing with the argument. I shall show in another con- 
 nexion, that it was the common judgment of the Re- 
 formers and the Reformed Churches, that Bishops and 
 Presbyters are by divine institution of one order ^ and 
 that the existing arrangement in Prelatical Churches 
 by which the powers of jurisdiction and ordination 
 have been taken from Presbyters and given exclu- 
 sively to the Bishops, is a matter of mere human 
 arrangement. For the present, I content myself with 
 citing the testimony of a single witness from antiquity 
 
 • Treatise " of Prelatical Episcopacy." 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 101 
 
 in proof of these points. This witness is the celebra- 
 ted Jerome, who flourished about the year four hun- 
 dred, and of whom Erasmus declared, that " he was, 
 without controversy, the most learned of all Chris- 
 tians, the prince of divines, and for eloquence that he 
 excelled Cicero." The extracts that follow, will 
 furnish an adequate answer to the questions so often 
 asked about the time and manner of the rise of Pre- 
 lacy. I give them from Dr. Mason's translation. 
 The first passage is taken from Jerome's commentary 
 on Titus i. 5. 
 
 " That thou shouldest ordain Presbyters in every 
 city, as I had appointed thee." — " What sort of Pres- 
 byters ought to be ordained he shows afterwards : 
 " If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, &c., 
 and then adds, for a bishop must be blameless, as 
 the steward of God, &c. A Presbyter, therefore, is 
 the same as a Bishop, and before there were, by the 
 instigation of the devil, parties in religion, and it 
 was said among different people, ^ I am of Paul, and 
 I of ApoUos, and I of Cephas,' the churches were 
 governed by the joint counsel of the Presbyters. But 
 afterwards, when every one accounted those whom 
 he baptized as belonging to himself and not to Christ, 
 it was decreed throughout the whole world that one 
 chosen from among the Presbyters, should be put 
 over the rest, and that the whole care of the Church 
 should be committed to him, and the seeds of schisms 
 taken away. 
 
 "Should any one think that this is any private 
 opinion, and not the doctrine of the Scriptures, let 
 him read the words of the Apostle in his epistle to 
 the Philippians: "Paul and Timotheus, the servants 
 of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which 
 
 9* 
 
102 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons," &c. 
 Phihppi is a single city of Macedonia ; and certainly 
 in one city there could not be several Bishops as they 
 are now styled; but as they, at that time, called the 
 very same persons Bishops whom they called Pres- 
 byters, the Aposde has spoken without distinction of 
 Bishops as Presbyters. 
 
 " Should this matter yet appear doubtful to any 
 one, unless it be proved by an additional testimony ; 
 it is written in the Acts of the Apostles, that when 
 Paul had come to Miletum, he sent to Ephesus and 
 called the Presbyters of that Church, and among 
 other things said to them, ' take heed to yourselves 
 and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit hath 
 made you Bishops.' Take particular notice, that 
 calling the Presbyters of the single city of Ephesus, 
 he afterwards names the same persons Bishops." 
 After farther quotations from the Epistle to the He- 
 brews and from Peter, he proceeds: " Our intention 
 in these remarks is to show, that, among the ancients, 
 Presbyters and Bishops were the very same. But 
 that BY little and little, that the plants of dissen- 
 tions might be phicked up, the whole concern was 
 devolved upon an individual. As the Presbyters, 
 therefore, know that they are subjected, by the cus- 
 tom OF the church, to him who is set over them, so 
 let the Bishops know, that they are greater than Pres- 
 byters MORE BY CUSTOM, than by any real appoint- 
 ment OF Christ." 
 
 He pursues the same argument, with great point, 
 in his famous Epistle to Evagrius, asserting and prov- 
 ing from the Scriptures, that in the beginning and 
 during the Apostles' days, a Bishop and a Presbyter 
 were the same thing. He then goes on : "^As to the 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 103 
 
 fact that afterwards^ one was elected to preside 
 over the rest, this was done as a remedy against 
 schism ; lest every one drawing his proselytes to him- 
 self, should rend the Church of Christ. For even at 
 Alexandria, from the Evangelist Mark to the Bishops 
 Heraclas and Dionysius, the Presbyters always chose 
 one of their number, placed him in a superior station 
 and gave him the title of Bishop : in the same man- 
 ner as if an army should make an Emperor; or the 
 Deacons should choose from among themselves, one 
 whom they knew to be particularly active, and should 
 call him Arch-deacon. For excepting ordination, 
 what is done by a Bishop that may not be done by a 
 Presbyter?" 
 
 " Here," observes Dr. Mason, " is an account of 
 the origin and progress of Episcopacy, by a Father 
 whom the Episcopalians themselves admit to have 
 been the most able and learned man of his age ; and 
 how contradictory it is to their account, the reader 
 will be at no loss to perceive, when he shall have 
 followed us through an analysis of its several parts. 
 
 1. Jerome expressly denies the superiority of Bish- 
 ops to Presbyters by divine right. To prove his as- 
 sertion on this head he goes directly to the Scriptures; 
 and argues, as the advocates of parity do, from the 
 interchangeabte /zY/e^ of Bishop and Presbyter; from 
 the directions given to them without the least inti- 
 mation of difference in their authority ; and from the 
 powers of Presbyters, undisputed in his day. It is 
 very true that the reasoning from names is said by 
 those whom it troubles, to be " miserable sophistry" 
 and " good for nothing." But as Jerome advances it 
 with the utmost confidence, they might have forborne 
 such a compliment to " the prince of divines" in the 
 
104 . THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 fourth century; especially as none of his contempo- 
 raries, so far as we recollect, even attempted to 
 answer it. It is a little strange that laymen and 
 clergymen, deacons, priests, and bishops, should all 
 he silenced by a page of" miserable sophistry." 
 
 2. Jerome states it as a historical fact, that in the 
 original constitution of the Church, before the devil 
 had as much influence as he acquired afterwards, the 
 Churches were governed by the joint counsel of the 
 Presbyters. 
 
 3. Jerome states it as a historical fact, that this 
 government of the Churches by Presbyters alone, 
 continued until, for the avoiding of scandalous quar- 
 rels and schisms, it was thought expedient to alter it. 
 ''Afterwards^'' says he, "when every one accounted 
 those whom he baptized as belonging to himself and 
 not to Christ, it was decreed throughout the whole 
 wo7dd, that one chosen from among the Presbyters 
 should be put over the rest, and that the whole care 
 of the Church should be committed to him." 
 
 4. Jerome states it as a historical fact, that this 
 change in the government of the Church — this crea- 
 tion of a superior order of ministers, took place, not 
 at once, but by degrees — " Paulatim," says he, " by 
 little and little." The precise date on which this in- 
 novation upon primitive order commenced, he does 
 not mention; but he says positively that it did not 
 take place till the factious spirit of the Corinthians had 
 spread itself in different countries to an alarming ex- 
 tent. " In j)opulis,^^ is his expression. Assuredly 
 this was not the work of a day. . . The progress of 
 the mischief was gradual, and so, according to Jerome, 
 was the progress of the remedy which the wisdom of 
 the times devised. We agree with them who think 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 105 
 
 that the experiment introduced more evil than it 
 banished. 
 
 5. Jerome states as historical facts, that the eleva- 
 tion of one Presbyter over the others, was a human 
 contrivance; — was not imposed by authority, but 
 crept in by custom; — and that the Presbyters of his 
 day kneiu this very well. .^5, therefore, says he, the 
 Presbyters know that they are subjected to their 
 superior by custom; so let the Bishops know that 
 they are above the Presbyters, rather by the custom 
 OF THE Church, than by the Lord's appointment. 
 
 6. Jerome states it as a historical fact, that the 
 first Bishops were made by the Presbyters them- 
 selves; and consequently they could neither have nor 
 communicate any authority above that of Presbyters. 
 " Aflerwards,^^ says he, " to prevent schism, one was 
 elected to preside over the rest." Elected and com- 
 missioned by whom? By the Presbyters: for he 
 immediately gives you a broad fact which it is impos- 
 sible to explain away. ^At Alexandria,' he tells 
 you, <from the Evangelist Mark to the Bishops Her- 
 aclas and Dionysius,' i. e. till about the middle of the 
 third century, Uhe Presbyters always chose one of 
 their number, placed him, in a superior station and 
 gave him the title of Bishop. ^ " 
 
 Finally, Jerome states that even in his time, i. e. 
 toward the end of the fourth century, there was no 
 power excepting ordination, exercised by a Bishop 
 which might not be exercised by a Presbyter. " What 
 does a Bishop," he asks, "excepting ordination, 
 which a Presbyter may not do ?" Notwithstanding 
 the innovations he describes, had already been made, 
 and Episcopacy introduced, (as a remedy for schism !) 
 yet even in his time the new order of things was 
 
106 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 not wholly established. Ordination had been given 
 up to the Bishops, but the Presbyters had not sur- 
 rendered entirely the right o{ jurisdiction, nor indeed 
 any other right. They afterwards lost even this mea- 
 sure of independence. They were obliged to suc- 
 cumb to the Bishops, as the Bishops, in turn, were to 
 the Metropolitans and Patriarchs, and these, at last, 
 to the Pope. 
 
 Having quoted this lucid and instructive account of 
 the origin of Diocesan Episcopacy, I resume the line 
 of my argument on the Apostolical Succession. The 
 first two propositions which were laid down (see p. 
 45,) as comprising the High-Church theory, have 
 been examined, and, I think I may add, disproved. 
 If they fall, the remaining proposition, to wit: that 
 " THE Episcopal Bishops are the true and only 
 SUCCESSORS of THE APOSTLES," falls with them. It 
 may be satisfactory, however, to show that this 
 scheme derives as little support from History as it 
 does from the word of God. 
 
 The doctrine is, it will be remembered, not simply 
 that the Christian ministry as a standing order of men, 
 has been preserved in the Church from the Apostolic 
 age to the present time, but that there has been dur- 
 ing this whole period a personal succession of Jlpos- 
 tles or Prelates in an unbroken line; that each Apos- 
 tle or Bishop has received, in his consecration a mys- 
 terious " gift," and also transmits to every priest in 
 his ordination a mysterious "gift," indicated in the 
 respective offices by the awful words, " Receive the 
 Holy Ghost ;" that Bishops once consecrated are in- 
 vested with the remarkable property of transmitting 
 the «^ gift" to others; that this has been the case from 
 the primitive age till now, so that the Bishops of our 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 107 
 
 day have received the gift in question, by transmis- 
 sion through an unbroken series of Prelates, from the 
 Apostles. On this succession, let it be distinctly noted, 
 High-Churchmen suspend the validity of the orders 
 of their clergy at the present day and the very exist- 
 ence of the Church. 
 
 " There is no other way left," says Bishop Sea- 
 bury, (whose own orders, by the way, will hereafter 
 be shown to have been invalid,) to obtain a valid com- 
 mission to act as Christ's ministers in his Church but 
 by an uninterrupted succession of ordinations from 
 the Apostles. Where this is wanting, all spiritual 
 power in Christ's Church is wanting also."^ " Such 
 then," observes another American clergyman of the 
 Episcopal Church, "is the uninterrupted succession, — 
 a fact to which every Bishop, Priest, and Deacon in 
 the wide world, looks as the ground of validity in 
 his orders. Without this, all distinction between a 
 clergyman and a layman, is utterly vain, for no secu- 
 rity exists that heaven will ratify the acts of an ille- 
 gally constituted minister on earth. Without it, ordi- 
 nation confers none but humanly derived powers; 
 and what these are worth, the reader may estimate 
 when we tell him, that on proof of a real fracture in 
 the line of transmission between the first Bishops of 
 the American Church and the inspired Apostles, the 
 present Bishops will freely acknowledge themselves 
 to be mere laymen, and humbly retire from their 
 posts. "2 
 
 If, then, it can be proved that there has been no 
 such unbroken personal succession of Apostles or 
 Prelates, from the Apostolic age — if it can be shown 
 
 > Cited by Dr. Smyth. 
 
 2 Staunton's Diet, of the Church. (Id.) 
 
108 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 either that the chain is not fastened at its alleged 
 commencement, or Xhvii one solitary link is wanting — 
 it will follow, on their principles, that the ivhole 
 Episcopal clergy of the present day are ivithout 
 orders, that their Church is no Cliurch, that their 
 ordinances are invalid, that they and their children 
 have never been baptized, that they have never really 
 partaken of the Lord's Sapper, that they have no 
 interest in the promises, and that, as to their salvation, 
 they are left to God's " iincovenanted mercies!" 
 These consequences, I say, must, on High-Church 
 principles, (not on ours) inevitably follow, if a single 
 flaw can be detected in the chain of succession be- 
 tween the Apostles and the Bishops of our day. In- 
 telligent Episcopalians must judge for themselves of a 
 theory which rests the being of their Church and the 
 salvation of their souls upon a basis like this. 
 
 The first thing essential to make out this scheme, 
 is, to prove that the Apostles appointed successors in 
 the Apostolic office. We do not ask for proof that 
 they appointed successors ; for it is as much our 
 belief as it is that of Prelatists, that a permanent 
 ministry was instituted by our Saviour. But the 
 point to be established, is, that the line of Apostles 
 was to be perpetuated — that their successors were to 
 be, not Presbyters of co-equal rank and authority, 
 but officers clothed with the powers of the Apostle- 
 ship. It is undeniable that many of the most learned 
 Episcopal divines have acknowledged that there is no 
 adequate proof of a succession of this kind. The 
 least uncertainty, however, is fatal to the doctrine. A 
 bare doubt discredits the entire theory. 'In the mat- 
 ter of my salvation, I cannot trust to mere probabili- 
 ties and conjectures. I am told (I put the case as an 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 109 
 
 Episcopalian,) that my salvation is suspended upon 
 my receiving the ordinances at the hands of a Minis- 
 ter who can trace up his official descent through an 
 unbroken line of Prelates to the Apostles. I ask for 
 the evidence that the Apostles appointed successors, 
 and you lay before me proofs which have been re- 
 jected as unsatisfactory even by many of the ablest 
 divines of my own Church. I demand clear and de- 
 cisive scriptural authority, and you put me off with 
 what, on the most favourable construction, amounts 
 to nothing more than a faint probability — and that, 
 in reference to the very first links of the pretended 
 succession. Surely, you cannot expect me to peril 
 my salvation on a scheme like this.' If High-Church- 
 men would remove this difficulty, they vimsX, prove by 
 convincing arguments from Scripture and history, that 
 the Apostles were succeeded by Apostles. This alone 
 can allay the fears of Episoopahans who are alarmed 
 lest the chain they are clinging to may not be fastened 
 to the Rock. If they are unable to do this, they can 
 do nothing to the purpose. It will be of no avail 
 simply to show that the Apostles appointed ministers 
 to succeed them. Claiming, as the Prelates do, to be 
 the "heirs and representatives of the Apostles," they 
 must prove that the line of succession was one along 
 which the powers and prerogatives of the Apostleship 
 would run, that is, a line of Apostles. If they fail in 
 this, the defect is irremediable. 
 
 This, however, is but a very small part of the task 
 imposed upon the advocates of this theory. After 
 proving that the Apostles appointed successors, to 
 whom they imparted the "gift of the Holy Ghost," 
 and whom they clothed with the entire oversight and 
 control of the Church, they must be able to show that 
 
 10 
 
110 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 the subsequent links in this chain are all sound — that 
 no break has occurred either from inehgibiUty on* tiie 
 part of a candidate, uncanonical ordination, or any 
 other cause. This requisition is usually met by the 
 complacent exhibition of a catalogue of naiiies, pur- 
 porting to be a list of Prelates extending from the 
 Apostles down to the Bishops who now preside over 
 the Church of England and the Episcopal Church in 
 this country. These catalogues are published in book 
 and pamphlet form for general circulation. They 
 have no doubt been quite conclusive, with people of a 
 certain grade of intellect and intelligence, as to the 
 supposed Apostolic lineage of the present race of Pre- 
 lates, — with all, indeed, who agree with the tract 
 writers that it is "better to believe than to reason'' on 
 such subjects. But those who are so unreasonable 
 as not to be willing to believe without evidence, will 
 be disposed to go behind the catalogues and examine 
 the materials of which they are composed. 
 
 The first observation to be made in reference to 
 these lists, and the theory they are designed to estab- 
 lish, is, that no argument in support of the High- 
 Church doctrine of the Apostohcal Succession, can be 
 drawn from the mere fact that certain individuals, or 
 series of individuals, are styled ^^ Bishojjs^' by the 
 early ecclesiastical writers. That doctrine assumes 
 that Bishops are of a superior order to Presbyters — 
 that, in fact, they are Apostles, and, as such, clothed 
 with the functions and prerogatives of the original 
 Apostles. But even High-Church writers concede, 
 as has been shown, that the titles. Bishop and Pres- 
 byter, are used in the New Testament interchange- 
 ably, and that all that the New Testament contains 
 on the subject of Bishops, pertains to what is now 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. Ill 
 
 made the second order, viz., Presbyters. It is no less 
 certain that these titles were used interchangeably by 
 the early fathers. ^ That Prelacy soon began to dis- 
 close itself after the death of the Apostles, and was, 
 with various other liuman inventions in the Church, 
 pretty fully developed when the empire embraced 
 Christianity under Constantino the Great, in the fourth 
 century, is not denied. But this does not enervate 
 the presumptian that the " Bishops" whom we meet 
 with in the second and third centuries were parochial^ 
 not diocesan, Bishops. The testimony of Jerome, 
 given a few pages back, is conclusive on this point. 
 If further confirmation of it were needed, it might be 
 found in a fact which is incompatible with any theory 
 that assumes the Apostolic origin of Episcopacy; I 
 mean, the great number of Bishops in the early 
 Church. Bingham states, that in «^Asia Minor, a 
 tract of land not much larger than the isle of Great 
 Britain, there were about four hundred Bishops.'^ 
 Bishop Burnet mentions that at a conference between 
 Augustine and the Donatists, in Africa, about the 
 year 410, there were present between five and six 
 hundred Bishops from, as it would seem, a single 
 province. And, according to Victor Uticensis, a 
 writer of the fifth century, "from that part of Africa 
 in which the Vandalic persecution raged, six hundred 
 and sixty Bishops fled, besides a great number that 
 were murdered and imprisoned, and many more who 
 were tolerated." — One must be a pretty resolute Pre- 
 latist not to be willing to admit that these bishops 
 could only have been parish ministers. Indeed, if 
 there is any one fact that can be demonstrated from 
 
 > Sec the passages collated by Dr. Miller, Dr. Smyth, and other 
 Presbyterian writers. 
 
112 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 the records of Christian antiquity, it is, that the Bishop 
 of those days was the hisliop of only one church. 
 This is conchisively estabhshed by Sir Peter King in 
 his work on the Primitive Church. In that work he 
 shows (ell. ii.) that ^' there was hut one Church to a 
 bis hop. ^^ In proof of this he states, that 
 
 1. "The ancient dioceses are never said to con- 
 tain churches, but only a church?^ " As for the 
 word dioceses," he says, "by which the bishop's flock 
 is now expressed, I do not remember that ever I 
 found it used in this sense by any of the ancients,'' 
 
 2. "All the people- of a diocess did every Sunday 
 meet all together in one place to celebrate divine 
 service. 
 
 3. " The bishop had but one altar or communion- 
 table in his whole diocess. So writes Cyprian: 'We 
 celebrate the sacrament, the whole brotherhood being 
 present.' 
 
 4. " The other sacrament of baptism was generally 
 administered by the bishops alone within their respec- 
 tive dioceses. 
 
 5. " The church's charity was deposited with the 
 bishop, who, as Justin Martyr reports, was ' the 
 common curator and overseer of aJl the orphans, 
 widows, diseased, strangers, imprisoned, and, in a 
 word, of all those that were needy and indigent.' 
 
 6. " All the people of a diocess were present at 
 church-censures. 
 
 7. "No offenders were restored again to the church's 
 peace, without the knowledge and consent of the 
 whole diocess. 
 
 8. "' When the bishop of a church was dead, all the 
 people of that church met together in one place to 
 choose a new bishop. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 113 
 
 9. " At the ordioation of the clergy, the whole body 
 of the people were present." 
 
 From these and many other facts he mentions, the 
 learned chancellor, with good reason, concludes that 
 a primitive diocess corresponded to a modern parish, 
 and that a primitive bishop was the bishop of only 
 a single church. 
 
 When, therefore, we are told that the ecclesiastical 
 historian, Eusebius, who lived in the fourth century, 
 and to whom, almost exclusively, Prelatists are in- 
 debted for the catalogues of Bishops, from the days 
 of the Apostles to his own, (between two and three 
 hundred years,) when we are told that Eusebius 
 speaks of Bishops as being superior to Presbyters 
 in his time, and that he has preserved lists of the 
 Bishops in the order of succession after the Apostles, 
 we are tempted to ask, with the venerable Dr. Miller, 
 " Does Eusebius say that the Bishops of his day were 
 a. different orr/er from the Presbyters? Does he de- 
 clare that there was a superiority of order vested in 
 Bishops by divine appointment? Does he assert 
 that Bishops in the days of the Apostles and for a 
 century afterwards, were the sam,e kind of officers 
 with those who were called by the same title in the 
 fourth century ? Does he tell us that this superior 
 order of clergy were the only ecclesiastical officers 
 who were allowed, in his day, to ordain and con- 
 firm? I have never met with a syllable of all this in 
 Eusebius. All that can be gathered from him, is, 
 that there were persons called Bishops in the days 
 of the Apostles; that there had been a succession of 
 Bishops in the Church from the Apostles to the fourth 
 century when he lived; and that, in his day, there 
 was a distinction between Bishops and other Pres- 
 
 10^ 
 
114 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 byters." All which may be admitted without the 
 least detriment to our argument, or the slightest 
 benefit to the High-Church theory. To make Euse- 
 bius an available witness for them, they are obliged 
 to assume the very point on which we are at issue, 
 viz., that the individuals styled Bishops, in the early 
 ages, were Diocesan Bishops — an assumption as 
 legitimate as would be that of an Oriental Prelatist, 
 who, on looking over an itinerant copy of the Min- 
 utes of our last General Assembly, and finding the 
 word "Bishops'' at the top of the column containing 
 the names of the clerical members, should infer from 
 this circumstance, that there were one hundred dio- 
 cesan Bis flops in that Assembly, and that our Chnrch 
 was governed by Prelates. Even admitting, then, 
 the correctness of the catalogues furnished by this 
 historian, it still remains to be proved that all his 
 Bishops were Prelates and not Presbyter-bishops. 
 
 But let us, in the next place, see what account Eu- 
 sebius gives us of these pretended catalogues, and 
 ascertain whether he placed that implicit confidence 
 in them which ive must do before we can suspend 
 our salvation upon their genuineness. So far is this 
 early historian from speaking on this subject in the 
 positive manner so characteristic of modern High- 
 Churchmen, that in the beginning of his work he 
 craves the indulgence of his readers, as one who 
 is " attempting a kind of h^ackless and unbeaten 
 path.''^ "We are totally unable to find even the bare 
 vestiges of those who may have travelled the way 
 before us; unless, perhaps, what is only presented in 
 the slight intimations, which some in different ways 
 have transmitted to us in certain partial narratives 
 of the times in which they lived ; who, raising their 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 115 
 
 voices before us, like torches at a distance, and as 
 looking down from some commanding height, call 
 out and exhort us where we should walk and whith- 
 er direct our course with certainty and safety." ^ 
 Accordingly, his account of the labours of the Apos- 
 tles themselves is so defective, that he is able to 
 mention the parts of the world where most of them 
 preached the Gospel, only by tradition and hear- 
 say.^ In relation to their immediate successors also, 
 he frankly acknowledges that he can name them 
 only by rumour. Thus of the important Church of 
 Jerusalem, he says^ " the rejjort is'^ that Simeon 
 was elected Bishop after the martyrdom of James. 
 And as to the subsequent successions in that Church, 
 he afterwards says, " JVe have not ascertained, in 
 any way, that the times of the Bishops in Jeru- 
 salem have been regularly preserved on record, for 
 TRADITION says that they all lived but a very short 
 time.'^^ No less candid is he, and, 1 may add, no 
 less conclusive in his testimony against the Prelatic 
 pretensions of our times, in reference to the succes- 
 sors of Peter and Paul. I give the passage with Stil- 
 lingfleet's comments. "Who dare with confidence 
 believe the conjectures of Eusebius at three hundred 
 years distance from apostolical times, when he hath 
 no other testimony to vouch, but the hypotheses of 
 an uncertain Clement, (certainly not he of Alexan- 
 dria, if Joseph Scaliger may be credited,) and the com- 
 mentaries of Hegesippus, whose relations and author- 
 ity are as questionable as many of the reports of 
 Eusebius himself are in reference to those elder 
 times: for which I need no other testimony but Eu- 
 
 iBookl. Ch. I. Mbid.Ch. 11. 
 
 2ibid. III. Ch. 1. 4 Ibid. IV. Ch. 5. 
 
116 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 sebius in a place enough of itself to blast the whole 
 credit of antiquity, as to the matter now in debate. 
 For speaking of Paul and Peter, and the churches 
 by them planted, and coming to inquire after their 
 successors, he makes this very ingenuous confession : 
 * There being so many of them, and some naturally 
 rivals, it is not easy to say Avhich of them were ac- 
 counted eligible to govern the churches established, 
 unless it be those that Ave may select out of the wri- 
 tings of Paul' (Book III. ch. 4.) Say you so ? Is it 
 so hard a matter to find out who succeeded the 
 Apostles in the churches planted by them, unless it be 
 those mentioned in the writings of Paul? What be- 
 comes, then, of our unquestionable line of succession 
 of the Bishgps of several churches, and the large dia- 
 grams made of the apostolical churches with every 
 one's name set down in his order, as if the writer had 
 been Clarenceaiilx to the Apostles themselves ? Is 
 it come to this, at last, that we have nothing certain 
 but what we have in Scriptures? And must then 
 the tradition of the Church be our rule to interpret 
 Scriptures by? An excellent way to find out the 
 truth doubtless, to bend the rule to the crooked stick, 
 to make the judge stand to the opinion of his lacquey, 
 what sentence he shall pass upon the cause in ques- 
 tion ; to make Scripture stand cap in hand to tradi- 
 tion, to know whether it may have liberty to speak 
 or not ! Are all the great outcries of apostolical tra- 
 dition, of personal succession, of unquestionable re- 
 cords, resolved at last into the Scripture itself by him 
 from whom all these long pedigrees are fetched? 
 Then let succession know its place, and learn to vaile 
 bonnet to the Scriptures. And, witlial, let men take 
 heed of over- reaching themselves where they would 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 117 
 
 bring down so large a catalogue of single Bishops 
 from the first and purest times of the Church ; for it 
 will be hard for others to believe them, when Euse- 
 bins professeth it is so hard to Jind them.''^ 
 
 This view of the inextricable confusion in which 
 the whole subject of the early successions is involved, 
 will be confirmed, if we advert more particularly to 
 the cases of two or three of the leading Churches. 
 Take, for example, the Church of Ephesus. The 
 second link in the succession here, according to Prel- 
 atists, is Timothy. His claim to the diocese has 
 been so fully investigated, that we need not spend 
 any more time upon it. But, allowing that Timothy 
 was Apostle or Bishop of Ephesus, who were his 
 successors ? This question is answered by the exhi- 
 bition of a catalogue of twenty-seven reputed Bishops 
 of this Church, which catalogue rests entirely on the 
 authority of one Leontius, Bishop of Magnesia, who 
 lived about four hundred years after the time of the 
 Apostles. This I.eontius, in the Council of Chalce- 
 don, made this statement : " From Timothy to this 
 day there hath been a succession of seven and twenty 
 Bishops, all of them ordained in Ephesus." The 
 latter part of this statement, however, was promptly 
 denied in the Council by Philip a Presbyter of 
 Constantinople, and was also disproved by Actius, 
 arch-deacon of Constantinople. And Stillingfleet has 
 aptly observed, that " if the certainty of succession 
 relies on the credit of Leontius, they may thank the 
 Council of Chalcedon, who have sufficiently blasted 
 it, by determining the cause against him in the main 
 evidence produced by him." 
 
 Take, as another example, the Church of Antioch. 
 
 ' Irenicum, Ch. VI. 
 
118 THE HIGH-CIIURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 Eiisebiiis, Chrysostom, Jerome, Pope Leo, Innocent, 
 Gelasius, and Gregory the Great, all tell ns that this 
 Church was founded by Peter. Let us see how this 
 agrees with Scripture. We are told. Acts xi. 19, that 
 "they which were scattered abroad upon the perse- 
 cution which arose about Stephen, travelled as far as 
 Phoenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch^ preaching the 
 word to the Jews," &c. It was upon this occasion, 
 then, that Christianity was first planted in Antioch. 
 Subsequently Barnabas, and after him, Paul went 
 thither ; and these tAvo remained there for a whole 
 year. So that Paul was rather the founder of this 
 Church, than Peter, who, notwithstanding the posi- 
 tive assertion of Chrysostom and others, that he was 
 the founder and for a long time the Bishop of the 
 Church, did not according to the New Testament, 
 even visit Antioch until after the council at Jerusa- 
 lem. Then, as to the succession, Baronius assures 
 us that the Apostles left two Bishops behind them in 
 this place, one for the Jews, the other for the Gen- 
 tiles. Bat what, then, becomes of the unity of the 
 Episcopate? Not to press this embarrassing ques- 
 tion, however, who were these two Bishops ? Baro- 
 nius answers, they Avere Ignatius and Euodias. Eu- 
 sebius says expressly, that Euodias was the first 
 Bishop of Antioch, and that Ignatius succeeded him. 
 On the other hand, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and the 
 author of the Constitutions declare, with equal con- 
 fidence, that Peter and Paul both laid their hands on 
 Ignatius; but, unfortunately, it appears that Peter 
 was dead before Ignatius was Bishop in this place.' 
 Is the chain of succession from Antioch^ strong enough 
 to sustain all that Prelatists would hang upon it? 
 
 1 VideCalamy's Defence of Moderate Non-Conformity, vol. i. pp. 165-9. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 119 
 
 Let US turn next to Rome. Here, if any where, 
 we may expect to find the succession clear and indis- 
 putable.. If this chain gives way, the Romish and 
 Anglican Churches, and the Episcopal Church in this 
 country, must all relinquish their claim to be regard- 
 ed as Churches ; for to this they are suspended. The 
 theory is that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. 
 Now there is no satisfactory evidence that Peter was 
 ever at Rome : and this point is debated among the 
 learned, to the present day. In the next place, 
 allowing him to have been at Rome, and to have 
 resided there for a time, there is no evidence that he 
 was Bishoj) of Rome. Many of the most eminent 
 Episcopal writers have held with Dr. Barrow, that it 
 would have been derogatory to the Apostles, whose 
 commission embraced the world, to become diocesan 
 Bishops. Speaking of the very question under con- 
 sideration, Barrow says, it would have been as great 
 a disparagement to the Apostolical majesty, for Peter 
 to have taken upon himself the bishopric of Rome, as 
 it would be for the King to become Mayor of Lon- 
 don, or the Bishop of London to become the vicar of 
 Pancras. ^ 
 
 But allowing for the sake of argument, that Peter 
 was Bishop of Rome, who were his successors ? One 
 would suppose from the confidence with which High- 
 Churchmen profess to be able to trace up their gene- 
 alogy to the Apostles, that this was a point about 
 which there was no difference of opinion. So remote 
 is this from the truth, however, that the succession at 
 Rome is, to use StiUingfleet's expressive phrase, " as 
 muddy as the Tiber itself.''^ Let a plain man who 
 is told that his salvation depends upon his receiving 
 
 ' On the Pope's Supremacy, p. 208. 
 
120 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 the sacraments at the hands of a mhiister who can 
 trace up his ecclesiastical lineage to the Apostles 
 through an unbroken line of Prelates or Apostles, 
 ponder this summary of opinions about the Roman 
 Succession. "Some will have Cletus expunged out 
 of the table, as the same with Anacletus; and so 
 Linus is fixed at the head of the succession, and fol- 
 lowed by Anacletus and Clemens. Thus Irenaeus 
 represents it. At the same time in some ancient cata- 
 logues, Anacletus is excluded; and he is not at this 
 day to be found in the canon of the mass: and yet 
 the Roman Martyrology speaks distinctly of Cletus 
 and Anacletus and gives a very different account of 
 their birth, pontificate and martyrdom. Epiphanius 
 mentions Cletus but omits Anacletus. He puts the 
 first Bishops of Rome, in this order: Peter and Paul, 
 Linus, Cletus, Clemens, and Euaristus. In Bucher's 
 catalogue they stand thus : Linus, Cletus, Clemens, 
 and Anacletus; and many ancient catalogues agree; 
 and three are left out, viz. Anicetus, Eleutherius, 
 and Zephyrinus. And what shall we do with the 
 famous Clement? Does he style himself Bishop of 
 Rome? Or how came he to forget his title ? ^Tis 
 said by some that after he had been St. Paul's com- 
 panion, and chosen by St. Peter to be Bishop there, 
 he gave place to Linus. While others assert, that 
 Linus and Cletus were Bishops at the same time ; 
 and others, Linus and Clemens. TertuUian and. 
 Ruffinus and some others place Clement next Peter. 
 Irenaeus and Eusebius set Anacletus before him; 
 Optatus, both Anacletus and Cletus: and Austin and 
 Damascus make Anacletus, Cletus, and Linus, all to 
 precede him."^ This is, in truth, " as muddy as the 
 
 1 Calamy, Vol I. p. 172. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 121 
 
 TiherP And who can clarify it ? The learning and 
 wisdom both of the ancients and the moderns have 
 been employed upon it, and with no other result 
 than to increase the turbidness of the stream. What- 
 ever theory of the succession any one adopts, he will 
 find arrayed against him writers of profound erudi- 
 tion and high authority. The question is one on 
 which the Fathers differ widely among themselves, 
 and the best historians are hopelessly- at variance 
 with one another. Nor is the appropriate order of 
 the names, the only point involved in the controversy. 
 The very grave question is raised as to one of these 
 names, whether such an individual ever existed. 
 The authorities that have been cited, seem about 
 equally divided as to whether CletUs and Anacletus 
 were two individuals or one. One class retain them 
 both ; while of the other, some discard Cletus from 
 the succession as a mere imaginary personage, and 
 others repudiate Anacletus. On High-Church princi- 
 ples, let it be remembered, if a single link is wanting, 
 the chain is destroyed and the Church annihilated. 
 And yet here is a point in the chain at which men of 
 equal learning and ability are in doubt whether there 
 is one link or two or none at all. — We have only be- 
 gun, however, to point out the difficulties with which 
 this scheme is encumbered. 
 
 Even if we could be certain — which we cannot 
 be — that all the individuals named in the pretended 
 catalogues of Bishops from the days of the Apostles 
 to our own, actually existed, there would still remain 
 a variety of questions to be settled, which, as to a 
 large number of these persons, no human being can 
 answer. Before I can rest my hope of eternal life 
 upon the integrity of the alleged succession, I must 
 
 H 
 
122 THE HiaH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 have explicit information respecting every individual 
 named in the Hst, upon these points: 1. Was he 
 eligible to the Prelacy or Apostleship ? 2. Was he 
 properly elected or appointed? 3. Was he canoni- 
 cally ordained and consecrated? 4. Were these seve- 
 ral conditions fulfilled in tlie case of his ordainers — 
 that is, were they, at the period of their several ap- 
 pointments, eligihle; were they legally chosen, and 
 canonically ordained? Let no Prelatist reply, that 
 " this is asking too much.'^ In the matter of my sal- 
 vation, I am not to be put off with mere conjectures 
 and probabilities. I must have certainty. .Since 
 this doctrine of the succession is placed on an equality 
 with the doctrines of the atonement, justification 
 through the righteousness of Christ, and regeneration, 
 or rather enthroned above them, I require the same 
 certainty as to the integrity of every link in the suc- 
 cession, that I have concerning those doctrines as 
 constituting a part of God's revealed word. If no- 
 thing could vitiate the succession but the absence of 
 a link — the omission to consecrate a Bishop at any 
 given point in the series — a mere unbroken list of 
 names duly authenticated might suffice. But, on 
 High-Church principles, there are many circumstances 
 which are to be regarded as disqualifying for the 
 Episcopal office. The following, among others, are 
 enumerated by canonists : — Being unbaptized (or 
 having only lay-baptism;) being unordained, or not 
 having passed through the subordinate offices; being 
 unconsecrated; being consecrated by only one Bishop ; 
 being under age; having obtained the see by Simony; 
 being ordained by the Bishop of another province; 
 entertaining heretical opinions ; being addicted to gam- 
 bling and intoxication; having been elected by force; 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 123 
 
 and others such Uke.i What I demand, is, satisfac- 
 tory historical evidence that none of these disquaU- 
 fications attach to a single individual in the hst of 
 Bishops, or Apostles, on the validity of which I am 
 asked to stake my salvation. If a single link be 
 faulty, the sacramental virtue which, it is alleged is 
 transmitted along the line of the Apostolical Succes- 
 sion, must 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 hot been pre- 
 viously rightly ordained, his ordinations are null; and 
 so are the ministrations of those ordained by him; and 
 their ordinations of others; (supposing any of the per- 
 sons ordained by him to attain to the Episcopal office) 
 and so on, without end. The poisonous faint of infor- 
 mality, if it once creep in undetected, will spread the 
 infection of nullity to an indefinite and irremediable 
 extent. 
 
 " And who can undertake" (the argument is none 
 the worse for being that of a learned and very able 
 Jlrchbishop,^ now living,) " to pronounce that during 
 that long period usually designated as the Dark Ages, 
 no such taint ever was introduced? Irregularities 
 could not have been wholly excluded without a per- 
 petual miracle; and that no such miraculous inter- 
 ference existed, we have even historical proof. Amidst 
 the numerous corruptions of doctrine and of practice, 
 and gross superstitions, that crept in during those 
 
 1 Vide AndreaB Synops. Juris Canonici, Lovanii, 1734. Caranzae 
 Summa Conciliarum, Duaci, 1679. Beveregii Pandectae Canonutn 
 S. S. Apostoll. et Concill., 2 vols. fol. Oxon. 1672. Justelli Bibli- 
 otheca Juris Canon., &c., 2 vols. fol. Lutetiae, 1661. (Cited by Mr. 
 Lindsay Alexander, in his " Anglo-Catholicism not Apostolical.") 
 
 2 Dr. Whateley, Archbishop of Dublin. 
 
124 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 ages, we find recorded descriptions not only of the 
 profound ignorance and profligacy of life, of many of 
 the clergy, but also of the grossest irregularities in 
 respect of discipline and form. We read of Bishops 
 consecrated when mere children; — of men officiating 
 who barely knew their letters; — of Prelates expelled, 
 and others put into their places by violence; — of illit- 
 erate and profligate laymen, and habitual drunkards 
 admitted to holy orders; — and, in short, of the pre- 
 valence of every kind of disorder, and reckless dis- 
 regard of the decency which the Apostle enjoins. It 
 is inconceivable that any one even moderately ac- 
 quainted with history, can feel a certainty, or any 
 approach to certainty, that, amidst all this confusion 
 and corruption, every requisite form was, in everjr 
 instance, strictly adhered to, by men, many of them 
 openly profane and secular, unrestrained by public 
 opinion, through the gross ignorance of the popula- 
 tion among which they lived; and that no one not 
 duly consecrated or ordained, was admitted to sacred 
 offices. 
 
 "Even in later and more civilized times, the proba- 
 bility of an irregularity, though very greatly dimin- 
 ished, is yet diminished only, and not absolutely des- 
 troyed. Even in the memory of persons living, 
 there existed a Bishop concerning whom there was 
 so much mystery and uncertainty prevailing as to 
 when, where, and by whom, he had been ordained, 
 that doubts existed in the minds of many persons 
 whether he had ever been ordained at all. I do not 
 say that there was good ground for the suspicion ; but 
 I speak of the fact that it did prevail; and that the 
 circumstances of the case were such as to make mani- 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 125 
 
 fest the 2^ossibility oi such an irregularity occurring 
 under such circumstances. 
 
 " Now, let any one proceed on the hypothesis that 
 there are, suppose, but a hundred links connecting 
 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 probability will result from the mul- 
 tiplying of the whole togethe'r.^ The ultimate con- 
 sequence must be, that any one who sincerely be- 
 lieves that his claim to the benefits of the Gospel 
 Covenant depends on his own minister's claim to the 
 supposed sacramental virtue of true ordination, and 
 this again, on perfect Apostolical Succession as above 
 described, must be involved, in proportion as he reads, 
 and inquires, and reflects, and reasons, on the sub- 
 ject, in the most distressing doubt and perplexity. 
 
 " It is no wonder, therefore, that the advocates of 
 this theory studiously disparage reasoning, deprecate 
 
 ' Supposing it to be one hundred to one, in each separate case, 
 
 in favour of the legitimacy 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 
 
 _9_9_ of _9_9_. of _9_9_. &c. to the end of the whole fifty. Of course, 
 10 10 100' , ■^ * 
 
 if different data are assumed, or a different system is adopted of 
 
 computing the rate at which the uncertainty increases at each step, 
 the ultimate result will be different as to the degree of uncertainty ; 
 but when once it is made apparent that a considerable and continu- 
 ally increasing uncertainty does exist, and that the result must be, 
 in respect of any individual case, a matter of chance^ it can be of 
 no great consequence to ascertain precisely what the chances are 
 on either side/ 
 
 11^ 
 
126 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 all exercise of the mind in reflection, decry appeals to 
 evidence, and lament that even the power of reading 
 should be imparted to the people. It is not without 
 cause that they dread and lament * an age of too 
 much light,' and wish to involve religion in «a so- 
 lemn and awful gloom.' It is not without cause 
 that, having removed the Christian's confidence from 
 a rock, to base it on sand, they forbid all prying curi- 
 osity to examine their foundation." ^ 
 
 The learned Archbishop is not alone in these 
 views. Chillingworth, in his great work entitled 
 "The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salva- 
 tion," has occasion to controvert this dogma of an 
 unbroken apostolical succession, and thus sums up 
 his argument. " In fine, to know this one thing, 
 (viz. that such or such a man is a priest,) you must 
 first know ten thousand others, whereof not any one 
 is a thing that can be known, there being no necessity 
 that it should be true, which only can qualify any 
 thing for an object of science; but only, at the best, 
 a high degree of probability that it is so. But then, 
 that often thousand probables no one should be false; 
 that of ten thousand requisites whereof any one may 
 fail, not one should be wanting, this to me is ex- 
 tremely improbable, nay, even cousin-german to im- 
 possible. So that the assurance hereof is like a ma- 
 chine composed of an innumerable multitude of 
 pieces, of which it is strangely unlike but some will 
 be out of order ; and yet, if any one be so, the whole 
 fabric of necessity falls to the ground. And he that 
 shall put them together, and maturely consider all 
 the possible ways of lapsing and nullifying a priest- 
 hood in the Church of Rome, I believe, will be very 
 
 1 Essays on the Kingdom of Chritit, pp. 183—6. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL STJCCl:SSION. 127 
 
 inclinable to think, that it is an hundred to one, that 
 amongst an hundred seeming priests, there is not one 
 true one/^i 
 
 It is common for Romanists and High-Churchmen 
 to say, that Chillingworth presents, in this passage, a 
 very exaggerated view of the difficulties of their case. 
 But allowing that the "chances" are less than a 
 "hundred to one" against the validity of the claim of 
 any particular minister to the true succession, still 
 there must be in eve7'y case some measure of uncer- 
 tainty, and this being settled, "it can be," as Dr. 
 Whateley -has observed, "of no great consequence to 
 ascertain precisely what the chances are on either 
 side." Chillingworth's conclusion, however, is not to 
 be invahdated by any appeal to the caution and regu- 
 larity which now usually mark the induction of men 
 into holy orders. It is to be remembered that eighteen 
 centuries have elapsed since the days of the Apostles; 
 that the Church has passed through protracted sea- 
 sons of disorder, of persecution and of declension; 
 and that the countries in which Christianity has chiefly 
 prevailed, have been repeatedly and for long periods 
 together, filled with all the confusion and turmoil in- 
 separable from wars and revolutions. Is there the 
 slightest probability that, under these circumstances, 
 all the canonical requisitions have been duly attended 
 to in every instance of prelatical consecration? Take, 
 for example, these general statistics in reference to 
 the Church of Rome. (It will be shown, hereafter, 
 that the Episcopal Church in Great Britain and 
 America, derives its succession from the Church of 
 Rome.) From a. d. 604 to 806, there were thirty- 
 
 iPartl. Ch. 2.Sec. 67. 
 
128 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 five Popes, whose average life did not, of course, ex- 
 ceed six years. In the next one hundred and fifty- 
 three years, there were no less than fifty-eight Popes, 
 whose official life averaged from two to three years ! 
 In the next period, down to 1512, there are seventy- 
 one Popes — averaging a reign of six years each. — 
 Then, amidst the uncertainty and confusion which 
 such figures indicate, we find, on turning to ecclesias- 
 tical history, that among the Popes, there were fre- 
 quent depositions, restorations, rivalries and schisms — 
 that sometimes there were several Popes reigning at 
 one time, one excommunicating another — and some- 
 times there was no Pope at all, but vacancies in the 
 Roman See. There was a schism carried on by four 
 anti-Popes in the twelfth century, which lasted for 
 twenty-one years ; and another in the fourteenth cen- 
 tury, which lasted for thirty-one years; in which 
 periods, probably every Episcopal See in Europe was 
 filled by several Bishops, who received their nomina- 
 tion or ordination from some one or other of the rival 
 Popes; — and yet the Council of Constance deposed 
 two of them, and received the resignation of a third, 
 before appointing Martin to the Pontificate. What 
 becomes of the succession, and of the validity of ordi- 
 nances, in cases like these ?^ 
 
 " In our own Island (says Mr. Macauley, in his 
 elaborate article on Church and State in the Edin- 
 burgh Review) 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 
 
 ' Vide MitcheU's Presbyterian Letters. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 129 
 
 Danish pirates, unchristened, or christened by the 
 hundred on the field of battle, were mingled with a 
 Saxon peasantry scarcely better instructed in religion. 
 The state of Ireland was still worse. " Tota ilia per 
 imiversam Hiberniam dissolutio ecclesiasticae discip- 
 linae, — ilia ubique pro consuetudine Christiana saeva 
 subintroducta barbaries" — are the expressions of St. 
 Bernard. We are, therefore, 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 un- 
 der King Ethelwolf, a stupid priest might not, while 
 baptizing several scores of Danish soldiers who had 
 just made their option between the font and the gal- 
 lows, inadvertently omit to perform the rite on one of 
 these graceless proselytes? — whether, in the seventh 
 century, an impostor who had never received conse- 
 cration, 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 often?" 
 
 Again, he says, " Let us suppose — and we are sure 
 that no person will think the supposition by any 
 means improbable — that in the third century, a man 
 of no principle and some parts, who has, in the course 
 of a roving and discreditable life, been a catechumen 
 at Antioch,and has there become familiar with Chris- 
 tian usages and doctrines, afterwards rambles to Mar- 
 seilles where he finds a Christian society, rich, liberal, 
 and simple-hearted. He pretends to be a Christian, 
 attracts notice by his abilities and affected zeal, and 
 is raised to the Episcopal dignity without ever hav- 
 
130 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 ing been baptized. That such an event might hap- 
 pen, nay, was very hkely to happen, cannot well be 
 disputed by any one who has read the Life of Pere- 
 grinus. .... Now, this unbaptized impostor is evi- 
 dently no successor of the Apostles. He is not even 
 a Christian; and all orders derived through such a 
 pretended bishop, are altogether invalid. Do we 
 know enough of the state of the world, and of the 
 Church in the third century, to be able to say with 
 confidence that there were not at that time twenty 
 such pretended bishops ? Every such case makes a 
 break in the Apostolical Succession.'^ ^ 
 
 The intimation here thrown out, that the case of 
 Peregrinus was by no means peculiar even in the 
 early church, is confirmed by numerous well-attested 
 facts. Eusebius states that the famous Novatian ob- 
 tained consecration as a bishop by inveigling three 
 bishops, " ignorant and simple men," into bad com- 
 pany, where, after they had become "heated with 
 wine and surfeiting," he induced them to lay hands 
 upon him. 2 In the history of the proceedings of the 
 Council of Nice mention is made of one Melitius who, 
 after being deposed by his superior, went about con- 
 ferring ordination, and whose ordinations the council 
 agreed to admit, on condition that those by whom 
 they had been received, should occupy a sort of 
 second place to those who had been catholically or- 
 dained. ^ In the fourth century we find Jerome la- 
 menting the profligacy, the avarice, and general cor- 
 ruption of the clergy of all ranks. Gregory of Nan- 
 
 1 Miscellanies, vol. iii. pp. 299-301. 
 
 2 Hist. Eccl. Lib. vi. 43. 
 
 3 Socratis H. E. Lib. i. 9. Sozomeni H. E. Lib, i. 24.— Cited, with 
 most of the following examples by Mr. Alexander. 
 
THE Al'OSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 131 
 
 zianzum complains bitterly and frequently of the 
 same thing; telling us in one place, that "bishoprics 
 were oblained not by virtue, but by craft, and were 
 the perquisite not of the worthiest but of the strong- 
 est;" in another place denouncing some who could 
 be " Simon Magus to-morrow, though to-day Simon 
 Peter;" and in another, informing us of one who, 
 though uni)aptize<l and unconverted, was forced by 
 the joopulace to assume the office of bishop, i This 
 happened also in the case of Ambrose, bishop of 
 Milan, who describes himself as not nursed in the 
 bosom of the Church, but snatched from the courts of 
 law and compelled to be a Bishop. The case of 
 Synesius, Bishop of Cyrene was analagous : he tells 
 us that he would rather have died a thousand deaths 
 than become a bishop, laments the loss of his hunting 
 establishment and pursuits, acknowledges himself a 
 skejjtic on some points of the Christian religion, and 
 claims the privilege of deceiving the people, on the 
 ground that as darkness is good for those afflicted 
 with ophthalmia, so a falsehood is advantageous to 
 the mob, whilst truth may be noxious. ^ These testi- 
 monies relate, it will be observed, to the first four 
 centuries, that golden age in the Puseyite calendar, 
 whose Christianity is the model to which they are 
 labouring so assiduously to bring back the Church. 
 
 There is ample evidence that these gross irregular- 
 ities, so disastrous to the theory of an unbroken pre- 
 latical succession, increased in number and enormity 
 through the dark ages. But before citing further 
 examples it may be proper to show from what source 
 
 1 Orat. 43, in laudem Basil. Carm. de se ipso ver. 430. Orat. 19. 
 
 2 Ep. 63, 11, 105. 
 
132 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 the British aiid American Prelates of the present 
 day derive their succession. 
 
 The favourite theory of High-Churchmen, is, that 
 the British Church was planted by Apostohc hands — 
 that it was duly organized under Bishops, Priests, 
 and Deacons, long .before the Church of Rome at- 
 tempted to extend her jurisdiction to Britain — that 
 Romanism was subsequently superinduced upon the 
 ancient Church, and uncanonically controlled it for 
 several centuries ; and that the Reformation was 
 nothing more than the old British Church throwing 
 ofT the Papal yoke, and resuming, the plenary posses- 
 sion and exercise of those powers and functions which 
 had by compulsion been held for a time in abeyance. 
 It is one thing to frame a theory, and quite another to 
 prove it. This theory fails hi a point of as much 
 moment to a theory as an edifice, viz. the founda- 
 tion. The best historians of the Church of England 
 speak of the Apostles having introduced Christianity 
 into Britain as a mere supposition or possibility. 
 Such is the view of all, it is believed, of the late his- 
 torians — certainly of Bishop Short, Churton, Blunt, 
 and Burton. " We need not," says the last of these 
 writers, "believe the traditions concerning its first 
 conversion ; and it is right to add that the earliest 
 writer who speaks of Britain as having been visited 
 by any of the Apostles is Eusebius who wrote at the 
 beginning of the fourth century; and the earliest 
 writer who names St. Paul, is Theodoret, who lived 
 a century laier.^"* This surely is enough to abate 
 the confidence of those over-zealous Prelatists who 
 allow themselves to assert so positively that Paul 
 was the founder of the British Church. And, then, 
 as to the Prelacy of this Church, that is a point to be 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 133 
 
 proved, not assumed. Certainly, the circumstance 
 that there were Bishops from Britain at the Councils 
 of Aries and Sardica, in the fourth century, can be 
 allowed no weight as an argument on this point, 
 unless it can be proved that these were Diocesan, not 
 scriptural or Presbyter-bishops. But if this point 
 were conceded, it would avail nothing to the advo- 
 cates of an unbroken succession. For Stilhngfleet, in 
 his work on British Antiquities, candidly says, " By 
 the loss of records of the British Churches, ive cannot 
 draw down the succession of Bishops from the Jlpos- 
 tles^ times. We cannot deduce a lineal succession 
 of Bishops, as they could in other Churches whose 
 writings were preserved." Here, then, is a chasm 
 which no ingenuity or sagacity can bridge over. In 
 just so far as the orders of English or American clergy- 
 men depend upon a succession derived through the 
 early British Church, they are, on the showing of 
 their own ablest historians, worthless. If they have 
 the succession at all, it must be from Rome. The 
 Roman succession was introduced into England under 
 circumstances which require a passing notice. 
 
 The first Papal missionary to Britain, was the 
 monk Augustine,^ who passed over a. d. 596. He 
 was clothed by Gregory, the Bishop of Rome, with 
 '' full jurisdiction over the British Bishops.'' But 
 this was a power which Gregory had no authority to 
 confer. Allowing, what High-Churchmen claim, that 
 there were Diocesan Bishops in England at this time, 
 (although most of them had been driveti by the com- 
 motions of the times, temporarily from their sees,) 
 they owed no allegiance to the Bishop of Rome. 
 
 ' Not the celebrated Father of that name. 
 12 
 
134 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 Gregory had no canonical authority whatever within 
 the realm of England. It is clearly settled by the 
 canons that a Bishop has no power beyond his own 
 diocese, and specially that he can exercise no function 
 that pertains to the diocese of another Bishop.^ His 
 attempt to make Augustine Primate of England, was, 
 therefore, uncanonical and schisviatical ; and, as 
 such, it was resisted by the British Bishops and 
 monks. 2 On the principles of those who suspend the 
 being of the church on an unbroken, regular succes- 
 sion, Augustine had and could have no legitimate 
 ecclesiastical authority in Britain, and all the orders 
 he pretended to confer, with those, of course, of the 
 present British and American Prelates, in so far as 
 they are derived from him, must be invalid. On this 
 point I may be allowed to quote an authority that is 
 quite apposite. "What business,'^ says Bishop Doane 
 of New Jersey, in his review of Bishop Kenrick's^ 
 Letter to the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church, " what business has the ' Bishop of Arath' in 
 the city of Philadelphia ? Is it not against all Catholic 
 rule that two Bishops should exercise their functions 
 in one city, unless one be assistant to the other? Was 
 there not a Bishop having jurisdiction in Philadelphia, 
 in 1808, when the "Diocese of Philadelphia," so 
 called, was created ? Was not the second Bishop, 
 called by whatever name, in partibus infidelium, 
 an intruder there? Does not the Bishop of Arath, 
 claiming jurisdiction, or exercising functions in the 
 diocese of Pennsylvania, convict himself before the 
 world, and in the sight of God, of schism, and worse V 
 
 « Vide Canon. Apost. 27, 28, Nicene 16. Sardican 15. 
 
 2 So says Fuller, as cited by Bishop McCoskry. 
 
 3 The Romish Bishop. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 135 
 
 He fortifies this doctrine by various decrees of coun- 
 cils, among which he quotes a canon of the Council 
 of Chalcedon in these words: — "Let not a Bishop go 
 into another city or district not pertaining to him, 
 to ordain any one, or to appoint any Presbyters or 
 Deacons to places subject to another Bishop, unless 
 with the consent of the proper Bishop of the district. 
 If any one dare (the capitals and italics are Bishop 
 Doane's) to do otherwise^ let the ordination he in- 
 valid, and himself be punished by the Synod.^^^ 
 
 This, however is not the only taint which attaches 
 to the proceedings of Augustine. We have no cer- 
 tain record of his own consecration as a Bishop. 
 Bede says he was consecrated by Etherius of Aries. 
 Richardson affirms, on the authority of registers still 
 extant, that he was consecrated by Eucherius oi 
 Aries. But Du Pin shows that there was no such 
 Bishop as Etherius or Eucherius then at Aries. There 
 was an Etherius at that time at Lyons, but the co- 
 temporary prelate at Aries was Virgilius. Du Pin. 
 
 1 Eisliop Doane's Brief Exam. pp. 190-2. This writer seems to 
 have felt that the weapon he was flourishing at the Romanists, might 
 be turned against himself. He knew that in some of the States, 
 Romanism was older than Episcopacy; and that the question might 
 be asked, " Was there not a Bishop in Maryland when the first Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Bishop was appointed to that diocese ; and if so, 
 was not this second Bishop * an intruder^ there ?" To ward off this 
 question apparently, he observes in a note that the Romish Church 
 is in a schismatical position in this country, because " the United 
 States" were formerly [i. e. at the period when the first Papal Bishop 
 was sent here] "in communion with the Church of England, as 
 British Provinces." How this could be when there were neither 
 Episcopal dioceses nor Bishops here before the Revolution, we are 
 not told. But how is the case of Louisiana to be got over ? That 
 was not a " British Province" " in communion with the Church of 
 England." If the Episcopal Church ventures to send a Bishop to 
 that State, who will be guilty of'* schismatical intrusion''' then? 
 
136 THE IIIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 inclines to the opinion tliat he was consecrated by the 
 former; but Pope Gregor}^, in a letter still extant, 
 says he was consecrated in Germany. The point is 
 so dark and the authorities so conflicting, that while 
 Du Pin proves that Bede was mistaken, Baronius 
 would show that Gregory also was at fault. V Here, 
 then, are four historians vouching each a difl:erent 
 statement from the rest in relation to this man's con- 
 secration. That three out of the four are in error, is 
 certain; that the four are in error is not improbable. 
 Which of them are wrong? Who of them is right? 
 Are they all wrong? These are questions that can- 
 not be answered with any degree of confidence, ex- 
 cept by that sort of persons who are equally confi- 
 dent with and without evidence. And yet the valid- 
 ity of the orders of the English and American Epis- 
 copal clergy of the present day, may in a consider- 
 able degree depend upon the canonical consecration 
 of this monk, who lived among a semi-barbarous peo- 
 ple twelve hundred years ago, and concerning the time, 
 place, and instruments of whose consecration, the 
 ablest historians are irreconcileably at variance with 
 each other! Such is this beautiful theory of the 
 Apostolical Succession on which, we are told, is hung 
 the world's salvation. 
 
 We have not yet done with Augustine. Supposing 
 the difficulties connected with his own mission and 
 consecration to be surmounted, there is a fatal defect 
 in the orders conferred by him. It is a well estab- 
 lished principle that a Bishop cannot under any cir- 
 cumstances be consecrated by a single Prelate. The 
 canons require at least three Bishops as essential to 
 a regular consecration. '' The council of Nice," says 
 
 1 Vide Presbyterian Review, Vol. xiv. p. 4. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.' 137 
 
 Bishop Doane in reply to Bishop Kenrick, (p. 228) 
 "decrees (Canon IV.), ^It is most fitting that a Bish- 
 op be appointed by all the Bishops in the province. 
 But if this be difficult by reason of any urgent neces- 
 sity, or through the length of the way, three must hy 
 all means meet together.' It was decreed by the 
 Synods of Aries, Nice, Antioch, Laodicea, Carthage, 
 Orange, that at least three Bishops should consecrate. 
 Now Dr. John Carroll, the first titular Bishop of Bal- 
 timore, was consecrated by Dr. Walmsley alone; and 
 it is believed, with good reason, that Dr. Walmsley 
 himself was consecrated by but one Bishop. ' Now 
 an ordination,' says one of their chief writers, ' which 
 is merely probable, or only probably sufficient and 
 valid, only makes a probable Bishop, or one who is 
 merely probably a Bishop. * * * B^t he who is 
 only probably a Bishop is not validly and sufficiently 
 appointed to the Episcopal degree and power; nor 
 has he Episcopal vocation; for true and valid Episco- 
 pal vocation is not merely probable, but certain and 
 undoubted. * * * But otherwise, whatever the 
 Pastors and Bishops of the Church should perform, 
 as Bishops, would be so uncertain as to be probably 
 null and invalid.' "^ 
 
 Mr. Palmer, to whom Bishop Doane is evidently 
 indebted for these facts and authorities, concludes his 
 examination of the subject with this remark : — " Con- 
 necting these circumstances with the universal preva- 
 lence of the rule afterwards, which required Bishops 
 always to be ordained by more than one Bishop, it 
 does seem probable, that Episcopal ordinations, which 
 are only performed hy one Bishop, are not valid.'''' "^ 
 
 • Bishop Doane's Brief Ex. p. 228. 
 2 Palmer on the Church, Vol. II. 402. 
 12* 
 
138 THE HIGH-CHURCII DOCTRINE OF 
 
 Now it is a fact established on the testimony •of 
 "venerable Bede/'^ himself a warmpartizan of Rome, 
 and not disputed by any competent authority what- 
 ever, that when Augustine came to England, as he 
 was disowned by the native Bishops, and was him- 
 self the only Romish Prelate in the Island, he quiet- 
 ly laid the canons on the shelf, and not only ordained 
 Presbyters, but actually consecrated Prelates, or pre- 
 tended to do so, singly and alone. Gregory him- 
 self permitted this course of procedure, on condition 
 that he should in due season return to canonical order, 
 — "just as if a return to canonical obedience could pos- 
 sibly homologate previous uncanonical proceedings."^ 
 On this ground, then, as well as those already men- 
 tioned, the consecrations performed by Augustine 
 were invalid, or, according to the authority quoted by 
 Bishop Doane, ^'probably null and invalid." The Bish- 
 ops he ordained by himself w^ere at best only ''■ proba- 
 ble Bishops :" and by necessary consequence, all the 
 orders derived from them — ^including, it may be, those 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Bishop in New Jersey 
 and many of his brethren — labour under the same 
 defect : — so that there may perchance be more ^'pro- 
 bable Bishops" in ihe United States than those in the 
 Romish Church. 
 
 It has been already shown that the succession is 
 cut oiT from the "early British Church." Prelatists 
 have attempted to coimect themselves with the Apos- 
 tles by another line, through the ancient Culdees of 
 Scotland and Ireland. A few words on this point 
 may not be amiss at this stage of our inquiry. 
 
 There is some ground to believe that Christianity 
 
 1 Vide Bedc's Eccl. Hist. B. I. 27. 
 
 2 Presbyterian Review, ut sup. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 139 
 
 was introdaced into Scotland as early as the second 
 century; and it is known to have been generally pro- 
 fessed there in a. d. 431. The Culdees appeared in 
 Ireland at a very early period, and are found there 
 in an organized society in 546. Columba, their sup- 
 posed founder, with twelve associates, passed over 
 to the island of I. or Zona, in 563, and established 
 the Culdean monastery, which afterwards became 
 so celebrated in the ecclesiastical history of Britain. 
 The labours of Augustine, the Romish missionary 
 and bishop, were, it should be noted, restricted to a 
 comparatively small part of Britain. When he arrived 
 there in 596, the country was overrun by the heathen 
 Saxon invaders, who had obliterated most of the 
 public insignia and rites of Christianity, and destroyed 
 or driven away the ministers of the gospel, and such 
 of the Britons as adhered to them. Several of their 
 bishops had fled to Wales, and thither Augustine fol- 
 lowed them. Archdeacon Mason has shown that he 
 was " the apostle not of the Briton^, nor of the Scots, 
 nor of all the Jutes, (that is, the Saxons who came 
 from Scotland,) but of the county of Kent alone." 
 Usher has proved that nearly the whole of Saxon 
 England was converted by the Scottish missionaries, 
 Aidan, Finan, Colman, and their associates, who were 
 sent out from the Culdee monastery or college, at 
 lona, and other similar colleges subsequently founded. 
 Dr. Jamieson, in his elaborate " Historical Account 
 of the Ancient Culdees," observes, that " how little 
 soever some now think of Scottish orders, it is evident 
 from the testimony of the most ancient and most 
 respectable historian of South Britain, that by means 
 of Scottish missionaries, or those whom they had in- 
 structed or ordained, not only the Northumbrians, but 
 
140 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 the Miclde Angles, the Mercians and East Saxons, all 
 the way to the river Thames, that is, the inhabitants 
 of by far the greatest part of the country now called 
 England, were converted to Christianity. It is equally 
 evident, that for some time they acknowledged sub- 
 jection to the ecclesiastical government of the Scots; 
 and that the only reason why they lost their influence, 
 was, that their missionaries chose rather to give up 
 their charges, than to submit to the prevailing influ- 
 ence of the Church of Rome, to which the Saxons of 
 the west and of Kent had subjected themselves." In 
 the end, all the Culdee missionaries retired from Eng- 
 land, and the churches established by them m that 
 country became tributary to the see of Rome. 
 
 That the Culdees were Presbyterians^ndi not P^e- 
 latists. Dr. Jamieson and others have proved by what 
 may be regarded as a redundance of facts and testi- 
 monies — a summary of which may be seen in Dr. 
 Smyth's able work on " Presbytery and Prelacy," and 
 in Dr. Brown's "Letters on Puseyite Episcopacy." 
 That there were " Bishops" among them, and that 
 some of their principal missionaries to England were 
 Bishops, is admitted on all hands. But when the 
 rank of these Bishops comes to be investigated, they 
 are found to be of the same order as Presbyters, and 
 to have received only presbyterial ordination. Bedc 
 testifies that the head of the whole body was " a monk 
 and a Presbyter, but 7io Bishop?^ The assembly of 
 Presbyters, with this presbyter-president or modera- 
 tor, " made the Bishops.''^ Thus, speaking of Aidan, 
 Bede says, " Thus making Mm Bishop, they sent 
 him forth to preach." Fordoun states also, that 
 Columba, the head of the monastery, though only a 
 Presbyter, as we have seen, " confirmed and conse- 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 141 
 
 crated all the Irish Bishops of his time." Of course, 
 as the ordainers in all these cases were only Presby- 
 ters, though styled Bishops, they could confer no 
 higher order than they possessed, and all who ^vere 
 ordained by them must have been, as to order, Pres- 
 byters simply. 
 
 If, then, Prelatists insist upon an apostolical descent 
 through the Culdees, it is certain they hcive only pres- 
 byterial orders, and their succession amounts to no- 
 thing more than is possessed by the rest of Protestant 
 Christendom. This line, however, Avas, as already 
 stated, after awhile merged in the Roman succession. 
 So that even if it could be proved that Diocesan Epis- 
 copacy prevailed among the Culdees, it would avail 
 nothing to the cause of Prelacy, which is shut up to 
 the Roman succession alone. But if Prelatists can 
 derive no aid from the Culdees, we can employ them 
 to good purpose in contesting the dogma of an unbro- 
 ken prelaticctl succession. The Culdees were, as we 
 have seen, Presbyterians; that is, their ministers, and 
 those ordained by them, though called Bishops, were 
 only of the order of Presbyters. Now, during their 
 long-continued and prosperous missions in England, 
 they founded churches and ordained ministers for "the 
 greater part of that country." These ministers, or 
 their lineal descendants, were afterwards compelled or 
 induced to conform to the Church of Rome. There is 
 no evidence lohatever that in doing this they were re- 
 ordained. Indeed it does not appear that their orders 
 had, at this period, ever been called in question; and 
 they would have been received and incorporated into 
 the Roman Church many years sooner, if they would 
 have owned the supremacy of Rome, and acknow- 
 ledged the Archbishop of Canterbury as their metro- 
 
142 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 politan. — Here we have an instance of a large infu- 
 sion of Presbyterian orders into the only channel 
 of succession through which the mysterious *' Episco- 
 pal grace" has come down to the Bishops of our 
 day. "The Bishops," says Dr. Calamy, " who were so 
 instrumental in converting the northern parts of this 
 island to Christianity, were ordained by the Abbot 
 of Hye (lona) without the concurrence of any one 
 proper ecclesiastical Bishop." These orders were soon 
 merged in the Romish Church, and must have diffused 
 the strong Presbyterial taint that attached to them 
 through the English succession. If, then, a stream 
 cannot rise higher than its fountain, what becomes of 
 the uninterrupted Prelatical succession of the Church 
 of England? 
 
 Our inquiry into the early Christianity of the Bri- 
 tish Isles, has brought us to these conclusions, to wit: 
 That Christianity was introduced into England, Scot- 
 land, and Ireland, as early as the second century, but 
 by whom is unknown: that the succession of Bishops 
 in the "early British Church," cannot be traced: that 
 the mission of Augustine from Rome to Britain was 
 uncanonical and schismatical — that there is no authen- 
 tic account of his own consecration as a Bishop — that 
 many of the consecrations performed by him were 
 " probably" null and void, and, consequently, that 
 the same defect attaches to all the orders derived 
 from the Bishops thus illegally consecrated — that the 
 Culdees of Scotland and Ireland were Presbyterians, 
 and that there is a very large infusion of orders 
 derived from them, in the Roman succession — and, 
 finally, that as the English and American Prelates 
 derive their orders from Rome, and partly, at least, 
 through the specific channels that have been mention- 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 143 
 
 ed, they neither have nor can have any adequate 
 evidence that they are in the true hue of succession 
 from the Apostles, or, indeed, tliat there is any such 
 succession as they contend for. 
 
 It was shown, before entering upon this inquiry 
 into the origin of Enghsh and American orders, that 
 the succession could not be traced from the Apostles 
 to the fourth century; and various statements were 
 given, on the authority of eminent writers, respecting 
 the gross irregularities that frequently prevailed in 
 the consecration of Bishops from that period down to 
 the Reformation, and even to a still later date. Both 
 classes of these testimonies bear directly upon the 
 question of succession in the Church of England, and 
 its daughter in this country. The latter of them I 
 shall now augment by citing a few additional facts in 
 relation to the Roman succession. 
 
 I begin by showing that a large number of the 
 Archbishops of Canterbury, have been consecrated 
 directly by the Popes or their Legates. The following 
 table has been compiled by Mr. Powell, from Bishop 
 Godwin's ''Lives of the English Bishops." 
 
 Years of 
 A. D. J^Tames. Where and hij whom ordained. Episc. 
 
 668. Theodore, Rome, Pope Vitalian, 22 
 
 735. Nortlielm, Rome, Pope Gregory III. 5 
 
 763. Lambert, Rome, Pope Paul I. 27 
 
 891. Plegmund, Rome, Pope Formosus, 26 
 
 1020. Agelnoth, Rome, 17 
 
 1138. Theobald, Lend. Card. Albert, Pope's Legate, 22 
 
 1174. Richard, Anagni, Pope Alexander III. 9 
 
 1207. Steplien Langton, Viterbo, Pope Innocent III. 22 
 
 1245. Boniface, Lyons, Pope Innocent IV. 26 
 
 1278. John Peckham, Pope Nicholas III. 13 
 
 1294. Robert Winchelsey, Rome, Cardinal Sabinus, 19 
 
 1313. Walter Raynold, Robert Winchelsey, 13 
 
144 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 
 
 Years of 
 
 A.D. 
 
 J^amcs. 
 
 Where and by whom ordained. 
 
 Episc. 
 
 1327. 
 
 Simon Mepham, 
 
 Avignon, by order of Pope 
 
 
 
 
 John XXII. 
 
 5 
 
 1333. 
 
 John Stratford, 
 
 Avignon, Cardinal Vitalis, 
 
 15 
 
 1349. 
 
 Thomas Bradvvardine, 
 
 , Avignon, Cardinal Bertrand. 
 
 
 1349. 
 
 Simon Islip, 
 
 R. Stratford, Bishop, Lond., who 
 was consecrated by Jno. Strat- 
 
 
 
 
 ford, (see above,) 
 
 16 
 
 13G6. 
 
 Simon Langham, 
 
 Simon Islip, as above. 
 
 
 1414. 
 
 Henr)' Chichlcy, 
 
 Sienna, Pope Gregory XII. 
 
 29 
 
 The same historian gives a list of twelve Arch- 
 bishops of York, nine Bishops of Durham, eight 
 Bishops of Winchester, &c., who received ordination 
 from Rome. It is clear to demonstration, then, that 
 the English and American succession flows through 
 all the pollution of Popery. I would gladly spare 
 myself the revolting task of laying open the channel 
 of this pretended succession; but the arrogant preten- 
 sions of High-Churchmen make this duty indispensa- 
 ble. They are " the Church" because they hav^e this 
 succession; we are no Church and are given over to 
 " uncovenanted mercy," because we lack it. — In look- 
 ing at the characters who make up the chain of 
 "Apostles," let it be distinctly remembered that it is 
 an essential part of the theory under examination, 
 that the gift of the Holy Ghost is transmitted alojig 
 this line from one Prelate to another, and that in this 
 way it has come down from the Saviour and his 
 Apostles to the ministers and churches of our day. 
 
 According to the canonical law just adverted to, 
 that ordination performed by a single Bishop can 
 make at best only " probable Bishops," a flaw very 
 soon occurred after Augustine's time in the succes- 
 sion of Canterbury. Bede states (Book III. ch. 20.) 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCEg-SION. 145 
 
 that Deusdedit and after him Damiaii, the sixth and 
 seventh Archbishops of Canterbury, were each con- 
 secrated by Ithamar, Bishop of Rochester. Of course 
 these two dignitaries and all the Bishops consecrated 
 by them, and all who have derived orders from them 
 down to the present day, have been mere "probable 
 Bishops ;" and the people who have received the 
 ordinances directly or indirectly from them, have 
 received only "probable" ordinances, and have been 
 at most only probably baptized, probably regenerat- 
 ed, and probably saved. 
 
 'Among the canonical disqualijications for holy 
 orders, (see page 122,) one is "being under age." 
 According to Bower, Pope John the Tenth con- 
 firmed the election of Hugh, son of Count Hubert, in 
 925, to the Archbishopric of Rheims, though he was 
 scarcely Jive years old ; and he was consecrated 
 in a council of Bishops at Soissons when he was 
 only eighteen years of age. John the Twelfth was 
 made Pope in 956, when he was only eighteen, 
 and retained the Popedom for seven years, when he 
 was deposed. Among other charges brought against 
 him before the council, and which were not contra- 
 dicted, " John, Bishop of Narin, and John Cardinal 
 Deacon, attested, that they had seen him ordain a 
 deacon in a stable ; and Benedict, deacon, with other 
 deacons and priests, said that they knew for certain 
 that he had ordained Bishops for money, and had, 
 among the rest, ordained a child but ten years old 
 bishop of Todi."i — It is susceptible of proof that 
 there were many similar ordinations during succes- 
 sive centuries. 
 
 1 Bower Vol. V. 108. 
 13 
 
146 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 Calvin, in his Institutes, says: — "Even boys, 
 scarcely ten years of age, have by the permission of 
 the Pope, been made Bishops." Again, he exclaims 
 indignantly, "Is it tolerable even to hear the name 
 of pastors given to men who have forced them into 
 the possession of a Church as into an enemy's farm; 
 who have obtained it by a legal process; who have 
 pm'chased it with money; who have gained it by 
 dishonourable services; who, ivhile infants just be- 
 ginning to lisjJ, succeeded to it as an inheritance 
 transmitted by their uncles and cousins, and some- 
 times even by fathers to their illegitimate children P"^ 
 Nay, Rome has even had a hoy-Pope. According 
 to Dr. Inett, Benedict IX., "when a boy of about 
 ten or twelve years of age," was chosen Pope, and 
 though a most profligate lad, he continued for nearly 
 eleven years to discharge "all the functions incum- 
 bent on a Bishop of Rome."^ 
 
 Another canonical disqualification for orders is 
 Simony. 2 " If any bishop, priest, or deacon, obtain his 
 dignity by money, let him, and let him who ordained 
 him be deposed and wholly cut off from communion, 
 as Simon Magus was by Peter."'* " Whosoever 
 
 1 Book IV. Ch. 5. 2 Orig. Anglic. I. 384. 
 
 3 It is common to hear Prelatists say, that notwithstanding many 
 of the Bishops and Popes have been bad men, they were regularly 
 ordained, and therefore the succession is not broken. But We show, 
 not simply that they were "bad men,*' but that according to the 
 highest ecclesiastical authorities recognized in the Romish and Eng- 
 lish Churches, they were utterly disqualified for holy orders. Let 
 them show, if they can, for example, liow the succession could be 
 perpetuated by the crowds of simoniacs who pretended to receive and 
 give orders during the middle ages, when canons enough to fill a 
 volume have been adopted by different councils, certifying that " all 
 
 ORDERS CONFERRED FOR MONEY ARE NULL AND VOID." 
 
 4 Apost. Canons, No. 22. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 147 
 
 either sell or buy holy orders cannot be priests. . . . 
 There is no power in ordination, where buying and 
 seUing prevail." ^ '^ Wliatever holy orders are ob- 
 tained by money, either given or promised to be 
 given, we declare that they were null from the begin- 
 ning, and never had any vaUdity."^ There are 
 authorities and examples enough that belong to this 
 head, to fill a volume. If Simony will destroy the 
 succession, there is not an Episcopal minister in 
 Britain or America ivho can show that, he has, on 
 High- Church principles, the least right ivhatever to 
 preach the gospel. Take these instances which have 
 been collected chiefly by Dr. Brown, and are given 
 in his valuable work on " Puseyite Episcopacy." 
 Bower states that "on the death af Boniface II., in 
 531, Simony reigned without mask or disguise. 
 Votes were publicly bought and sold, and money was 
 offered to the senators themselves." Baronius says 
 of Vigilius, when he was Anti-Pope, that " he was 
 not only a second Lucifer, striving to ascend into 
 heaven, and exalt his throne above the stars, but, by 
 the weight of his enormous sacrileges and heinous 
 crimes, brought down to hell, a schismatic, a simo- 
 niacj a murderer, not the successor of Simon Peter, 
 but of Simon Magus, not the vicar of Christ, but an 
 Anti-Christ, an idol set up in the temple of God, a 
 wolf, a thief, and a robber;" though when he was 
 elevated to the Popedom, he makes him a good Ca- 
 tholic. " In the time of this Pope," says Franco witz, 
 speaking of the monster Sergius, who lived in the 
 ninth century, " and of his brother (Benedict), bishop- 
 rics were disposed of by public salc;^^ and in the 
 tenth century-, " no one was provided for or created 
 
 ' Canon Law, by Gratian. « Council of Placentia, Can. 2. 
 
148 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 a Bishop, unless he paid for it, or bound himself to 
 do so under the most tremendous penalties." He 
 further states, in reference to the eleventh century, 
 that ^^ most of the bishops and abbots in Germany 
 had fallen from their dignities through Simony, and 
 that three of the Popes, Benedict IX., Silvester III., 
 and Gregory VI., had procured the Popedom by mo- 
 ney." Matthew Paris affirms that in the thirteenth 
 century, simony was committed in the Church of 
 England without shame. Clemangis in his book on 
 Simoniacal Prelates, says of the Bishops, that " they 
 set a price upon all orders, which if it be not paid, 
 they will admit no person into orders, though he be 
 never so well qualified by his life, manners, or learn- 
 ing. The Church is now become a shop of merchan- 
 dize, or rather of robbery and rapine, in which all the 
 sacraments are exposed to sale.'^ Calvin makes this 
 deliberate declaration as to the state of things in the 
 Papal Church in his day:^" I maintain that scarcely 
 one belief ce in a hundred, in all the Papacy, is at 
 present conferred without Simony, according to the 
 definition which the ancients gave of that crime. "^ 
 To add but one more instance out of a multitude, — 
 Platina says that Pope Nicholas, III. robbed others, 
 to enrich his own relations. ^' He took away by vio- 
 lence the castles of certain Roman nobles, and gave 
 them to his own relatives." This pontifical " robber" 
 ordained John Peckham, one of the ^Archbishops of 
 Canterbury. Bishop Godwin says, " that Peckham 
 had hardly arrived in England, when the Pope, his 
 ^ creator,^ (for so he was pleased to call him,) required 
 a large sum of money from him, viz. four thousand 
 marks." Peckham's answer was as follows: " Be- 
 
 i Inst. B. IV. ch. 5. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 149 
 
 hold! thou hast created me, and forasmuch as it is 
 natural for a creature to desire to be perfected by his 
 creator, so, in my distresses, I desire to be refreshed 
 by your Holiness. Truly a writ of execution, horrible 
 to be seen and terrible to be heard, has latel^r reached 
 me, declaring that except I answer to it within a 
 month after the feast of St. Michael, by paying into 
 the hands of the merchants of Lucca, the sum of four 
 thousand marks, according to my bargain with the 
 Court of Rome, I am then to be excommunicated, 
 and am to be cursed in my own and other principal 
 churches, with bell, book and candles." 
 
 Such are the men through whom the High-Church 
 -Ministers and Prelates of our day, with so much com- 
 placency, pretend to trace their lineage to the Apos- 
 tles ! The degraded creature last mentioned, as an 
 archbishop of Canterbury, who addressed the Pope 
 as his " Creator," and confessed that he obtained his 
 see by Simony, is one of the bishops mentioned on 
 a catalogue circulated in this country, which professes 
 to give the names of an unbroken series of Prelates 
 extending from the Apostle John, down to the late 
 venerable Bishop White. ^ The question may well 
 be asked, in reference not only to this case, but to the 
 general prevalence oi ^ivciOWY for ages in the Church 
 
 1 This list, like all others, traces the English and American sue 
 cession through the Arch-bishops of Canterbury. Yet Dr. Inett, the 
 Episcopal historian, in his Origines Anglicanae, says that " the diffi- 
 culties in the Succession in the See of Canterbury, betwixt the years 
 768 and 800, are invincible;" Episcopalians are obliged, in the face 
 of this candid and pregnant confession, to assume — and that in a 
 matter involving, on High-Church principles, their salvation — that 
 during the thirty-two years embraced in this chaotic period, the suc- 
 cession was canonically preserved. 
 
 13* 
 
150 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 of Rome, if Simony invalidates orders, what authari- 
 ty had the first Bishops in the United States, and by 
 unavoidable consequence all whom they have ordain- 
 ed or consecrated, to minister in holy things? For 
 the simoniacal Prelates of the Roman Church could 
 not transmit orders they did not possess; and as their 
 own orders were "null and void from the beginning," 
 so must have been all those of their successors. 
 
 Again: Heresy is a disqualification for sacred 
 orders. But Pope Liberius was (as the Roman Ca- 
 tholics acknowledge) an Arian. Pope Marcellinus 
 sacrificed to idols. Pope Leo was an Avian, Picus 
 of Mirandula says, he remembers a Pope who believed 
 no God; and had heard of another who owned that 
 *'he did not believe the immortality of the soul.'' ^ 
 " Pope Sylvester II., was made Pope by necromancy .> 
 and in recompense thereof, promised both body and 
 soul to the devil." 
 
 Another disqualification, laid down by the canons, 
 is IMMORALITY. It is supcrfluous to add after the 
 testimonies already presented, that the whole history 
 of the Papal See, down at least to the middle of the 
 sixteenth century, is replete with scenes of appalling 
 corruption and wickedness. Baronius, in speaking of 
 the tenth -century, says, that the men who theu occu- 
 pied the See of St. Peter, were " not Pontiffs, but 
 monsters.'''' Platina states that Clement II., a. d. 
 1048, "was poisoned with poison prepared, as was 
 supposed, by his successor. Pope Damasus II." John 
 IX., John XIII., Sixtus IV., and Alexander VI., were 
 defiled with all manner of vices. " Boniface VII.," 
 says Baronius, " was rather a thief, a murderer, and 
 a traitor to his country, than a Pope." And of 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 151 
 
 Gregory VIL, he says, " He had jjoisoned some six 
 or seven Popes, by Brazutus, before he could get the 
 Popedom huTiself." 
 
 I will not enlarge this catalogue. The records of 
 the Papal See are too polluted to be unrolled. I 
 am obliged to omit even the statements of eminent 
 Roman historians and dignitaries, on this subject, 
 because their language will not bear to be repeated. 
 I will only add the brief portraiture Calvin has given 
 of the Romish clergy of his time. "There is no 
 class of men in the present day, more infamous for 
 profusion, delicacy, luxury, and profligacy of every 
 kind ; no class of men contains more apt or expert 
 masters of every species of imposture, fraud, treachery, 
 and perfidy ; no where can be found equal cunning 
 or audacity in the commission of crime. I say noth- 
 ing of their pride, haughtiness, rapacity and cruelty; 
 I say nothing of the abandoned licentiousness of every 
 part of their lives ; — enormities which the world is so 
 wearied with bearing, that there is no room for the 
 least apprehension lest I should be charged with ex- 
 cessive exaggeration. One thing I assert, which it is 
 not in their power to deny — that there is scarcely one 
 of the Bishops, and not one in a hundred of the 
 parochial clergy, who, if sentence were to be passed 
 upon his conduct according to the ancient canons, 
 would not be excommunicated, or, at the very least, 
 
 deposed from his office Now let all who fight 
 
 under the standards and auspices of the Roman See, 
 go and boast of their sacerdotal order. It is evident 
 that the order which they have, is not derived from 
 Christ, from his Apostles, from the fathers, or from 
 the ancient Church." ^ Most men would be likely to 
 
 ' Inbt. ut. sup. 
 
152 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 concur with Calvin in this last remark; and yet, 
 according to the doctrine now so assiduously thrust 
 upon the public attention, these men — these simoni- 
 Acs, and drunkards, and debauchees, and thieves, 
 and MURDERERS — these are the successors of the 
 APOSTLES ; and through them the Holy Ghost has 
 BEEN transmitted to the Bishops of our day ! The 
 Episcopal Church is a Church because its Prelates 
 are in a line which connects them with the Apostles 
 through all these monsters in wickedness! And if 
 the Holy Ghost has not been transmitted through 
 these men — if their own orders were invalid, so that 
 not having received this precious " gift" they failed 
 to communicate it to those wliom they ordained — the 
 succession of course has been, in every such instance, 
 destroyed. And what Episcopal minister or Prel- 
 ate can possibly prove that his own orders have not 
 inherited the taint of a fatal informality from one of 
 these Judas-like Apostles? 
 
 There is still another topic to be briefly noticed in 
 this connexion, viz. the schisms in the Popedom. It 
 is well known that these have been frequent and pro- 
 tracted, continuing sometimes for forty years. There 
 have been, at different periods, two, three, and four 
 pretended Popes at a time, mutually excommuni- 
 cating and anathematizing each other. What be- 
 comes of the orders conferred by them in this state of 
 things? Are they all valid? And if not, how is any 
 modern Bishop to ascertain whether his orders are 
 dejived from a Pope or an anti-Pope ? To take an 
 example. Plegmund, Archbishop of Canterbury, a. d. 
 891, was ordained by Pope Formosus. Stephen 
 VI., the successor of Formosus, at the head of his 
 council, having declared the ordinations which he had 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 153 
 
 administered, void, caused those whom he had or- 
 dained to be re-ordained. Sergius III. renewed all 
 that Stephen had done against Formosus, and deposed 
 all such as he had consecrated. — Now Plegmimd 
 was never re-ordained. And yet he ordained most 
 of the Bishops in England for twenty-six years. 
 
 Again, Henry Chichley was ordained Archbishop 
 of Canterbury, a. d. 1414, by Gregory XII. Gregory 
 was one of the three j^retenders to the Popedom, and 
 in the end was deposed by the Council of Constance. 
 " Yet Chichley received his Episcopal succession from 
 this Gregory who was pronounced by a council to be 
 no Pope of Rome, no Bishop at all; and he, Chichley, 
 continued to communicate ihesQ false orders to the 
 English Bishops and Archbishops, even in the fifteenth 
 deniiwy J for tiventy -nine years. '^ What becomes of 
 the succession in these cases? 
 
 It is no sufficient answer to this question to say, 
 that a man may be a true Bishop, although he is not 
 a true Pope ;, and that the rival Bishops who at differ- 
 ent times contended for the Popedom, each possessed 
 the right of ordination, so that the ordinations per- 
 formed by tliem are valid. For,, in the first place, 
 the rights of ordination and deposition are correlative ; 
 and if, as in the instances just cited, their ordinations 
 were vahd, so were their depositions. But, secondly, 
 the false Popes in every contest of the kind mention- 
 ed, (and there were thirteen such contests within a 
 thousand years) were evidently guilty of schism of 
 the most flagrant character; and this, on High-Church 
 principles, nullified the orders they conferred. 
 
 Equally futile is the plea employed to elude the 
 argument drawn' from the immoral characters of 
 
 iPowell, p. 235. 
 
154 THE HIGH-CIIURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 many of the Popes and Bishops. — " Ordination," it is 
 argued, "does not depend on the character of the 
 ordainer, but on the vahdity of his own orders. Tlie 
 ordinations, therefore, performed by these men were 
 vahd, although they were bad men." — I answer, that 
 the principle here laid down must be allowed, to a 
 certain extent. As we cannot read the hearts of men, 
 no individual could be certain that he was properly 
 ordained, if the validity of the act depended upon its 
 being done by a truly holy man. But to admit this 
 principle without limitation, is equally at variance 
 with Scripture and abhorrent to reason. That some 
 are prepared to do this, is evident from the fact that 
 a late writer on the Apostolical Succession, refers to 
 the case oi Judas m terms which import a belief that 
 he retained the plenary powers of the apostleship 
 after his betrayal of the Saviour ^ Whereas the New 
 Testament states that by that act he '■'■felV^ from his 
 "apostleship." 2 Such writers, however, and all who 
 
 ' See " Percival on the Apostolic Succession." Speaking of Judas, 
 he says, " Not only did our Lord so call him, (i. e. as an Apostle) 
 and so employ him, but Ztzs bishopric was not filled up till after his 
 death.'''' (p. 51.) Yet in enumerating the Bishops at the period of 
 Elizabeth's accession who had been " canonically consecrated," he 
 says, "Bonner, Bishop of London, and Thirlby, of Ely, were inca- 
 pacitated''^ for assisting in a consecration : and the first reason he 
 assigns for it, is, that '' they had been instrumental in the murder of 
 their Metropolitan.'''' It might be invidious to ask whether in the 
 judgment of Mr. Percival, this crime was of a deeper dye than that 
 of Judas. But we may ask, if murder " incapacitates" a Bishop and 
 nullifies bis orders, what becomes of all the orders (and his own are 
 quite likely to be of this class) derived from the Popes of the Borgia 
 family and others who are proved to have been murderers, and one 
 of whom poisoned six or seven competitors? 
 
 2 Acts i. 25. " That he may take part of this ministry and apostle- 
 ship, from which Judas by transgression fell." 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 155 
 
 hold with them, are at issue with the ecclesiastical 
 canons and innumerable decisions of councils — the sort 
 of authorities they usually reverence most — which, as 
 I have shown, specify the very crimes these pretended 
 Popes and Bishops were guilty of, as nullifying 
 ORDERS. The question, it will be observed, does not 
 respect the official acts of one or two, or a few Pre- 
 lates and Popes, scattered along the fine of the Church 
 at remote intervals; but whole tribes of boy-bishops, 
 
 SCHISMATICS, INFIDELS, DRUNKARDS, SENSUALISTS, Sl- 
 
 MONiAcs, USURPERS, and APOSTATES. It has respect 
 to a CHURCH pronounced apostate by the Church of 
 England herself, and by the predecessors of those pre- 
 lates who are now so strenuous in vindicating the 
 integrity of that "apostleship" which Rome has trans- 
 mitted to them. Is there any thing in the Word of 
 God, or even in the decrees of councils, to show that 
 ^uch men as these can be true ministers of Christ, or 
 to legitimate the orders conferred by them? 
 
 The historical facts which have been adduced, show 
 that the pretended Prelatical Succession is a chain of 
 sand. This conclusion may be still further fortified 
 by a brief reference to the separation that took place 
 between the Romish and Anglican Churches at the 
 Reformation. I have proved that the Church of Eng- 
 land derives the Succession (in so far as she has it) 
 from the Church of Rome. But the English Reform- 
 ers with one accord, pronounce the Church of Rome 
 an antichristian and apostate Church. I omit quo- 
 tations from their writings in evidence of this, as it will 
 not be questioned. It is proper, however, to show 
 that Rome is declared to be apostate not merely by 
 the English Reformers as individuals, but by the 
 Church of England herself. The Books of Homilies 
 
156 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 are said in the 35th Article of that Church, to con- 
 tain " a godly and wholesome doctrine," and are 
 "judged (suitable) to be read in churches by the min- 
 isters diligently and distinctly, that they may be un- 
 derstandcd of the people." These Homilies say ^ of 
 th5 Church of Rome, that she is "not only an Harlot, 
 as the Scripture calleth her, but also a foul, filthy, 
 old, ivithered Harlot ; the foulest and filthiest 
 THAT EVER WAS SEEN i" — and that, "as it at present 
 is, and hath been for nine, hundred years, it is so far 
 from the nature of the true Church, that nothing 
 CAN BE MORE." It is from a Church which their own 
 standards brand with apostacy in these strong terms, 
 and which the word of God describes as the " mother 
 OF HARLOTS," that EugUsh and American Prelatists 
 derive their orders. If they allege that the Romish 
 Church had not become apostate at the period of the 
 Reformation, this will be to contradict their own 
 standards. But even conceding the point for the 
 sake of argument, how is their separation from 
 Rome to be vindicated? To pretend that they "did 
 not separate from her," is to presume very largely 
 upon the public ignorance or credulity. The fact of 
 their leaving the Romish Church, is as well estab- 
 lished as the fact of the Reformation itself— a fact 
 which their Reformers, the very men engaged in 
 effecting the separation, never thought of denying. — 
 In the judgment of High-Churchmen, there is no 
 greater sin than schism. A single passage out of 
 many that could be cited from a late Episcopal writer 
 of acknowledged authority, will show this. " Volun- 
 tary separation from the Church of Christ is a sin 
 against our brethren, against ourselves, against God; 
 
 •Pp. 162.295. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 157 
 
 a sill which, unless repented of, is eternally destruc- 
 tive to the souL The heinous nature of this offence is 
 incapable of exaggeration, because no human imagi- 
 nation, and no human tongue can adequately describe 
 its enormity."! But if the Roman Church was not 
 apostate, the Church of England is, on High-Church 
 principles, involved in all the guilt of this sin, for sepa- 
 rating from her ; and, of course, Aer orders are null 
 and void. — It is worthy of special notice in this con- 
 nexion that the English Reformers admitted that their 
 church had not an unbroken succession. The want 
 of such a succession was charged upon them by the 
 Romanists at the time, as a proof that their church 
 was not a true church. In no one instance, in so far 
 as my researches have gone, did they deny the fact. 
 Taught in a different school from many who are now 
 enjoying the fruits of their toils and sufferings, and 
 with widely different views of the plan of salvation, 
 they admitted the fact, and maintained, from reason, 
 from the Fathers, and from the Word of God, that no 
 such succession was essential to constitute a true 
 church and ministry. ^ Every reader must decide for 
 himself whether the High-Churchmen of the present 
 day or the Reformers themselves, are the best wit- 
 nesses in settling the questions of /rtc/, whether the 
 English church separated from Rome, and whether, 
 in doing this, she kept the Prelatical Succession un- 
 broken. 
 
 Without waiting to see how our Prelatical friends 
 are to get their Apostolical chain across the gulf be- 
 tween Rome and themselves, created by the Reforma- 
 
 1 Palmer on the Church, vol. i. 70. 
 
 2 See Chap. VI. 
 
 14 
 
158 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 tion, I shall now glance at some of the links which 
 lie on this side of that abyss. 
 
 The first fact worthy of notice here, is, that the 
 Church of England only exchanged one Pope for 
 another. Henry VIII. vested in himself that spiritual 
 supremacy of the Church, of which he despoiled the 
 Roman Pontiff. He even went so far as to suspend 
 all the Prelates in England from the exercise of their 
 functions. He afterwards issued new commissions to 
 them, in which it was distinctly specified that they 
 were to regard themselves as the mere vicars of the 
 crown. The following is a summary of one of these 
 instruments: — "Since all" authority, civil and eccle- 
 siastical, flows from the crown, and since Cromwell," 
 (a layman, but made vicar general in spiritualibus 
 over all the clergy,) "' to whom the ecclesiastical part 
 has been committed," [vices nostras, as the vicar of 
 the crown,) " is so occupied that he cannot fully exer- 
 cise it, we commit to you (each individual Prelate) 
 the license of ordaining, granting institution, and 
 collation, and in short, of performing all other eccle- 
 siastical acts: and we allow you to iiold this authority 
 during our pleasure, as you must answer to God and 
 to us." — Similar commissions were granted by Ed- 
 ward VI. to his Prelates. The act vesting the spiritual 
 supremacy of the Church in the crown, was revived 
 under Elizabeth, and has never been repealed. — 
 Whether a succession which comes through a series 
 of Bishops, who were virtually made and unmade at 
 the pleasure of a capricious and sensual monarch like 
 Henry VIII , is quite untainted, is a question worthy 
 the attention of our High-Church canonists. Leav- 
 ing that, however, it may be observed that able 
 canonists are to this day at issue in relation to the 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 159 
 
 validity of an ordination on which all the orders of 
 the Church of England and the Episcopal Church 
 in this country are suspended, — I refer to the case of 
 Archbishop Parker, consecrated to the See of Can- 
 terbury in the reign of Elizabeth. This consecration 
 was performed by four persons, to-wit: Barlow and 
 Scory, Bishops elect of Chichester and Hereford, 
 Miles Coverdale, formerly Bishop of Exeter, and 
 Hodgkins, Suffragan of Bedford. The validity of the 
 act has been denied on two grounds. The first is the 
 alleged incompetency of the ordainers. Three of 
 these. Barlow, Scory, and Coverdale, who were or- 
 dained in the time of Edward VI., had been deprived 
 by his successor, "Bloody Mary." They were at 
 this time without Sees, and, therefore, incompetent, 
 according to the canons, to exercise Episcopal func- 
 tions. The fourth was a mere Suffragan, or assistant, 
 who had also been deprived. — The second ground ot 
 objection to Parker's consecration, is, that it was per- 
 formed according io an insufficient and invalid form. 
 This form was one contained in the Ordinal of King 
 Edward: and was in these words: — 
 
 "Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou 
 stir up the grace of God which is in thee by the im- 
 position of hands ; for God hast not given us the spi- 
 rit of fear, but of power, and love, and soberness." 
 
 There is nothing here, it will be perceived, to spe- 
 cify the order that was conferred — nothing to express 
 the office or character of the Episcopacy. The for- 
 mula might as well be used, as one of the Romish 
 theologians has observed, in laying hands on chil- 
 dren, as in consecrating a Bishop. This defect the 
 Romanists urged at the time as fatal to the validity 
 of Parker's orders. It constitutes the chief reason 
 
160 THE HIGH-CHURCII DOCTRINE OF 
 
 why the Romish Cliiircfj refuses to this day to recog- 
 nize the EngUsh ordinations, ail which have been 
 derived from Parker. The objection was felt. The 
 Convocation of the Church of England which sat 
 in 1662, endeavoured to remove the difficulty, by 
 changing the form to that which is now found in the 
 prayer-book. This they did by inserting m King 
 Edward's form, the words marked below in italics: 
 
 "Receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work 
 of a Bishop in the Church of God, committed unto 
 thee hy the imposition of our hands ; in the name 
 of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; 
 and remember that thou stir up,'' &c. 
 
 This was a virtual confession of the insufficiency 
 of the old form. But unhappily for the Anglican 
 orders, it did not come until that form had been used 
 for a century — long enough to vitiate, twice over, all 
 the orders of the Church. ^ 
 
 There was another weighty objection to this form, 
 of a different kind. King Edward's Ordinal had 
 been abolished by Mary, and Parliament, at the time 
 of Parker's consecration, had not restored it. It was, 
 therefore, a dead letter. 
 
 All these objections were urged then, as they are 
 now — and, it may be added, as they ought to be in 
 arguing with men who suspend the salvation of the 
 world upon matters of form. That they were not 
 regarded as groundless in that day by those most 
 deeply concerned, is evident from the fact that seven 
 years afterwards it was deemed expedient to procure 
 an act of parliament ratifying and confirming the or- 
 dinations of Parker and those whom he had ordained. 
 
 ' See Bishop Kenrick's work on the Validity of the Anglican Or- 
 dinations. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 161 
 
 Whether a retrospective parliamentary statute could 
 make a defective ordination valid, is a point upon 
 which there will probably be but little diiference of 
 opinion, except among those who have resolved at 
 all hazards to make out an unbroken Prelatical Suc- 
 cession between themselves and the Apostles. Plain 
 people who have not been able to see that such a 
 succession is essential to their salvation, will be very 
 apt to think thai if Parker is to be a link in this chain, 
 there is at least one link with a very ominous flaw. 
 
 It might reasonably be supposed that when the 
 English succession was once started, all further uncer- 
 tainty about the integrity of the chain would be at an 
 end. One would hardly suspect that a taint, however 
 trivial, could creep into the line between Parker and 
 our day. This is far from being the case, however. 
 Within that period, many individuals have been ad- 
 mitted to orders, and some to the highest offices in 
 the English Church, who had received what is re- 
 garded in that church as merely lay-baptism. It 
 will be sufficient to specify the celebrated Dr. Butler, 
 Bishop of Durham, and Archbishop Seeker. There 
 is, it is well known, a difference of opinion among 
 Prelatists, respecting the validity of lay-baptism, — 
 under which head they include all baptisms not ad- 
 ministered by ministers prelatically ordained. If such 
 baptisms are valid, the fact adverted to does not in- 
 validate tlie succession. But lay-baptism can be 
 proved vahd on no principles which will not equally 
 legitimate lay ordination. The passage of Scripture 
 is yet to be produced — whatever may be found in the 
 writings of the Fathers — which divorces the authority 
 to baptize from the authority to preach the Gospel, or- 
 dain, and exercise all the other functions of the Chris- 
 
 14^^ 
 
162 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 tian ministry. These several powers are conveyed in 
 one and the same commission: *' Go jweacli the Gospel 
 to every creature, baptizing them." What hint have 
 we here, or elsewhere in the word of God, that an indi- 
 vidual may baptize who has no right to preach? And 
 with what reason or propriety can Prelatists recognize 
 Presbyterian baptism, who refuse to recognize Pres- 
 byterian ordination? We, of course, maintain that 
 they have no right to disallow either; as we do, that 
 they have no warrant for recognizing them an the 
 ground that they may be performed by laymen. If 
 they are admitted, let it be on the only ground which 
 is respectful to the non-prelatical churches, or sanc- 
 tioned by the Scriptures, viz., that they are adminis- 
 tered by men clothed with the requisite authority to 
 perform them. The class who reject baptism per- 
 formed hi other churches, are at least consistent. 
 Whether their consistency is not destructive to their 
 exclusive and lordly assumptions in claiming for pre- 
 latical churches an unbroken Prelatical Succession and 
 a monopoly of the gifts and graces of the Spirit, is 
 another question. For if 'lay-baptism^ be invaUd, 
 nothing can be more certain than that the pretended 
 chain of Apostohcal Succession has long ago been 
 shivered into a thousand fragments. 
 
 But if lay-baptism be vaUd, it will hardly be con- 
 tended that no baptism at all is valid : and this grave 
 defect, with another no less serious, unhappily attaches 
 to the ecclesiastical character of an Jirchbishop of 
 Canterbury^ who died no longer ago than 1694; I 
 refer to the celebrated Dr. Tillotson. This eminent 
 man was the son of a Baptist, and of cours3 Avas not 
 baptized in infancy. No evidence has ever been 
 produced that he was baptized in after life. The 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 163 
 
 charge that he was imbaptized, was repeatedly brought 
 against him by. the non-jurors during his primacy, 
 and never disproved. But there is no position on 
 which High-Churchmen insist more strenuously than 
 this, viz. that no unbaptized person is or can possibly 
 be a me'inher of the Churchy and the canons are ex- 
 press that a person in this predicament is incapable 
 of receiving orders. Tillotson, therefore, notwith- 
 standing he attained to the chair of Canterbury, 
 was no member of the Church: Unless, then, they 
 are prepared to maintain that orders conferred by 
 an individual out of the Church are valid, all the 
 orders conferred by him and those transmitted from 
 the individuals he ordained, are null and void. Nor 
 is this the whole difficulty growing out of Tillot- 
 son's case. His own ord-ers are invalid on other 
 grounds. There is no proof that he was ever in dea- 
 con'' s orders^ but good reason to believe he was not: 
 and, consequently, by the 10th canon of the comicil 
 of Sardica, one of the councils whose decrees are re- 
 cognized as binding by Prelatical churches, he was 
 not capable of being promoted to the higher grades 
 of the priesthood. Again his ordination to \hQ priest- 
 hood was invalid. He was ordained by Sysderf of 
 Galloway, who had no canonical orders himself, and 
 who of course could not communicate valid orders to 
 others. He was ordained in England, where Sysderf 
 could have no canonical authority, and in violation of 
 those '' Apostolical canons" which punish with deposi- 
 tion both the Prelate who presumes to "ordain in 
 places not subject to him," and those who submit to be 
 ordained by him. (See above p. 135.) And, finally, 
 Sysderf's whole course of conduct while in England, 
 during the confusion of the commonwealth and the 
 
164 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 civil war, was schismatical and simoniacal. For we 
 are told by Birch, Tillotson's biographer, that he 
 " ordained all those of the English clergy who came 
 to him, without demanding of them either oaths (of 
 canonical obedience) or subscriptions (to the articles) ;" 
 and that he " did this merely for a subsistence from 
 i\ie fees for the letters of orders granted by him — for 
 he was poor !"^ Tillotson's orders, then, were in- 
 curably defective. And if this was the case, what 
 Episcopal clergyman in England or America can be 
 certain that the taint thus introduced into the succes- 
 sion, has not, in the flow of a stream perpetually 
 widening, fatally vitiated his own orders ? 
 
 One other fact respecting the period now under 
 examination. Mr. Perceval, a High-Church writer 
 already mentioned, has compiled with great labour 
 catalogues of the English Bishops since the Refor- 
 mation. Of this list there are about twenty of whose 
 consecration no record has been preserved! That 
 these are enough, if they were not canonically con- 
 secrated, to poison the whole stream of succession, 
 will not be disputed. Yet, in the entire absence of 
 evidence, the Episcopalian is obliged \o j)resume that 
 all the proceedings pertaining to their respective or- 
 dinations, were canonical. Archbishop Whateley 
 states, in a passage quoted in a former part of this 
 chapter, that a case has occurred within " the memo- 
 ry of persons living," of a Prelate concerning whom 
 "doubts existed in the minds of many persons, whe- 
 ther he had ever been ordained at all." — It is mani- 
 fest that persons who have received orders from any 
 of the Bishops in this unfortunate category, can have 
 no conclusive evidence that they are in orders at all.^ 
 
 1 Vide Presbjterian Review, Vol. XIV. 12. 13. 2 Id. p. 31. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 165 
 
 The Scottish Succession, from which the earliest 
 American Bishop (Seabury) received consecration, is 
 in a still more deplorable condition. There are no 
 less than twenty-eight Bishops in a conthiuoiis series 
 on Mr. Perceval's list, embracing a period of twenty- 
 six years (from 1662 to 16SS) of whose consecration 
 after diligent search he has been able, as he tells us 
 " with regret," to find no records whatever. The 
 worthlessness of the Scottish Succession, has been 
 demonstrated by recent writers with a redundancy 
 of evidence, and is virtually conceded by the London 
 Christian Observer. ^ In just so far, therefore, as the 
 Episcopal orders in the Diocese of Connecticut, over 
 which Bishop Seabury presided, and in other parts 
 of the Church, have been derived from that Prelate, 
 they partake of the worthlessness of the source from 
 which they sprung. And if, in addition to this, the 
 English succession has also failed — and all the facts 
 adduced in this historical inquiry, bear directly upon 
 this point — the orders of the Episcopal ministry in 
 this country, are, on High-Church principles, null 
 and void. 
 
 Such is the answer of History to the question, 
 "e^re the Episcopal Bishops of our day the true and 
 only Successors of the Apostles ?^^ The minuteness, 
 perhaps I should say, the tedious minuteness, of the 
 investigation, seemed to be rendered necessary by the 
 surprising confidence and arrogant tone with which 
 High-churchmen are accustomed to assert the reality 
 of an uninterrupted Prelatical Succession. The assu- 
 rance they display, will require some explanation to 
 those who contrast it with the overwhelming mass 
 of testimony which Plistory furnishes against their 
 
 ' For Nov, 1843. 
 
166 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 favourite dogma. With one class, this assurance is 
 clearly the offspring of ignorance. They have taken 
 up the dogma on the credit of others, without exami- 
 nation; and have, by degrees, come to be as stren- 
 uous in asserting it, as those from whom they received 
 it. The confidence of others is explained by a single 
 expression in this sentence from the pen of the excel- 
 lent Mr. Bickersteth: — '^ The idea of an Apostolical 
 Succession only by Bishops ordaining in a regular 
 series from the times of the Apostles to the present 
 time — the idea that this is the only true ministry in 
 the Church of Christ, and essential to the existence 
 of a true Church of Christ, is no where laid down in 
 the Scriptures, and no where inserted in our Church 
 Formularies : to trust in such a succession is an idol of 
 the Church of Rome." This idea is no less a fond con- 
 ceit with the sort of Episcopalians I have in view. The 
 Apostolical Succession is literally an ^'idoP^ with them 
 — one of their divinities. To question its reality, is with 
 them akin to sacrilege. That is not a point to be argued, 
 but believed. Argument is lost upon them. Evidence 
 produces no impression. They are no more in a 
 condition to appreciate the one or the other, than a 
 foolish, over-indulgent parent is to detect the foibles 
 of a spoiled child. Both are blinded by a passion 
 which subjugates reason and judgment. Persons of 
 this description must be left, not, indeed, to "uncove- 
 nanted mercy," but to such providential or spiritual 
 agencies as may be adequate to dissolve the spell that 
 is upon them and restore the use of their suspended 
 faculties. 
 
 There is, however, another large class of persons 
 among the believers in this doctrine, who are acces- 
 sible both to argument and evidence. To these, as 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 167 
 
 well as to the members of non-Prelatical churches, the 
 historical view of the subject may be useful. To 
 say to such persons that the theory vanishes the mo- 
 ment it is brought to the test of history, is only to ex- 
 press a conviction that must force itself upon the mind 
 of any impartial individual who will go into the ex- 
 amination. If the views presented in this chapter are 
 to be relied upon — if the facts we have been con- 
 sidering are facts — the pretended chain of succession 
 is an "airy nothing." No prudent man would trust 
 even a dollar of his property to it, much less his soul. 
 And the notion that the very being of the Church, 
 and the salvation of the world are suspended upon 
 it, deserves to be classed with the wildest vagaries of 
 that fanaticism which High-Churchmen hold in such 
 special abhorrence. That this theory should ever 
 become current among men who will take the trouble 
 to investigate it, is impossible. It was not designed 
 for a Protestant but a Papal age. It is part of that 
 system which denies the Bible to the people, dis- 
 courages education, inculcates an ignorant devotion, 
 and instead of teaching men to repent and believe for 
 themselves, commits the whole business of their salva- 
 tion into the hands of a priest. Brought out into the 
 light of a pure Christianity, its deformity becomes ap- 
 parent. Those who imagine that it can be grafted upon 
 this stock, and who are labouring to effect the unnatural 
 union, will find that they must either substitute for 
 their favourite dogma, the Scriptural doctrine of the 
 Apostolical Succession, viz. the succcession of the 
 TRUTH, or transubstantiate Christianity into Popery: — 
 their coalescence by any other process is an impossibili- 
 ty. Whether this process is likely to be attempted, and, 
 if so, in which direction the change is to be made, is 
 
168 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 a question that may be incidentally noticed hereafter. 
 Meanwhile, in confirmation of the sentiment, that the 
 dogma of an unbroken Prelatical Succession must be 
 spurned as destitute of the least warrant from his- 
 tory, just in proportion as it comes to be examined 
 and understood, let me quote a sentence or two from 
 an English Prelate,^ who is himself one of the links 
 in this pretended chain. " I am fully satisfied that 
 till a consummate stupidity can be happily estab- 
 lished and universally spread over the land, there is 
 nothing that tends so much to destroy all respect to 
 the clergy, as the demand of more than can be due 
 to them; and nothing has so efi'ectually thrown con- 
 tempt upon a regular succession of the ministry, as 
 the calling no succession regular but what was un- 
 interrupted; and the making the eternal salvation of 
 Christians to depend upon that uninterrupted suc- 
 cession of which the most learned must have (he 
 least assurance, and the unlearned can have no no- 
 tion but through ignorance and credulity." Others 
 among the English Bishops have held similar lan- 
 guage. One of them, Dr. Whateley, has denounced the 
 whole theory as unworthy of credit, in still stronger 
 terms. And the present Bishop of Hereford uses 
 this language in a late charge : — " You will exceed 
 all just bounds, if you are continually insisting upon 
 the necessity of a belief in, and the certainty of the 
 Apostolic Succession in the Bishops and Presbyters 
 of our church, as the only security for the efiicacy of 
 the sacraments; so that those who do not receive 
 them from men so accredited and approved to minis- 
 ter, cannot partake of the promises and consolations 
 of the Gospel, and are therefore in peril of their salva- 
 
 * Bishop Hoadly. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 169 
 
 tion, and left to the uncovenanted mercies of Gad, 
 which may be, in the end, no mercies at aJl to them." 
 " This," he adds, " would be to overstep the limits of 
 prudence and humility, and arrogantly to set up a 
 claim which neither Scripture, nor the formularies 
 and various offices of the church, nor the writings of 
 her best divines, nor the common sense of mankind, 
 will allow. To spread abroad this notion, would be 
 to make ourselves the derision of the luorld.^^ It is 
 surely an edifying spectacle to see a party in the Epis- 
 copal Church pronouncing multitudes of the best peo- 
 ple in the world to be out of the way of salvation, 
 for rejecting a dogma of which their own Bishops 
 and Archbishops declare that the more a man studies, 
 the more he must distrust it; that no one can assent 
 to it except through ignorance or creduhty; and that 
 for a minister to insist upon it, is to make himself 
 " the derision of the world." Let them put away 
 this folly, and abide by that genuine "Apostolic 
 canon" delivered by the Apostle Paul to their fa- 
 vourite Bishop, Timothy, " Neither give heed to 
 fables and endless genealogies, which minister 
 questions, rather than godly edifying which is in 
 faith." 
 
 15 
 
170 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE SUCCESSION TESTED BY FACTS. 
 
 Having tried the dogma of an unbroken Prelatical 
 Succession by Scripture and History, it cannot be 
 deemed invidious if we also test it by facts. 
 
 This succession, it will be borne in mind, is held 
 to be the distinguishing characteristic of a true Church 
 and a lawful ministry. All pretended ministers out 
 of the line of the succession, are usurpers of the office. 
 The ordinances of ministers prelatically ordained alone 
 are valid. And it is only to the Church as governed 
 by the Bishops, the successors of the Apostles, that 
 the assurance is given, "Lo I am with you always." 
 
 Now if this theory be well founded, we have a 
 right to look to the ministry and churches in the 
 line of the succession, for the inflexible maintenance 
 of sound doctrine and a uniform exhibition of the 
 benign fruits of Christianity. These ministers and 
 churches may fairly be expected to display the purity 
 and power of the Gospel in a far higher degree 
 than the non-episcopal societies. For they are " the 
 Church," and to them alone is the Holy Spirit given. 
 The comparison we institute is, on their principles, 
 (as Dr. Miller has remarked in one of his works,) " a 
 comparison between the Church of Christ, and * the 
 world that lieth in wickedness.' " We affirm that 
 there ought to be more virtue and holiness, more con- 
 cord, more zeal for the truth, more reverence for the 
 word of God, and greater activity in disseminating 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 171 
 
 the blessings of Christianity, in the Church, than there 
 are out of it. So they themselves teach : and they 
 are perpetually boasting of their unity and primitive 
 faith, and inviting men to seek repose in the bosom 
 of "the Church" as the only sanctuary from the here- 
 sies and schisms with which the rest of Christendom 
 is distracted. 
 
 We are constrained in self-defence to ask whether 
 these pretensions are sustained by facts. Is it true 
 that the Prelatical clergy, say in our own country, 
 are, as a body, so superior to the non-prelatical minis- 
 ters in spiritual endowments and in fidelity to their 
 duties, as we have a right, from their principles, to 
 expect? We not only concede to them whatever of 
 persona] excellence and pastoral faithfulness they may 
 lawfully challenge, but we rejoice in all their success 
 in winning souls to Christ and edifyhig his people in 
 knowledge and holiness. But those among them 
 who are most distinguished for their piety, and most 
 laborious in the service of their Master, would be the 
 first to disclaim for themselves and their brethren 
 that personal pre-eminence over the ministry of other 
 churches, which the High-Church system claims for 
 them. A similar comparison may be instituted as 
 regards the people. Regeneration and justification 
 are, according to this system, tied to sacraments ad- 
 ministered by a Prelatic ministry. Then, of course, 
 we are to look for real Christians — for those who 
 have been pardoned, renewed and sanctified — only 
 in Prelatic churches. To suppose that the Spirit of 
 God would render the ministrations of schismatlcal 
 intruders''^ into the sacred office, equally efficacious, 
 or nearly so, with those of a ministry appointed by 
 himself, is preposterous in itself, and would be scouted 
 
172 THE niGH-CHURCIi DOCTRINE OF 
 
 as an impiety by every consistent High-Churchman; 
 it would, indeed, be to say that the practical results 
 are all one, whether the ordinances employed are 
 valid or invalid. But is it true that all the enlight- 
 ened, ardent piety among the laity in the United 
 States, is confined to the Episcopal and Romish com- 
 munions? Is it true that a larger measure of the life 
 and power of religion is to be found in those commu- 
 nions, than in other Christian denominations? The 
 laity of the Episcopal Church will not affirm this. 
 Whatever may be asserted by the arrogant and indis- 
 creet men among their spiritual guides, who have 
 precipitated their Church into the troubled sea where 
 she now is, they will not easily be made to believe 
 that God has given to them and the Romanists a mo- 
 nopoly of the saving benefits of Christianity. Nor 
 can any of their ministers assert it without maintain- 
 ing the absurd and bigoted position that all the mani- 
 festations of faith and holiness and consecration to 
 Christ, on the part of non-Episcopalians, are unreal 
 and deceptive. 
 
 If, then, FACTS under our own observation prove 
 that the blessing of God attends the labours of non- 
 Prelatical, equally with Prelatical ministers, and that 
 the evidences of genuine piety are found in at least as 
 much profusion in other Churches as in the Episcopal 
 communion, with what show of reason can it be pre- 
 tended that the Church and the Spirit, the ministry 
 and sacraments, the promises and the gifts of salva- 
 tion, are exclusively finked "by covenant and oath" 
 to an unbroken Prelatical Succession? 
 
 The view I have taken may be extended to other 
 countries. Compare Presbyterian Scotland with Pre- 
 latical England or Ireland. Scotland has been for a 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 173 
 
 long while under the sway of Presbyterianism. Eng- 
 land and Ireland (Presbyterian Ulster excepted) under 
 that of Prelacy. We are wilUng that any enlightened 
 and impartial mind shall decide, from the actual fruits 
 of the two systems as developed in the relative intel- 
 ligence, virtue, industry, thrift, and substantial com- 
 fort of the three nations, which system carries with it 
 the strongest attestation of the Divine blessing. The 
 question cannot be pursued into its details here, bat 
 there is a late Parliamentary testimony to the benign 
 and powerful influence of the Church of Scotland 
 upon that country, which deserves to be quoted. 
 The Parliamentary Committee on Church Patronage, 
 in 1834, on reporting the result of their labours to the 
 legislature, remark: " No sentiment has been so deep- 
 ly impressed on the mind of your committee, in the 
 course, of their long and laborious investigation, as 
 that of veneration and respect for the established 
 Church of Scotland. They believe that no institution 
 has ever existed, which at so little cost has accom- 
 plished so much good. The eminent place which 
 Scotland holds in the scale of nations, is mainly owing 
 to the purity of the standards, and the zeal of the 
 ministers of the Church, as well as the wisdom with 
 which its internal institutions have been adapted to 
 the habits and interests of the people.'^ 
 
 Again, we may test the practical working of the 
 Prelatical system by appealing to Switzerland. A 
 part of the Swiss Cantons are Romish, and a part 
 Protestant. The first enjoy, of course, the labours of 
 an " Apostolic ministry," and the potent and salutary 
 influence of a branch of the true Church; while the 
 last are without a Church or a valid ministry. Then, 
 certainly, the Papal Cantons must be in a far better 
 
 15* 
 
174 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 condition in all respects than those occupied by Protes- 
 tant "sectaries." So, on High-Church principles, they 
 ought to be; but so, unhappily for the theory, they 
 are not. On the contrary, it is a common observation 
 of well-informed travellers, that the transition from 
 the Protestant to the Popish Cantons, though separa- 
 ted only by imaginary lines, is marked by a palpable 
 deterioration in the aspect of the farms and the gene- 
 ral state and character of the inhabitants. — Look, too, 
 at Italy, Spain, Austria, Sardinia, Greece, Armenian 
 Turkey, Syria, South America, and compare them 
 with Scotland and the United States. All the former 
 countries profess to have the Prelatical succession, 
 and valid ordinances; the last two are, excepting as 
 to a small fraction of their population, without a 
 Church or authorized ministry. To ask which way 
 the scale preponderates here, would be to trifle with 
 men's reason. That the present condition of these 
 countries has been brought about by a variety of 
 agencies of which religion is only one, is readily 
 admitted. Still it might be supposed that even under 
 very adverse circumstances, a true Church would in 
 the course of several centuries be able to demonstrate 
 its "Apostolical" origin and character by evidences 
 quite as decisive as any that could be produced by 
 mere " schismatical organizations." It will take im- 
 partial men who are committed to no ecclesiastical 
 theory, some time to believe that Spain and Italy and 
 the other states named with them, have an Apostoli- 
 cal ministry, and are sharers in God's covenanted 
 blessings, while Scotland and New England are with- 
 out a Church, and have no part nor lot in the Gospel- 
 covenant. 
 
 Perhaps, however, this argument may be met with 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 175 
 
 the declaration, that both the Latin and Greek Church- 
 es have become so corrupt that it is unfair to appeaJ 
 to them. This explanation will only prejudice the 
 cause it is designed to aid. The inquiry is, whether 
 the High-Church doctrine of the Prelatical Succession 
 is sustained by its actual fruits. To say that the 
 Romish and Oriental Churches, which are alleged to 
 have this succession, " have become corrupt," in the 
 first place, comes with an ill grace from those who 
 still recognize them as sister-churches, while denying 
 the church-character of the Protestant bodies; and, 
 in the second place, involves a concession of the point 
 at issue. We take the fact thus admitted and point 
 to it as conclusive evidence of the inadequacy of the 
 alleged succession to preserve a Church from the 
 grossest defection both in doctrine and morals. Nor 
 do we stop here. We point, in refutation of the no- 
 tion that an unbroken Prelatical Succession is the 
 unfailing mark of a true Church, to churches whose 
 claim to this succession was far better than that of 
 any Church now is, and which have become hereti- 
 cal. "The Avian Churches which once predomina- 
 ted in the kingdoms of the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, 
 the Burgundians, the Vandals, and the Lombards, 
 were all Episcopal churches, and all had a fairer 
 claim than that of England to the Apostolical Suc- 
 cession, as being much nearer to the Apostolical times. 
 In the East, the Greek Church, which is at variance 
 on points of faith with all the Western Churches, 
 has an equal claim to this succession. The Nestor- 
 ian, the Eutychian, the Jacobite Churches; all liereti- 
 cal, all condemned by councils of which even Pro- 
 testant divines have generally spoken with respect, 
 had an equal claim to the Apostolical Succession. 
 
176 THE HIGH-CHURCII DOCTRINE OF 
 
 Now, if, of teachers having Apostolical orders a vast 
 majority have taught much error, — if a large propor- 
 tion have taught deadly heresy, — if, on the other 
 hand, churches not having Apostolical orders — that of 
 Scotland, for example — have been nearer to the stand- 
 ard of orthodoxy than the majority of teachers who 
 have had Apostolical orders — how can we possibly 
 be called upon to submit our private judgment to the 
 authority of a Church, on the ground that she has 
 these orders?'^! How can the alleged possession 
 of these orders establish the claim of a Church to be 
 a true Church of Christ ? 
 
 Take another class of facts. The Bishops in the 
 line of the succession, are, we are told, the only suc- 
 cessors of the Apostles. They are the authorized 
 governors of the Church. To them alone is entrusted 
 "the gift of the Holy Ghost." They are the guar- 
 dians of the truth and the only channel through which 
 God bestows grace upon mankind. Or, to state the 
 doctrine in the language of a High-Church Bishop, 
 " The Episcopacy is her [the Church's] living bond of 
 union with Christ; the channel in which the grace 
 has been transmitted through the hands of the Apos- 
 tles, which lends her virtue to her sacraments, and 
 gives to penitent and faithful hearts assurance of ac- 
 ceptance and salvation through the purchase of the 
 blessed cross: apart from which, it could have no 
 connection with the Apostles, and could claim no 
 promise made to them."^ — Such is the theory. Now 
 lay along side of it the historical fact, that individuals 
 among these very Bishops have been the chief 
 
 AUTHORS AND ABETTORS OF THE HERESIES, SCHISMS, 
 
 1 Macaulay's Review of Gladstone, p. 303, 
 
 2 Bishop Doane's Elizabethtown Sermon, p. 22» 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 177 
 
 AND IMMORALITIES which have defiled and distracted 
 the Church from the days of the Apostles to the pre- 
 sent time. Not only so, but whenever sound doctrine 
 and Evangelical religion have been revived, it has 
 usually been done not by these Bishops, but in the 
 face of their systematic and bitter opposition. The 
 Waldenses in the vallies of the Alps, the Lollards in 
 England, Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Zuingle, and 
 Knox; the Puritans in their day; and the Wesleys 
 and Whitfield in still later times, are all witnesses to 
 this fact. Even in England, although the Reforma- 
 tion derived most effective aid from Cranmer, Lati- 
 mer, Ridley, Plooper, Jewell, and others — Bishops 
 worthy of the name, " who counted not their lives 
 dear unto them for the sake of the Lord Jesus" — yet, 
 before the quarrel between Henry VIII. and the 
 Pope, the Bishops generally were the determined 
 enemies of all reformation, and persecuted and put 
 to death those who attempted it, as they did the Non- 
 conformists and Covenanters many years afterwards. 
 " The Gospel," says Mr. Powell emphatically, in ad- 
 verting to these facts, " would have perished if left 
 to this succession." 
 
 The corrupt state of the Church of England during 
 the greater part of the last century, is familiar to 
 every reader of history. The London " Christian 
 Observer" says of its own Church, " If we advert to 
 the days of Whitfield and Wesley, we shall find that 
 the great charge against those " enthusiasts," as they 
 were called, was that they preached justification by 
 faith instead of works ; the majority of the clergy 
 denouncing the doctrine of justification by faith as 
 hostile to the interests of morality. In this shape, the 
 dispute came down to the present century. Our clergy 
 
178 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 had nearly lost sight of the true Protestant scriptural 
 doctrine. . . The practice was not then common of 
 using the language of Scripture and our own Articles, 
 but of appropriating the justification predicated in 
 them to baptism. The clergy very generally dis- 
 claimed altogether the doctrine of justification by 
 faith, and earnestly exhorted men to justify them- 
 selves by good living. They in fact adopted the 
 Papists' second justification, losing sight of the first." ^ 
 Toplady, an eminent divine of that church gives this 
 picture of its condition in his day — ^just before the 
 American Revolution. ^ " Where shall we stop? We 
 have already forsook the good old paths trod by Christ 
 and the Apostles; paths in which our Reformers also 
 trod, our martyrs, our Bishops, our universities, and 
 the whole of this Protestant, i. e. of this once Calvin- 
 istic, nation. Our Liturgy, our Articles and our Ho- 
 milies, it is true, still keep possession of our Church 
 walls : but we pray, "we subscribe, we assent one 
 way: we believe, we preach, we Avrite another. In 
 the desk, we are verbal Calvinists; but no sooner do 
 we ascend a few steps above the desk, [into the 
 pulpit] than we forget the grave character in which 
 we appeared below, and tag the performance with a 
 few minutes' entertainment compiled from the frag- 
 ments bequeathed to us by Pelagius and Arminius ; 
 not to say Arius, Socinus, and others still worse 
 than they. Observe, I speak not of all indiscrimi- 
 nately. We have many great and good men, some of 
 whom are, and some of whom are not, Calvinists. 
 But that the glory is, in a very considerable degree, 
 departed from our established Sion, is a truth which 
 
 • Vol. xxxviii. p. 496. — Cited in "Oxford Divinity." 
 2 Works, 8vo. ed. p. 275. Ibid. . 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 179 
 
 cannot be contravened, a fact which must be lamented, 
 and an alarming symptom which ought to be pub- 
 licly noticed.'' He then quotes an observation of 
 Dr. Young's, that "almost every cottage can show 
 us one that has corrupted, and every palace one that 
 has renounced the faith;" and asks this emphatic 
 question, " Is there a single heresy, that ever an- 
 noyed the Christian world, which has .not its pre- 
 sent partisans among those who profess conformity 
 to the Church of England ?"i This general corrup- 
 tion of doctrine in the Establishment, was, as might 
 be expected, accompanied by a corresponding defec- 
 tion of life and manners among the clergy and laity. 
 These evils were propagated from the mother country 
 to the colonies. The great body of the Episcopal 
 ministers in Virginia, for example, were men of 
 notoriously bad character — a disgrace to the Church 
 and to religion. At length, there were cheering indi- 
 
 1 During this period there were frequent debates in Parliament on 
 the subject of repealing some of the oppressive laws against Dis- 
 senters. On one of these occasions, in the year 1773, the illustrious 
 Earl of Chatham, in vindicating the Dissenters from the violent 
 attacks of several of the Bishops, and especially of the Archbishop of 
 York, who had charged them with being " men of close ambition," 
 made use of this memorable language. " The dissenting ministers 
 are represented as ' men of close ambition.' They are so, my lords : 
 and their ambition is to keep close to the college of fishermen, not 
 of cardinals; and to the doctrine of inspired Apostles, not to the 
 decrees of interested and aspiring Bishops. They contend for a 
 spiritual creed and spiritual worship; we have a Calcinistic creed, a 
 Popish liturgy, and an Arminian clergy. The Reformation has laid 
 open the Scriptures to all; let not the Bishops shut them again. Laws 
 in support of ecclesiastical power are pleaded which it would shock 
 humanity to execute. It is said that religious sects have done great 
 mischief when they were not kept under restraint; but history affords 
 no proof that sects have ever been mischievous when they were not 
 oppressed and persecuted by the ruling church," 
 
ISO THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 cations of a revival of true piety in the Establishment, 
 which ultimately resulted in its partial renovation. 
 Here, again, however, the " Successors of the Apos- 
 tles" who have the special oversight of Christ's flock, 
 instead of reformhig the Church, waited to be reform- 
 ed by it. While they were sleeping at their posts, 
 or spending their time in luxurious indolence, Grim- 
 shaw, Romaine, Samuel Walker, Hervey, Venn, 
 Newton, Scott, Milner, Wilberforce, Hannah More, 
 and others of a like spirit, came forward in the pulpit, 
 or through the press, to roll back the torrent of error 
 and secularity which had deluged the Church, and to 
 unfurl the banner of evangelical religion. Not a 
 solitary Prelate appears among the original leaders in 
 this movement; nor did any of them give it their 
 decided countenance until after it had made very con- 
 siderable progress. 
 
 Facts like these — and ecclesiastical history abounds 
 with them — require some solution from those who 
 maintain the doctrine of an unbroken Prelatical Suc- 
 cession as essential to a true Church. How comes 
 it to pass, if this doctrine be scriptural, that in nearly 
 all cases, Bishops in the line of this pretended succes- 
 sion have been the principal corrupters of the Church; 
 and that when the reformation of a Church was to be 
 effected, the inferior clergy or the laity have been 
 obliged to do it without their sanction, and, in most 
 cases, in defiance of their opposition ? If the High- 
 Church theory be true, there is certainly an apparent 
 repugnance between the charter God has given his. 
 Church and his jwovideiitial dealings with her, which 
 it will require more than ordinary sagacity to explain. 
 
 Again, how is this theory to be harmonized with 
 innumerable facts in the origin and progress of non- 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 181 
 
 Prelatical Churches? Our own country, for exam- 
 ple, had but a very limited number of Prelatical 
 Churches and ministers prior to the Revolution, and 
 the proportion is to this day very small as compared 
 with the aggregate of the non-Episcopal denomina- 
 tions: yet it is generally thought that the influence 
 of true religion has been widely and effectively dif- 
 fused among our population, especially in the older 
 States. Is nine-tenths of this religion mere fanaticism 
 or is it genuine piety ? And if the latter, how comes 
 it to pass that such fruit and in such profusion should 
 be found in a country so nearly destitute for a long 
 time and as to a large portion of its population, of a 
 Church and ministry? 
 
 Or, look at the hundreds, not to say thousands, of 
 non-Prelatical congregations throughout the Union 
 now; and explain, if it be possible, on High-Church 
 principles, the phenomena connected with their "schis- 
 matical" ordinances. How happens it, if these prin- 
 ciples are sound, that "unauthorized'^ ministers have 
 in so many instances been instrumental in renovating 
 nat merely congregations but communities — that God 
 has made their labours effectual in the conversion 
 and sanctification of multitudes who from having 
 been gay, careless, and perhaps profligate persons, 
 have been transformed into meek and faithful follow- 
 ers of the Lord Jesus Christ? And, again, how is it 
 that the same kind of ministrations has produced the 
 same results, even in Pagan lands, — that preachers 
 sent out with "no commissions," or only "forged com- 
 missions" from these no-church organizations, have 
 in repeated instances been owned of God as the chief 
 agents in subverting colossal systems of idolatry and 
 bringing heathen tribes to the faith and obedience of 
 
182 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 the Gospel? High-Churchmen talk much about the 
 "validity'^ and "invahdity'' of ordinances. Let 
 them show, if they can, that "valid" ordinances have 
 ever, since the days of miracles, wrought greater won- 
 ders than these ; or if they cannot do this, let them 
 candidly confess that ordinances which lead to such 
 results, have a divine attestation to their " validity" 
 which no man may lawfully gainsay. 
 
 On the whole, the further this collation of facts is 
 carried, the more evident will it be that the High- 
 Church theory of an unbroken Prelatical Succession 
 as essential to the Church, can no more bear the ap- 
 plication of this test, than it can to be tried by Scripture 
 or History. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 the true succession. 
 
 The High-Church theory of the Apostolical Succes- 
 sion has now been tested by Scripture, by history, 
 and by facts. The confidence with which its claims 
 are urged, seems to demand that the difference be- 
 tween this theory and the true doctrine of suc- 
 cession, should be more distinctly pointed out before 
 we leave this branch of the subject. 
 
 The theory I am examining proceeds upon the two- 
 fold assumption, that the Church is to be perpetuated 
 only through an uninterrupted personal succession of 
 ministers, and that these ministers must be of Prelati- 
 cal rank. This succession of persons is made not 
 merely an essential, but the leading mark of a true 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 183 
 
 Church. Not only does it take precedence of truth 
 of doctrine, in the writings of this school, but by many 
 of them, truth of doctrine is not admitted to be an in- 
 dispensible note of a true Church. ^ The Church, the 
 ministry, the sacraments, the gifts of salvation, are all 
 tied to this personal succession. 
 
 It has been shown that this scheme derives very 
 little countenance from the New Testament — a point 
 candidly conceded by the leading Puseyites. Those 
 who attempt to deduce it from the Apostolic commis- 
 sion, are obliged to assume, (1.) That the terms of 
 that commission imply the perpetuity of the Apostolic 
 office. (2.) That the office was to be handed down 
 from one generation of Apostles to another, through 
 an unbroken series of ordinations. (3.) That no ordi- 
 nations would be valid, excepting those performed by 
 Apostles or Prelates. (4.) That the promise annexed 
 to the commission was designed only for the ministers 
 who might be in the line of this succession. And, (5.) 
 That all who were in this line would be entitled to 
 the promise, whether they fulfilled the condition on 
 which it is suspended, that is, whether they " preached 
 the Gospel," or not. Every one of these positions is 
 denied. They have been rejected by the great mass 
 of the Protestant world, as they were by the Reform- 
 ers both in England and on the Continent. They 
 are not, then, to be taken for granted; they must be 
 proved. And there is one short method of testing the 
 interpretation on which they rest. The Saviour's 
 promises are sure. If the promise, " Lo, I am with 
 you always," was designed only for Prelates, and 
 ministers ordained by Prelates, facts will show it. 
 Is it, then, a fact that he has given his presence and 
 
 ' See Palmer on the Church, I. 46. 
 
1S4 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 blessing only to the ministers in this pretended succes- 
 sion ?i Will any man venture to say that Christ's 
 blessing was bestowed upon thfe sensual and simoni- 
 acal Bishops and Popes of the middle ages, who are 
 claimed to belong to this Succession, and withheld 
 from such men as the Erskines, and Owen, and Bax- 
 ter, and Edwards, and Davies? If not, what becomes 
 of the interpretation that would restrict this promise 
 to the Prelatical Succession ? 
 
 The perpetuity of the ministry is taught both in this 
 commission and in numerous other passages in the 
 New Testament. But it is not said that the ministry 
 should be divided into different ranks, or that the 
 right" of ordination should be vested in one rank to 
 the exclusion of another, or that there should be an 
 indefectible personal succession of ministers to the 
 end of time, or that the Holy Ghost should be trans- 
 mitted along this pretended chain. If such a succes- 
 sion were essential to personal union with Christ or 
 to a true Church, that is, if it occupied the place in 
 real Christianity which it does in the High-Church 
 scheme, the New Testament would not have taught 
 it in a way which has compelled the warmest advo- 
 cates of the dogma to say that if it is in the Bible at 
 all, it can be derived from it " only by the aid of very 
 attenuated and nicely managed inferential argu- 
 ments." Under the Levitical economy, personal suc- 
 cession was an indispensable condition of the priest- 
 hood. This is not merely hinted at, but laid down 
 with the utmost explicitness and solemnity. The 
 principle is interlaced with the whole complicated 
 jQwish ritual. Numerous laws were enacted for the 
 purpose of insuring and protecting the succession. 
 
 • See Chap. V. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 185 
 
 And instead of leaving it to be authenticated by such 
 miscellaneous writers as might happen to take an in- 
 terest in the suh}ect, genealogical tables were required 
 to be kept with sacred fidelity, as the official and con- 
 clusive evidence of the genuineness of the succession. 
 The moment the Christian dispensation opens, all 
 this apparatus vanishes. We hear of a ministry, it 
 is true — a permanent ministry — but nothing of regis- 
 ters of Bishops — nothing of the divine mercy being 
 restricted to a single channel of communication with 
 our world — nothing of the Church and salvation being 
 suspended upon an unbroken series of ordinations. 
 The fact that ordinations were performed only by 
 those who had themselves been clothed with office — 
 whether Apostles or Presbyters — is of great import- 
 ance and authority, as showing that the right of ordi- 
 nation is vested in the ministry, and that individuals 
 are not to exercise the functions of this office without 
 being duly set apart to it. But it is going quite be- 
 yond the legitimate import of this fact, to infer from 
 it that an uninterrupted succession from the Apostles 
 is the s{7ie qua non of a valid ministry. This would 
 be to place the Christian ministry on the same footing 
 with the Levitical priesthood. And if this had been 
 the design of the Saviour — if he had intended to in- 
 corporate in the constitution of the New Testament 
 Church the principle of a personal succession as in- 
 dispensable to the Church and to the communication 
 of spiritual blessings — it is inconceivable that all the 
 arrangements of the old dispensation for preserving 
 and verifying the succession would have been omit- 
 ted in the new. The absence of any such provisions 
 in the New Testament, and, as a consequence of it, 
 the want of any genealogical records of the succession 
 
 16* 
 
186 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 Avhich can bear the scrutiny of history, leave it utterly 
 uncertain, on the theory under consideration, whether 
 there is now a true Church upan earth. The con- 
 tinued existence of the ministry as an order of men 
 from the Apostles' days to our own, is a historical 
 fact which no sane man would question. But the 
 fact is equally indisputable that no Uving minister can 
 trace up his own descent with absolute certainty to 
 the Apostles, through an unbroken series of regular 
 ordinations. 
 
 Again, every attentive reader of the New Testa- 
 ment must have observed, that while it says very little 
 about the succession of ministers, it says a great deal 
 about their character and doctrine. It is impossible 
 to harmonize the language it employs respecting yi//*e 
 teachers, with a theory which makes personal succes- 
 sion of more importance in the ministry than sound 
 doctrine. " Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try 
 the spirits whether they are of God; because many 
 false prophets are gone out into the world." " If 
 there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, 
 receive him not into your house." " Beware of false 
 prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing, but 
 inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know 
 them by their fruits." " False prophets," says Gro- 
 tius, "not as to their mission or calling, but as to 
 their false, destructive doctrine.^'' The Apostle Paul 
 speaks of certain teachers in the Corinthian Churches, 
 as " false Apostles, deceitful workers, transforming 
 themselves into the Apostles of Christ." These he 
 pronounces " ministers of Satan," and that, not be- 
 cause they were not in the true "succession," but 
 because they "corrupted the word of God," and 
 "handled" it "deceitfully." And he bids Timothy, 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. lS7 
 
 and, in similar terms, the Thessalonian Christians, to 
 withdraw from those Avhose teachings were contrary 
 to " the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the 
 doctrine which is according to godhness." The New 
 Testament abounds with warnings of this kind. In 
 no one instance are Christians directed to prove a 
 rehgious teacher by his ecclesiastical pedigree, but 
 uniformly by his doctrine. These instructions, too, 
 are addressed to the people. In the exercise of that 
 right oi private judgment of which Romanists and 
 High-Churchmen stand so much in dread, they are to 
 bring every minister's doctrines, as the Bereans did 
 Paul's, "to the law and the testimony;" and those 
 whose doctrines cannot pass this ordeal, are to be 
 rejected, although their credentials certify that they 
 are lineally descended from the first Apostles. It was 
 with reason that the Apostles insisted so much upon 
 sound doctrine, and so little upon mere succession. 
 One of their fellow-apostles had proved a traitor. 
 Among their followers were a Demas, a Diotrophes, 
 a Hymeneus, and a Philetus. Not only were false 
 teachers entering the Church from without, but they 
 foresaw and distinctly predicted a terrible apostacy'^ 
 in the. Church which was to be widely extended and 
 to continue for a long time. They might be certain, 
 therefore, from what had happened, and from what 
 they saw was to happen, that the ministry, a large 
 portion of it at least, would become corrupt, and 
 would diffuse and perpetuate its corruptions by intro- 
 ducing errorists and profligates into the sacred office. 
 It would have been surprising if, in these circumstan- 
 ces, they had not made apostolicity of doctrine, not 
 
 ' See 2 Thessalonians ii. 
 
188 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 apostolicity as to mere successionj the main test of a 
 lawful ministry. 
 
 It is, indeed, a fatal objection to the High-Church 
 theory, that it makes a mere matter of order para- 
 momit in importance to truth and holiness. The 
 primary question it asks respecting a Christian minis- 
 ter is not, "What is his doctrine?'' or "What are his 
 morals?" but, "What is his genealogy?" It seems 
 to be taken for granted, because the ministry is to be 
 a permanent institution, and the injunction has been 
 left on record, " The same commit thou to faithful 
 men who shall be able to teach others also," with the 
 promise, "Lo, I am with you always," that this duty 
 is complied with and the fulfilment of this promise 
 secured, whenever an individual is regularly ordain- 
 ed. But this is to overlook the obvious import of 
 these passages. Ordination is not the only, nor even 
 the chief point they involve. " Lo, I am with yow." 
 With whom? The first words of the commission 
 furnish the answer: " Go, preach my Gospel." He 
 is with those who preach his Gospel. — " The things 
 that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, 
 the same commit thou to faithful men who shall be 
 able to teach others also." What are " the things" 
 here intended? Unquestionably, the great truths' of 
 the Gospel. And to whom are they to be " commit- 
 ted?" To "faithful men." — Now are passages 
 like these to be brought forward as "proof-texts" in 
 support of the dogma that any and every man upon 
 whom the hands of a Bishop have been laid, is in the 
 genuine line of succession from the Apostles ? If a 
 man preaches that we are not justified solely by faith 
 in Christ — that our own works constitute in part the 
 meritorious ground of our acceptance with God — that 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 189 
 
 Christ is offered up afresh as a sacrifice, every time 
 the Lord's Supper is celebrated — that baptism is the 
 chief instrument of regeneration — that prayer is to 
 be offered to the angels and departed saints, — is that 
 man to be regarded as '''preaching the Gospel 7"^^ 
 Can he claim the promise, " Lo, I am with you ?" 
 Or if a Bishop gives himself up to a life of debauch- 
 ery — trafiicks in " Uvings" — confers orders for gain — 
 and scatters and devours the flock he was appointed 
 to feed, — is he to be owned as a '^faithfuP^ man, and 
 reverenced as a successor of the Apostles? Paul 
 himself did not think so, whatever some among his 
 " successors" may think. " Though Ave, or an an- 
 gel from heaven,''^ he says, '^ preach any other' gos- 
 pel unto you than that which we have preached unto 
 you, let him be accursed.^^ The anathema which he 
 invoked, was upon those who " preach another gos- 
 pel." The malediction of our modern "Apostles" 
 lights upon those who preach the same gospel that 
 Paul preached, but who, like Timothy, have been 
 ordained only " by the laying on of the hands of 
 the Presbytery." According to Paul's canon, no 
 form of ordination, no Apostolic lineage, not even 
 angelic rank and powers, could legitimate his com- 
 mission who preached a false Gospel. According 
 to theirs, no orderly investiture with the sacred office 
 by "faithful" ministers, no truth of doctrine, no holi- 
 ness of life, no fidehty in winning souls to Christ, can 
 make him other than a " follower of Korah, Dathan, 
 and Abiram," over whom a Bishop has not pro- 
 nounced the awful words, "Receive the Holy Ghost." 
 They, with their predilection for a ritual religion, can 
 see nothing in the Apostolic commission but the 
 pledge of an unbroken series of robed and mitred 
 
190 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 Prelates extending from the Apostles down to the end 
 of all things. He, though never the patron or apolo- 
 gist of disorder in the government or worship of the 
 Church, contemplates the possihility of a divorce be- 
 tween truth and order, and directs that m every such 
 case order shall yield to truth. They would sacrifice 
 the gem to save the casket ; he, the casket to save the 
 gem. — And this leads me to mention as another objec- 
 tion to the High-Church theory, that it reverses the 
 true position of the Church and the ministry. The 
 argument runs thus: the ministry has been preserved 
 until the present time, therefore there is a true Church 
 in the world. Whereas it should run thus: the true 
 Church has been preserved, therefore there is a valid 
 ministry in existence. On the former view, the 
 Church is an appendage of the ministry; on the latter, 
 the ministry belongs to the Church. Some of the 
 Oxford writers have boldly taken the Romanist 
 ground that the clergy are the Church: and this 
 notion really pervades the whole High-Church sys- 
 tem, although it is not common to hear it distinctly 
 avowed. 
 
 For the clearing of this point, let it be noted that 
 the materials of which the first churches were com- 
 posed, were in being before the ordinary ministry. 
 The Apostles were sent forth as extraordinary ofH- 
 cers to bring men to the knowledge of Christ, and 
 then they were organized into societies under perma- 
 nent officers. There were Christians first; then Min- 
 isters to watch over and instruct them. The titles of 
 Ministers imply tlie same thing. As a Minister " has 
 the oversight of the flock of Christ, he is termed 
 Bishop. As he feeds them with spiritual food, he is 
 termed Pastor, As he serves Christ in his Church, 
 
THE' APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 191 
 
 he is termed Minister. As it is his duty to he grave 
 and prudent, and an example of the flock, and to 
 govern well in the house and kingdom of Christ, he 
 is termed Presbyter or Elder. ''^'^ All these titles pre- 
 suppose a society of Christians over whom he is placed 
 in the Lord, and /or whose benefit he is invested with 
 his office. What is here implied, is expressly taught 
 in the Scriptures. *' And he gave some, apostles; 
 and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, 
 pastors and teachers: for the perfecting of the saints, 
 for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the 
 body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the 
 faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a 
 perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the 
 fulness of Christ." (Eph. iv. 11-13.) The great 
 design and business of the ministry are here stated. 
 They are set " for the perfecting of the saints, for the 
 work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of 
 Christ.^' The means by which they are to promote 
 these ends are elsewhere prescribed, viz. the preach- 
 ing of the word, the administration of the sacraments, 
 and the exercise of godly discipUne. But it is the 
 design of their institution with which we are concern- 
 ed now. This, it will be seen, has respect entirely to 
 the welfare and prosperity of Christ's flock. They 
 are the rulers of the flock, it is true,, but all the power 
 they have is ministerial, and they are to exercise it 
 for the good of the flock, whose "servants'^ they are. 
 They are to feed them with knowledge and under- 
 standing — to break to them the bread of life — to warn 
 and defend them against their adversaries — and to 
 bring them back when they wander from the path of 
 life. In a word, every thing pertaining to their office 
 
 1 Form of Government of Presbyterian Church, Chap. IV. 
 
192 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 shows that they are created for the Church, not the 
 Church for them. Or, as the Westminster Confession 
 of Faith expresses it, the ministry is '^ given to the 
 Church:' 
 
 This being the case, it is reversing the true order 
 of things to suspend the being of the Church upon a 
 personal succession of ministers. The perpetuity of 
 the Church is secured by the covenant-promise of her 
 Lord; and the ministry belongs to her. It is her 
 inalienable right : and wherever the Church is, this 
 right is. 
 
 " But," it may be said, " how is the Church to b6 
 known, otherwise than by an unbroken succession in 
 the ministry?" I answer, if this were the only mark 
 of a true Church, it could not be known at all: for no 
 Church can prove that her ministry has such a suc- 
 cession. But this is so far from being regarded as the 
 chief note of a true Church, that it is not named at all 
 in the definitions of the Church given by the Refor- 
 mers and the Reformed Churches. Luther assigned 
 as notes of the true Church, the true and uncorrupted 
 preaching of the Gospel, administration of baptism, of 
 the eucharist, and of the keys; a legitimate ministry, 
 public service in a known language, and tribulations 
 internally and externally. Calvin recognizes the usual 
 distinction between the invisible and visible Church : 
 the former as comprehending all true believers living 
 at any one time upon earth, and those who have gone 
 to their reward. Of the latter, the only marks he 
 reckons, are " the pure preaching and hearing of the 
 word, and the administration of the sacraments accord- 
 ing to the institution of Christ." ^ Turrettin, after 
 defining the invisible Church in the usual way, makes 
 
 1 Inst. B, IV. ch. i. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 193 
 
 the visible Clinrch q, "society of men called by the 
 preaching of the Gospel to tlie profession of one 
 faith, communion in the same sacraments, and union 
 under one form of government." ^ The word, he 
 justly observes, is chiefly used in the New Testament 
 in the former sense, to denote Christ's true sheep; 
 the other is its secondary and less proper sis:nification. 
 Pictet's definitions^ are very similar to Turrettin's. 
 Claude restricts the application of the term Church to 
 true believers. 3 Dr. Jackson, a high authority at 
 Oxford, says that "the one, holy. Catholic Church, 
 ivhich we believe in the Creed, ^^ is the aggregate of 
 those who are united to Christ by a living faith. So 
 far is he from confounding this Church with the 
 visible Church, that he says the true Church has at 
 some periods, " been remarkably visible in such as 
 that visible (Roman) Church did condemn for here- 
 tics.'^^ The French Protestant Church, whose Arti- 
 cles Calvin assisted in framing, also makes the Church 
 "an assembly of believers," with whom there are 
 " some hypocrites and ill-livers" mingled. Another 
 Article of this Confession, as bearing upon the ques- 
 tion under discussion, it may be well to quote in full. 
 Art. XXXI. "We believe that it is not lawful for any 
 man of his own authority to take upon himself the 
 government of the Church, but that every one ought 
 to be admitted thereunto by a lawful election, if it 
 may possibly be done, and that the Lord do so per- 
 mit it. Which exception we have expressly added, 
 because that sometime (as it hath fallen out in our 
 
 » De Ecclesia, Quaest. II. 10. 
 
 2 De Eccl. Cap. I. 3. 
 
 3 See his " Defence of the Reformation," passim. 
 
 4 Jackson on the Church, Philad. ed. 67-9. 
 
 17 
 
194 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 days) the state of the Church being interrupted, God 
 hath raised up some persons in an extraordinary 
 manner to repair the ruins of the decayed Church. 
 But, let it be what it will, we believe that this rule 
 is always to be followed, that all pastors, elders, and 
 deacons, should have a testimony of their being called 
 unto their respective offices."^ 
 
 The Westminster Confession makes the true, invisi- 
 ble Church to consist of all the elect; the visible, of 
 " all those throughout the world that profess the true 
 religion, together with their children.'^ The doctrine 
 of the Church of England is thus stated in her Arti- 
 cles:— Art. XIX. '' The visible Church of Christ is a 
 congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure 
 word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly 
 administered according to Christ's ordinance, in all 
 those things that of necessity are requisite to the 
 same." — Art. XXIII. " It is not lawful for any man 
 to take upon him the office of public preaching or 
 ministering the sacraments in the congregation before 
 he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same. 
 And those we ought to judge lawfully called and 
 sent, which be chosen and called to this work by 
 men who have public authority given unto them in 
 the congregation, to call and send ministers into the 
 Lord's vineyard." 
 
 Respecting all these definitions it may be observed, 
 (1.) That they recognize the true, spiritual Church of 
 Christ as being made up of real believers. (2.) In 
 every instance truth of doctrine is made an essential 
 mark of a true Church. (3.) While a "ministry" is 
 made an essential attribute of a Church, nothing is 
 said or hinted of the necessity of its being descended 
 
 » Lorimer's Hist. Prot. Ch. of France, pp. 32, 33. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 195 
 
 by an uninterrupted series of ordinations from the 
 Apostles. The language of the XXXIX Articles was, 
 as we learn from Burnet, designedly made indefinite 
 on this whole subject. " I come," he says, " in the 
 next place to consider the second part of this Article, 
 (Article XXIJI.) which is, the definition here given 
 of those that are lawfully called and sent : this is put 
 in very general words, far from that magisterial 
 stiffness in which some have taken upon them to 
 dictate in this m,atter. The article does not re- 
 solve this into any particular constitution, but leaves 
 the matter open and at large for such accidents 
 as had happened and such as might still happen. 
 They who drew it had the state of the several 
 churches before their eyes, that had been different- 
 ly reformed; and although their own had been less 
 forced to go out of the beaten path than any other, 
 yet they knew that -all things among themselves, had 
 not gone according to those rules that ought to be 
 sacred in regular times: necessity has no law, and 
 is a law to itself." Accordingly, the Article, it will be 
 perceived, is so framed as not to make either Prelati- 
 cal Succession or Prelatical ordination essential to a 
 true church and a valid ministry. The condition 
 prescribed in this and every other instance, where the 
 ministry is named, is, that it be characterized by 
 sound doctrine. It must be a ministry that preaches 
 '^ the pure word,'' ^ and administers the sacraments 
 according to Christ's institution. It is not to be in- 
 ferred from this that the eminent Divines and Churches 
 that have been named, favoured lax views on the 
 subject of a call and ordination to the ministry. So 
 far from it, it is remarkable with what unanimity and 
 cogency the Reformers and the theologians of the 
 
196 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 Reformed Churches maintain the necessity of a divine 
 call as indispensable to a lawful entrance upon the 
 ministry ; and the importance of a formal investiture 
 with the office by those already clothed with it. Still 
 they held that the ministry belonged to tlie Church, 
 not the Church to the ministry — that a sound and 
 faithful ministry whose preaching and labours would 
 edify and comfort his people, was one of Christ's 
 ascension-gifts to his Cliurch, the right to which 
 is inalienable — and that seeing such a ministry as 
 this in any given line might fail, the succession of the 
 Church could not depend upon an unbroken succes- 
 sion in the ministry, nor could she by that defection 
 any more lose her right to such a ministry as Christ 
 had given her, than a people whose magistrates should 
 all die or turn traitors, would thereby lose their right 
 to appoint other magistrates in their stead. While 
 they taught, therefore, that the function of ordination 
 was devolved upon the Ministry, and that no one 
 could lawfully assume that office, in a settled Church 
 state, without being set apart to it by men already 
 ordained, they also taught that the right of call and 
 ordination belonged essentially to the Church, and 
 that if the ministry failed, or became apostate, or 
 refused to ordain successors, the Church might, in 
 these extraordinary circumstances, (and in these 
 only) resume the exercise of her right and set apart 
 those whom God had manifestly called to serve him 
 in the Ministry. Thus Melancthon says, "If Bishops 
 and Ordinaries are enemies of the Church, or will not 
 give orders, yet the Churches retain their right ; for 
 wheresoever there is a Church, there is a right of 
 administering the Gospel: wherefore there is a neces- 
 sity that the Church should retain the right of callings 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 197 
 
 electing, and ordaining ministers. And this right is 
 a gift given to tlie Church, which no human author- 
 ity can take from the Church, as Paul wittiesseth in 
 the fourth of the Ephesians: [see the passage above:] 
 where, therefore, there is a- true Church, there must 
 needs be a right of electing and ordaining minis- 
 ters." i Turrettin, a theologian whom it- would be 
 superfluous to praise, after discussing this question in 
 his theology, devotes several pages of one of his most 
 elaborate Tracts^ to the subject. Without presenting 
 even an abstract of his argument, it will be sufficient 
 to state that the succession he contends for as essential 
 to the Church and the ministry is the succession of the 
 truth. .He observes, that as God is a God of order, 
 not of confusion, the order established in a Church 
 is nor to be violated except in a case of necessity; but 
 that if a case should arise in which truth and order are 
 so decidedly in conflict that one or the other must be 
 sacrificed, order must yield to truth. Applying this 
 principle to the question of ordination, he argues that 
 in an unsettled state of the Church, where an adhe- 
 rence to the established forms has become utterly im- 
 practicable, the people, sooner than be deprived of an 
 institution so essential to their spiritual welfare, are 
 authorized to provide themselves with ministers in 
 an unusual way — in no case, however, are they to 
 receive an individual as a minister, who is not clearly 
 designated to the work by the Providence and Spirit 
 of God. In corroboration of his views, he shows that 
 even laymen have sometimes, when placed in extra- 
 ordinary circumstances, engaged successfully in the 
 work of propagating the Gospel. He instances those 
 
 ' Dc Potest. Episc. Arg. 2. 
 
 2 <« De Necessaria Seces&ione nostra ab Ecclesia Romana." 
 17* 
 
198 THE IIIGH-CIIURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 mentioiTcd in Acts viii. 4, and xi. 19-21, who being 
 "scattered abroad" by the persecution, "went every- 
 where preaching the gospel;" whereby "a great num- 
 ber beUeved and turned unto the Lord:" also the case 
 of ApoUos, who being instructed in the way of the 
 Lord by Aquila and Priscilla, apphed himself, appa- 
 rently with no other ordination, to the preaching of 
 the Gospel. To these he adds the interesting case 
 mentioned by Theodoret, of the two Christian youths, 
 Edesius and Frumentius, in the reign of Constantine 
 the Great, who being made captives in India, after 
 suffering shipwreck, converted the barbarous king of 
 the country and man}?- of his subjects to Christianity, 
 and established churches among them. From these 
 and other considerations, he argues that the flock of 
 Christ may lawfully seek out shepherds for them- 
 selves, when they can obtain shepherds in no other 
 way. "And this," he adds, " should the more readily 
 be admitted, because it is certain and indubitable that 
 the right of the call of Pastors, which was given 
 by Christ to the Apostles, and through them to the 
 Church, does not pertain to the Pastors alone, or the 
 Church representative, but primarily and radically 
 resides in the society of the faithful, or the Church 
 collective. This right the Church has, for the better 
 maintenance of order, transferred to the Pastors or 
 Synod. She has not, however, so entirely relinquish- 
 ed it, but that it is always exercised in her name and 
 by her authority; and if those to whom she has con- 
 fided it, prostitute it to the propagation of error, she 
 can resume the use of it." 
 
 In opposition to the views expressed by these emi- 
 nent men, and held by the great body of their asso- 
 ciates, the High-Church theory places the Church 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 199 
 
 entirely at the mercy of the Bishops. They hold its 
 very existence in their hands. If they cannot or will 
 not perpetuate the ministry, the Church itself comes 
 to an end. If they become heretical and corrupt, the 
 Church has no redress. They may rule Christ's 
 flock with a rod of iron ; and they must submit to it. 
 They may feed them with the poison of deadly error, 
 instead of divine truth; and they must receive it. 
 The^'- may pervert and defile the sacraments, and add 
 indefinitely to their number: still the people must 
 acquiesce. They may take away Christ out of the 
 Gospel, and give them "another Gospel;" but they 
 are to make no resistance. Armed with the "succes- 
 sion," their Bishops stand before them as the vice- 
 gerents of heaven. They are to be "as sure that 
 the Bishop is Christ's appointed representative as if 
 they actually saw upon his head a cloven tongue like 
 as of fire"^ — to believe that he is "commissioned to 
 bid, on heavenly authority, no man despise them, and 
 to point to those who, as a class, as Bishops of the 
 Church, do despise them, the solemn words, ' He that 
 despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth 
 me, despiseth him that sent me.' "^ Where this 
 doctrine obtains, the reformation of a Church, the 
 government of which is in the hands of a corrupt 
 and despotic Episcopate, is next to impossible. To 
 oppose the Bishops is to "fight against God;" to 
 withdraw from their jurisdiction, is to be guilty of 
 "schism," the blackest of all sins in the High-Church 
 calendar : to expect them to become Reformers, is 
 to expect lawless ambition to cast away its sceptre, 
 and sensuality to bridle its own lusts. It will not do 
 
 1 Tract No. 10. 2 Tract No. 5. 
 
200 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 to say that such a defection as this on the part of 
 the clergy in tlie Une of the succession, cannot hap- 
 pen. It was the Jewish priesthood — the genuine 
 "succession-Bishops" of that economy — who cruci- 
 fied tlie Redeemer and put his Apostles out of the 
 synagogues, as "schismatical intruders" into the min- 
 istry. In the fourth century Arianism became the 
 authorized faith of the Church. It was sanctioned 
 by several councils both in the East and the West. 
 And so general was the defection of the clergy from 
 the true faith, that it became a proverb respecting 
 Athanasius, who remained steadfast and was actually 
 deposed for his orthodoxy, " The world against Atha- 
 nasiuSj and Athanasius against the world." — The 
 general corruption of the Romish clergy both as to 
 faith and morals for centuries before the Reformation, 
 and for some time after that great event, is a fact as 
 well authenticated as the Reformation itself. Cal- 
 vin, in his treatise on the "Necessity of Reforming 
 the Church," presented to the imperial Diet at Spires 
 in 1544, thus expresses himself on this subject. 
 " They (the Bishops) maintain that Christ left as a 
 heritage to the Apostles, the sole right of appoint- 
 ing over churches whomsoever they pleased, and. 
 they complain that we, in exercising the ministry 
 without their authority, have, with sacrilegious temeri- 
 ty, invaded their province. How do they prove it? 
 Because they have succeeded the Apostles in an un- 
 broken series. But is this enough when all things 
 else are different? It would be ridiculous to say so; 
 they do say it, however. In their elections, no ac- 
 count is taken either of life or doctrine. The right of 
 suifrage has been wrested from the people. Nay, 
 even excluding the rest of the clergy, the dignitaries 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCGESS^ION. 201 
 
 have drawn the whole power to themselves 
 
 In short, while they seem to have entered mto a con- 
 spiracy not to have any kind of resemblance either to 
 the Apostles or the Holy Fathers of the Church, they 
 merely clothe themselves with the pretence that they 
 are descended from them in an unbroken succession, 
 as if Christ had ever enacted it into a law, that what- 
 ever might be the conduct of those who presided 
 over the Church, they should be recognized as hold- 
 ing the place of the Apostles, or as if the office were 
 some hereditary possession which transmits alike to the 
 worthy and the unworthy. And then, as is said of the 
 Milesians, they have taken precautions not to admit 
 a single worthy person into their society ; or if, per- 
 chance, they have unawares admitted him, they do 
 not permit him to remain. It is of the generahty I 
 speak. For I deny not that there are a few good 
 men among them, who, however, are either silent 
 from fear, or not listened to. From those, then, who 
 persecute the doctrine of Christ with fire and sword, 
 who permit no man with impunity to speak sincerely 
 of Christ, who, in every possible way impede the 
 course of truth, who strenuously resist our attempt to 
 raise the Church from the distressed condition into 
 which they have brought her, who suspect all those 
 who take a deep and pious interest in the welfare of 
 the Church, and either keep them out of the ministry, 
 or, if they have been admitted, thrust them out — from 
 such persons, forsooth, it were to be expected that they 
 would with their own hands, instal into the office faith- 
 ful ministers to instruct the people in pure religion."^ 
 This reasoning which Calvin employed against 
 the Romish Bishops, is .equally conclusive against 
 
 1 Pp. 90—92, Lond. Ed.— See Appendix. 
 
202 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 the same doctrine as urged by so-called Protestant 
 Pishops and ministers in our day. To link the Church 
 exclusively and indissolubly to an unbroken Pre- 
 latical Succession, is to put her, bound hand and 
 foot, into the hands of the Bishops. And if the 
 Bishops become corrupt — a contingency so far from 
 being improbable, that their heresies, crimes, and 
 schisms fill up a large portion of ecclesiastical his- 
 tory — the Church must patiently Avear her chains 
 until they become sick of playing the despot, or nau- 
 seated with- sensuality, and set about recovering her 
 from the miserable condition to which they have 
 reduced her. That this is no forced conclusion from 
 the principles advocated by the Puseyite party, is 
 evident from the terms in which they speak of the 
 Reformation. They tell us, for example, that ^"'they 
 cannot allow the necessity of what was done at the 
 Reformation, without proof quite overwhelming." ^ 
 " Too many of us," they say, " speak as if we had 
 gained more by the Reformation in freedom, than we 
 have lost by it in disunion." ^ a \ hate the Reforma- 
 tion," says Mr. Froude, " and the Reformers more 
 and more." 3 "Protestantism," says their late lead- 
 ing organ, " in its essence and in all its bearings, is 
 characteristically the religion of corrupt human na- 
 ture.'''^ Again — "The Protestant tone of doctrine 
 and thought is essentially anti-Christian.''^ ^ This is 
 going farther, it is probable, than the High-Church 
 party generally are yet prepared to go. But their 
 principles require them to condemn, and there is ample 
 evidence that many of them at least do heartily con- 
 
 1 Tract, No. 57. 4 Br. Crit. ut. sup. p. 27. 
 
 2 Br. Crit. for July, 1841, p. 2. 5 lb. p. 29. 
 
 3 Remains I. 389. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 203 
 
 demn, the Reformation on the continent and in Scot- 
 land, as a schismatical jebelUon against the just 
 authority of the Bishops, the authorized governors of 
 the Church. The parties engaged in perpetuating 
 this " schism," they refuse to recognize as any part 
 of the Church, while their assiduous attentions to 
 the Papal Hierarchy, which in turn refuses to re- 
 cognize them as belonging to the Church, and re- 
 ordains all their Ministers who go over to them, 
 betray their intense solicitude to have the " schism" 
 healed. 
 
 These are some of the grounds on which we reject 
 the theory, that the Church and the ministry are 
 linked to an unbroken personal succession of Prelates. 
 This theory has no support from Scripture or history; 
 and it is wrong in its jminciples. It proceeds upon 
 the assumption that an uninterrupted chain of regu- 
 larly ordained Prelates is requisite as a channel for the 
 transmission of divine grace from the Head of the , 
 Church to his members. It confounds the ojfice of 
 the ministry, with the officers who fill it. It puts 
 order above truth, and form above substance. It 
 makes the Church a mere appendage of the ministry; 
 and leaves it without redress if the ministry become 
 heretical or corrupt. For these and other reasons the 
 theory was discarded by the Reformers and Reform- 
 ed Churches. This has been shown in part, and some 
 further authorhies will now be adduced. It will be 
 seen from these that the succession they mainly insist 
 upon, is, the succession of the truth. They felt 
 the value of order. They acknowledged the ministry 
 as a divine institution; and the symbols and creeds 
 they drew up, show with how much care they guard- 
 ed the entrance to it. But they could not believe 
 
204 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 with the Romanists that a pretended succession ofj)er- 
 sons was more to be relied upon as a note of a true 
 Ciiurch and ministry, than a succession of sound doc- 
 trine. 
 
 Let us first hear the Fathers on this subject. Mr. 
 Goode has given us their views in his elaborate work 
 on the "Divine Rule of Faith and Practice." "I 
 know of no promise," observes Mr. Goode, (and his 
 own views are worthy of attention in this connexion,) 
 "that, whatever may be the character or conduct of 
 the parties concerned, such a blessing (viz. as the 
 gift of the Holy Spirit) shall be conferred in all cases 
 where ordination is canonically performed. And the 
 argument that because our Lord promised his Apos- 
 tles to be with them even unto the end of the world, 
 therefore he is present with all those canonically or- 
 dained by outward succession from the Apostles, is 
 not worth answering. To assume that our Lord in 
 these words spake to the Apostles only as the repre- 
 sentatives of the pastors of the Church, and not as 
 the representatives of his disciples generally, is, to 
 say the least, unwarranted, and to me appears much 
 more. And thus thought Bishop Pearson, for he 
 has expounded the promise as one applying to the 
 Church at large,! following moreover in this the in- 
 terpretation given to the passage by Leo and Augus- 
 tine. Equally untenable is the notion that the gift 
 conferred upon Timothy by the imposition of St. 
 Paul's hands must necessarily be equally conferred 
 by any canonical ordination performed now. 
 
 In fact, as to scriptural arguments for such a doc- 
 trine, there can be no pretence made to them."^ 
 
 As to the Fathers, Mr. Goode says — " I am not 
 
 i On the Creed, p. 512. 2 Goode, Vol. II. p. 92. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 205 
 
 aware that such a doctrine (viz. as that of the Trac- 
 tators,) was ever thought of by the primitive fathers." 
 He then cites numerous passages from some of the best 
 of the Fathers, in support of the two following pro- 
 positions, to wit : — 
 
 (1.) "That the ApostoUcal Succession does not 
 secure to a Church soundness in the fundamentals of 
 the faith, and that those who have not the latter, 
 though they have the former, are to be avoided. 
 
 (2.) " That the only absolutely essential point is 
 doctrinal succession, or holding the same faith the 
 Apostles did ; and that where that faith is held, there, 
 though perhaps labouring under irregularities and 
 imperfections in other respects, Christ's Church is 
 to be found, and consequently the presence of the 
 Spirit."! 
 
 I give one or two of the passages he quotes in 
 proof of the latter of these propositions. 
 
 "The Church," says Jerome, "does not depend 
 upon walls, but upon the truth of its doctrines. The 
 Church is there where the true faith is. But about 
 fifteen or twenty years ago, heretics possessed all 
 the walls of the churches here. For twenty years 
 ago, heretics possessed all these churches. But the 
 true Church was there where the true faith was." 
 "A good answer this, by the way, (Mr. Goode adds) 
 to the common question of the Romanists to the Pro- 
 testant Churches, where their Church was before Lu- 
 ther." 
 
 No less explicit is the testimony of Gregory Nazi- 
 anzen. Speaking of Athanasius he says — " He was 
 not less the successor of Mark in his piety, than in 
 
 \ Goode, vol. ii. p. 93. 
 18 
 
206 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 his presidential seat : in the latter, indeed, he was 
 very far distant from him ; but, in the former, he is 
 found next after him ; which, in truth, is properly 
 to be considered succession. For to hold the same 
 doctrine is to be of the same throne ; but to hold an 
 opposite doctrine, is to be of an opposite throne. ' And 
 the one has the name, but the other the reality of 
 succession." 
 
 Let us come now to the Reformers and later di- 
 vines. I am indebted for several of the following 
 quotations to Mr. Powell. 
 
 Calvin: — "We have pretty opponents to deal with, 
 who, when they are clearly convicted of corrupting 
 the doctrines and worship of Christianity, then take 
 shelter under the pretence that no molestation ought 
 to be offered to the successors of the Apostles. Now 
 this question of being successors of the Apostles, must 
 be decided by an examination of the doctrines main- 
 tained. To this examination, confident of the good- 
 ness of our cause, we cheerfully appeal. Let them 
 not reply, that they have a right to assume that their 
 doctrine is Apostolic; for this is begging the question. 
 What ! shall they who have all things contrary to the 
 Apostles, prove that they are their true successors 
 solely by the continuance of time? As well might a 
 murderer, having slain the master of the house and 
 taken possession of the same, maintain that he was 
 the lawful heir For suppose that such an un- 
 broken line as they pretend, really existed, yet if their 
 Apostleship had perished, (and it necessarily did by 
 their corruption of God's worship, by their destruction 
 of the offices of Christ, by the extinction of the light 
 of doctrine amongst them and the pollution of the 
 sacrament,) what then becomes of their succession? 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 207 
 
 Except, indeed, as an heir succeeds to the dead, so 
 they, true piety being extinct among them, succeed to 
 domination. But seeing they have changed entirely 
 the government of the Church, the chasm between 
 them and the Apostles is so vast, as to exclude any 
 communication of right from the one to the other. 
 And to conclude the point in one word, I deny the 
 succession scheme as a thing utterly without founda- 
 tion."! 
 
 Melancthon : — "The Church is not bound to an 
 ordinary succession, as they call it, of Bishops, but to 
 the Gospel. When Bishops do not teach the 'truth, 
 an ordinary succession avails nothing to the Church; 
 they ought of necessity to be forsaken.'^ 2 
 
 Peter Martyr: — "It is a most trifling thing which 
 they object against us (the Reformers,) that we want 
 the right succession. It is quite enough that we have 
 succeeded to the faith which the Apostles taught, and 
 which was maintained by the holy fathers in the best 
 ages of the Church." ^ 
 
 Bradford the Martyr: — "You will not find in all 
 the Scripture this grand essential point of the succes- 
 sion of Bishops."^ 
 
 Bishojj Jewell: — " The grace of God is promised 
 to pious souls, and to those that fear God, and is 
 not affixed to Chairs and Successions.''^^ "For 
 that ye tell so many fair tales about Peter's succes- 
 sion, we demand of you wherein the Pope succeed- 
 eth Peter ? You answer, " He succeedeth him in 
 his chair ;" as if Peter had been some time installed 
 in Rome, and had solemnly sat all day with his triple 
 
 ' Vera Eccl. Ref. Ratio. 4 Fox's Acts and Monuments. 
 
 2 Loci Com. de Signis monstr. Eccl. 
 
 3 Loci Com. CI. 4. ^ Apology. , 
 
208 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 crown, in his Pontijicalibus, and in a chair of gold. 
 And thus, having lost both religion and doctrine, ye 
 think it sufficient at last, to hold by the chair, as if a 
 soldier that had lost his sword, would play the man 
 with his scabbard. But so Caiaphas succeeded Aaron ; 
 so wicked Manasses succeeded David ; so may ^nti- 
 chiHst easily sit in Peter*s chair." ^ — The learned 
 Whitaker, in confuting Bellarmine, observes, " This 
 argument proves not that the succession oi persons 
 alone is conclusive, or sufficient of itself; but only 
 that it avails when they had first proved (from the 
 Scriptures) that the faith they preached was the same 
 faith which the Apostles had preached before them. 
 Faith, therefore, is, as it were, the soul of the succes- 
 sion ; which faith being wanting, the naked, succes- 
 sion of persons is like a dead carcase ivithout the 
 soul.^^ Dr. Field, another distinguished divine of 
 the Church of England, says ; — " Thus still we see 
 that truth of doct7nne is a necessary note where- 
 by the Church must be known and discerned, and 
 not ministry or succession, or any thing else with- 
 out it." 2 
 
 I find another passage quite to my purpose in the 
 thirteenth examination of archdeacon Philpot, the 
 Martyr, before the archbishop of York and other 
 Popish dignitaries. 
 
 ''York: — 'How answer you this argument? — 
 Rome hath known succession of Bishops; which your 
 Church hath not. Ergo, that is the Catholic Church, 
 and yours is not, because there is no such succession 
 can be proved in your Church.' 
 
 ''Philpot: — 'I deny, my Lord, that succession of 
 Bishops is an infallible point to know the Church by: 
 
 1 Defence of Apology, p. 634. 2 On the Church, B. ii. ch. 6. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 209 
 
 for there may be a succession of Bishops known in a 
 place, and yet there be no church, as at Antioch and 
 Jerusalem, and in otlier places where the Apostles 
 abode as well as at Rome. But if you put to the suc- 
 cession of Bishops, succession of doctrine withal (as 
 St. Augustine doth,) I will grant it to be a good 
 proof for the Catholic Church ; but a local succession 
 is nothing available.' ''^ . 
 
 I add to this series only one more testimony — that 
 of Bishop Pilkington. In his " confutation'' of the 
 charges brought against the Reformers (of whom he 
 was one) by a popish writer, he has occasion to meet 
 and refute the very theory of succession now insisted 
 upon by nominal Protestants. I shall quote only a 
 few sentences from his answer — " We do esteem and 
 reverence the continual succession of good Bishops la 
 any place, if they can be found ; if they cannot, we 
 run not from God, but rather stick fast to his word. . . 
 Succession of good Bishops, is a great blessing of 
 God : but because God and his truth hangs not on 
 man nor place, we rather hang on the undeceivable 
 truth of God's word in all doubts, than on any Bi- 
 shops, place, or man." " The glorying of this succes- 
 sion is like the proud brags of the Jews, for their 
 genealogies and pedigrees, saying, ' We have Abra- 
 ham for our father;' but our Saviour, Christ, said, 
 ' Ye are of the devil, your father, and his works will 
 ye do.' So it may be said to these which crack that 
 they have the Apostles for their fathers, that they 
 have the Pope their father ; for his works and doc- 
 trine they follow, and not the Apostles'. As Christ 
 our Lord therefore proved the Jews to be of the devil, 
 
 ' Philpot's Examinations and Writings • Parker Society's Edit. 
 p. 139. 
 
 18* 
 
210 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 because they filled his desires, and not the children of 
 Abraham ; so it is easy to see whose children these 
 be, when they follow the Pope and not the Apostles. 
 Succession hi doctrine makes them the sons of the 
 Prophets and Apostles, and not setting in the same 
 seat nor being bishops of the same place." — He names 
 several of the most abandoned of the Popes, and 
 adds — " This is the goodly succession that he would 
 have us to follow, of doctrine in Romish Popes, .... 
 these be the successors and fathers, whom he would 
 have us to be like unto. God defend all good folk 
 from all such doings, sayings, believing, living, loving, 
 or following ! Except God dwell and be tied in 
 chairs, seats, and places, he cannot dwell in such 
 wicked men as these Popes be." " So stands the 
 succession of the Church, not in mitres, palaces, lands, 
 or lordships, but in teaching true doctrine, and root- 
 ing out the contrary He that does these is the 
 
 true successor of the Prophets and Apostles, though 
 he live in the wilderness, as Elias did, or be tied in 
 chains, as Peter and Paul : he that does not, is not 
 their successor in deed, but in name only, though he 
 have the Pope's blessing, cruche, and mitre, lands, 
 and palaces, hallowings and blessings, or all that the 
 Pope has devised for his Prelates."^ 
 
 These authorities, which might be multiplied if it 
 were necessary, show that the High-Church party in 
 making a personal succession of Prelates the principal 
 mark of a true church and ministry, have taken up a 
 Popish figment which was rejected by the Reformers 
 and Reformed Churches, the Church of England in- 
 cluded. In insisting upon a succession oi sound doc- 
 trine instead of a mere personal succession, the Re- 
 
 » Works, pp. 597—605. Parker Soc. Edit 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 211 
 
 formers did not (as already remarked) intend to dis- 
 parage the importance of that order which Christ has 
 established in his house. They inculcated submission 
 to lawful ecclesiastical authority. They taught that 
 separation from a Church on any other than impera- 
 tive grounds, was a grievous sin. Cherishing the 
 ministry as a divine institution, while they admitted 
 that exigencies might occur ^ in which the Church 
 would be justifiable in receiving as ministers indi- 
 viduals who were evidently called of God to the 
 work, but who could not be set apart to it with all 
 the usual forms, they held that the orderly method of 
 induction into the sacred office was by the laying on 
 of the hands of those already invested with it, and to 
 this method of ordination they required a rigid ad- 
 herence. An examination of the public symbols of 
 the various Presbyterian Churches, would show that 
 they have guarded this point with quite as much care 
 as the Church of England. And if it were other- 
 wise, — if they even practised lay-ordination — with 
 what consistency could they except to it, who allow 
 women, in some circumstances, to administer one of 
 the sacraments? 
 
 Without pursuing further this examination of the 
 principles on which the High-Church theory rests, I 
 now assert as a matter of fact, that whatever virtue 
 there may be in any actual or supposed personal suc- 
 cession in the ministry, belongs as really and 
 
 FULLY TO THE PrESBYTERIAN ChURCHES AS TO THE 
 
 Episcopal Church. . High- Churchmen are much in 
 the habit of boasting of the "antiquity" of their 
 Church, as a Church planted by the Apostles, while 
 the " sects" around them are at most only two or 
 
 1 See above, Art. xxxi. of the French Prot. Church. 
 
212 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 three centuries old. Leaving other Churches to speak 
 for themselves, I have only to say that as far as the 
 Presbyterian Churches are concerned, this glorying is 
 quite out of place. The true Church of Christ, except- 
 ing those portions of it composed of the Waldenses 
 and Albigenses, and others of an earlier date, who 
 refused submission to the Papal See, together with 
 such real believers as w'ere preserved in the Oriental 
 Churches, was, for a thousand years before the Ref- 
 ormation, in the Church of Rome. They were in it, 
 though not of'it — in it, as the Hebrews were in Egypt 
 and afterwards in Babylon ; as the seven thousand who 
 had not bowed the knee to Baal, were among their 
 idolatrous countrymen; and as God's chosen ones at 
 the time of the advent, the few who " waited for the 
 consolation of Israel," were mingled with the multi- 
 tude whose priests and rulers were about to crucify 
 their Messiah. At the Reformation, they, many of 
 them at least, came out. The English Reformers and 
 ours had the same ordination. As they were alike 
 ordained, so they were alike deposed and excommuni- 
 cated by the Romish Church. If her orders were 
 good for the English Reformers, they were good for 
 ours. As to the validity of her acts of deposition and 
 excommunication, it is a question upon which there 
 is a diversity of sentiment among Protestants. All 
 that is essential to my present argument, is, that if 
 those acts were valid against a part of the Reform- 
 ers, they were valid against the whole. If they 
 were a mere brutum fulmen as to one portion of 
 them, they could be no more as to the rest. Our 
 orders, then, at the period of the Reformation, stand 
 on the same footing as theirs; and our churches, 
 whose or?^m was at least as much earlier than theirs 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 213 
 
 as the Apostles were anterior to the Fathers of the 
 third or fourth century, are also older than theirs as 
 Reformed Churches ; for Presbyterianism was estab- 
 lished on the continent many years before the English 
 Church separated from Rome. Before the Reforma- 
 tion had made much progress in the Church of Eng- 
 land, the Puritans — its pride and glory, if truth and 
 holiness have any value above rhes and ceremonies — 
 were driven out of it by the tyranny of Elizabeth and 
 her Bishops. About eighty years later that Church 
 was severed, by act of Parliament, from its union 
 with the State, and the Presbyterian Church was 
 established in its place. All the English divines who 
 sat in the Westminster Assembly, and very many 
 others of that period, had received Episcopal ordina- 
 tion. It will not be denied that their orders, and 
 those of the Puritans and all others who left the Eng- 
 lish Church, were valid. From that period to the 
 present, we are far more certain of an unbroken suc- 
 cession in our ministry than Prelatists can be of theirs. 
 Our ordinations have been performed with appropri- 
 ate solemnities and after the Scripture model, " by 
 the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery:" and 
 while it is necessary for them to make out a continu- 
 ous series of Prelates, each one eligible and validly 
 ordained, we have only to make out a continuous 
 series of Presbyters. The state of the question be- 
 tween us, then, is this. Down to the period immedi- 
 ately subsequent to the Reformation, our orders and 
 those of the Episcopal Church stand on precisely the 
 same footing. Since that period ours have been hand- 
 ed down — whether through the Reformed or Luthe- 
 ran Churches of the continent, the Church of Scotland, 
 or the Non-Episcopal Churches of England, Wales, 
 
214 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 and Ireland, — by a series of Presbyterial ordina- 
 tions; while theirs have come down from the same 
 sources througli a series of prelatical ordinations. 
 The controversy resolves itself, therefore, into the 
 question, whether Presbyters have a right to 
 ORDAIN. If they have, our succession is even better 
 than theirs, because it can be traced with more cer- 
 tainty. 
 
 The question here stated has already been argued. 
 It has been shown, if I mistake not, that the Scrip- 
 tures distinctly recognize the right of ordination as 
 belonging to Presbyters. That which has a clear 
 scriptural warrant, needs no confirmation from other 
 sources. It may be satisfactory, however, to adduce 
 a few authorities, which show how the Bible has been 
 understood on this point, by learned and eminent 
 divines of the Church of England. 
 
 It was the common sentiment of the English Re- 
 formers, that Bishops and Presbyters were of one 
 order — that they had inherently the same powers — 
 and that the distinction between them, by virtue of 
 which the right of ordination was given exclusively 
 to the Bishops, was, as Jerome so clearly teaches, a 
 human arrangement, adopted from views of expe- 
 diency merely. Cranmer's opinion has been often 
 quoted : " The Bishops and Priests were at one time, 
 and w^ere no two things; but both one office, in the 
 beginning of Christ's religion." This was not only 
 his opinion, but that of the entire English Church in 
 his time, as appears from two remarkable documents 
 which are thus referred to by Prynne in his " Un- 
 bishoping of Timothy and Titus.'' "^ "All the Arch- 
 bishops, Bishops, Archdeacons and Clergy of England, 
 
 ' London, 1636, p. 106. Published anonymously. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 215 
 
 in their book entitled, ' The Institution of a Christian 
 Man/ subscribed with all their hands, and dedicated 
 to king Henry VIII., An. 1537, chapter of Orders; 
 and king Henry VIII. himself, in his book styled ^A 
 necessary Erudition for any Christian Man,' set out 
 by authority of the statute, approved by the lords 
 spiritual and temporal, and nether-house of Parlia- 
 ment, prefaced with the king's own royal epistle, and 
 published by his special command in the year 1543, 
 in the chapter of Orders; expressly resolve, that 
 ' Priests and Bishops by God's law are one and the 
 SAME, and that the power of ordination and excom- 
 munication belongs equally to them both.' " The 
 documents here mentioned have been preserved by 
 Burnet, and, as his history is generally accessible, can 
 be examined by those who feel curious to see them. 
 The party who are perpetually exhorting men to 
 " hear the Church," would do well to remember that 
 if their Church has ever spoken on the question now 
 under consideration, her voice is to be heard in 
 these documents. Are they willing to *' hear the 
 Church?" 
 
 I cite further authorities : — " I have ever declared 
 my opinion to be," says Archbishop Usher, " that 
 episcopus et presbyter gradu tantum differunt non 
 or^me,and, consequently, that in places where Bishops 
 cannot be had, the ordination by Presbyters standeth 
 valid." — Dr. Forbes, of Aberdeen: "Presbyters have, 
 by divine . right, the power of ordaining as well as 
 of preaching and baptizing." — Bishop Burnet: "No 
 Bishop in Scotland during my stay in that kingdom, 
 (that is, from 1643 to 1688, a period of forty-five 
 years,) ever did so much as desire any of the Pres- 
 byters who went over from the Church of Scotland, 
 
216 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 to be re-ordained." Lord Chancellor King, after 
 showing that Presbyters in the primitive Church had 
 full authority to administer the ordinances, adds — 
 "As for ordination, I find clearer proofs of Presbyters 
 Ordaining, than of their administering the Lord's 
 Supper.'' In 1582, Archbishop Grindal licensed 
 John Morrison, a Presbyterian minister from Scot- 
 land, to preach over his whole province without 
 re- ordination. 1 The able author of " Essays on the 
 Church," himself a member of the Church of Eng- 
 land, says, in speaking of that Church, " It was the 
 judgment of her founders, perhaps unanimously, but 
 at all events generally, that the Bishop of the primi- 
 tive Church was merely a presiding elder; a Pres- 
 byter ruling over Presbyters; identical in order and 
 commission ; superior only in degree and in author- 
 ity." ^ It would be easy to produce a catena of emi- 
 nent English divines from Cranmer to this day, in- 
 cluding the present Archbishop of Canterbury, who 
 have held these sentiments and who have recog- 
 nized the Presbyterian Churches as true Churches. 
 The High-Church notion that Prelacy rests upon a 
 divine right to the exclusion of other systems, and 
 that Bishops are jure divino above Presbyters, was, 
 it is well known, first broached by Dr. Bancroft in a 
 sermon preached by him- at Paul's Cross, London, 
 in 15S8. The excitement occasioned by it, showed 
 how opposed this doctrine was to the views of the 
 English divmes of that day. Sir Francis Knolls wrote 
 to Dr. Reignolds, one of the most learned and able 
 divines of the age, to request his opinion in relation 
 
 1 The license may be seen in Dr. Smyth's learned work on " Pres- 
 bytery and Prelacy," p. 435. 
 
 2 P. 251. Lond. Ed. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 217 
 
 to the sentiment advanced by Bancroft, that Bishops 
 were superior to Presbyters " by God's ordinance." 
 Dr. Reignold's reply is elaborate and explicit. ^ He 
 says Bancroft's arguments in support of his opinion 
 are "partly weak and partly false." Against the 
 opinion, he cites Bishop Jewell, who, in controverting 
 the same sentiment as urged by the Jesuit Harding, 
 had opposed to it the names of Chrysostom, Jerome, 
 Austin, and Ambrose. To these he adds, Theodoret, 
 Sedulius, Primasius, and Theophylact; CEcumenius, 
 Anselm, Gregory, and Gratian. " To which it may 
 be added," proceeds the Dr. "that all they who have 
 for five hundred years last past endeavoured the 
 Reformation of the Church, have taught that all pas- 
 tors, whether they be called Bishops or Priests, are 
 invested with equal authority and power. ^^ He in- 
 stances the Waldenses, Marsilius Patavius, Wickliffe 
 and his followers, Huss and the Hussites, Luther and 
 Calvin, Bullinger and Musculus, and, in England, 
 Pilkington, Humphrey and Whitaker, the Regius 
 Professors of Divinity, Bradford, Lambert, and Fulk : 
 — ^these all agree in this matter ; " and so,'^ he adds, 
 "do all divines beyond sea that I ever read, and 
 doubtless many more whom I never read. . . . But 
 what need I make any further mention of particular 
 writers ? This is the common doctrine of the Church- 
 es of Helvetia, Savoy, France, Scotland, Germany, 
 Hungary, Poland, Belgium, and lastly, of England, 
 as the 'Harmony of Confessions' witnesseth. Where- 
 fore, (he concludes,) since Dr. Bancroft will certainly 
 never pretend that an 'heresy' condemned by the 
 
 1 It is often referred to by modern writers. All that part of relat- 
 ing to the question in hand, may be seen in Boyse's " Ancient Epis- 
 copacy not Diocesan," Lond. 1712, pp. 13—18, 
 
 19 
 
218 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 whole Church in its most flourishing times, was yet 
 accounted a sound and Christian doctrine by all these 
 I have mentioned, I hope he will confess himself 
 viistaken when he asserted, that the authority of the 
 Bishops over the clergy was founded on divine insti- 
 tution." 
 
 To this formidable afray of authorities I subjoin 
 only one more. It is that of Mons. Claude, the cele- 
 brated French divine, who, after proving that the 
 identity of Bishops and Presbyters and the right of 
 the latter to ordain, has the sanction of many distin- 
 guished names among the Fathers and later theologi- 
 ans, closes with these words. " It is, therefore, a right 
 that is naturally belonging to the Priests (or Presby- 
 ters) and of which they cannot be deprived by human . 
 constitution and orders. ... In efl'ect, William, Bishop 
 of Paris, has made no scruple to say, according to his 
 hypothesis, that if there were no more but three mere 
 priests in the world, one of them must needs conse- 
 crate one of the others to be a Bishop, and the other 
 to be an Archbishop. And to speak my own thoughts 
 freely, it seems to me, that that firm opinion of the 
 absolute necessity of Episcopacy, that goes so high 
 as to own no church, or call, or ministry, or sacra- 
 ments, or salvation in the world, where there are no 
 Episcopal ordinations, although there should be the 
 true faith, the true doctrine and piety there, and which 
 would that all religion should depend on a formality, 
 and even on a formality that we have shown to be 
 of no other than human institution; that opinion, I 
 say, cannot be looked on otherwise than as the very 
 worst character and mark of the highest hypocrisy, 
 a piece of Pharisaism throughout, that 'strains at a 
 gnat when it swallows a camel;' and I cannot avoid 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 219 
 
 having at least a contempt of those kmd of thoughts, 
 and a compassion for those who fill their heads with 
 them."i 
 
 These extracts show that it is the common judg- 
 ment of REFORMED CHRISTENDOM, a party iu the 
 Church of England and in the Episcopal Church in 
 this country, excepted, that Bishops and Presbyters 
 are, according to the Word of God, of one order, 
 and that presbyters, equally with Bishops, have a 
 RIGHT TO ORDAIN. It dctracts nothing from the force 
 of this conclusion, that the churches just named prac- 
 tically deny the validity of Presbyterial ordination. 
 We quote the Church of England, both as to theory 
 and practice, against itself; and leave it to its friends 
 to harmonize its inconsistencies. As regards its re- 
 fusal to recognize any except Prelatical ordinations, 
 it is to be regretted that that Church and its daughter 
 this side the Atlantic, should have suifered the High- 
 Church-ism, which was so heartily repudiated by its 
 founders, to place them in a position which has so 
 offensive and Popish an aspect towards other evan- 
 gelical churches; because this cannot but have an 
 injurious effect upon the general interests of Chris- 
 tianity. But if they choose to give themselves up to 
 the sway of this spirit — if their Bishops should even 
 take Laud himself, the all but canonized " Confessor 
 and Martyr" of the Oxford coterie, for their model, 
 as, indeed, some of them seem quite willing to do — it 
 could not cancel their past testimony to the great 
 scriptural truth, that Presbyters and Bishops are iden- 
 tical in order, and are, in so far as the divine institu- 
 tion of the office is concerned, clothed ivith the same 
 powers. 
 
 ' Defence of the Reformation, II. 286. 
 
220 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 This position being fully established by the au- 
 thority of Scripture, and confirmed by the amplest 
 human testimonies, I now apply it to the doctrine of 
 the SUCCESSION. I have shown above that the Pres- 
 byterian and Episcopal Churches have the savie suc- 
 cession down to the period of their separation from 
 Rome; and that the entire question between us as 
 regards the succession since that time, resolves itself 
 into the single inquiry, whether the right of ordina- 
 tion belongs to Presbyters. This question is now 
 settled affirmatively, by the common voice of the 
 Church of England and the other Reformed Churches, 
 the Fathers, and the Word of God. Our succession, 
 therefore, is proved to be at least as valid, as regular, 
 and in all respects as satisfactory, as that of the Epis- 
 copal Church can be. I use the phrase " at least," 
 to intimate that on some grounds our succession is 
 better than theirs. So it is undoubtedly regarded by 
 Presbyterians. And that, not only for the reason 
 already given, that it can be traced with more cer- 
 tainty than theirs; but also because, in our view, their 
 ordinations are not performed after the scriptural 
 method. This is virtually conceded by all those 
 Episcopal divines (and we have seen that they at 
 one period embraced, as far as can be ascertained, 
 the entire clergy of the English Establishment,) who 
 teach that Presbyters are by Divine appointment one 
 with Bishops, and that the sole power of ordination 
 has been given to the Bishops by a mere human com- 
 pact. This is the same as to say that ordinations 
 were originally performed by Presbyters. With us, 
 they are performed by Presbyters still. Which has 
 adhered to the Divine model ? Their ordinations of 
 Presbyters, again, are performed by a single indivi- 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 221 
 
 dual. We read of no such instance in the New Tes- 
 tament: and our ministers are set apart by apkiraUty 
 of-ordainers. Which Church has followed the model 
 here ? — I do not mention these defects as vitiating 
 their orders; but defects they certainly are. And 
 in arguing with a party who lay so much stress upon 
 forms, it is proper to refer to them as exhibiting the 
 superiority of our succession to that which is a ground 
 of so much unseemly boasting with a certain order 
 of Prelatists. 
 
 It has been my aim in this chapter to show, 
 
 1st. That the theory which would suspend the 
 Church and the ministry upon an unbroken succession 
 of Prelates, is radically wrong in its principles. 
 
 2dly. That this theory is at variance with the sen- 
 timents of the Reformers, and with the doctrines of 
 the Protestant Churches as expressed by their leading 
 divines and in their creeds and symbols. 
 
 3dly. That the succession which constitutes the 
 chief mark of a true Church and ministry, is a suc- 
 cession of sound doctrine. And, 
 
 4thly. That, as a matter of fact, the Presbyterian 
 Churches enjoy all the advantages of ?i personal suc- 
 cession which can fairly be claimed for the Episcopal 
 Church. 
 
 There are many questions connected with this sub- 
 ject which afford matter, some of them, for curious 
 speculation, others, for mature and profitable inquiry 
 and reflection. Into these questions I have neither 
 the time nor the disposition to enter. One thought 
 which will be likely to suggest itself to those who 
 have followed the train of this discussion, is, that 
 they assume a grave responsibility, who would appro- 
 priate all the rights and privileges of the Church of 
 
 19* 
 
222 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 Christ, all the promises of the Gospel and the gifts 
 of salvation, to societies prelatically organized. If, 
 as the XXXIX Articles teach, "the visible Church 
 of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the 
 which the pure word of God is preached and the 
 sacraments be duly administered," it must be not 
 merely a violation of Christian charity, but a sin 
 against Christ himself, to deny the character of a 
 Church to any society possessing these attributes. 
 This is a matter, let it be observed, which concerns 
 High-Churchmen, much more than it does Non-Epis- 
 copalians. With us it is a small matter to be judged 
 of man's judgment. 
 
 And even if we were sensitive to the opinions of 
 our fellow-men on this question, the assumptions of 
 the Puseyite school could not disturb our equanimity, 
 counterpoised as they are by the united testimony of 
 alU the Reformed Churches. But it may not be so 
 small a matter for them to brand as " schismatical 
 organizations," churches which God has owned as 
 his own planting, and which he has richly adorned 
 with the gifts and graces of his Spirit. After all, 
 litowever, this conduct ought not to excite surprise. A 
 party who can court the friendship of the Church of 
 Rome, would be strangely inconsistent not to shun 
 communion with the Reformed churches. Their Ar- 
 ticles, as we have just seen, make ''the preaching of 
 the pure word of God and the due administration of 
 the sacraments," the essential marks of a true Church. 
 No society which lacks these marks, can, according to 
 these Articles, be a true Church. But they acknow- 
 
 ' The few Clmrches on the Continent which have adopted a modi- 
 fied Prelacy on grounds of expediency merely, are not properly excep- 
 tions to this remark. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 223 
 
 ledge the Romish Church as a true Church; and if 
 they beheve their own Articles, they must, of course, 
 believe that she has these characteristics. What 
 other treatment, then, could Protestants look for 
 from men who hold that ^' the pure word of God is 
 preached" in the Church of Rome; and that the 
 Lord's Supper is " duly administered''^ when one of 
 the elements is withheld from the people, and the 
 other, first transubstantiated "into the body and blood, 
 yea, the whole soul and divinity" of Christ, and then 
 offered up, in the midst of heathenish rites, as a 
 "sacrifice?" It would be very unreasonable for 
 Protestant Churches to expect to be recognized as 
 Churches by persons entertaining these views. For 
 it is certain that if Rome has " the pure preaching of 
 the word and the due administration of the sacra- 
 ments," we have not ; and vice versa. And to sup- 
 pose that any set of individuals can find these two 
 essential notes of a true Church, both in that Church 
 and the Reformed Churches, is to suppose them capa- 
 ble of impossibilities. It will be time enough for them 
 to acknowledge our Churches, when they shall have 
 discovered that to recite from the pulpit the idle 
 legends and " lying wonders" of Popery, is not pre- 
 cisely what our Saviour meant when ho said, " Go, 
 PREACH THE GospEL;" and that when he instituted 
 the Lord's Supper, he contemplated something a little 
 different from transubstantiation. 
 
224 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS AND TENDENCIES OF THE HIGH-CHURCH 
 SYSTEM. THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 I HAVE endeavoured to show that the dogma of an 
 unbroken Prelatical Succession is condemned by the 
 united testimony of Scripture, History, and familiar 
 and admitted facts. I have also attempted to ex- 
 pose the fallacy of the principles on which it rests, 
 and have contrasted it with the true doctrine of 
 Succession as laid down in the New Testament, and 
 held by the Fathers and all the Reformed Churches. 
 Here the discussion might with propriety be arrested. 
 The dogma in question, however, is a radical part of 
 a System, some of the characteristics and ten- 
 dencies of which it may be well to notice before dis- 
 missing the subject. Of this system, the late celebra- 
 ted Dr. Arnold has given the following concise and 
 lucid summary. 
 
 " * The sacraments, and not preaching, are the 
 sources of divine grace.' So it is said in the adver- 
 tisement prefixed to the first volume of the Tracts for 
 the Times. But the only security for the efficacy of 
 the sacraments, is the Apostolical commission of the 
 •Bishops, and, under them, of the Presbyters of the 
 Church. So it is said in the preamble to the resolu- 
 tions already quoted. These two doctrines are the 
 foundation of the whole system. God's grace and our 
 salvation come to us principally through the virtue of 
 the sacraments; the virtue of the sacraments depends 
 on the Apostolical succession of those who administer 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 225 
 
 them. The clergy, therefore, thus holding in their 
 hands the most precious gifts of the Church, acquire 
 naturally the title of the Church itself ; the Church, as 
 possessed of so mysterious a virtue, as to communi- 
 cate to the only means of salvation their saving effi- 
 cacy, becomes at once an object of the deepest rever- 
 ence. What wonder if to a body endowed with so 
 transcendent a gift, there should be given also the 
 spirit of wisdom to discern all truth; so that the 
 solemn voice of the Church in its creeds, and in the 
 decrees of its general councils, must be received as 
 the voice of God himself. Nor can such a body be 
 supposed to have commended any practices or states 
 of life which are not really excellent, and the duty 
 either of all Christians, or of those, at least, who would 
 follow the most excellent way. Fasting, therefore, 
 and the state of celibacy, are, the one a Christian 
 obligation, the other a Christian perfection. Again, 
 being members of a body so exalted, and receiving 
 our very salvation in a way altogether above reason, 
 we must be cautious how we either trust to our indi- 
 vidual conscience, rather than to the command of the 
 Church, or how we venture to exercise our reason at 
 all in judging of what the Church teaches: childlike 
 faith and childhke obedience are the dispositions 
 which God most loves. What, then, are they who 
 are not of the Church, who do not receive the sacra- 
 ments from those who can alone give them their vir- 
 tue? Surely they are aliens from God, they cannot 
 claim his covenanted mercies ; and the goodness 
 which may be apparent in them, may not be a real 
 goodness. God may see that it is false, though to us 
 it appear sincere : but it is certain that they do not 
 possess the only appointed means .of salvation; and 
 
226 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 therefore we must consider their state as dangerous, 
 although we may not venture to condemn them."i 
 
 The system here delineated is held with various 
 unimportant modifications, by the Puseyite party on 
 both sides of the Atlantic. Reserving a fuller exhi- 
 bition of it for the next chapter, I design in this to 
 show, (and it is not the least exceptionable feature 
 of the system,) that it proposes an unauthorized 
 
 AND DELUSIVE RuLE OF FaITH. 
 
 Its advocates express themselves with considerable 
 diversity of sentiment on this subject, while they agree 
 in repudiating the right of private judgment and the 
 great Protestant principle that the Bible alone is the 
 only and all-sufficient rule of faith. The Bible no 
 more meets the exigencies of this system, than it does 
 the demands of the Romish Church: and Romanists 
 and High-Churchmen dread — and for the same rea- 
 son — the free exercise of private judgment in inter- 
 preting the Scriptures. It has been the common 
 expedient of errorists in all ages to cry down the 
 Bible and cry up tradition. This was done by the 
 Valentinian heretics even as early as the time of Ire- 
 nseus, who says of them — " When they are reproved 
 from the Scriptures, they immediately begin to accuse 
 the Scriptures themselves; asif they were not correct, 
 nor of authority, and that they are not consistent; 
 and that the truth cannot he found out from them 
 by those who are ignorant of traditlon.^'^ This is 
 precisely the Puseyite doctrine. The Bible is a very 
 obscure book, and can be understood only by the aid 
 of " Catholic tradition." The Church is the author- 
 ized expounder of the sacred volume, and we are 
 
 ' Christian Life, Pref. p. xv. 
 
 i Cited by Goode, on the Rule of Faith, I. 308. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 227 
 
 bound to defer to her interpretation of it. Thus they 
 say, the notion of the Bible being " tlie sole auihor- 
 itative judge in controversies of faith, is a self-de- 
 structive principle.^ ^^ "The Rule of faith" is "made 
 up of Scripture and Tradition together."^ "When 
 the sense of Scripture, as interpreted by reason, is 
 contrary to the sense given to it by Catholic antiquity, 
 we ought to side with the latter." ^ "The unanimous 
 witness of Christendom is the only and the fully suffi- 
 cient, and the really existing guarantee of the whole 
 revealed faith. "^ " The Church is, in matter of fact, 
 our great divinely appointed guide into saving truth, 
 under divine grace, whatever may be the abstract 
 power or satficiency of the Bible."* "That the Bible 
 is in the hands of the Church to be dealt with in such 
 a way as the Church shall consider best for the ex- 
 pression of her own mind at the time. . . may surely 
 be considered as a Catholic axiom." ^ "The true 
 Catholic pastor who thus receives the word of God, 
 with the transmitted witness of the Church, who 
 guides himself by the Holy Scriptures, not as he 
 understands them, but as Catholic antiquity has 
 revealed and Catholic consent has kept their mean- 
 ing, will be chastised and schooled by this submission 
 of his judgment to the wise and good of every age, 
 into that childlike spirit which God will bless."^ 
 
 The first question that will suggest itself to a 
 thoughtful mind, on reading these extracts, is, what 
 is meant by the phrases, " Catholic antiquity," and 
 "Catholic tradition?" The many-voiced answer to 
 
 ' Newman on Romanism, p. 35. 5 Brit, Crit. vol. 24. 254. 
 
 2 Keble's Serm. p. 82. 6 lb. No. 60, p. 453. 
 
 ^ Newman on Romanism, p. 160. "^ Bp. Doane, Troy Ser. p. 23. 
 4 Tract 78. 
 
228 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 this question furnishes a fine illustration of the beau- 
 tiful simplicity of the proposed rule of faith. With 
 some,. "Catholic antiquity'^ means the first two hun- 
 dred, with others, the first three hundred and fifty, 
 with others still, the first six hundred, years of the 
 Christian era. " Catholic tradition" is, with one class, 
 summed up in the Nicene and the so-called "Apos- 
 tles'" Creeds: with a second, it comprises the decrees 
 of four, and with a third, the decrees of six general 
 councils. The selection of these four or six councils 
 out of the whole series of early Synods, is left to each 
 man's judgment or caprice. Mr. Palmer names six 
 which he admits as oecumenical and of "binding 
 authority;" and excludes nine others which were 
 held before the division of the eastern and western 
 churches. Among the latter is the Synod of Arimi- 
 num which he rejects because it was attended by only 
 four hundred Bishops, and could not, therefore, be 
 recognized "as the universal Church." Yet of the 
 six he acknowledges, only one had so many as four 
 hundred Bishops ; and the numbers that attended tlie 
 other five respectively, were as follows: three hun- 
 dred and eighteen, one hundred and fifty, two hun- 
 dred, one hundred and sixty-five, and one hundred and 
 seventy. Yet these Synods were, that was not, "the 
 universal Church!" My. Palmer could have given a 
 better reason for excluding the council of Ariminum, 
 had he seen fit. That council sanctioned the Jirian 
 heresy: and to recognize an heretical Synod as oecume- 
 nical, would spoil the theory that oecumenical Synods 
 cannot err. — The Romanists, again, include in their 
 rule of faiih the traditions, written and unwritten, of 
 the Church, (that is, of their own Church,) in all ages; 
 while High-Churchmen would discriminate between 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 229 
 
 Catholic and im-Catholic traditions, by applying the 
 famous rule of Vincent, the monk of Lerins, " Quod 
 semper, quod itbique, quod ah omnibus traditum 
 est,^^ that is, we are to believe "whatever has been 
 delivered always, every lohere, and by all.^^ 
 
 It is obvious that our rule of faith will be one thing 
 or another according as we adopt one or another of 
 these definitions of "Catholic antiquity'' and "Catho- 
 lic tradition." Who is to decide this preliminary 
 question? A traditionist would reply, " the Church." 
 But, not to ask here what authority the Church has 
 to determine this point, the answer assumes that "the 
 Church" is known and recognized. Before I can 
 suffer any society or institute to decide so important 
 a question for me, I must know that it is the Church. 
 And this I can be assured of only by comparing its 
 characteristics with the marks of a true Church as 
 prescribed in the Scriptures. In other words, I must 
 use my private judgment in finding out the true 
 Church, before I can suffer the Church to fix for me 
 the bounds and metes of that "antiquity" and " tradi- 
 tion" which are to enter into my rule of faith. If, on 
 the other hand, I define these important terms for my- 
 self, this, again, involves the exercise of my private 
 j udgment. In either case, it is private judgment that 
 decides the fundamental question, " What is the Rule 
 of Faith." And if private judgment may be, and 
 must be, so far trusted as to decide this question, it is 
 not easy to see why it may not be allowed, under that 
 responsibility which every human being owes to his 
 Creator, to interpret the Scriptures also. 
 
 Supposing an individual to have made his election 
 out of the various and frequently conflicting meanings 
 attached to the phrases that have been quoted, an- 
 
 20 
 
230 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 Other question will present itself for his consideration, 
 viz. " What claim has * Catholic tradition' to constitute 
 a part of the Rule of Faith? Why am I boaind to in- 
 terpret the Bible according to the teachings of the 
 'early Church?' " 
 
 That we are under great obligations to the Christian 
 Fathers and primitive Christians, is a point upon which 
 there can be no debate. We are indebted to them, 
 under Providence, for the canon of Scripture. We 
 rely entirely upon their testimony, in so far as external 
 evidence is concerned, for our knowledge of the fact 
 that the books now composing the Bible were design- 
 ed to constitute the sacred canon. We learn from 
 them that the change of the Sabbath from the seventh 
 to the first day of the week, which is indeed distinct- 
 ly implied in the New Testament, was universally 
 recognized by the first Christians. We have also their 
 attestation to the general prevalence in their day, of 
 those doctrines which are now imbodied in the creeds 
 and formularies of the Reformed Churches. Besides 
 this, some of the Fathers have left useful treatises and 
 sermons on practical subjects, and expositions of por- 
 tions of Scripture of greater or less value. But in 
 saying this, we by no means sanction the idea that 
 their writings are to be admitted as an essential part 
 of the rule of faith. We regard the Fathers as Wit- 
 nesses. In this capacity they testify to certain yfl5c/.y — 
 such for example, as the exclusive canonicity of the 
 sacred books we have now, and the universal observ- 
 ance of the " Lord's day." Relying upon their com- 
 petency and credibility, we receive these and other 
 facts on their testimony. On the same ground we 
 receive it as a fact that certain doctrines which are 
 concisely presented in the early creeds, were current- 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 231 
 
 ly embraced as of divine origin and obligation in the 
 Churches of their day. And this fact, all ingenuous 
 persons will admit, carries with it a very strong 
 presumption in favour of the truth of those doctrines. 
 But whether the doctrines are taught in Scripture, 
 is a point we must decide for ourselves. Because 
 a man may be a good witness to the authenticity 
 of a disputed document," it does not follow that he 
 is better qualified than any one else to interpret the 
 document, or that others are bound to receive his in- 
 terpretation. All that he can claim for his construc- 
 tion of it, is such a measure of respect as he may be 
 entitled to from his probity, abilities, and opportuni- 
 ties of arriving at a just view of its meaning. This 
 is precisely what we concede to the Fathers. Ro- 
 manists and High-Churchmen, however, demand that 
 we shall allow the Fathers to expound the Scriptures 
 for us. Their "traditions" are to be made of co- 
 ordinate authority with the Bible, or rather to be 
 raised above it. " Catholic tradition," says Mr. Keble, 
 "teaches revealed truth. Scripture proves it; Scripture 
 is the document of faith, tradition the witness of it ; 
 the true creed is the catholic interpretation of Scrip- 
 ture, or scripturally proved tradition; Scripture by 
 itself teaches mediately, and proves decisively; Scrip- 
 ture and tradition taken together are the joint rule of 
 faith." This is sufficiently explicit. Tradition is the 
 primary, and Scripture the secondary teacher of Di- 
 vine truth. Tradition teaches. Scripture proves. The 
 Bible is degraded into a mere echo of tradition. It 
 can speak only in harmony with tradition. It is a 
 rule of faith only as it accords with tradition. And 
 tradition, according to the same writer, includes " un- 
 written as well as written" traditions — an oral law, 
 
232 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 " independent of, and distinct from the truths which 
 are directly scriptural^ It would be more consist- 
 ent in Mr. Keble, and those who think with him, to 
 omit the Bible altogether in their definition of the 
 Rule of Faith. This is done in fact by such a theory 
 as that propounded by them, and it would be more 
 respectful to the Word of God to do it also in form. 
 For if ^'Catholic antiquity" or "the Church," is en- 
 trusted with another revelation which takes prece- 
 dence of the Bible and to which the latter must con- 
 form, why not dispense with the Bible altogether? To 
 bring it forward merely as an automaton, to speak at 
 the bidding of tradition, and utter only such sounds 
 as that may dictate, is in bad taste, and savors much 
 of irreverence. It is in truth the Popish doctrine 
 veiled in too thin a guise to hide its deformity. 
 
 But the question returns — What claim has tradition 
 to this "dominion over our faith?" What warrant 
 has " Catholic antiquity" to impose her exposition of 
 the Bible upon all subsequent generations? If it be 
 said, "It is reasonable to presume that those who 
 lived near the time of the Apostles, would be more 
 likely to know their real sentiments than people living 
 ages later, and that we ought therefore to defer to 
 their teachings;" I reply, first, by referring to what 
 has already been said about the measure of respect 
 due to the Fathers, and which it 4s not necessary to 
 repeat in this connexion. Secondly — as regards the 
 supposed familiarity of the Fathers with the views of 
 the Apostles, nothing is more certain than that many 
 of their expositions of the Apostolical epistles are 
 fanciful and absurd — that their writings abound in 
 idle fables and legends — that some of them fell into 
 grievous errors — and that even before the Apostles had 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 233 
 
 all died, gross corruptions in doctrine and practice had 
 disclosed themselves in the churches. Our great Epic 
 poet has well illustrated this point, in his treatise " of 
 Prelatical Episcopacy." In speaking of the degree 
 of credit due to the Fathers, he instances the case of 
 Papias, " a very ancient writer, one that had heard 
 St. John, and was known to many that had seen and 
 been acquainted with others of the Apostles ; but who 
 being of a shallow wit, and not understanding those 
 traditions which he received, filled his writings with 
 many new doctrines and fabulous conceits." Accord- 
 ing to Eusebius, " divers ecclesiastical men, and Ire- 
 nseus among the rest, while they looked at the antiquity 
 of this man, became infected with his errors." "Now 
 (Milton proceeds) if Irenaeus was so rash as to take 
 unexamined opinions from an author of so small capa- 
 city, when he was a man, we should be more rash 
 ourselves to rely upon those observations which he 
 made Avhen he was a boy. And this may be a suffi- 
 cient reason to us why we need no longer muse at 
 the spreading of many idle traditions so soon after 
 the Apostles, while such as this Papias had the throw- 
 ing them about, and the inconsiderate zeal of the next 
 age, that heeded more the person than the doctrine, 
 had the gathering them up. Wherever a man who 
 had been any way conversant with the Apostles was 
 to be found, thither flew all the inquisitive ears, 
 although the exercise of right instructing was changed 
 into the curiosity of impertinent fabling: where the 
 mind was to be edified with solid doctrine, there the 
 fancy was soothed with solemn stories: with less fer- 
 Vjency was studied what St. Paul or St. John had 
 written, than was listened to one that could say — 
 ^ Here he taught, here he stood, this was his stature, 
 20* 
 
234 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 and thus he went habited; and, happy this house 
 that harboured him, and that cold stone whereon he 
 rested, this village wherein he wrought such a mira- 
 cle, and that pavement bedewed with the warm effu- 
 sion of his last blood, that sprouted up into eternal 
 roses to crown his martyrdom.' Thus, while all their 
 thoughts were poured out upon circumstances, and 
 the gazing after such men as had sat at table with 
 the Apostles, (many of which Christ hath professed, 
 yea, though they had cast out devils in his name, he 
 will not know at the last day,) by this means they lost 
 their time, and truanted in the fundamental grounds 
 of saving knowledge, as was seen shortly by their 
 writings." 1 
 
 Now, whether Milton's estimate of the fathers be 
 correct or not, it is certain that the mere circumstance 
 of their having lived nearer the Apostolic age than 
 we do, does not of itself confer upon them any author- 
 ity to regulate our faith. We are willing to treat 
 their "traditions" with due respect; but when we 
 are required to receive them as of co-ordinate obliga- 
 tion with the word of God, we must insist upon a 
 clear scriptural warrant for this claim before we can 
 allow it. If it was the intention of the Saviour that 
 the revelation contained in his written word should 
 be supplemented by tradition, and that the traditions 
 of the first [e\v centuries should be perpetually recog- 
 nized as the only proper guide to the interpretation 
 of Scripture, it will be easy to make this fact appear 
 from the New Testament. It is one of those points 
 on which it is safe to say the Divine Author of Chris- 
 tianity could not have left his creatures in the dark, 
 if his design had been what the traditionists affirm it 
 was. 
 
 » Milton's Works, 8yo. p. 25. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 235 
 
 The response usually made to this requisition for 
 proof, is, that " the Bible is so obscure that it needs 
 an authorized interpreter, and that this interpreter 
 can only be ^ Catholic antiquity,' or the Church." 
 That some parts of the Bible are " obscure" both to 
 the learned and the unlearned, will not be denied; but 
 to allege that it is obscure as a whole, or obscure as 
 to the great essential truths which it is necessary for 
 all to understand and believe, is to gainsay its own 
 statements and to cast dishonour upon its author. 
 No right-minded person will refuse to avail himself 
 of all suitable helps within his reach, in studying the 
 sacred volume. He will humbly seek the aid of the 
 Holy Spirit, who is the only infallible teacher. He 
 will consult commentaries, judicious Christians, minis- 
 ters of the Gospel, and learned and pious authors, as he 
 may have opportunity. He will hold in high esteem 
 those Creeds and Confessions which have been adopt- 
 ed as summaries of doctrine by evangelical churches 
 whether in ancient or modern times. But all this 
 involves no relinquishment of the right of private 
 judgment — no concession that the Bible is, on funda- 
 mental points, an obscure book. Indeed, this charge 
 against the Bible is well nigh ludicrous considering the 
 source from whence it comes and the sort of help that 
 is tendered us in threading the intricacies of Scripture. 
 For " let the Scriptures be h^rd ; are they more hard, 
 more crabbed, more abstruse, than the fathers? He 
 that cannot understand the sober, plain, and unaffec- 
 ted style of the Scriptures, will be ten times more puz- 
 zled with the knotty Africanisms, the pampered meta- 
 phors, the intricate and involved sentences of the 
 fathers, besides the fantastic and declamatory flashes, 
 the cross-jingling periods which cannot but disturb, 
 
236 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 and come thwart a settled devotion, worse than the 
 din of bells and rattles." ^ 
 
 One assumption leads to another. Having assumed 
 that the Bible is unintelligible without an interpreter, 
 High-Church traditionists claim that " Catholic anti- 
 quity" is the authorized interpreter. This is the very- 
 point to be proved. The necessity (whether real or 
 imaginary) of some interpreter, obviously does not 
 justify the inference, that this office belongs to Catho- 
 hc antiquity. The Romanists who admit the prem- 
 ises, reject the conclusion. Catholic antiquity by 
 itself is not their interpreter of Scripture ; but Catholic 
 tradition of all ages, or rather the Church itself in one 
 age equally with another. What we want of the tradi- 
 tionist — whether Romish, Anglican, or Anglo-Ameri- 
 can — is proof that the Church has been constituted 
 the mierring expositor of holy writ. That a Church 
 should challenge this prerogative to herself, or that 
 indiscreet persons among her children should claim it 
 for her, is not proof. The few scattered texts of 
 Scripture that have been put upon the rack to make 
 them speak in support of this theory, furnish nothing 
 that deserves to be dignified with the name of proof. 
 And all they do say is extorted by the application of 
 that principle of private judgment, which, we are told, 
 it is so unsafe to rely upon. In other words, the tra- 
 ditionist can only prove that men have no right to 
 interpret Scripture for themselves, and that the Church 
 is the duly appointed expositor of the Bible, by using 
 his own private judgment in interpreting those texts 
 he brings forward as his proofs. The consistency 
 and modesty of this conduct are worthy of the system 
 to which they belong. 
 
 ' Milton's tract, " Of Reformation in England." 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 237 
 
 A second consideration relied upon to prove the 
 necessity of some authoritative expositor of Scripture, 
 is derived from the numerous heresies and divisions 
 which, it is alleged, have resulted from the exercise 
 of private judgment, in the interpretation of the Bible. 
 There are various ways of answering this argument. 
 The argumentum ad hoininem will suffice for the 
 present. Let the objector look at home. Scripture 
 and tradition, he maintains, has always been the 
 Church's Rule of Faith. Whence, then, came all the 
 heresies and schisms which agitated and rent the early 
 Church? Whence the " Roman schism?" Whence 
 the numerous contending schools and factions both in 
 the Western and Eastern Churches? Whence the 
 discord and strife which now rage in the Church of 
 England and the Episcopal Church in this country? 
 It were well for traditionists to consider these facts, 
 before indicting private judgment as the chief distur- 
 ber of the peace of Christendom. That the abuse 
 of this right has sometimes led to disastrous conse- 
 quences, all will admit. But it remains to be proved 
 that religion gains any thing when men bandage their 
 eyes, and bind themselves to follow wherever the 
 Church leads. This course, if it were generally and 
 implicitly adopted, might preclude excitement and 
 agitation ; but the tranquilhty it would produce, would 
 be that of the Dead Sea. 
 
 Traditionists fail, then, in making out the prelimi- 
 nary position, that the Scriptures require an authori- 
 tative expounder: much less can they estabhsh the 
 claim of Catholic antiquity or the early Church to this 
 office. 
 
 But let us come to the practical working of the 
 proposed Rule of Faith — Scrijtturt interpreted by 
 
238 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OJ' 
 
 Catholic antiquity, or, more concisely, Scripture 
 interpreted by the Church. 
 
 The first question to be asked here, is, " Where and 
 when has the Church spoken?" It is common to 
 answer this question by repeating the maxim of Vin- 
 centius Lirinensis ah'eady quoted: "Quod semper," 
 &c. — "Whatever has been delivered always, every 
 where, and hy all, is to be regarded as the voice of 
 the Church." But although this is their own. rule, 
 nothing could be more arbitrary and capricious than 
 the^mode in which High-Churchmen use it. For 
 example, the " semper" (always) obviously excludes 
 every doctrine not taught in the time of the Apostles; 
 and the " ab omnibus," (by all,) every doctrine not 
 taught by the Apostles. But this fair and natural 
 construction would be fatal to the whole scheme of 
 the traditionists, and it is therefore '^ot allowed. 
 Again, they take the liberty of rejecting many doc- 
 trines and usages prevalent in the early Church, 
 which can plead at least equal authority, under Vin- 
 cent's rule, with others which they recognize as Catho- 
 lic and binding. Of this sort, were the celibacy of the 
 clergy, the kiss of charity in their religious assemblies, 
 and the election of Bishops by the people. 
 
 But allowing the advocates of the rule to define its 
 terms as they see fit — to make the " always" mean 
 say six centuries, and the " by all," the fathers within 
 that period — the only satisfactory way for an inquirer 
 to proceed, is to sit down to the study of those fathers 
 and make out a scheme of the points in which they 
 all agree. This thorough examination of from one 
 to two hundred folios in Greek and Latin, will occupy 
 the leisure time of any man of business for the best 
 part of an ordinary life. And when completed, he 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 239 
 
 will have found a lamp with which he can hegin to 
 study the word of God ! 
 
 High-Churchmen, of course, represent this labour 
 as unnecessary. They would substitute for it the 
 more summary process of ''hearing the Chiirch.^^ 
 And when it is asked, " How can I hear the Church?" 
 the reply is, " Hear the Church in her creeds and the 
 decrees of her four or six general councils:" or, more 
 compendiously still, " in her Book of Common Pray- 
 er." This is Bishop Doane's answer to the question, 
 in his Troy Sermon, (p. 23;) and again, in his ser- 
 mon at New Brunswick, entitled, " The Faith once 
 delivered to the Saints," he says, " To one and all, 
 then, unlearned not less than learned, we say, with 
 admirable Dr. Hook, ' in taking the Prayer-Book for 
 your guide to the right understanding of Scripture — 
 the whole Prayer-Book, Creeds, Catechism, Articles, 
 Baptismal office, office for the Eucharist, office for the 
 ordaining of Bishops, Priests and Deacons — you take 
 for your guide the consentient voice of the universal 
 primitive Church,' — in other words, ^the faith once 
 delivered to the saints.' " 
 
 If this meant only that the Episcopal Church re- 
 gards the Prayer-Book as containing a compend of 
 the inspired volume in respect to doctrine, the sacra- 
 ments, the ministry, and worship, and that her mem- 
 bers ought to pay great respect to its teachings when 
 they study the Scriptures, no reasonable person could 
 object to it. Other Churches have their standards of 
 doctrine, order, and worship, to which they require 
 their members to conform, and which they confidently 
 recommend as summaries of the teachings of our 
 Saviour and the inspired writers. But more than this 
 is intended. The Prayer-Book is the exponent of 
 
240 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 " Catholic tradition.'' It utters " the consentient voice 
 of the universal primitive Church." It has an au- 
 thority independent of Scripture, which it derives 
 from Christ through the Church, and on the ground 
 of which it is to be received as an essential part of the 
 Rule of Faith. We are not to interpret it by the 
 Bible, but to interpret the Bible by it. The Prayer- 
 Book is the primary^ the Bible the secondary source 
 of the true faith. ^ 
 
 Now this being the character in which the Prayer- 
 Book challenges my confidence, I must, first of all, 
 assure myself that in hearing it, I " hear the Church." 
 That book, it is well known, has not the sanction of 
 more than a twentieth, perhaps not more that a fiftieth, 
 part of Protestant Christendom. It has been submit- 
 ted to a small portion only of the body recognized by 
 High-Churchmen as the Church Catholic. The East- 
 ern Churches have never adopted it. The Western 
 Church pronounces it heretical in its Articles, and 
 declares the Churches which use it to be no part of the 
 true Church. Before an individual, then, can acknow- 
 ledge the Prayer-Book as a part of the Rule of Faith, 
 he must satisfy himself that the Church of England 
 and its American daughter, are branches of the true 
 Church. This inquiry will neccessarily take in the 
 Apostolical Succession, and many other topics of no 
 inconsiderable extent and difficulty. Then he must 
 explore Catholic antiquity to see whether it is faith- 
 fully reflected in this volume. If the entire Prayer- 
 Book is proposed as part of the Rule of Faith, its 
 several portions must all be verified by an examina- 
 tion of the sources from which they are derived. If 
 this distinction is claimed for certain portions of it 
 
 • See Mr. Keble's views above. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 241 
 
 ^only, the investigation, may be restricted to them. 
 If, again, with these are to be associated, as another 
 constituent part of the Rule of Faith, the decrees of 
 some four or six general councils, the history of those 
 councils must be explored, to ascertain whether they 
 were general comic 'i\Sy and therefore of binding obli- 
 gation. These points being settled, (6y private judg- 
 ment,) the next thing is to ascertain the meaning of 
 the documents in question. How is this to be done? 
 If it be said, "every individual must do it for himself, 
 with the best helps he can get;" this is a very sen- 
 sible and adequate answer, but it throws men upon 
 their private judgment, which it is a radical object 
 with this system to avoid. Besides, if men may use 
 their private judgment in interpreting creeds and 
 synodical decrees which are to govern them in their 
 study of the Bible, this is all one with their using it 
 in interpreting the Bible itself A consistent High- 
 Churchman will, on this ground, refer us to the 
 Church again for the true exposition of these docu- 
 ments. This however, will not mend the matter. 
 For where or when has the Church given the re- 
 quired exposition? We have conceded (for argu- 
 ment's sake) that she has spoken in these formularies 
 and decrees — that they are the voice of the Church 
 Catholic. But where is her commentary on them? 
 To refer for it to the annals of her councils, is to point 
 us to the very parchments which require an annotator. 
 To bid us seek her meaning in the consentient writings 
 of her eminent doctors, is to put us upon a twenty 
 years chase of an ignis fa tuns. To direct us to the 
 Bishop or Pastor on whose ministrations we attend, 
 is to substitute an individual for the Church — one 
 
 21 
 
242 THE HIGH-CIIURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 fallible man like ourselves, for infallible Catholic an- 
 tiquity. . 
 
 The difficulty does not end here. Suppose the 
 inquirer could find, it matters not where, a minute 
 exposition of the creeds and the oecumenical decrees, 
 stamped with the broad and indubitable impress of 
 the universal Church; that exposition would need 
 an interpreter as much as the documents it professed 
 to explain. He could no more be allowed to inter- 
 pret the comment for himself than the text. And if 
 he could get an authoritative exposition of that com- 
 ment, this would leave him in the same predicament 
 still. And thus exposition might be piled upon ex- 
 position, and comment upon comment, without help- 
 ing him forward a single step in his search after 
 " Catholic truth." Absurd as these consequences are, 
 they are the legitimate fruit of the doctrine which 
 denies the right of private judgment, and makes the 
 Church the only authorized expounder of the sacred 
 oracles. 
 
 It is usual for High-Churchrnen to say in reply 
 to this view, that for all practical purposes a man 
 " hears the Church" when he hears his own minister. 
 There can be no doubt that people are in the habit 
 of receiving a great many things as true, simply on 
 the word of their pastors. Nor is any great evil 
 likely to ensue from this practice so long as their pas- 
 tors constantly refer them to the Bible, and urge them 
 to search the Scriptures whether the doctrines they 
 inculcate be really so. But the case is widely different 
 when *' Catholic tradition" is placed above the Bible 
 and made essential to a right interpretation of it, and 
 people are admonished that " when the sense of 
 Scripture as interpreted by reason is contrary to the 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 243 
 
 sense given to it by Catholic antiquity, [or by the 
 Church] they ought to side with the latter." In these 
 circumstances, it becomes a question of paramount 
 importance with every man, whether his minister is 
 one that is empowered to speak for Catholic antiqui- 
 ty, that is, whether he is a true minister of the true 
 Church. Suppose, for example, the question, to be 
 asked is this: " What is the doctrine of the Church 
 on the subject of justification?" Admitting the maxim 
 that when a man hears his minister he hears the 
 Church, the Church would give different and conflict- 
 ing answers to this question, according as the inquirer 
 might happen to belong to the Romish, the Greek, or 
 one or the other division — High-Church or Evangeli- 
 cal — of the Episcopal Church, i All but one of these 
 responses must be wrong— that is, allowing that the 
 Church Catholic has, as such, as all traditionists 
 assert, taught any thing on the subject. It cannot, 
 therefore, be the duty of any man to yield an implicit 
 faith to the teachings of his own minister as the oracle 
 of the Church. He must assure himself of the Apos- 
 tolic lineage of his pastor, and of the right of the 
 church to which he belongs to be regarded as a 
 genuine branch of the Church universal. This will 
 require no little time and study, and no small exercise 
 of private judgment. These difficulties being cleared 
 up, what has he learned when his pastor has told 
 him what the Church teaches on any given point — 
 say justification? Why simply how his pastor, in 
 the exercise of his private judgment, understands the 
 decrees or articles of the Church relating to justifica- 
 
 1 It has been shrewdly and justly said in a very able pamphlet 
 published a year or so ago, that " the Bible means one thing in iVeio 
 Jersey, and a far dili'crent thing in Ohio.^^-r- Oxford Divinity, p. 46. 
 
244 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 tion. This answer or exposition, he, again, under- 
 stands accordina: to the construction put upon it by 
 his private judgment. Another pastor might, it is 
 obvious, understand the Church differently; and an- 
 other auditor (or reader) might understand the reply 
 of his pastor differently. In all these details, the right 
 of private judgment miisthQ and is recognized. How 
 ineffably absurd, then, is it to thrust in the Church 
 between man and the Bible, under the pretence that 
 it is dangerous to allow the exercise of private judg- 
 ment upon the Scriptures, and that this scheme super- 
 sedes the necessity of it. 
 
 To sum up, then, in a few words what I have to 
 say further upon this subject, — 
 
 1. The High-Church doctrine of the Rule of Faith 
 impeaches the perfection and sufficiency of the Scrip- 
 tures. — It would be superfluous to cite specific texts 
 to prove that the Bible claims these attributes for 
 itself; 1 and equally superfluous, after what has been 
 said, to show in what way this doctrine discards the 
 claim. . . 
 
 2. This doctrine is in conflict with the explicit teach- 
 ing of the word of God. To name but two pas- 
 sages: The Bereans are commended for bringing the 
 doctrines of Paul himself to the test of Scripture. 
 And this eminent Apostle says to the Galatians, 
 " Though we or an angel from heaven preach any 
 other gospel unto you than that which we have 
 preached unto you, let him be accursed." We are 
 here instructed to try every doctrine, by whomsoever 
 preached, by the written Scriptures. Even if an 
 angel should come to us with a message at variance 
 w4lh the revelation we have, it would be our duty to 
 
 • See Psalms xix. and cxlx. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 245 
 
 reject him. — Such an admonition could never have 
 been uttered, and it can never be consistently acted 
 upon, by one who holds that Scripture and tradition — 
 Scripture interpreted by the Church — constitutes the 
 Rule of Faith. 
 
 3. This doctrine is at variance with the XXXIX 
 Articles of the Episcopal Church. — Thus Article VI. 
 says: "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary 
 to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therei|4, 
 nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of 
 any man, that it should be believed as an article of 
 faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salva- 
 tion.'' 
 
 And Art. VIII.— "The Nicene Creed, and that 
 which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed ought 
 thoroughly to be received and believed : for they may 
 be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scrip- 
 ture." The men who framed these Articles had no 
 idea of enthroning the creeds above Prophets and 
 Apostles. Instead of directing that the Bible shall be 
 interpreted by the Creeds, they say the Creeds are to 
 be received " because they may be proved by Holy 
 Scripture." 
 
 4. The proposed rule of faith is beyond the reach 
 of the great mass of mankind, unless indeed they are 
 willing to trust to the infallibility of their own minis- 
 ter or priest: and it eludes none of the alleged evils 
 which are charged upon the exercise of private judg- 
 ment in the interpretation of Scripture. For if men 
 examine the " traditions" of the Church for them- 
 selves, they must interpret them according to their 
 private judgment; and if they rely upon the declara- 
 tion of a priest as to their import, they receive only 
 
 21* 
 
246 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 the interpretation put upon them by his private judg- 
 ment. 
 
 5. The theory assumes that the Church cannot err; 
 and that it is always safe for an individual to follow 
 the voice of the Church Catholic as expressed by the 
 great body of her lawful governors. Have the rulers 
 of the Christian Church ever been more united on 
 any question, than the rulers of the Jewish Church 
 A^jere in pronouncing the Son of God an impostor ? It 
 was the voice of the Church which shouted " Crucify 
 him !" " Crucify him !" Was the voice of the Church 
 then of equal authority with the Scriptures as a part 
 of the Rule of Faith? 
 
 Again, during a part of the fourth century, as was 
 stated in the last chapter, Arianism was the avowed 
 faith, not of a few individuals merely, but of the 
 Church Catholic. " The poison of the Arians," says 
 Vincentius Lirinensis, "had not only infected one 
 part but almost all the world; and almost all the 
 Latin Bishops, some by force, others by simplicity 
 giving themselves over to be deceived, found them- 
 selves engaged in the darkness of error.'^ "We are 
 in that condition," says Phaebadius, " that if we 
 would be called Catholics, it is necessary that we em- 
 brace heresy : and yet nevertheless if we do not re- 
 ject heresy, we cannot be truly Catholics." The 
 sentiments of Arius were adopted by several succes- 
 sive councils, both in the East and the West ; and. 
 the few orthodox Bishops and Presbyters who re- 
 fused to conform, were persecuted. Was it the, duty 
 of an inquirer, in these circumstances, to " hear the 
 Church ?" And was the Church's creed and synodi- 
 cal decrees, the standard by which all men were 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 247 
 
 bound to interpret the Scriptures ? It may be said 
 that these consequences will not follow, because Ari- 
 anism was estabUshed only for a short period, and 
 does not therefore come within the " quod semjier^^ 
 the " always," of Vincent's rule, which is essential to 
 prove anything a tenet of the universal Church. I 
 answer, (1.) that the example at least shows the 
 danger of trusting implicitly to the teaching of the 
 Church: and (2.) that if the want of the "quod sem- 
 per" precludes the recognition of Arianism as part of 
 the Church's creed, the fact that it was a part of its 
 creed for the j^eriod in question, obviously excludes 
 the doctrine of the Trinity from its creed on the same 
 ground. For if "Catholic tradition" embraces only 
 those points which the Church has " always^ ^ taught, 
 it cannot, of course, include those which were rejected 
 during the prevalence of the Arian heresy. 
 
 It should be added, to prevent misapprehension, 
 that the word " Church" is used in this argument in 
 the sense of those whose views I am controverting, 
 as denoting only the visible Church. It is superfluous 
 to say that Christ has always had a chosen and sanc- 
 tified people in the world — his true, spiritual Church 
 — who have remained steadfast through all the fluc- 
 tuations and heresies of the visible Church, and who 
 have never denied the Trinity nor any other essential 
 doctrine of the Scriptures. 
 
 6. The only remaining observation which it seems 
 worth while to make on this subject, is, that when- 
 ever tradition is associated with the Bible as the rule 
 of faith, the inevitable tendency is to expand tradition 
 until it overshadows and nullifies the Bible. It was 
 thus with the Pharisees : they " made the command- 
 ment of God of none efl'ect by their tradition." It is 
 
248 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 thus with the Romanists : the Bible is, to use a coarse 
 but expressive figure, a mere " nose of wax" in the 
 Papal system. It is hazarding httle to predict, that it 
 will be so also with the High-Church school. Indeed, 
 there are decisive indications of ^' progress" among 
 them already in this direction. What they now call 
 " Catholic antiquity," as adumbrated in the Prayer- 
 Book, will* not, probably, long satisfy them. Their 
 principles demand as extended and flexible a rule of 
 faith, as Rome herself has ; and having begun with 
 "tradition," there seems no good reason why they 
 should stop where they are. King James II. told 
 Bishop Burnet, that the reason of his turning Papist 
 was, that hearing so much from the English divines 
 about " the authority of the Church, and of the tradi- 
 tion from the Apostles in support of Episcopacy," he 
 considered that other traditions might be taken on the 
 word of the Catholic Church, as well as Episcopacy 
 on the word of the English, and he therefore thought 
 it "reasonable to go over to the Church of Rome." 
 Many of the Puseyite Episcopalians of our day have 
 reasoned as James did and followed his example. 
 Rome sees her advantage and makes good use of it. 
 It remains to be proved whether the High-Church 
 party will be able to cope with her, without borrow- 
 ing those "other traditions" which she wields so 
 effectively against them. 
 
THE ArOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 249 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 I INSERTED in the last chapter, an outUne of the 
 High-Church system, from the pen of the late Dr. 
 Arnold. To obtain an accurate idea of the system, 
 it is necessary to pay particular attention to the views 
 it inculcates respecting the nature of the Church and 
 the Sacraments. On this subject I shall now make 
 a few observations, with a view of showing that this 
 scheme puts the Church and the ministry in the 
 PLACE OF Christ. 
 
 On opening the New Testament we find it every 
 where addressing men as individuals. It tells them 
 that they are "by nature the children of wrath," 
 "dead in trespasses and in sins." It declares that 
 " except a man be born again, he cannot see the king- 
 dom of God." It warns them not to trust in names 
 and privileges : " In Christ Jesus neither circumcision 
 availeth any thing nor uncircumcision, but a new 
 creature." It says to them, " Except ye repent, ye 
 shall all likewise perish." "Believe on the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." " If any man 
 be in Christ, he is a new creature." It affirms that 
 Jesus Christ is the only Mediator between God and 
 men ; and invites all men to approach God in his 
 name, and supplicate the blessings they need. The 
 Saviour, addressing the whole human family, says, 
 "Come unto me, all ye that labour, and are heavy 
 laden, and I will give you rest." " Him that cometh 
 
250 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 unto me I will in no wise cast out.'^ He is the source 
 of grace to his people. They are individually and 
 directly united to Him as the branches to the vine, 
 as the members to the Head. They receive and 
 abide in Him by faith, and He abides in them by the 
 influences of His Spirit. The consummation of this 
 union between Christ and themselves, makes them 
 members of " his body, the Church,^\ — that is, the 
 true Church, that Church which is styled " the Gene- 
 ral Assembly and Church of the First-born, which are 
 written in heaven," and which is intended in such 
 passages as these: "That in the dispensation of the 
 fulness of times, he might gather together in one all 
 things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which 
 are on earth, even in him. — And hath put all things 
 under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all 
 things to the Church, which is his body, the fulness 
 of him that fiUeth all in all." (Eph. i. 10, 22, 23.) 
 This Church is one. Its members being all " one in 
 Christ Jesus," and united to him as their common 
 Head, are one with each other. They may be widely 
 separated on earth; they may belong to rival and 
 even hostile ecclesiastical societies; but they are chil- 
 dren of the same Almighty Parent, and "by one spirit 
 they have all been baptized into one body." A 
 Church thus constituted, must possess the attribute of 
 Unity. Another of its attributes is Sanctity. One 
 portion of its members, those in glory, are perfectly 
 holy; the remaining portion are all regenerated and 
 partially sanctified. This Church, again, is Catholic. 
 All renewed persons belong to it, wherever they may 
 live, or with whatever communion they may be con- 
 nected. The Church thus constituted is invisible; that 
 is, it is invisible to us as a Church. "The Lord 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 251 
 
 knoweth them that are His.'^ And the individuals 
 embraced in his Church, are of course, as individuals, 
 visible to their fellow-creatures. But they are not 
 associated in any organized body which is cognizable 
 to our senses. They live, in different lands; some of 
 them, indeed, dwell in the Saviour's presence. They 
 never meet in one place. They belong to different 
 communions, some of which may, as religious socie- 
 ties, have become heretical and apostate. While the 
 true Church of Christ, therefore, is one, it is, as a 
 Church, invisible.^ It is obvious that out of this 
 Church there is no salvation. Mark the distinction 
 here. It is not said that out of this or that particular 
 visible Church, there is no salvation : that is one of 
 the arrogant assumptions of the High-Church school. 
 We find not one word in the Scriptures to authorize 
 the dogma that salvation is restricted to the Presbyte- 
 rian Church, or the Episcopal Church, or the Romish 
 Church, or the Greek Church, or any other branch of 
 the visible Church. But we find ample warrant there 
 for asserting that salvation is confined to the true, 
 spiritual, invisible Church of Christ; for that Church 
 embraces all truly regenerated persons. The moment 
 a sinner receives Christ as his Saviour with a cordial 
 faith — the moment he experiences the renovating 
 power of the Holy Ghost, and is made a ^'new crea- 
 ture in Christ Jesus" — that moment he is introduced 
 into this Church. It matters not what his external 
 relations may be, or what sectarian name he may 
 bear. It is all one, as to the point in hand, whether 
 
 ' See on this whole subject, a very able " Treatise on the Church," 
 by the Rev. Thomas Jackson, D. D., who is commended by Dr. Pusey 
 as "one of the best and greatest minds our [the English] Church has 
 nurtured." Philad. 1844. 
 
252 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 he be an Episcopalian or a Baptist, a Romanist or a 
 Quaker, a Hindoo or a Mahometan ; if he truly repents 
 of his sins, and with his heart believes in the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, he is thereby made a member of his 
 mystical body. This union with Christ, the Bible 
 affirms to be the only way of salvation. We state a 
 very familiar Scripture truth, then, when we say that 
 out of that Church which comprises all genuine be- 
 hevers, there is no salvation. 
 
 One of the radical errors of the High-Church sys- 
 tem, is, that it confounds or denies the distinction be- 
 tv/een the invisible Church — the true, spiritual Church 
 of Christ — and the visible Church. The sacred wri- 
 ters frequently apply the word " Church" to socie- 
 ties of professing Christians, as when they say " the 
 Church of Ephesus," "the Church at Corinth,'-' and 
 the like. It is common to speak of the aggregate of 
 those societies which profess the true religion as 
 " the visible Church." Thus the Westminster Con- 
 fession of Faith, chapter xxv. section 2 : " The visi- 
 ble Church, which is also Catholic or universal under 
 the Gospel, (not confined to one nation as before 
 under the law,) consists of all those throughout the 
 world, that profess the true religion, together with 
 their children ; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, the house and family of God, out of which 
 there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." I sub- 
 join the remaining sections. 
 
 HI. "Unto this Catholic visible Church, Christ 
 hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of 
 God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in 
 this life, to the end of the world; and doth by his 
 own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, 
 make them effectual thereunto. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 253 
 
 IV. "This Catholic Church hath been sometimes 
 more, sometimes less, visible. And particular church- 
 es, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, 
 according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and 
 embraced, ordinances administered, and public wor- 
 ship performed more or less purely in them. 
 
 V. "The purest churches under heaven are sub- 
 ject both to mixture and error: and some have so 
 degenerated as to become- no churches of Christ but 
 synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be 
 always a Church on earth to worship God according 
 to his will. 
 
 VI. " There is no other Head of the Church but 
 the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome 
 in any sense be head thereof; but is that anti-christ, 
 that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth 
 himself in the Church against Christ -and all that is 
 called God.'' 
 
 A single clause in this chapter has been sometimes 
 quoted with a view of producing the impression that 
 the Presbyterian Church arrogates to herself an exclu- 
 sive salvation — viz. the clause which affirms that out 
 of this visible Church "there is no ordinary possibility 
 of salvation." If by the " visible Church'^ in this 
 connexion, were intended the Presbyterian Church 
 merely, there might be some ground for this imputa- 
 tion. But the context explicitly states that the phrase 
 includes " all those throughout the world who profess 
 the true religion.^ ^ And the whole history of the 
 Presbyterian Church shows that she regards all other 
 evangelical churches as sister -churches, and as consti- 
 tuting part of "the visible Church." That salvation 
 is " ordinarihf (and this is all that is affirmed) 
 restricted tq the visible Church, considered in this 
 
254 TPIE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 extended sense, will not probably be denied by any 
 enlightened believer in Christianity. 
 
 It is also asserted in the chapter quoted from the 
 Confession of Faith, that to the visible Church "Christ 
 hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of 
 God;" "but it is not taught that this ministry can 
 consist only of Presbyters, ordained by a Presbyte- 
 rian church; or that these ordinances can be validly 
 administered only by such and after the manner 
 prescribed in our form of worship. On the contrary, 
 it is most explicitly taught, in the very next chapter 
 of our book, that ^ all saints that are united to Jesus 
 Christ, their Head, by his Spirit and by faith . . . have 
 communion in each other's gifts and graces, . . . are 
 bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion 
 in the worship of God, and in performing such other 
 spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification, 
 . . . which communion, as God offereth opportunity, 
 is to be extended unto all those who, in every place, 
 call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.' "i 
 
 The inhiatory rite of the visible society, or, to speak 
 more accurately, the collection of societies thus consti- 
 tuted, is baptism; which is administered to adults on 
 their professing faith in the Redeemer, and subjection 
 to his authority. The only other sacrament instituted 
 by the Saviour in his Church, is the Lord's Supper, 
 which is not a sacrifice, but simply an ordinance 
 commemorative of Himself: — " This do in remem- 
 brance of me." " As often as ye eat this bread and 
 drink this cup, ye do show the LorcVs death till he 
 come." The chief oversight of this Church is com- 
 mitted, not to a Priesthood, but to a Ministiy, whose 
 
 1 See this subject treated at length in Dr. Smyth's interesting 
 work on " Ecclesiastical Republicanism," ch. 5, 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 255 
 
 authority is, as its^ designation imports, merely minis- 
 terial and declarative. The preaching of the Gospel 
 is the principal instrumentality which God employs 
 in converting men from sin to holiness. The sacra- 
 ments also are "means of grace,^' but their efficacy, 
 like that of the ministration of the word, depends 
 wholly upon the work of the Spirit, and is only pro- 
 mised to those who worthily participate in them. 
 The visible Church has always been more or less 
 defiled with error and sin. It includes many " par- 
 ticular churches which are more or less pure,*' and a 
 mixture of sound and unsound professors, who are 
 for wise purposes permitted to remain together until 
 that great harvest when the tares and the wheat shall 
 be separated. Of course a union with this Church 
 does not necessarily import a spiritual union with 
 Christ; although to those of its members who are 
 united to Christ, its ordinances are, through his bles- 
 sing, means of edification and comfort. 
 
 These are substantially the views of the Reformed 
 Churches generally on this important subject. I shall 
 now present a sketch of the High-Church doctrine. 
 
 According to this doctrine, all that the Scriptures 
 say respecting the true, spiritual Church of Christ, 
 appertains' ta-the visible Church. This Church is a 
 Hierarchy. It consists of a single society (now, un- 
 happily, in a somewhat divided state,) placed under 
 the government of Prelates who derive their authority 
 from its Divine Founder through an unbroken Pre- 
 latical succession. These Prelates, indeed, with the 
 inferior clergy, properly constitute the Church — the 
 people being a mere appendage to the ministry. To 
 this Church are confided the gifts of salvation. It 
 stands in the place and is clothed with the, authority 
 
256 THE HIGH-CHURCII DOCTRINE OP 
 
 of Christ, as his Vicar. It is the storehouse of grace — 
 the only source from which grace can be obtained — 
 the only avenue by which a sinner can approach 
 God. This grace it communicates through the sacra- 
 ments. In baptism sinners are born again or regene- 
 rated, and by the Eucharist, in which the communi- 
 cant partakes of the "real body and blood" of the 
 Redeemer, the spiritual life communicated in the 
 former sacrament, is mainly nourished and invigo- 
 rated. Non-Prelatical societies form no part of the 
 Church; but are schismatical organizations. Nor can 
 any one who refuses submission to Episcopal au- 
 thority, reasonably conclude that he is in the way of 
 salvation. 
 
 Now if this be a faithful outline of the High-Church 
 system (and whether it be or not, will be seen pre- 
 sently,) it will not require much argument to prove 
 that its whole tendency must be to substitute a de- 
 lusive Hierarchism for the Gospel of Christ. By 
 Hierarchism is meant a religion of which the Priest 
 is the centre; a religion which interposes the priest 
 and the Church between God and the sinner; which 
 encourages the feeling that there can be no access to 
 God except through sacerdotal officers' and sacerdotal 
 rites; which impairs the sense of personal responsi- 
 bility and leads men gradually to commit the whole 
 business of their salvation into the hands of the minis- 
 ter under whose care Providence may have placed 
 them. 
 
 The allegation that they put the Church in the 
 place of Christ, and exalt matters of organization to 
 an equality with the graces and duties of the Christian 
 life, and thus divert the minds of men from the sub- 
 stance to the form of Christianity, is frequently re- 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 257 
 
 pelled by High-Churchmen as an aspersion. But 
 with what propriety? Their doctrine is that an un- 
 broken Prelatical Succession from the Apostles down, 
 is essential to the very being of a Church — that where 
 such a succession is wanting, there is no ministry, no 
 sacraments, no authorized preaching of the word, no 
 fellowship with the Church, no covenanted hope of 
 salvation. They will not allow that this defect can be 
 counterbalanced by any apparent orthodoxy of doc- 
 trine or holiness of life ; while they maintain that 
 wherever this succession exists, even though it be as- 
 sociated with gross errors and corruptions, it marks a 
 true Church. What is this but to elevate Church- 
 government not merely to a level with vital godliness 
 but above it? to put the form above the substance ? 
 
 The Oxford Tract writers deny this consequence, 
 though they admit the premises. They contend that 
 the Apostolical Succession belongs to '^ the substance" 
 of Christianity. "To be admitted within the myste- 
 rious precincts of the kingdom of heaven, to be 
 miraculously blessed ajid miraculously fed with the 
 bread that came dov\rn from heaven, these are surely 
 something more than forms and externals ; and the 
 Episcopacy that has (if indeed it has) preserved them 
 to us, is something more than a matter of bare dis- 
 cipline, observed in conformity to Apostolical practice. 
 According to this view of the subject, to dispense 
 with Episcopal ordination is to be regarded not as a 
 breach of order merely or a deviation from Apos- 
 tolical precedent, but as a surrender of the Christian 
 priesthood, a rejection of all the powers which Christ 
 instituted Episcopacy to perpetuate; and the attempt 
 to substitute any other form of ordination for it, or to 
 seek commxinion with Christ through any JN^on-Epis- 
 
 22^^ 
 
258 THE HIGH-CIIURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 copal association, is to be regarded, not as a schism 
 merely, but as an impossibility.^^ ^ 
 
 With this view agree the leading Tractators. Mr. 
 Perceval, one of their number, in specifying the points 
 agreed upon at one of their early conferences, as 
 suitable "to be put forward by them," mentions as 
 the first — " The doctrine of Apostolic Succession as a 
 rule of practice; that is, (1.) That the participation of 
 the body and blood of Christ is essential to the main- 
 tenance of Christian life and hope in each individual. 
 (2.) That it is conveyed to individual Christians only 
 by the hands of the successors of the Apostles- and 
 their delegates. (3.) That the successors of the Apos- 
 tles are those who are descended in a direct line from 
 them by the imposition of hands; and that the dele- 
 gates of these are the respective Presbyters whom 
 each has commissioned." ^ According to this state- 
 ment, communion with a Prelatical Church is '• essen- 
 tial to the maintenance of the Christian life and 
 hope:" in other words, true piety cannot be kept alive 
 except in Episcopal Churches: — and this is given as 
 the unanimous judgment of the Tractators. Is there no 
 evidence here that the system puts order above doc- 
 trine, and interposes a priest between man and his 
 God as the exclusive medium of salvation? 
 
 We are not, however, left to mere inferences on 
 this point. The doctrine is explicitly maintained 
 that the Visibue Church, in its officers, is the repre- 
 sentative and vicar of Christ, and can, in his absence, 
 exercise the functions which belong to Him as the 
 King and Head of Zion. The British Critic, one 
 
 1 Froude's Remains, edited by Messrs. Keblc and Newman, Vol. 
 III. p. 43. 
 
 2 Appendix to Percevars Letter to Dr. Arnold. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSiON. 259 
 
 of the accredited organs of the school, and which, at 
 the date of the number from which I am about to 
 quote, was circulating in this country under the offi- 
 cial and emphatic recommendation of one of the 
 Bishops 1 of the Episcopal Church, is my authority 
 for this statement. 
 
 *'The essence of the doctrine of the one only Ca- 
 tholic and Apostolic Church, lies in this — that it is 
 the representative of our absent Lord, or a some- 
 thing divinely interposed between the soul and God, 
 or a visible body with invisible privileges. All its 
 subordinate characteristics flow from this description. 
 Does it impose a creed, or impose rites and ceremo- 
 nies, or change ordinances, or remit and retain sins, 
 or rebuke or punish, or accept offerings, or send out 
 ministers, or invest its ministers with authority, or 
 accept of reverence or devotion in their persons — all 
 this is because it is Christ's visible presence. It 
 stands for Christ. Can it convey the power of the 
 Spirit ? does grace attend its acts ? can it touch, or 
 bathe, or seal, or lay on hands ? can it use material 
 things for spiritual purposes ? are its temples holy ? 
 all this comes of its being, so far, what Christ was 
 on earth. Is it a ruler, prophet, priest, intercessor, 
 teacher ? It has titles such as these, in its measure, 
 as being the representative and instrument of him 
 that is unseen. Does it claim a palace and a throne, 
 an altar and a doctor's chair, the gold, frankincense, 
 and myrrh, of the rich and wise, an universal empire 
 and a never-ending cession ? All this is so, because 
 it is what Christ is. All the offices, names, honours, 
 powers, which it claims, depend upon the simple 
 question, 'Has Christ, or has he not, left a represen- 
 
 » Bishop Doane, of New Jersey. 
 
260 THE IIIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 tative behind him?' Now, if he has, all is easy and 
 intelligible: this is wha.t Churchmen maintain; they 
 welcome the news; and they recognize in the Church's 
 acts, but the fulfilment of the high trust committed 
 to her."i 
 
 There is no ambiguity here. '' The Church is 
 WHAT Christ is." It can make and unmake "rites," 
 "ordinances," "creeds." It can punish, pardon, im- 
 part the Holy Spirit, justify, renew, sanctify, seal. It 
 is a Prophet, Priest, King. In a word, it is enthled 
 as Christ's representative, to the " offices, names, 
 honours, and powers," which belong to Christ him- 
 self. What has the harlot who sits upon the seven 
 hills, ever claimed for herself beyond this ? 
 
 Let us hear the Tractators on the same subject. 
 " The notion of the Church as the storehousie and 
 direct channel of grace, as a divine ordinance not 
 merely to be maintained for order's sake, or because 
 schism is a sin, but to be approached joyfully and 
 expectantly as a definite instrument, or rather the 
 appointed means of spiritual blessings — as an ordi- 
 nance which conveys secret strength and life to every 
 one who shares in it, unless there be some actual 
 moral impediment in his own mind — this is a doctrine 
 which as yet is but faintly understood among us. . . . 
 We have almost ernbraced the doctrine, that God 
 conveys grace only through the instrumentality of the 
 mental energies, that is, through faith, prayer, active 
 spiritual contemplations, or {what is called) commu- 
 nion with God, in contradiction to the primitive view 
 according to which the Church and her sacraments 
 are the ordained and direct visible means of convey- 
 ing to the soul what is in itself supernatural and un- 
 
 ' Brit, Critic, No. 66, p. 451. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 261 
 
 seen."i " Had we been left to conjecture, we might 
 have supposed that in the more perfect or spiritual 
 system, the gifts of grace would rather have been 
 attached to certain high moral performances, whereas 
 they are deposited in mere positive ordinances, as if 
 to warn us against dropping the ceremonial of Chris- 
 tianity."2 "Almighty God has said, his Son's merits 
 shall Avash away all sin, and that they shall be con- 
 veyed to believers through the two sacraments." ^ 
 " These powers of the Church," observes Prof Sew- 
 ell, a writer of high repute with this school, in speak- 
 ing of the Church and the clergy, "are very great; 
 they are even awful; if not conferred by God, they 
 are blasphemously assumed by man. The power of 
 communicating to man the divine nature itself, of 
 bringing down the deity from heaven, of infusing the 
 Spirit into the souls of miserable mortals — this, which 
 is nothing more than the every-day promise of the 
 Church, every time he [the priest] stands at the font, 
 or ministers at the altar, is so awful and so tremen- 
 dous, that we scarcely dare to read it, except in fa- 
 miliar words which scarcely touch the ear."^ 
 
 To say, after citing these passages, that the Pusey- 
 ite system puts the Church and the ministry in the 
 place of Christ, is only to express a feeling which 
 must force itself upon every mind that is open to con- 
 viction. 
 
 This feature of the system has been officially and 
 severely censured by Dr. Sumner, the able and excel- 
 lent Bishop of Chester. " Practically," he observes 
 in his Charge to his clergy for 1841, " the Saviour is 
 treated with dishonour, when the Church which he 
 
 1 Oxford Tracts, Vol. II. Pref. 3 Tract, No. 41. 
 
 2 Tract, No. 32. 4 Christian Morals, p. 27. 
 
262 THE IIIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 has established is made to usurp his place, to perform 
 his acts, to receive his homage; is so represented as 
 to be virtually the author of salvation, instead of the 
 channel through which salvation flows. This is, in 
 truth, to depose him from his throne, and to invest 
 his subjects with the authority which belongs to him- 
 self alone." " To set up, as it were, Church-princi- 
 ples in opposition to the principles of the Gospel, and 
 place them in invidious contrast, is alike unreasonable 
 and unscriptural. It is to confound the means of 
 grace with the author of grace ; to worship the thing 
 made and to dishonour the maker. It is to array 
 against Christ the instrumentality which he has 
 established against Satan.'' " Therefore he ordain- 
 ed the ministry and he ordained the sacraments, that 
 there might be a Church — a continual ' congregation 
 of faithful men.' And shall this Church boast itself 
 against its Author, and claim a power which he has 
 never given? Shall the earthly members assume the 
 authority of their heavenly principal? Such seems 
 to be the case when they confound church-member- 
 ship with faith; or so magnify the ministrations be- 
 longing to their office, as virtually to represent that, 
 except through their instrumentality, there is no sal- 
 vation." " The Church has been made first an ab- 
 straction, then a person, and then a Saviour. The 
 Church thus invested with divinity, has the minister 
 as her visible repVesentative, and he, explaining the 
 prophetic anticipation, has assumed the place of 
 God.'' 
 
 The justness of this rebuke will be still more appa- 
 rent as we proceed, for I shall have frequent occasion 
 to advert to the subject before I conclude. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 263 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE SYSTEM AT VARIANCE WITH THE GENERAL TONE OF 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 After the tolerably complete delineation of the High- 
 Church system given in the last chapter, I feel war- 
 ranted in specifying" as another of its leading charac- 
 teristics, ITS CONTRARIETY TO THE WHOLE SCOPE AND 
 TENOR OF THE NeW TESTAMENT. 
 
 I speak of it now as a system, without reference to 
 the arguments that may be urged for or against its 
 several parts. No man who is not already a High- 
 Churchman, can lay down the New Testament and 
 take up the Oxford Tracts, without feeling that the 
 works are devoted to the exposition of two different 
 kinds of religion. The transition is like that a trav- 
 eller experiences in ascending from the sunny plains 
 of Italy to the bleak and sterile region of the upper 
 Alps. He may, it is true, find here and there in some 
 sheltered spot a sweet flower or two, but they only 
 serve as a foil to the surrounding desolation. So there 
 are many admirable Scripture truths scattered through 
 the Oxford Tracts, and other works of that class, but 
 they only set off the more vividly the contrast be- 
 tween the frigid, ceremonial system upon which 
 they are engrafted, and the glorious Gospel of Christ. 
 If the High-Church scheme be true, it is inexpli- 
 cable why the New Testament should have been 
 written as it is. That scheme makes the polity of 
 the Church — its external form and organization — the 
 
264 THE HIGII-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 primary thing. It does, it is true, enforce the ne- 
 cessity of justification and spiritual renewal: but it 
 teaches that no man is authorized to expect these 
 blessings unless he places himself under a Prelatical 
 ministry. It inculcates faith and repentance, and 
 other Christian graces : but it is careful to say that 
 these graces are only to be cultivated with success in 
 a communion Prelatically organized. The organiza- 
 tion is the fundamental thing. It is so in the theory, 
 and in the authorized expositions of it. The first 
 volume of the Tracts for the Times, contains no less 
 than eight distinct papers on " Apostolical Succes- 
 sion." And the same precedence is given to matters 
 of order in the writings of the school generally. The 
 word " Church" will be found in their books ten times 
 where Christ is named once. They abound with 
 disquisitions on the dignity, Apostolic lineage, and 
 powers of the Bishops, but have little to say of the 
 moral qualifications essential to the office. Tliey pre- 
 sent us with elaborate essays on crucifixes and sur- 
 plices, painted windows and wax candles, attitudes 
 and genuflexions, and such like "mint, anise, and 
 cummin;" while the weightier matters of the law are 
 too often enforced, if enforced at all, on principles 
 which savour more of Popery than of the free spirit 
 of Christianity. 
 
 Now the most superficial reader of the New Tes- 
 tament must be aware that its whole tone is alien 
 from a system like this. The subject of Church gov- 
 ernment is rarely introduced, and then, for the most 
 part, in an incidental way. A few general principles 
 are clearly laid down; but no one model is so prescrib- 
 ed as to countenance the idea that its adoption is 
 essential to the being of a Church. This is not to say 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 265 
 
 that air forms of Church government are equally good 
 or equally allowable. The author has no such behef; 
 nor does he regard questions of polity and order as 
 trivial matters. It is only the relative position they 
 occupy in the New Testament with which he is con- 
 cerned in this connexion. — " Bishops" are repeatedly 
 mentioned, but it is for the most part to specify the 
 spiritual qualifications they ought to possess, or to 
 admonish them of their duties and responsibilities. 
 If the people are commanded to " obey" their pastors, 
 they are also instructed to prove those who come to 
 them as religious teachers — to prove them, not as a 
 High-Churchman would direct, by ascertaining their 
 ecclesiastical pedigree, but by scrutinizing their doc- 
 trine and their lives. (See Matt. vii. 15 — 20. 1 John 
 iv. 1 — 3. 2 John v. 10.) And as to rites and cere- 
 monies, they are seldom adverted to except for the 
 purpose of guarding men against placing an undue 
 reliance upon them. 
 
 The New Testament, then, does not at all har- 
 monize with this system. It would require to be re- 
 cast before the two could be brought together. To 
 effect this, the doctrines of the atonement, justification 
 by faith, and regeneration, would have to be taken 
 out of the niches in which they have been placed, and 
 the vacancies supplied by dissertations on "Apos- 
 tolical Succession." The marks of a "true Church," 
 should supersede the manifold exhortations to holi- 
 ness of life — a sprinkling of these being of course 
 retained in suitable connexions. The sacraments 
 should be largely dwelt upon as the chief sources of 
 grace ; and preaching be thrown into any recess 
 where it would not impair the general symmetry of 
 the plan. At least one-half the book should be ap- 
 
 23 
 
266 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 propriated to rites and ceremonies. In this, provision 
 should be made for an order of Christian Levites 
 whose business it should be to keep genealogical 
 tables of the Bishops. Minute directions should, 
 be given as to sacerdotal vestments, the forms of 
 Churches, the arrangement of the chancel, the desk, 
 the "altar'' and the font. No room should be left 
 for incertitude as to whether matins and vespers 
 should be celebrated daily or only on Saints' days — 
 whether the crucifix should be worn about the person 
 and put on the tops of houses and churches — whether 
 churches should be constructed with or without pews 
 — whether flowers should be worn on festival days, 
 and if so, whQiher green-house flowers or flowers of 
 forced growth, would in any case answer — whether 
 one candle or two should be put upon the "altar," 
 and whether they should be lighted or not.^ These 
 and many similar points which have occasioned no 
 small debate in our day, would all require to be au- 
 thoritatively settled in the New Testament in order to 
 adjust it to the system we are examining. Further- 
 more, the " Apostolical Succession," as lying at the 
 foundation of the system, should be presented in the 
 most lucid and imposing manner. Not only should 
 the Apostle's fling at those who busy themselves 
 about " endless genealogies" be struck out, but also 
 the account of Simon Magus, whose baptism, though 
 administered by Peter himself, was so far from 
 
 1 Even the Bishop of London in a late charge, while he reprobates 
 some of the Oxford superstitions, sees " no harm" in two wax can- 
 dles, provided they are not lighted^ and approves of the arrangement 
 "lately adopted in several churches, by which the clergyman looks to 
 the south while reading prayers, and to the west while reading les- 
 sons I" Tendimus in Latium. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 267 
 
 regenerating him, that he was immediately afterward 
 pronounced to be " in the gall of bitterness and in the 
 bond of iniquity." Again, the requisite information 
 should be supplied for solving a great many import- 
 ant practical questions which now divide those who 
 agree on most other points. Of this kind are the fol- 
 lowing, to-wit : — What is essential to the validity of 
 orders ? If a Bishop becomes an avowed Arian or 
 Infidel, are his ordinations valid ? If a Bishop ob- 
 tains his office by fraud and Simony, can he per- 
 petuate the true succession? Should the leading 
 Bishops for several centuries be, on the showing of 
 their own historians, a race oi profligates, simoniacs, 
 usurjjers, murderers, and the like, can they keep up 
 the succession and transmit the Holy Ghost? And 
 are these Bishops to be recognized as being in the 
 Church, while ministers of the gospel who appear to 
 be eminently wise, holy, and useful men, but who 
 have not been prelatically ordained, are to be denoun- 
 ced as schismatics and consigned to "uncovenanted 
 mercy ?'^ — Facts show that there is some room for a 
 difference of opinion on questions of this sort, even 
 among High-Churchmen, and this might be effectually 
 precluded, if the New Testament were adjusted to the 
 system, and made as explicit as it is now "reserved" 
 on all matters of form and external order. 
 
 That the Bible in its present form, does not meet 
 the wants of this school, is not merely admitted but 
 insisted upon by themselves. The Romanists are 
 not more hearty than they are, in repudiating the 
 great Protestant principle, that the Bible is the all- 
 sufficient and only rule of faith and practice. ^ The 
 system, on the confession of its ablest advocates, can- 
 
 iSee Chapter VII. 
 
268 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 not be bolstered up without the aid of the Fathers ; 
 and the Bible will only speak its language when 
 stretched upon the Procrustean bed of " Catholic tra- 
 dition." It ought not to surprise us, then, to find, on 
 instituting the comparison, that this system is at va- 
 riance with the whole scope and tenor of the New 
 ■Testament : for this is just what the teachings of its 
 expounders would naturally lead us to expect. 
 
 The same discrepancy will appear, if, instead of 
 comparing the system as a whole with the general 
 tone of the New Testament, we bring its several 
 parts to the test of Scripture. To select a single fea- 
 ture, — one would think from the writings of this 
 school, that the New Testament must be a treatise 
 on baptism; that baptism was the main topic of our 
 Saviour's discourses and the pervading theme of the 
 Apostles' preaching; and that the great business of 
 the Christian ministry was, not to preach the Gospel, 
 but to administer the sacraments. Baptism is, in 
 their scheme, the grand instrument by which men 
 who are "dead in trespasses and sins," are to be 
 made alive, rebels restored to the favour of God, and 
 this apostate world reclaimed from the countless evils 
 of the fall. — "It is notoriously the doctrine of the 
 Trent Decrees," observes Bishop Mcllvaine in his 
 elaborate work on " Oxford Theology, " " that bap- 
 tism is <the only instrumental cause' of justification; 
 so absolutely necessary thereto that without it jus- 
 tification is obtained by none. This is precisely 
 the doctrine of the Oxford School. . . Justification in 
 baptism, and only there, is the sole subject of a 
 whole volume of Oxford Tracts, called ' Scriptural 
 Vieios of Holy Baptism.' " (p. 213.) Again, he says, 
 " "Without a doubt baptism is considered in Oxford 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 269 
 
 divinity, as efficacious to justification in the adult 
 recipient, without any faith except such as devils 
 may have, as well as we. He is made righteous by 
 baptism, from being, up to the time of baptism, uqi- 
 righteous.^^ (p.-217.) In proof of the accuracy of this 
 representation, it might be sufficient to refer to the 
 passages already given from Puseyite writers. The 
 importance of the subject will, however, justify a few 
 additional quotations. 
 
 Dr. Pusey earnestly maintains that by baptism an 
 individual receives " the forgiveness of sin and a new 
 nature," and " is made a real child of God and a 
 real member of Christ, not an outward member of 
 an outward body of people called Christians." Again, 
 he says, " Indeed this may be set down as the es- 
 sence of sectarian doctrine, to consider faith, and not 
 the sacraments, as the proper instrument of justifica- 
 tion and other gospel gifts ; instead of holding that 
 the grace of Christ comes to us altogether from with- 
 out (as from Him, so through the externals of his 
 ordaining.") The tract writers have a great deal to 
 say about "justification by faith:" but when their 
 views come to be examined, it turns out that faith 
 itself derives all its efficacy from baptism. Thus 
 they say, "Faith, as gaining its virtue from, baptism, 
 is one thing before that sacred ordinance ; another 
 after." " Justifying faith before baptism, is not ne- 
 cessarily even a m,oral virtue, but when illuminated 
 by love and ennobled by the Spirit," (in baptism) "it 
 is a name for all graces together." Before baptism, 
 " it is without availing power, without life in the 
 sight of God, as regards our justification" — that is, 
 " as regards the indwelling of the Spirit," which is 
 the ground of justification according to this system. 
 
 23* 
 
270 THE IIIGH-CIIURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 Until it is baptized, " it [faith] is full of terror and 
 disquiet, vague, and dull-minded, feeble, sickly, way- 
 ward, fitful, inoperative," " nothing till Christ regene- 
 rate it" in baptism. " When it comes for baptism. . . 
 it comes* to the fount of life to be made alive, as the 
 dry bones, in the prophet's vision, were brought to- 
 gether in preparation for the breath of God to quicken 
 them." "We are saved," says Dr. Pusey, "by faith 
 bringing us to baptism, and by baptism God saves 
 us" — "faith being but tJie sine qua non, the neces- 
 sary condition on our parts for duly receiving the 
 grace of Christ" — and " the sacraments, not faith, 
 being the proper instrument of our justification." 
 Again; "Faith," says Mr. Newman, "does not pre- 
 cede justification ; but justification precedes it and 
 makes it justifying. Baptism is the primary instru- 
 ment and creates faith to be vjhat it is, and other- 
 wise, is not, giving it power and rank, and. constitu- 
 ting it as its own successor. Each has its own office; 
 baptism at the time, faith ever after, — the sacraments 
 the instrumental, faith the sustaining, cause." The 
 same view precisely is given by Bishop Doane, in his 
 funeral sermon at Troy : " His first care [he is speak- 
 ing of the deceased Rector,] was to graft them in, by 
 holy baptism, into the living vine ; and then to keep 
 them there by grace through faith, unto salvation."^ 
 In other words, men are first united tcf Christ by 
 baptism, and then the union is sustained by faith. 
 Or, as Bishop Mcllvaine has more comprehensively 
 summed up this part of the system ; " Faith before 
 baptism, is, in this divinity, no instrument at all, 
 because dead. In baptism, it is no instrument at all, 
 because not made alive till baptism is completed. 
 
 » Page 25. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 271 
 
 Sfter baptism, it is an instrument of justification, 
 only as it sustains what baptism has already effected, 
 and which, when lost, it cannot renew. '^ (p. 209.) 
 
 Now every reader of the Bible who is not already 
 entangled in the web of a mere sacramental religion, 
 must know that the sacred writers assign no such 
 place as this to baptism in their scheme of Christi- 
 anity. That regeneration may accompany baptism, 
 no one denies. But so far were the Apostles and 
 their associates from regarding this ordinance as the 
 specific means of regeneration and of '' creating^ ^ true 
 faith, that they baptized no one until he professed 
 repentance and faith in the Redeemer. We never 
 find them sending an anxious sinner to the "Church" 
 and the baptismal font for relief. They knew where 
 the "storehouse of grace" was, and it was their 
 delight to show trembUng, heavy-laden souls the 
 way to it. The presumptuous thought had not 
 occurred to them, which is so captivating to many 
 of their "successors," that God could not accept a 
 sinner, until they had received him into the Church — 
 that the Spirit could not apply the " blood of sprink- 
 ling" to his conscience, until they had washed him 
 with Avater — that Christ, could not say to him, " Thy 
 sins are forgiven thee: go in peace !" until they had 
 pronounced over him the words of absolution — that 
 no divine influences could reach his agitated breast, 
 until they had put him "in communication" with his 
 Maker, by establishing a sacramental connexion be- 
 tween him and themselves. If they baptize three 
 thousand on the day of Pentecost, they are those who 
 have "gladly received the word:"i if an Ethiopian 
 Eunuch expresses an earnest desire for baptism, he is 
 
 • Acts ii. 41. 
 
272 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 told on what condition his request will be granted, 
 — " If thou believest [not with a ' vague,' * sickly,' 
 ' inoperative' faith, but] with all thy heart, thou may- 
 est :"i if Saul of Tarsus is baptized, it is not until he 
 has spent three days in prayer and humiliation i^ if 
 Cornelius and his "kinsmen and friends" are baptized, 
 it is after they have "received the Holy Ghost--" ^ if 
 Lydia and the jailer are baptized, it is because " the 
 heart" of one has been " opened" by the Lord to 
 attend to the things spoken by Paul, and the other 
 avows himself a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.^ 
 This was the uniform practice of the Apostles. Not 
 an instance can be pointed out of their baptizing an 
 adult otherwise than on a profession of his faith. The 
 case of Simon Magus is no exception, for he professed 
 to believe : although his case does (as before intima- 
 ted) confute the dogma of " baptismal regeneration." 
 So far, indeed, were they from restricting salvation to 
 those already in communion with themselves, and 
 binding the Most High to bestow his grace only 
 through their ministrations, that Peter, enslaved as he 
 had been to Jewish prejudices, dared not withhold 
 baptism from Cornelius and his friends, after "' the 
 Holy Ghost had fallen upon them :" and in defending 
 himself for this act before his brethren, he says with 
 unanswerable force of reasoning, " Forasmuch, then, 
 as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us who 
 believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I that I 
 could withstand God ?" It was reserved for the 
 "Apostles" of a later age, to seize upon the Church as 
 their Church, and challenge a monopoly of the gifts 
 and graces of the Spirit, and put themselves and the 
 
 1 Acts viii. 37. 3 ibid. x. 47. 
 
 2 Ibid. ix. 9.18. 4ibid. xvi. 14, 31. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 273 
 
 sacraments in the place of the Saviour, and '^ with- 
 stand God" by consigning to "uncovenanted mercy" 
 those whom He has beautified with hoUness and 
 adorned with the gems of salvation. The elements of 
 this scheme, however, were, it is evident from their 
 epistles, at work even in the days of Paul and his 
 fellow-labourers ; and after a few centuries the system 
 was evolved in all its colossal proportions — a bap- 
 tized paganism — a pompous, oppressive, bloody hier- 
 archy. 
 
 It is substantially the same system which has now 
 sprung forth from the bosom of a Reformed Church, 
 (too scantily reformed, indeed, as the best and wisest 
 of the men engaged in its Reformation, declared with 
 sorrow at the time) and which is arming the Protes- 
 tants of every land against its lordly aggressions. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 TENDENCY OF THE SYSTEM TO AGGRANDIZE THE PRELATICAL 
 
 CLERGY ; AND TO SUBSTITUTE A RITUAL RELIGION FOR 
 
 TRUE CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 All false religions minister to the pride and ambition 
 of their priesthood. The same characteristic marks 
 the various corrupt forms of Christianity; and the 
 degree in which it attaches to them, will usually 
 denote the measure of their corruption. Tried by this 
 rule, the High-Church system will be found seriously 
 defective. I shall exhibit, in this chapter, its tendency 
 
 to AGGRANDIZE THE PRELATICAL CLERGY. TllC rCadcr 
 
274 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 will understand me as speaking not of their design, {ox 
 with this I have nothing to do ; but simply of the ten- 
 dency of the system. What this tendency is, may be 
 learned from a single fact, viz. that some of the High- 
 Church party have gone to the length of affirming that 
 Christ has actually transferred his Headship over 
 THE Church, in so far, that is, as the government of 
 the Church-militant is concerned, to the Bishops. 
 This doctrine is distinctly laid down by Bishop 
 McCoskry of Michigan, in his sermon entitled, "Epis- 
 copal Bishops, the Successors of the Apostles." From 
 this sermon I quote a few passages. " He [Christ] is 
 the Head and permanent Ruler thereof, and although 
 now removed from sight and seated on his mediato- 
 rial throne, yet he governs and regulates this Church, 
 or Kingdom, (as it is frequently called,) by his consti- 
 tuted agents, to whom he has com.mitted the very 
 same authority which he received from, the Fa- 
 therP " Every thing that could be possessed by a 
 mere human being, was given by the Saviour. He 
 was, as the Apostle declares, "the Head of the body'' 
 — consequently this Headship was transferred, and 
 all the power necessary to preserve and regulate the 
 body. For if the power to preserve and regulate the 
 body be not transferred with the Headship of the 
 body, the body itself must cease to exist ; and of 
 course the Church of Christ comes to an end. This 
 cannot be. It must follow, them, that as Christ is the 
 permanent Ruler and Head of this body now in hea- 
 ven, so are those to whom He transferred this power, 
 permanent rulers and heads on earth, for He trans- 
 ferred the earthly power over his Church.'' " In this 
 transaction [referring to John xx. 21 — 23,] they [the 
 Apostles] ivere raised nji to the very sarne office which 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 275 
 
 Christ himself held, — I mean that which belongs to 
 Him m his human nature as head and governor of 
 the Church. They were to supply his place in this 
 respect .... and, in short, to do every thing ivhich 
 Christ ivould have done, had he continued on the 
 earth." "They received the full poioer which Christ 
 possessed.'^ " So long as the Saviour exercised the 
 office of High Priest, and before he transferred it 
 to the apostles, immediately preceding his ascension, 
 there were three grades in the ministry." "It cannot 
 be supposed for one moment, that the Saviour would 
 transfer so great an office as he himself had received 
 from his Father, to feeble and short-sighted men, 
 without giving them instructions as to the manner in 
 which its duties were to be performed, and more 
 especially, whether it could be transferred to others." 
 The writer goes on to argue, that this Headship and 
 power- over the Church which were transferred from 
 Christ to his Apostles, were by them transferred to 
 others, and by their successors to others, and so on 
 down to the Bishops of our day. And if this has not 
 been done, "all," he declares, "who profess to be 
 commissioned as ambassadors of Christ, are gross 
 imjiostors.'^^^ 
 
 I have multiplied these quotations in order that it 
 may be seen that the doctrine ascribed to the author, 
 is not thrown out by mere implication, but explicitly 
 laid down and earnestly defended. According to 
 the views here presented, Christ has transferred his 
 High-Priesthood, the earthly Headship of his Church, 
 and the power to govern it, to the Bishops. They 
 hold "the very same office which beheld," — they 
 
 ' See the Sermon, pp. 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 17. See also an able re- 
 view of it in " Duffield on Episcopacy." 
 
276 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 '' have received the full power which He possessed," 
 — they are "to do every tiling which He would have 
 done, had he continued on the earth." If this is not 
 putting the Bishops in the place of Christ, it is difficult 
 to say what ivould be. Rome herself has scarcely 
 gone further in usurping His royal prerogatives and 
 priestly functions. The Scriptures teach with a ful- 
 ness of statement and illustration which would render 
 specific references superfluous, that Christ has never 
 parted with his regal or priestly office — that he is the 
 only Priest of the new dispensation, and is now exer- 
 cising his sacerdotal function of intercession ; and that 
 as King, he reigns on earth over the Church, as well 
 as in heaven. The author of the Sermon, on the other 
 hand, assumes that Christ has "transferred" these 
 offices and powers to the Bishops. To "transfer" is 
 to "convey, or make over from one to another." Of 
 course, if He has made this " transfer," he is no longer 
 the High Priest, or the Head of the Church militant. 
 Whatever prerogatives or functions, pertain to these 
 offices, now vest in the Bishops. He has delegated 
 his sovereignty to them ; and deals with men in spiri- 
 tual affairs, only through them as his " Vicegerents." 
 I am not disposed to characterize this doctrine as it 
 deserves. It is a striking proof of the pernicious and 
 blinding influence of the High-Church system, that a 
 passage so opposed to the whole tenor of the New 
 Testament, and so deeply injurious to the Saviour's 
 honour, could have been penned hy the author of 
 that Sermon. I adduce it now, however, only to 
 show that the system tends legitimately /o aggran- 
 dize the Prelatical clergy. If this is not evident 
 from the doctrine presented in the foregoing extracts, 
 no comments of mine could make it so. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 277 
 
 There is another aspect of the system, frequently- 
 hinted at in the progress of this discussion, which ex- 
 hibits this tendency with no less clearness. — The 
 whole High-Church theory of the Christian ministry, 
 differs materially from the common Protestant views 
 on the subject. That the ministry is a divine and 
 permanent institution — that it is essentially connected 
 with the best interests of mankind for time and eter- 
 nity — that great care should be taken to prevent un- 
 worthy persons from assuming its functions — that 
 faithful ministers are entitled to the respect and affec- 
 tion of their people, and are, within the sphere of their 
 legitimate authority as rulers in the house of God, to 
 be obeyed, — these are points on which the Protestant 
 world is, with few exceptions, united. Christianity 
 differs, however, from Judaism and the various false 
 religions, in not being a sacerdotal system. It 
 knows no Priest except the great High-Priest of our 
 profession. It has no sacrifice except that which He 
 offered on Calvary. It acknowledges no Mediator 
 besides Him who " ever liveth to make intercession" 
 for his people. Christians are styled a '' holy priest- 
 hood" and are said to offer up "spiritual sacrifices." 
 But the terms "priest" and "sacrifice," are not once 
 applied in the New Testament to Christian ministers 
 as such and their official functions. The entire vo- 
 cabulary of terms proper to a sacerdotal religion, is 
 left behind by the sacred writers in passing from the 
 Old Testament to the New. Popery, with its usual 
 disregard for the authority of the Bible, has com- 
 pounded Judaism, Paganism, and Christianity to- 
 gether, and presents the anomaly of a sacerdotal 
 Christianity. Its ministers are priests j the mass is 
 an actual sacrifice of Christ; and the rights and 
 
 24 
 
278 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OE 
 
 usages of the Church are all modeled upon this basis. 
 Puseyism has betrayed its affinity for this scheme in 
 ways not to be mistaken. It distinctly teaches that 
 a change is effected in the eucharistic elements by the 
 consecration, and that a sacrifice of some sort is offer- 
 ed in that ordinance. What this change is, the Ox- 
 ford doctors teach with so much "reserve" that it is 
 difficult to ascertain their precise views. But it is 
 certain that few problems have puzzled them more 
 than that of finding a via media between the Protes- 
 tant view of the ordinance, and transubstantiation. 
 The ministry, also, in their scheme is a Priesthood. 
 They are not prepared as yet to adopt the entire 
 Romish doctrine on this point; still less do they in- 
 cline to the Protestant doctrine. They talk familiar- 
 ly of " the Priesthood in the Church." And when 
 they apply this designation to the ministry, they 
 Tnean it. Ordination is, according to the New Testa- 
 ment, a very simple though solemn rite. It is the 
 setting apart of a person to a particular office in the 
 Church, to which he has been duly appointed ; and is 
 to be performed, with prayer and the laying on of 
 hands, by persons already holding the same or a 
 higher office. The Church of Rome, corrupting 
 every thing in Christianity that she touched, has 
 transmuted this ceremony into something very mys- 
 terious and inscrutable. She teaches that a certain 
 " indelible character" is imparted or imprinted in or- 
 dination. What this "character" is and where it is 
 lodged — whether in the essence of the soul, the will, 
 the understanding, the hand, the tongue — are ques- 
 tions that have been fiercely debated among the Pa- 
 pal theologians. The Oxford School have borrowed 
 the notion, as they have too many other articles, from 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 279 
 
 the same source. They speak of ordmation as con- 
 veying some mysterious " gift'^ to the recipient. 
 This gift they do not hesitate to affirm is the Holy 
 Ghost, which, they allege, is actually imparted by 
 the Bishop when he says to the candidate, "Receive 
 the Holy Ghost.' ^ It is an essential part of the dog- 
 ma of the "Apostolical Succession," as the passages 
 cited in former parts of this volume show, that this 
 gift has been transmitted from Christ himself to the 
 Prelates of our day. It is the possession of this rare 
 endowment which qualifies them to be dispensers of 
 the grace stored up in the Church. It is this which 
 gives such wonder-working efficacy to the ordinances 
 they administer, and imparts to them the capacity of 
 propagating spiritual and saving influences to the 
 souls of those who receive the sacraments at their 
 hands. 
 
 Now — to pause here for a moment — where is the 
 evidence that any such gift as this is imparted in ordi- 
 nation? An endowment so rare, so miraculous in 
 its effects, must needs carry with it convincing proof 
 of its own existence ? Physical strength, symmetry, 
 beauty, intellectual acumen, learning, benevolence, 
 meekness, fortitude — these, and all other personal 
 attributes of whatever kind, attest their reality by 
 evidences cognizable to our faculties. But here is an 
 attribute which, estimated by the functions ascribed 
 to it, far surpasses in value and efficacy any other 
 conferred on man. Where is the evidence of it? 
 What proof have we that the Bishop, who is said to 
 confer it in ordination, has it to bestow ? What proof 
 has the supposed recipient that he receives it ? What 
 proof does he give others that he has acquired it? 
 The New Testament speaks of two Avays in which 
 
2S0 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 the Holy Spirit is given to men, viz. 1st, in his mira- 
 culous, and secondly, in his gracious endowments. 
 In each of these, the gift always manifests itself. In 
 the former case, the recipient displays superhuman 
 powers or works miracles; in the latter, there is a 
 decisive, though not in all cases uniform, change in his 
 moral character. In which of these ways are we to 
 understand the Spirit is given in ordination? If the 
 reply is, in his gracious or sanctifying influences, this 
 is confuted by the fact that multitudes of men have 
 been ordained, who remained the same profligate, 
 simoniacal, sensual wretches after ordination, that 
 they were before. If the other alternative be taken, 
 then we further demand the proof that these miracu- 
 lous gifts have been imparted. Can the individuals 
 who are affirmed to have received them, speak with 
 tongues, or prophesy, or heal the sick, or give sight to 
 the bhnd? This is not pretended. But, forsooth, 
 " they are now invested with a capacity of conveying 
 regenerating grace to sinners, through the ordinance 
 of baptism," and " they can ^ make the body and 
 blood' of the Redeemer out of the bread and wine of 
 the Eucharist." Well, if they can, the question has 
 an answer, and the requisition for proof is met. But 
 how do we know that they can? Why, "because 
 (so the argument runs) it is the prerogative of all 
 priests who have been Prelatically ordained, to con- 
 vey regenerating grace to men in baptism, and to 
 convert the elements in the Lord's Supper into the 
 body and blood of Christ. Biit these persons have 
 been thus ordained. Therefore, the prerogatives in 
 question belong to them." The only fallacy in this 
 reasoning is, that it takes for granted the thing to be 
 proved. The major proposition assumes that Prelati- 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 281 
 
 cal ordination confers the power to effect these sacra- 
 mental miracles, which is the whole thing in dispute. 
 Will the High-Church theorist, then, abandoning this 
 ground, appeal to facts in evidence that this power 
 is communicated in ordination? But how will this 
 avail him? Can any human being detect the least 
 difference in the eucharistic emblems before and after 
 consecration? Tried by every test to which it is pos- 
 sible to subject them, are they not the identical bread 
 and wine now that they were before ? And as to 
 baptism, are adults (to say nothing of children) con- 
 scious of any radical transformation of character 
 while submitting to this ordinance — of such a change 
 as must mark a transition from the bondage of sin to 
 their renewal in the image of God, from, the kingdom 
 of Satan into the kingdom of Christ? And are not 
 thousands baptized every year, whose lives afford, no 
 satisfactory evidence whatever that this mighty reno- 
 vation has passed upon them? We repeat the de- 
 mand, then : Where is the evidence that the " gift of 
 the Holy Ghost" is conferred in Prelatical ordination? 
 This, demand will probably be met, as similar requi- 
 sitions are apt to be, by a repetition of the favourite 
 maxim of the Oxford gentlemen, that " it is better to 
 believe than to reason" on such subjects, — and so all 
 those must think, who are willing to suspend their 
 salvation upon this pretended transmission of the 
 Holy Ghost along an unbroken line of Prelates. 
 
 There is another aspect of this matter which de- 
 serves to be adverted to. The "gift of the Holy 
 Ghost," we are told, has been transmitted from Christ 
 through the supposed Prelatical line, to the Bishops 
 of the present day. Many of the Prelates in this hue 
 have been, not simply men destitute of religion, but as 
 24* 
 
282 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 has been clearly shown, and as the Roman historians 
 declare, drunkards, voluptuaries, simoniacs, usurpers, 
 and, in fine, monsters in wickedness. The doctrine 
 under consideration requires us to believe that every 
 one of these monsters, who was ordained with the 
 requisite forms, received " the gift of the Holy Ghost" 
 — that this gift remained in them through all the 
 scenes of infamy in which they were afterwards con- 
 cerned and while perpetrating numerous crimes, any 
 one of which would, in a land of law and Christian 
 morals, have consigned them to the penitentiary or 
 the gallows — and that these mitred villains, reeking 
 with pollution, actually imparted this gift, the gift of 
 the " HOLY GHOST," to cvcry individual upon whose 
 head they laid their hands in ordination ! Can this 
 horrible dogma be believed? Can intelligent and 
 candid Episcopalians give their assent to a doctrine 
 so insulting to that pure and blessed Spirit who is 
 the author of all gracious affections and desires, and 
 upon whom we are absolutely dependent for spiritual 
 illumination, strength, consolation, and final triumph 
 over death and hell ? Yet this doctrine is inseparable 
 from the High-Church theory of the Apostolical Suc- 
 cession. 
 
 To return now from this digression, if, indeed, it 
 be a digression, — nothing can be plainer than that 
 such views of the Christian ministry and of ordina- 
 tion, as we have been considering, must, wherever 
 they are allowed to be carried out, tend to aggran- 
 dize the Prelatical clergy. It is hot asserted that 
 the scheme is advocated with this design, but that 
 this is its legitimate tendency. The ministry occupy 
 substantially the same relative position, according to 
 this system, as the Jewish or Pagan "priesthood." 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 2S3 
 
 The sanctuary is a " temple," with its « altar,'^ and 
 "sacrifices," and "incense;" and they are the hiero- 
 phants who celebrate its mysteries. They are the 
 channel of spiritual intercourse between heaven and 
 earth. If men would approach God acceptably, they 
 must do it through them. If they would obtain re- 
 newing and sanctifying grace, they must receive the 
 sacraments at their hands. They, and they alone, 
 have the " gift of the holy ghost." They are the 
 "stewards" of the "storehouse of grace," the Church; 
 and this grace it is their prerogative to dispense in 
 baptism and the Lord's Supper. God is a merciful 
 being, and mai/ save one who through " involuntary 
 error" refuses to submit to their authority; but no 
 man can reasonably expect to be saved who does this. 
 In so far as His "covenant" is concerned, mankind 
 must look to them and the sacraments as they admin- 
 ister them, as the only avenue through which they 
 can obtain renewal, reconciliation to God,-the indwell- 
 ing of the Spirit, and a title to eternal life. 
 
 No set of men can fancy themselves invested with 
 such powers as these without being puffed up by it. 
 This effect has uniformly followed, and followed just 
 in the degree in which it has been found practicable 
 to secure a recognition of the claim on the part of the 
 people. It was the gradual assumption of these 
 spiritual prerogatives, which led to the establishment 
 of that proud and oppressive Hierarchy whose usur- 
 pations and crimes make up so large a portion of the 
 history of the civilized world for the last twelve cen- 
 turies. The same spirit in England forged the chains 
 of the Puritans, and in Scotland shed the blood of the 
 Covenanters like water. In this country, it has dis- 
 closed itself in the more frequent and unscrupulous 
 
284 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 avowal of the dogma tliat " there cannot be a Church 
 without a Bishop," in a growing sycophancy on the 
 part of many of the inferior clergy towards their 
 Bishops, in the glorification of the " Church" at the 
 expense of its adorable Head, in the application of the 
 term "Dissenters" and other offensive epithets, to 
 Non-Episcopalians, in the assumption by Higli-Church 
 Bishops of new prerogatives and the inculcation of 
 the doctrines of implicit faith and passive obedience 
 upon the laity, and in many other ways no less sig- 
 nificant. These are the natural, and, without a mira- 
 cle, unavoidable fruits of a system which teaches the 
 few hundred Episcopal ministers in the United Stales, 
 to regard themselves and the Roman Catholic clergy, 
 as the only channel through which the eighteen mil- 
 lions of people who make up this nation, can have 
 any "covenanted" access to God. And just in pro- 
 portion as these extravagant pretensions come to be 
 acquiesced in, will these and similar effects follow — 
 all tending to one result, the aggrandizement of 
 
 THE PRELATICAL CLERGY. 
 
 With this tendency there is, in the scheme we are 
 examining, associated another, which forms its coun- 
 terpart, viz. THE GRADUAL SUBSTITUTION OF A CERE- 
 MONIAL FOR A SPIRITUAL RELIGION. 
 
 It is a great mistake to suppose that men are na- 
 turally averse to the principle of Hierarchism. "The 
 truth is," as Dr. Whateley has observed, " mankind 
 have an innate propensity, as to other errors, so to 
 that of endeavouring to serve God by proxy; — to 
 commit to some distinct order of men the care of their 
 religious concerns, in the same manner as they con- 
 fide the care of their bodily health to the physician, 
 and of their legal transactions to the lawyer ; deem- 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 285 
 
 mg it sufficient to follow implicitly their directions, 
 without attempting themselves to become acquainted 
 with the mysteries of medicine or of law. Even 
 thus are they willing and desirous that others should 
 study, and should understand the mysterious doctrines 
 of religion in their stead — should practise in their 
 stead some more exalted kind of piety and of virtue — 
 and should offer prayers and sacrifices on their be- 
 half, both in their lifetime and after their death. For 
 man, except when unusually depraved, retains enough 
 of the image of his Maker, to have a natural rever- 
 ence for religion, and a desire that God should be 
 worshipped, but, through the corruption of his nature, 
 his heart is (except when divinely purified) too much 
 alienated from God to take delight in serving him. 
 Hence the disposition men have ever shown, to sub- 
 stitute the devotion of the priest for their own ; — to 
 leave the duties of piety in his hands — and to let him 
 serve God in their stead. This disposition is not so 
 much the consequence, as itself the origin, of priest- 
 craft. The Romish hierarchy did but take advantage 
 from time to time of this natural propensity, by 
 engrafting successively on its system such practices 
 and points of doctrine as favoured it, and which were 
 naturally converted into a source of profit and influ- 
 ence to the priesthood. Hence the gradual transfor- 
 mation of the Christian minister — the presbyter — into 
 the sacrificing priest, the hiereus, (in Latin, *' sacer- 
 dos;" as the Romanists call theirs,) of the Jewish 
 and Pagan religions."^ 
 
 The High-Church system is fitted to gratify this 
 perverse craving of the unrenewed heart after a "vi- 
 
 ' The Errors of Romanism traced to their origin in Human Na- 
 ture, chap. ii. 
 
286 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 carious religion." If the ministry be what this system 
 represents it — if the Church is the "storehouse of 
 grace" — if " the gifts of grace are deposited in mere 
 positive ordinances," as distinguished from prayer, 
 preaching, " lohat is called, communion with God," 
 and the hke — and if all who receive the sacraments 
 at the hands of persons duly commissioned, do, (unless 
 there be some actual moral impediment in their own 
 minds at the time) thereby receive spiritual life, — it 
 will be miraculous if the mass of the people who are 
 brought under the influence of this system, shall be 
 kept from making the priest their proxy, and com- 
 mitting their salvation into his hands. ^ 
 
 The disposition which leads men to trust in a priest 
 for salvation, prompts to the multiplication of 
 RITES AND CEREMONIES. Thc two thiugs arc branches 
 of the same tree, and are never long separated. When- 
 ever the mind is diverted from spiritual religion, it 
 seeks repose in forms. . And it matters comparatively 
 little what the forms are. Christianity has its symbols 
 and ceremonies; but they are few and simple. Its 
 Divine Author "knew" too well "what was in man," 
 to infold the sublime truths of his religion in a pomp- 
 
 » The following anecdote will not be deemed out of place in illus- 
 trating this feature of the High-Church system. 
 
 Matthew Mead, the eminent non-conformist, was politely addressed 
 by a nobleman — " I am sorry, sir, that we have not a person of your 
 abilities with us in the Established Church. They would be exten- 
 sively useful there." ♦' You don't, my lord, require persons of great 
 abilities in the Establishment." "Why so, sir; what do you mean?" 
 "When you christen a child, you regenerate it by the Holy Ghost. 
 When you confirm a youth, you assure him of God's favour and the 
 forgiveness of his sins. When you visit a sick person, you absolve 
 him from all his iniquities : and when you bury the dead, you send 
 them all to heaven. Of what particular service, then, can great 
 abilities be in your communion?" 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 2S7 
 
 ous ceremonial. He did this under the ancient econo- 
 my, because that economy, as being a mere prepara- 
 tory dispensation, was designed to subserve certain 
 important purposes which required an imposing and 
 compUcated apparatus of ritual observances. But 
 when *' Ufe and immortahty were brought to hght," 
 when the " True Light" appeared in the world, these 
 shadows and emblems were laid aside. Man, how- 
 ever, with his strong predilection for the sensual in 
 place of the spiritual, in religion, has been ever since 
 trying to bring them back. Christianity has had to 
 struggle, from its commencement, against persevering 
 exertions on the part of professed friends, to reduce it 
 to its former servitude. This contest has been waged 
 in every Christian communion — .the elements of it 
 are in every man's breast. In the Greek and Ro- 
 man Churches, "the son of the bond woman" has 
 triumphed over the free; Mount Zion has given place 
 to Mount Sinai ; the priest has usurped his Master's 
 crown; and the deluded people have "turned again 
 to the weak and beggarly elements" from which they 
 had escaped. Puseyism is successfully carrying on 
 the same conflict. It is hastening towards Rome just 
 as fast as a wise jiolicy, and rather faster than a 
 becoming regard to the solemnity of oaths and sub- 
 scriptions, will permit. Even in the Episcopal Church 
 in this country, a candidate has been jecently adpnit- 
 ted to Deacon's orders, who on his examination 
 declared that he "deemed the differences between 
 us [i. e. the Episcopal Church] and Rome, such 
 as embraced no points of faith — doubted whether 
 the Church of Rome or the Anglican Church were 
 the more pure — considered the Reformation from 
 Rome unjustifiable, and followed by grievous and 
 
288 THE HIGH-CHURCn DOCTRINE OF 
 
 lamentable results, though not without others of an 
 opposite character — faulted not the Church of Rome 
 for reading the Apocrypha for proof of doctrine — 
 did not consider that we were bound to receive tlie 
 XXXIX Articles of our Church, in any close and 
 rigid construction of the same — declared that he knew 
 not how to answer the question, which had been re- 
 peatedly asked, Whether he considered the Church of 
 Rome to be now in error in matters of faith? — was 
 not prepared to pronounce th6 doctrine of transub- 
 stantiation an absurd or impossible doctrine, and re- 
 garded it, as taught withhi the last hundred years, as 
 possibly meaning no more than we mean by the doc- 
 trine of the Real Presence — did not object to the Ro- 
 mish doctrine of Purgatory, as defined by the Council 
 of Trent — believed that the state of the soul after 
 death, was one in which it could be benefited by the 
 prayers of the faithful and the sacrifice of the altar — 
 regarded the denial of the cup to the laity as a severe 
 act of discipline only — justified the invocation of 
 saints — in one instance declared that he did not deny, 
 but would not positively affirm, the decrees of the 
 Council of Trent ; in another, that he received the 
 Articles of the Creed of Pius IV., so far as they were 
 repetitions of the decrees of that Council." ^ With 
 the fact before us, that a man avowing these senti- 
 ments has been ordained by an Episcopal Prelate, it 
 would be superfluous to argue on the tendencies of 
 High-Churchism to smother the vital spirit of Chris- 
 tianity, as Rome has done, with a load of human in- 
 ventions and idle ceremonies. How far the school 
 
 I Drs. Smith and Anthon's " Statement of Facts in relation to the 
 recent ordination [of Mr. Carey] in St. Stephen's Church, New York," 
 p. 27. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 2S9 
 
 have advanced in this direction, on the other side of 
 the water, may be learned from one of themselves, 
 who seems to be astounded at the discovery he has 
 but lately made, that Puseyism leads naturally to 
 Popery. Alarmed at the rapid strides his fellow- 
 Tractarians and their disciples are making towards 
 Rome, the writer in question ^ has published a pam- 
 phlet, disclosing a good many interesting facts respect- 
 ing the progress of the Oxford views. 
 
 "The blame of separation, (he says,) of schism, is 
 [among the Tractarians] openly and unscrupulously 
 laid on the English Church." 
 
 " Invocation of saints is sanctioned in some quar- 
 ters; purgatory is by no means unacceptable in others; 
 images and crucifixes are purchased and employed to 
 aid in private devotion; celibacy of the clergy — auri- 
 cular confession, are acknowledged to be obligatory. '^ 
 
 " Among other evidences of a * holy life,^ which 
 are held up to our admiration, are ' the use of shirts 
 of hemjJ, in which the splinters of the stalk were 
 left;^ the harbouring of vermin ; the use of ^disgust- 
 ing'' food. It is held questionable, whether some 
 saints have not. *been even marked externally by the 
 semblance of the five adorable wounds.'' We are left 
 in doubt whether the heahng of a young lady by a 
 thorn, ^ said to have been one of those that pierced 
 our Saviour,' was miraculous or not. It is argued, 
 however, that one would naturally look for such mi- 
 raculous events in monasteries, ^ where persons take 
 the kingdom of heaven by violence, and begin on 
 earth the life of angels, neither marrying nor giving 
 in marriage.' " 
 
 This, let it be noted, is the testimony of one of the 
 
 ' The Rev. W. Palmer. 
 25 
 
290 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 leaders. He has been behind the curtain; and now, 
 alarmed at the follies he has helped to introduce, 
 makes his report of the scenes that are passing there. 
 It is safe to presume that the loathsome devices he 
 has mentioned for mortifying the flesh, will not very- 
 soon become jjopular with the school to which he 
 belongs; but novitiates are put upon a milder regi- 
 men. Those who are not prepared for the " hempen 
 shirts," and the " disgusting food,^' may begin with 
 the sign of the cross — ^' the sanctifying and perhaps 
 half sacramental use of the cross," as it is expressed 
 by the Tract-writers. The wonderful efficacy of this 
 slight manipulation, in exciting good thoughts and 
 putting to flight evil spirits, is thus delineated by one 
 of them. 
 
 " Whene'er across this sinful flesh of mine 
 
 I draw the Holy Sign^ 
 All good thoughts stir within me, and collect 
 
 Their slumb'ring strength divine ; 
 Till there springs up that hope of God's elect, 
 
 My faith shall ne'er be wrecked. 
 
 And who shall say, but hateful spirits around 
 
 For their brief hour unbound, 
 Shudder to see, and wail their overthrow ? 
 
 While on far heathen ground 
 Some lonely saint hails, the fresh odour, though 
 
 Its source he cannot know."' 
 
 No man can stop here. He who has learned to 
 ascribe such marvels as these to the mere ^' crossing" 
 of himself, is prepared to expend upon trifles the 
 reverence which belongs to the solemn realities of 
 religion. And accordingly we find in the writings of 
 
 ' Lyra Apostolica. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 291 
 
 the sect a great prominence given to every thing per- 
 taining to the exterior of reUgion — to Saints' days, 
 and decorations of churches, to vestments, and atti- 
 tudes, and such Uke impertinences — while it is rare 
 to meet with exhortations to personal hohness, in the 
 style of the Apostolic Epistles, The sort of Chris- 
 tianity which the system fosters, lays out its strength 
 upon externals. It is not that it lacks emotion, but 
 its strongest emotions are excited by insignificant 
 objects. "The venerable fathers of the Church of 
 England,'^ says a masterly writer, "were familiar 
 with the exercises of holy joy and godly sorrow. But 
 their joy sprang from the sense of Divine favour, and 
 their sorrow from the sense of their own sin. The 
 one was never higher, and the other never deeper, 
 than at those times when external forms were hidden 
 from their view by the superior brightness of the 
 spiritual objects which they merely represented. When 
 they wept, it was not because the pulpit was too high 
 above the reading-desk. When they exulted, it was 
 not because the altar had been thrust back to the east 
 end of the chancel. When they repented, it was not 
 because they had tasted goose on Friday. ^ When 
 they thanked God, it was not for bells and organs and 
 baptismal fonts. Their communion was with God 
 and with his Son directly, not circuitously through a 
 line of Priests or Bishops. Their delight was in the 
 word of God itself, not in the spread-eagle upon 
 which it rested. The graces which distinguished 
 them were not those of a posture-master. The cross 
 in which they gloried, was the cross of Christ, and not 
 that of the carpenter, the gilder, or the silversmith. 
 They kept it at the bottom of their hearts, and not 
 
 J See Mr. Froude's Remains. 
 
292 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 upon the tops of their houses. In a word, they walked 
 by faith ,and not by sight, looking not at things wliich 
 are seen, but at things which are unseen. And yet 
 now, their ApostoUcal Successors use the very same 
 expressions, in relation to their baubles and their 
 mummeries, which these old worthies used in refer- 
 ence to spiritual and eternal objects. What they said 
 of the foundation, their successors say of the wood, 
 hay, and stubble heaped upon it.'' ^ 
 
 This is the process so much to be dreaded from the 
 prevalence of High-Churchism. The whole tendency 
 of the system is to substitute a mere outward Chris- 
 tianity for true religion — to put the Church in the 
 place of Christ, and rites and forms in the place of 
 regeneration by the Holy Spirit and justification 
 through the righteousness of Christ. This is only 
 saying in other words, that its tendency is to delude 
 men and destroy their souls — a result that may be 
 expected to follow wherever the system is allowed to 
 exert its legitimate influence without obstruction. 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 INTOLERANCE OF THE SYSTEM. 
 
 The Intolerance of High-Churchism has been fre- 
 quently adverted to in former chapters, but I cannot 
 consent to dismiss it without a further notice. 
 
 Ample evidence has already been adduced that 
 the unchurching dogma constitutes a radical part of 
 
 1 Bib. Repertory, Vol. XIV. 135. . 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 293 
 
 the system. There was a ti-me when this dogma was 
 unknown in the Church of England. The Enghsh 
 Reformers and many of the illustrious men who suc- 
 ceeded them, cordially acknowledged the Presbyteri- 
 an Churches of the continent as true churches. They 
 contented themselves with the doctrine that Prelacy 
 was authorized by the Bible — that it was exclusively 
 authorized, they neither asserted nor believed. They 
 held that Bishops and Presbyters were properly of 
 one order; and that the investiture of Bishops with 
 certain exclusive functions, was a matter of expedi- 
 ency and human arrangement. This is so well known 
 that no one versed in English ecclesiastical history, 
 will question it.^ On one part of the statement, how- 
 ever, I may be permitted to quote the testimony of 
 the present excellent and able Bishop of the Diocese 
 of Ohio, from a pamphlet written some years ago 
 when he was Chaplain at West Point. 
 
 " Is it characteristic of a Loiv-Churchman that he 
 does not believe in the exclusive divine right of 
 Episcopacy; that he does not deny the validity of all 
 ordinations which have not been performed by a 
 Bishop; that lie cannot consider all those Christian 
 brethren who do not receive the sacraments from 
 ministers Episcopally ordained, as destitute of the 
 sacraments of the gospel, and that he finds it neither 
 in the Bible, the doctrines of the Church, nor in 
 his own heart, to give up all his brethren, who are 
 not partakers of ordinances Episcopally administer- 
 ed, to nothing more comforting nor scriptural than 
 what are called by some regarded as High-Church- 
 men, " uncovenanted mercies ?" If so, then Mr, 
 M. is very free to own that in all these particu- 
 
 » See Chapter VI. 
 
 25* 
 
294 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 lars, he is "one of the most decided of Low-Church- 
 men." But is there any reason to be timid of such 
 an acknowledgment while our Church, by saying not 
 a syllable upon either of these points in her Liturgy, 
 Catechism, Articles, or Homilies, has given ample 
 room for difference of opinion ? As for the exclusive 
 divine right of Episcopacy, Mr. M. has never cared 
 to conceal that he does not believe it; and why should 
 he care to conceal his opinion when, on the testi- 
 mony of such historians as Warner and Mosheim, 
 "Archbishop Bancroft was the first man in the 
 Church of England, who preached up the divine 
 right of Episcopacy;" when Bishop Stillingfleet has 
 not scrupled to call the jus divinum, " a novel pre- 
 tence ;" when such men as Cranmer, Jewell, Hooker, 
 Whitgift, Hall, Usher, Burnet, Tillotson, Wake, Pret- 
 timan, and "a cloud of witnesses" besides, have ex- 
 pressed opinions directly at variance w^ith the notion 
 of exclusive divine right ; and finally, when in a 
 pamphlet published some years ago by Bishop White, 
 ["Case of the Episcopal Churches in the United 
 States considered,"] and of which in 1820 he said in 
 his "Memoirs," that "there did not appear to his 
 mind any reason to retract the leading sentiments of 
 that performance," we meet the following paragraph: 
 " Now, if even those who hold Episcopacy to be of 
 divine right, conceive the obligation of it not to be 
 binding when that idea would be destructive of pub- 
 lic worship; much more must they think so, who 
 indeed venerate and prefer that form as the most an- 
 cient and eligible, but without any idea of divine 
 right in the case. This the author believes to be 
 the sentiment of the great body of Episcopalians in 
 America ; in which respect they have in their favour 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 295 
 
 unquestionably the sense of the Church of England; 
 and, as he beUeves, the opinions of her most distin- 
 guished Prelates for piety, virtue, and ability." 
 
 As to the validity of the orders, ministry, and sacra- 
 ments, of all churches destitute of Episcopal organiza- 
 tion, Mr. M. ought assuredly to have no hesitation in 
 owning that he is neither able nor disposed to deny 
 it, when, besides the inferences which may be drawn 
 from what has just been mentioned, such a man as 
 Bishop Hall asserts, that " all (in his day) professed 
 to believe the mode of constituting the external min- 
 istry, not to be an essential of the Church ;'^ when 
 such a man as Archbishop Usher writes, " for the tes- 
 tifying of my communion with these churches (Non- 
 Episcopal churches of the continent) which I do love 
 and honour as true members of the church universal, 
 I do profess that with like affection, I should receive 
 the blessed sacrament at the hands of the Dutch min- 
 isters, if I were in Holland, as I should do at the 
 hands of the French ministers, if I were in Charen- 
 ton ;" and especially, when an Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury, and such an one as Wake, is remembered to 
 have written as follows : " The Reformed Churches, 
 though differing in some things from the English, I 
 freely embrace. I could wish indeed that a well- 
 moderated Episcopal government, freed from all un- 
 just domination, such as obtains among us, and, if I 
 have any skill in such subjects, was received in the 
 Church from the very age of the Apostles, had been 
 retained by them all. Nor do I despair, though I 
 should not see it restored, that posterity will. In the 
 meantime, far be it that on account of such a defect, 
 (for so, without uncharitablencss, it may be called,) I 
 should be of such an iron heart as to think that any 
 
296 THE HIGH-CHUR€H DOCTRINE OP 
 
 of them should be cut off from the communion of the 
 Church ; or with certain furious writers among us 
 should pronounce that they have no true and valid 
 sacraments and so are scarcely Christians.''^ '^ 
 
 Had these sentiments continued to prevail in the 
 Church of England, the controversy which is now 
 going on would not have occurred. That Episco- 
 palians should regard the absence of Prelacy as a 
 defect in Non-Episcopal Churches, is a thing of course. 
 We look upon its existence in their system as a " de- 
 fect,'^ and believe they would be far better off with- 
 out it. These opinions are quite compatible with 
 the maintenance of Christian fellowship. But the 
 present High-Church party have gone to the length 
 of denouncing the whole Non-Episcopal body as 
 being out of covenant with God, because they have 
 not that unbroken Prelatical succession which they, 
 with so little warrant, lay claim to themselves, " We 
 cannot," says one of them^ in a late lecture, "be 
 brought into the holy covenant, except in an Epis- 
 copal Church, or by the agency of an Episcopal min- 
 istry." "' The supposed commission" of Non-Epis- 
 copal ministers, " is worse than a nullity. It involves 
 the guilt of schism and rebellion. They assume 
 powers that were never granted to them, and exer- 
 cise those powers not only independently of the di- 
 vine authority which the Saviour and his Apostles 
 transmitted to their successors in the government of 
 the Church, but in direct opposition to that authority." 
 
 1 Reply to Dr. (now Bishop) II. U. Onderdonk, p. 13—15, Sec 
 numerous additional testimonies to the same effect, exhibiting (inter 
 alia) the oblig-ations of the Church of England to Luther and Calvin, 
 in the pamphlet already mentioned, entitled, " Oxford Divinity, by a 
 Presbyterian." — Burlington, New Jersey, 1843. 
 
 2 The Rev. Palmer Dyer, of Whitehall, N. Y. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 297 
 
 This modest preacher is one of a large and growing 
 number who are fomenting strife in the bosom of the 
 Episcopal Church, and making themselves ridiculous 
 by their arrogant pretensions. A late writer in the 
 Edinburgh Review has described the genus very 
 graphically. "The country/^ he says, "is infested 
 by not a few young ^ priests^ raving about their 
 Apostolic Succession; founding the most absurd pre- 
 tensions on their mere sacerdotal character, though 
 backed neither by experience nor wisdom; boasting 
 of the thaumaturgic powers they can exert in the 
 administration of the sacraments; contending not for 
 the faith once delivered to the saints, but for wax 
 candles, altar-cloths, chaplets, crosses, crucifixes, and 
 mummery of all kinds; — at the same time modestly 
 consigning all Protestants out of the Episcopal pale, 
 either to perdition or the * uncovenanted mercies ;' m 
 a word, exhibiting zeal indeed, but zeal that is utterly 
 unacquainted with any other of the Christian graces 
 — zeal that is not even on speaking terms with know- 
 ledge, faith, or charity.'' ^ 
 
 The intolerance of this party is aggravated by 
 several considerations which deserve to be men- 
 tioned here. One of these, is, that the system in 
 behalf of which this intolerance is exercised, was 
 originally established by the civil jjower, in opposi- 
 tion to the principles and wishes of the wisest and 
 best men in the Church. I refer in this language to 
 the English Reformation and the Church of England. 
 I have no intention of charging the sins or imperfec- 
 tions of the English hierarchy upon the Episcopal 
 Church in this country. Bat that Church was con- 
 fessedly the mother, and, in respect to its general 
 
 1 No. 156, p. 290. 
 
298 THE HIGH-CHURCII DOCTRINE OF 
 
 polity, ceremonies, and worship, the model, of this. 
 High-Churchism too, is essentially the same spirit on 
 both sides the Atlantic. It is, therefore, quite appro- 
 priate to the object of this discussion, to show that 
 th€ system of order and worship which all men are 
 now called upon to adopt under penalty of being 
 abandoned to " uncovenanted mercy," was a crea- 
 ture OF THE STATE, uot a system deduced by pious 
 and learned divines from the Scriptures of truth. 
 
 It was the common sentiment of the English Re- 
 formers, that their Church was only partially re- 
 formed^ both as to polity and worship. They strug- 
 gled long and hard to free it from the "clerical habits" 
 and many rights and usages which had been retained 
 from the Church of Rome. But the authority, first 
 of a sensual king, and then of a vain, despotic, ca- 
 pricious queen, was against them ; and their struggle 
 was ^fruitless. "We should mistake exceedingly, if 
 we supposed that they were men of the same prin- 
 ciples and temper with many who succeeded to their 
 places, or that they were satisfied with the pitch to 
 which they had carried the Reformation of the Eng- 
 lish Church, and regarded it as a paragon and perfect 
 pattern to other Churches. They were strangers to 
 those extravagant and illiberal notions which were 
 afterwards adopted by the fond admirers of the hier- 
 archy and liturgy. They would have laughed at the 
 man who seriously asserted, that the ecclesiastical 
 ceremonies constituted any part of "the beauty of 
 holiness," or that the imposhion of the hands of a 
 Bishop was essential to the validity of ordination ; 
 and they would not have owned that person as a 
 Protestant who would have ventured to insinuate, 
 that where these were wanting, there was no Chris- 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 299 
 
 tian ministry, no ordinances, no Church, and perhaps 
 — no salvation. Many things which their successors 
 have applauded, they barely tolerated ; and they 
 would have been happy if the circumstances of their 
 time, would have permitted them to introduce altera- 
 tions which have since been cried down as puritani- 
 cal innovations. Strange as it may appear to some, 
 I am not afraid of exceeding the truth when I say, 
 that if the English Reformers, including the Protes- 
 tant Bishops, had been left to their own choice, — if 
 they had not been held back and retarded by a large 
 mass of popishly affected clergy in the reign of Ed- 
 ward, and restrained by the supreme civil author- 
 ity on the accession of Elizabeth, they ivould have 
 brought the government and luorship of the Church 
 of England nearly to the }'> utter n of other Reformed 
 Churches.^^'^ 
 
 Those who may wish to see the authorities on 
 which this representation rests, will find them in the 
 appendix to the work just quoted. Many of them 
 are to be found also in Neal's History of the Puritans, 
 Burnet's Reformation, and the "Zurich Letters" late- 
 ly published by the "Parker Society," and containing 
 the correspondence between the English Reformers 
 and the Divines of Switzerland. From these sources 
 I make a i^ew selections. 
 
 Hooper, in a letter dated February 8, 1550, informs 
 BuUinger, that "the Archbishop of Canterbury, the 
 Bishops of Rochester, Ely, St. David's, Lincoln, and 
 Bath, were sincerely bent on advancing the purity of 
 doctrine, agreeing in all things with the Helvetic 
 Churches." Parkhurst, Bishop of Norwich, writing 
 to Gualter, February 4, 1573, exclaims, "0! would 
 
 1 Dr. McCrie: Life of Knox, p. 65. (Lond, 1841.) 
 
300 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 to God, would to God, once at last, all the English 
 people would in good earnest propound to themselves 
 to follow the [Presbyterian] Church of Zurich as the 
 most absolute pattern." It was proposed by Cranmer 
 to erect courts similar to the kirk-sessions and pro- 
 vincial synods afterwards introduced into the Scotch 
 Church.^ 
 
 Elizabeth, who had the chief agency in shaping 
 the pohty and worship of the Church and settling it 
 on its present basis, seemed disposed to retain just as 
 much Popery as would comport with the peace of 
 her kingdom, or, as Bishop Short has expressed it, 
 she " was not indisposed to have approached as near 
 as possible to the Romish communion." She in- 
 structed the divines whom she appointed to revise 
 King Edward's litiugy, to omit all offensive pas- 
 sages against the Pope, and to make people easy about 
 the belief of the corporal presence of Christ in the Eu- 
 charist. On examining the litany as reported by them, 
 she found .this passage : — " From the tyranny of the 
 Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities, 
 good liOrd, deliver us." This she struck out; as she 
 also did the rubric which declared that "by kneeling 
 at the sacrament, no adoration was intended to any 
 corporal presence of Christ." The divines had left it 
 optional with the people whether to receive the com- 
 munion kneeling or standing. The Queen and Parlia- 
 ment {i. e. the civil -power in opposition to the spiritual 
 officers of the Church,) " restrained it to kneeling." ^ 
 The Reformers were stoutly opposed to what they 
 regarded as " Popish habits." The Queen, with her 
 characteristic love of pomp and parade, and her cor- 
 dial aversion to spiritual religion, would not allow 
 
 > Burnet, III. 214. 2 Neal, I 177. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 301 
 
 the clergy the least discretion in this matter, but en- 
 forced the use of the habits, with pains and penaUies. 
 " It was only her strong Tudor arm," says an au- 
 thority which no High-Churchman will discredit, 
 "that kept them within decent bounds. The greater 
 part of them positively objected to the surplice — in- 
 cluding Sandys, Grindal, Pilkington, Jewell, Horn, 
 Parkhurst, Bentham, and all the leading men, 
 who were for simplifying our church ceremonial 
 
 IN THAT AND OTHER RESPECTS, ACCORDING TO THE 
 
 Genevan [z. e. the Presbyterian] model; Arch- 
 bishop Parker almost standing alone with the Queen 
 in her determination to uphold the former." ^ All 
 this appears from their letters to the continental min- 
 isters. . Cox writes to Bullinger, (1551,) "I think all 
 things in the Church ought to be pure and simple, 
 removed at the greatest distance from the pomp and 
 elements of the world. But in this our Church, what 
 can I do in so low a station P"^ Jewell, in a letter 
 to Peter Martyr, 1559, calls the clerical habits "a 
 stage-dress" to which those alone were attached who 
 " had nothing else to recommend them to the people 
 but a comical dress." He engages that no exer- 
 tions of his shall be wanting to banish utterly these 
 
 1 Brit. Crit. for 1842, p. 330. Courayer, the celebrated Romish 
 defender of the Anglican Ordinations, makes a similar statement 
 respecting Cranmer and Barlow, and others, in the reign of Edward. 
 After saying that in their answers to the questions proposed to cer- 
 tain divines, these dignitaries "exclude ordination particularly from 
 the number of the sacraments, as carrying no virtual efficacy with 
 it," he adds — " In a word, pure Presbvterianism without disguise, 
 discovers itself in all the answers ; and it is but too apparent that 
 the chief aim of these divines and Prelates was to extinguish Epis- 
 copacy." 
 
 2 Cited by McCrie, p. 409. 
 
 26 
 
302 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 "ridiculous trifles'^ {^'ludicris hieptiis''^) and *^ relics 
 of the Amorites." And at a later period (1566) he 
 writes to Bulhnger, that "he wished that the very 
 slightest footsteps of Popery might be removed out 
 of the Church and minds of men; but the Queen 
 would at that time suffer no change in religion."^ 
 Bishops Grindal ancl Horn, in writing to BulUngei* 
 and Gualter, Feb. 6th, 1567, argue that the min- 
 isters of the Church of England "may adopt with- 
 out impiety" the prescribed habits, and regret that 
 the question should have been invested with so much 
 importance. Still, they declare that they are firmly 
 opposed to the use of the habits, and would abolish 
 them if they could. " We call Almighty God to wit- 
 ness," they say, " that this dissension has not been 
 occasioned by any fault of ours, nor is it owing to us 
 that vestments of this kind have not been altogether 
 done away with: so far from it, that we most solemn- 
 ly make oath that we have hitherto laboured .with 
 all earnestness, fidelity, and diligence to eifect what 
 our brethren require and what we ourselves wish."^ 
 Among the leading advocates of a more thorough 
 reform, were Sampson and Humphreys, who, says 
 Burnet, " were much distinguished for their learning, 
 piety, and zeal, in religion, and were in great reputa- 
 tion, particularly in the University of Oxford, where 
 one was Dean of Christ's Church, and the other Presi- 
 dent of Magdalen's and divinity professor." ^ i^ a 
 letter to Bullinger, dated July 1566, these eminent 
 men go into an ingenious and able argument to show 
 that the question respecting ceremonies and habits, 
 was one of great practical importance. We do not, 
 
 • Cited by McCrie, p. 410. 3 Vol. III. 462. 
 
 2 Zurich Letters p. 177, 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.^ 303 
 
 they say, "place religion in dress:" but "as ceremo- 
 nies and sacerdotal habits are signs of religion and 
 marks of profession, they are not of a civil character; 
 and being borrowed from our adversaries, as all allow 
 them to be, they cannot be convenient; and being 
 marked with the divine anathema, and detested by 
 all godly persons, and had in honour by the wicked 
 and the weak; who think that without them we can 
 neither be ministers, nor that the sacraments can be 
 administered rightly, they neither can nor ought to 
 be reckoned among things indifferent." They resist 
 the imposition of the habits as an infringement of 
 Christian liberty, and as tending to arrest the reform of 
 the Church. " We have (praised be God) a doctrine 
 pure and incorrupt: why should we go halting in re- 
 gard to divine worship, which is not the least import- 
 ant part of religion? Why should we receive Christ 
 rather maimed, than entire, and pure, and perfect ? 
 Why should we look for precedents from our enemies, 
 the Papists, and not from you, our brethren of the 
 Reformation ? We. have the same Confession in our 
 Churches, the same Rule of Doctrine and Faith ; why 
 should there be so great a dissimilarity and discre- 
 pancy in rites and ceremonies? The thing signified 
 is the same; why do the signs so differ as to be unlike 
 yours, and to resemble those of the Papists ? We 
 have the same captain and leader, Christ, why are 
 the banners of the enemy set up in our Churches ? 
 which, if we were men of God, if we were endued 
 with any zeal, we should long since have abominated 
 and destroyed." To show BuUinger that they were 
 " not merely disputing about a cap or a surplice," 
 " we send you (they say) some straws and chips of 
 the Popish religion" — that is, Popish rites and usages 
 
304 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 which still prevailed in the Church of England and 
 the abolition of which they were labouring to eifect. 
 They specify under this head, " a kind of Popish 
 superstition'' in the public services, the sign of the 
 cross in baptism, the practice of licensing women to 
 administer baptism, the imposition of "Popish habits,'^ 
 the absence of discipline, the restrictions upon "the 
 free liberty of preaching,'' trafficking in benefices 
 and ecclesiastical dispensations, and various other 
 things. 
 
 The practices here specified were offensive to the 
 friends of the Reformation generally, whether among 
 the Bishops or the inferior clergy. In 1562, a petition 
 was presented to the lower house of Convocation, 
 signed by thirty-two members, most of whom had 
 been exiles, and the best men in the kingdom, praying 
 for alterations similar to those proposed by Sampson 
 and Humphreys. They ask that kneeling at the com- 
 munion may be left discretionary with each Bishop, 
 and that saints' days may be abolished, or kept only 
 for public worship, with the privilege of ordinary 
 labour afterwards. Respecting the habits, they pray 
 " that copes and surplices should be disused, and the 
 ministers made to wear some comely and decent 
 garment, [such as the Geneva gown, which all the 
 early Puritans wore,] and that the ministers of the 
 word and sacrament be not compelled to wear such 
 gowns and caps as the enemies of Christ's gospel 
 have chosen to be the special array of their priest- 
 hood." ^ For this petition they substituted another, 
 specifying the most exceptionable ceremonies, and 
 praying for their abrogation. After much debate the 
 
 ' The clerical " habits" of that day were much gayer than those 
 worn now. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 305 
 
 vote was taken, and the Convocation decided by a 
 vote of forty-three to thirty-five in favour of granting 
 their petition; but when the j^roxies came to be count- 
 ed, the vote stood fifty-eight for and fifty-nine against 
 the petition. The ceremonies were therefore retained 
 in the Church of England by a majority of one vote, 
 and that the vote of an ahsent member who was not 
 present to hear the question discussed.^ 
 
 The facts that have been adduced, show how much 
 the Enghsh Reformers were bent upon a fiu'ther 
 reformation of their Church. They could make no 
 progress, however, against the Queen. The Pusey- 
 ites gratefully acknowledge the firmness of Elizabeth 
 in resisting and baffling their exertions. " Queen 
 Ehzabeth,'^ says one of them, " with her prejudices 
 in favour of the old religion, \i. e. Popery,] was 
 doubtless an instrument in the hand of God for stop- 
 ping the progress of the Reformation^ ^ That 
 Church, it has often been said, only exchanged one 
 Pope for another. As it was originally created and 
 fashioned by the civil power, so it is to this day, 
 
 ' Gualter opposed the doctrine that the English Reformers ought 
 to submit to the habits and ceremonies temporarily, in the expecta- 
 tion that a more favourable time would soon occur for getting rid of 
 them. In a letter dated Jan. 16, 1559, he prophetically warns those 
 who suffered abuses to remain and strengthen themselves in England, 
 that " afterwards they would scarcely be able to eradicate them by all 
 their efforts and struggles." 
 
 The historian. Fuller, says in his usual quaint way, that the 
 English Reformers " permitted ignorant people to retain some fond 
 customs, that they might remove the most dangerous and destructive 
 superstitions; as mothers, to get childen to part with knives, are con- 
 tent to let them play with rattles.'' " Very good, (adds Dr. McCrie,) 
 but if children are suffered to play too long with rattles, they are in 
 great danger of not parting with them all their days." 
 
 2 Brit. Crit. for October, 1842, p. 333. 
 26* 
 
306 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 enslaved to the crown. The clergy are obliged to 
 acknowledge the sovereign as clothed with supreme 
 ecclesiastical authority. The Queen is the Head of 
 the Chnrch. And by the thirty-sixth canon, agreed 
 upon in 1603, no person can become a minister in 
 that Church, without subscribing this article, to wit: 
 that "the king's majesty under God is the only 
 supreme governor of this realm, and of all other his 
 Highnesses' dominions and countries, as well in all 
 spiritual or ecclesiastical things, or causes, as tem- 
 poral." The clergy cannot meet in convocation with- 
 out the Queen's leave. Having met, they can enact 
 nothing without her consent. And what is enacted 
 they cannot publish without her authority. ^ " If any 
 alteration takes place, it is not by the power of the 
 clergy, but of the parliament and the king. If a single 
 occasional and temporary collect be wanted, on a fast 
 or thanksgiving day, for the use of the parish priests, 
 the college of Archbishops and Bishops have not a 
 right to make it without an order from the king. The 
 impotence of both houses of convocation, when form- 
 erly allowed to meet and to act, was such that they 
 could not even censure, with effect, the erroneous 
 opinions of a member of their own body. A woman, 
 who then sat on the throne, was of a different opinion 
 from all the clergy of the land, and her opinion pre- 
 vailed. They thought Whiston [the Arian] a heretic : 
 good queen Anne, of blessed memory, was of a differ- 
 ent judgment ; and Whiston remained unrebuked. — 
 Tlie alteration of anything which may bo considered 
 as a standing rule, requires still more of the^ civil 
 authority : there must be the concurrence of the lords 
 
 » For the authoritie?, see "Plea of Presbytery," Second Edit. (Bel- 
 fast) p. 175. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 307 
 
 and commons, as well as the approbation of the king 
 or queen. Various changes have been made of late 
 in the frame of the Church respecting the residence 
 of the clergy, the power of the Bishops, and the 
 appointment of curates. But by whom have they 
 been made ? By the clergy in convocation ? No such 
 thing: but by his majesty and the lords and com- 
 mons in parliament assembled. By them all is done. 
 They are the sole reformers : and without their per- 
 mission and authority, the clergy cannot wear a gar- 
 ment of a different shape or colour in their ministra- 
 tions. So entirely is the civil authority the head of 
 the Church, that her thousands of clergy, dignified and 
 subordinate, cannot alter a single question in the cate- 
 chism, nor wear a blue surplice instead of a white 
 one, were they so inclined. Here, then is a parlia- 
 meiitary Church, as to its origin, a Church wholly 
 77iade by laymen, and alterable by laymen according 
 to their sovereign's pleasure. It has been attempted 
 to represent the Church as the ally of the state ; but 
 the state is the head : the Church one of the inferior 
 members. The Church of England is the creature of 
 the state, as much as the army, the navy, the courts 
 of justice, or the boards of custom and excise. '^^ 
 
 The case is even worse than this. Not only does 
 the civil magistrate " enact the creed" of the Church, 
 " frame its prayers," and " prescribe the number and 
 form of the sacraments" to be administered; but "the 
 parish priest has no authority to exclude the most 
 profligate sinner from communion; the lordliest Pre- 
 late or Primate cannot [without subjecting himself to 
 an action for damages] excommunicate the most 
 
 ' Bogue and Bennett's Hist, of Dissenters, I. 103, 4. 
 
308 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 abandoned sinner, or suspend the most immoral ec- 
 clesiastic from his functions; and should either the 
 Priest or the Prelate attempt to exercise the discipline 
 prescribed by the Lord Jesus in his house, he will 
 speedily be made to understand, by the terrors of a 
 praemunire, or the experience of a prison, that he is 
 not appointed in the Church of England to administer 
 the laws of Christ, but the statutes of the imperial 
 parhament, or the injunctions of the crown." ^ 
 
 Most persons will be apt to think, after reading 
 these testimonies, that the Church of England is the 
 last one of the Protestant Churches that should be 
 heard boasting of its polity. Erastianizsd, enslaved, 
 ''in chains,'^ (as the Puseyites themselves say,) what 
 right has she to glory over the free Churches of the 
 Reformation ? A proper sense of her vassalage would 
 at least keep her silent. Silence becomes her — and 
 humiliation. She is really entitled to the compassion 
 of her sister-churches ; and would have it, if her de- 
 portment was at all suited to her circumstances. 
 Even with all the unseemly airs her leaders are 
 forcing her to assume, they can but pity while they 
 rebuke her — as one would pity a galley-slave who 
 should go about in his fetters and manacles prating 
 of his freedom and trying to make other people put 
 on irons like his own. 
 
 "But the disabilities of that Church," it will be 
 said, " arise from her connection with the state, and 
 ought not to be urged as an objection to her polity." 
 
 » Presbyterian Review, ut svpra. The article here referred to, on 
 the "Anglican Reformation," is replete with valuable historical in- 
 formation, and will well repay perusal. The Presbyterian Board of 
 Publication have prefixed it to their recent edition of Dr. Brown's 
 interesting work on "Puseyite Episcopacy." 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSIO]?^. 309 
 
 I answer — the very thing we except to is that her 
 polity WdiS framed by the state. She has been from 
 her origin a State-Church. By this I mean, not 
 simply that she has been an established Church, but 
 that she was in the first instance fashioned by the 
 State, and has been ever since subject to such modi- 
 fications as the State might choose to make in her 
 constitution, faith, or worship. I have proved this 
 already. And if further proof were wanting, it is 
 to be found in a fact of recent occurrence that- 
 occasioned no small excitement in the hierarchy; 
 — I refer to the consolidation of several of the Irish 
 dioceses by act of Parliament. The Tractarians 
 say of this matter: " The Legislature has lately taken 
 upon itself to remodel the dioceses of Ireland ; a 
 proceeding which involves the appointment of certain 
 Bishops over certain clergy, and of certain clergy 
 under certain Bishops, without the Church being con- 
 sulted in the matter.'' (Tract No. 2.) A prominent 
 and zealous minister ^ of the Establishment, declares 
 this act to be "the annihilation of her Episcopal offices 
 by a set of laymen;" and says, " If we submit to this 
 bill, let us call ourselves a religious club, instituted by 
 the House oi Covumons, durante bene placito; but as 
 to an Apostolical Church, with Apostolical office and 
 authority, let us preserve enough of Christian honesty 
 and truth no longer to usurp the tide." 2 The State, 
 however, in adopting measures of this kind, is only 
 carrying out the policy with which Henry VI H. and 
 EUzabeth commenced. They constructed a frame- 
 work for the Church to suit themselves, and then 
 forced'\\. upon her. In this frame-work were included 
 Prelacy, and the rites and ceremonies commented on 
 
 1 The Rev. R. McGhee. 2 piea for Presbytery, p. 176. 
 
310 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 SO freely by the Reformers in the letters that have been 
 quoted. I have not cited those letters to show that 
 the habits and ceremonies they condemn are wrong in 
 themselves. I enter not at all into that question. My 
 sole object has been to show what the English Re- 
 formers thought about the system of government and 
 worship entailed upon their Church by the crown. I 
 felt it due to my argument to state the fact that in 
 arranging that system, the State and the Church were 
 arrayed against each other — that the civil power ap- 
 proved of it, and the spiritual power disapproved of 
 it — that the Reformers would have carried the reform 
 much further, but the crown would not let them — and 
 that they finally acquiesced, in the hope that the times 
 might become more auspicious for assimilating the 
 order and worship of their Church more nearly to the 
 standard of the other Protestant churches. I bring 
 forward this fact as aggravating in no small degree 
 the INTOLERANCE of the High-Church party. The 
 scheme in behalf of which this intolerance is dis- 
 played, is one for which they are indebted to two des- 
 potic and semi-papistical English sovereigns. 1 do not 
 say that if those sovereigns had been thorough Prot- 
 estants, and allowed the Reformers to have their own 
 way. Prelacy might not afterwards have sprung up 
 amidst some of the convulsions of the British empire, 
 and been transmitted to this country. We are not 
 concerned now with what might have been, but with 
 what has been. The scheme was fabricated by the 
 state, not drawn from the Bible by the Church. And 
 that this scheme should have become, with any set of 
 men, the test of a true Church — that they should even 
 go to the length of unchurching all Christian denomi- 
 nations that have by the ^ood providence and grace 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 311 
 
 of God been preserved from adopting it — of consign- 
 ing to " uncovenanted mercy'^ all who in flying out 
 of Sodom were so fortunate as to reach the mountain, 
 and were not, like themselves, arrested by an iron 
 hand when only mid-way of the plain, — this, surely, 
 is an instance of assurance of which the world has 
 seldom seen a parallel. 
 
 A second consideration which aggravates the in- 
 tolerance of this party, is, that the sect for which they 
 challenge a monopoly of Christian ordinances and 
 privileges, is one of the smallest of the Protestant 
 communions. Truth of doctrine may, it is granted, 
 be the heritage of the few, while the multitude are 
 given np to error. But whenever true religion has 
 been restricted to a small body of believers, as, for 
 example, in the Apostolic age, it has carried with it 
 incontestable evidence that such was the case. If 
 Prelatic Churches could give equally decisiv^e evidence 
 that they alone possess a genuine Christianity, it 
 would be the duty of every one to seek a union with 
 them. But when a Prelatic Church asserts the claim 
 without the evidence essential to substantiate it — 
 without, in other words, exhibiting a purer or more 
 efl'ective practical Christianity than other Churches — 
 it is natural to inquire, whether its pretensions derive 
 any countenance from its superior extent and num- 
 bers, as compared with other denominations. Now 
 it is a well-known historical fact that all the Reformed 
 Churches discarded the yz/re divino doctrine of Pre- 
 lacy, at the period of the Reformation. The Church 
 of England forms no exception j for I have shown 
 that although she retained Prelacy, she did it on very 
 different grounds from that of its being of divine 
 right. The Swedish and Danish Churches also re- 
 
312 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 tained the Episcopal form of government ; but only 
 as a matter of expediency. ^ All the other Reformed 
 Churches, notwithstanding the predilection the learned 
 and able men who directed their affairs might natu- 
 rally have for the polity to which they had been ac- 
 customed, repudiated Prelacy. Diocesan Episcopacy, 
 then, probably does not embrace among its supporters 
 a twentieth part of the population of Protestant 
 Christendom. 2 And yet this mere fraction of the 
 Protestant world arrogates to itself, or rather a por- 
 tion of the body arrogates for it, the exclusive posses- 
 sion of Gospel-rites and promises, and presumes to 
 declare the other nineteen-twentieths of the Protes- 
 tants of the globe, *' out of the pale of God's cove- 
 nant." This view is still more striking when confined 
 to our own country. According to the latest returns, 
 the whole number of ministers connected with the 
 various evangelical Churches in the United States, is 
 seventeen thousand and seventy-thr^se, and of com- 
 municants, two millions five hundred and forty-four 
 thousand seven hundred and sixty-three. Of this 
 number, there are connected with the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church, one thousand two hundred and 
 twenty-two ministers and seventy-five thousand com- 
 municants; — in other words, of the evangelical minis- 
 ters in the Union, one out of every fourteen, and of 
 the communicants, one out of every thirty-four, is 
 an Episcopalian. Now the High-Church doctrine 
 assumes, according to these data, that thirteen out of 
 every fourteen evangelical ministers in this country, 
 are men who have intruded into the sacred office, 
 
 1 See Dr. Miller's Letters, 8vo. edit. 386-8. 
 
 2 I have seen it stated that in England, out of a population of thir- 
 teen millions, about four millions belong to tlie Established Church, 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 313 
 
 whose commissions are a nullity, whose ordinances 
 are invahd, and who are themselves in danger of 
 sharing in the doom of Korah, Dathan and Abiram: 
 while of the professing Christians in these Churches, 
 thirty-three out of thirty-four have no portion in the 
 promises, and cannot reasonably suppose themselves 
 to be in the way of salvation ! And all this, not be- 
 cause they do not exhibit as much of the power of 
 Christianity in their lives as their Episcopal neigh- 
 bours, but because they refuse to conform to that 
 Church or some other, say the Romish, that pretends 
 to have an unbroken prelatical succession in its min- 
 istry! Surely, the men who bring forward such a 
 scheme as this, must count largely upon the credulity 
 of their fellow-citizens, and their ignorance of the 
 scriptural marks of Christian character, if they expect 
 it to be received. 
 
 It is another aggravation of this intolerance, that it 
 is directed only against matters of form and or- 
 ganization. If the High-Church party were rigorous 
 in enforcing doctrinal uniformity and great strictness 
 of life and manners within their communion, their in- 
 tolerance of other forms of government would at least 
 have the merit of consistency. But on both these 
 points they are more latitudinarian than perhaps any 
 other evangehcal body of Christians in Great Britain 
 or America. The theology of the Church of England 
 has, it is well known, undergone an entire change 
 (allowing of course for individual exceptions) since 
 her Articles were framed. Her Reformers and early 
 divines were decided Calvinists, and the broad, health^ 
 ful stamp of Calvinism is upon her Articles. But the 
 theology of her ministers has been varied and fluc- 
 tuating ever since the restoration of Charles II. when 
 
 27 
 
314 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 looseness of doctrine and of morals came into the Church 
 together. The British Critic (for Oct. 1842,) distinctly 
 admits the change in the divinity of the Church, and 
 maintains that the change ought still to go on — as it 
 bids fair to do. " The Laudian school was as clearly 
 a neiv development of the Church, in its day, as his- 
 tory can show it. And be it well noted, it was a suc- 
 cessful development — it established itself. Laud 
 and his party were 'innovators' in their day; but 
 how are they regarded now? As our greatest doc- 
 tors, the highest standards and brightest ornaments of 
 the Church. . . . The truth is, these divines, by a dint 
 of immense effort, by a great and strong heave, lifted 
 the Church above the levels of Calvinism to a higher 
 ground, and that ground has remained our terra firma 
 to this day. . . The present orthodox divinity of our 
 Church is a development since the Reformation and 
 a reaction upon it." Again: "Calvin and his school 
 were the master-spirits of the Reformation; they gave 
 the impulse, and they left a stamp upon the move- 
 ment which cannot be mistaken : let history for once 
 be allowed to speak. The full development of Cal- 
 vinism was stopped indeed, but only because the Re- 
 formation itself was stopi^ed; and its peculiar doc- 
 trines remained the theology of our Church till Laud 
 upset themP "And can it be denied, that as the 
 Church threw off her Calvinism, she also began to 
 incline to a union ivith Rome, i. e. if we are to take, 
 as we must do, the Laudian school as the then repre- 
 sentatives? But we will only proceed at present on 
 the fact that she did throw it off^that there has been 
 a change in our theology since the Reformation. For 
 if the precedent has been set, why may it not, with 
 prudence and moderation, be followed P^ 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 315 
 
 It is easy to see to what this theory of progressive 
 develojjment tends, and to what, if it is sanctioned, it 
 must soon bring the faith d^ndi frame-work of the Eng- 
 lisli Church. I have cited the passage only to show the 
 shifting character of her theology. Toplady , one of her 
 able divines, in describing her corrupt condition in his 
 day, just before the American Revolution, winds up a 
 pungent paragraph (quoted in a previous chapter) 
 with asking this question ; " Is there a single heresy, 
 that ever annoyed the Christian world, which has 
 not its present partizans among those who profess 
 conformity to the Church of England?" Whether 
 there are now, as he distinctly intimates there were 
 then, Arians and Socinians among her ministers, is a 
 question not easy to decide. That there are Pela- 
 gians and an abundance of Semi-Papists will not be 
 denied. Yet they are all tolerated. There are scores 
 of volumes published every year by ministers in her 
 communion, which are so replete with Popish heresies 
 that any one of them would insure the deposition or 
 suspension of its author in any other Church in Great 
 Britain or this country, pretending to be orthodox. 
 But in her bosom they are safe from molestation. She 
 reserves her anathemas for those who cannot see that 
 the Divine Author of Christianity has suspended sal- 
 vation upon submission to a Prelate — for those who 
 have the temerity to believe that a man may obtain 
 absolution from Christ before obtaining it from a 
 priest. Differences of faith she will compromise on 
 liberal terms, but as to order, the only alternative is, 
 " Prelacy or uncovenanted mercy. '^^ 
 
 No less liberal are the High-Church party as re- 
 gards the regulation of the conduct. They do in- 
 deed recommend monkish austerities and applaud 
 
316 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 tlie Popish contrivances for mortifying the flesh ; but 
 they are careful to have it understood that the Church 
 is a gentle mother who will humour the caprices of 
 her children even if they should lie in another direc- 
 tion. They are familiar with the text. '' Be not con- 
 formed to this world;" but they remember also that 
 the wise man has said, "There is nothing better for 
 a man than that he should eat and drink, and that he 
 should make his soul enjoy good in his labour ;" and 
 they cannot think that, according to the analogy of 
 faith, it was designed by the former injunction to cut 
 people off from worldly amusements if they felt a 
 disposition to participate in them. A man may in 
 their view be a good churchman, and do many things 
 which in some churches would subject him to dis- 
 cipline. But he must not attend upon the ministra- 
 tions of a preacher who cannot trace his ecclesiastical 
 pedigree through a line of Prelates to the Apostles. 
 This will incontestably prove him to be out of the 
 pale of the covenant. Conformity to the world will 
 be tolerated, almost to the practical obliteration of all 
 distinction between professing Christians and non- 
 professors — error in doctrine will be tolerated, even 
 to the verge of downright Popery, — but wo be to the 
 man who rejects the figment of an unbroken chain 
 of Diocesan Bishops for eighteen centuries. 
 
 I have not yet done with the intolerance and big- 
 otry of this system. It was a saying of Robert Hall's, 
 " He that is good enough for Ch^^ist, is good enough 
 for me." The High-Church theory in many instances 
 reverses this maxim. It rejects, as destitute of any cove- 
 nanted hope of salvation, many whom Christ has mani- 
 festly received; it receives many whom He has as yet 
 manifestly rejected. Such men as Watts and Henry, 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 317 
 
 Owen and Baxter, the Erskines and Chalmers, Claude 
 and Saurin, Davies and Witherspoon, and a host of oth- 
 ers, living and dead — men of whom the world was not 
 worthy — -are branded as "aliens from the common- 
 wealth of Israel,'* and usurpers of the sacred office; 
 while the Popes Vigilius, Alexander VL, Caesar Bor- 
 gia, John IX., John XIII., and many others, monsters 
 in wickedness, are not simply owned as members of 
 the Church Catholic, but reverenced as " representa- 
 tives of Christ and successors of the Apostles." The 
 troops of fox-hunting, horse-racing ministers, that 
 abound in the Church of England, with the formalists 
 who receive the ordinances at their hands, are all par- 
 takers of the blessings of God's covenant : while the 
 thousands of faithful and godly pastors in the Metho- 
 dist, Baptist, Independent, and Presbyterian Churches 
 in Europe and America, with the multitudes of hum- 
 ble and exemplary Christians who attend upon their 
 ministrations, are guilty of schism, and in imminent 
 danger of perdition. Plain readers of the Bible have 
 been accustomed to think that it made a man's faith 
 and practice of primary importance in deciding upon 
 his Christian character, that is, upon his interest 
 in the covenant of grace. The High-Churchman 
 has a different standard of piety. He does not, it 
 is true, pretend to deny the validity of these tests, 
 but he has another which takes precedence of them. 
 The fundamental question with him, is, not whether 
 a man cordially receives the doctrines of the Gospel, 
 and evinces the reality and power of his faith by a 
 corresponding practice ; but whether he is connected 
 with a Prelatical church. If he is not in a Prelatical 
 church, no matter what his apparent regard for evan- 
 gelical doctrine, his humility, benevolence, and activity 
 27* 
 
318 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 ill doing good, he is to be left to " uncovenanted 
 mercy;'' while if he is in such a Church, he is to be 
 recognized as having a covenant-interest in the prom- 
 ises, though he believes in transubstantiation, purga- 
 tory, the invocation of saints, prayers for the dead, 
 and all the errors and superstitions with which the 
 "man of sin" has overloaded the simple faith of the 
 Gospel. The fair inference from this, is, that High- 
 churchmen consider the indications of piety which are 
 so common among Non-Episcopalians, as deceptive. 
 They afhrm that the influences of the Spirit are 
 promised only to the ministrations of persons prelati- 
 cally ordained. They must, then, either admit that 
 these influences are bestowed where they are not 
 promised, and that in as ample measure as where 
 they are promised ; or maintain that the faith and 
 love, the Christian zeal and holy living, which are 
 found in non-prelatical denominations, are not real. 
 One or the other of these alternatives is forced upon 
 them. If they take the former, it will involve this 
 consequence, viz. that the world, to which the Spirit 
 is not promised, has just the same reason to expect 
 its influences, as the Church to which it is promised. 
 If they take the latter, it will follow, in the first place, 
 that our Saviour's rule, that the views and principles 
 of men are to be judged by their "fruits," is of no 
 avail; 2dly, that we have a right to pronounce men 
 to .be at enmity with God and exposed to his wrath 
 and curse, when they profess a hearty belief in his 
 word and appear to live with an habitual regard to 
 his authority and glory; and, 3dly, that all Non-Epis- 
 copalians are, and, remaining such, must continue to 
 be, in a state of condemnation and misery. 
 
 Leaving them to choose between these alternatives, 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 319 
 
 the first of which is subversive of their system, while 
 the last exhibits in a strong light their arrogance and 
 bigotry, it is proper to add that the intolerance of 
 the system is seen no less in its treatment of churches 
 and nations, than of individuals. ^ It affords a beauti- 
 ful illustration of the practical appUcation of their 
 principles and of the enlightened charity that per- 
 vades them, that Italy, Spain, Portugal, Mexico, Bra- 
 zil, and the South American Republics, are, in their 
 view, blessed with an Apostolic ministry, and enjoy, 
 throughout all' their borders, the genuine ordinances 
 of the Church of Christ, while from two-thirds to 
 three-fourths of the inhabitants of Great Britain, and 
 the whole population of the United States except 
 the few thousands of Episcopalians and Romanists 
 amongst us, are without the means of grace, and have 
 their abode in that murky region which " lies between 
 the Church and heathenism.'' ^^ The ignorant and 
 degraded Armenians, Greeks, and Syrians, of the 
 Turkish Empire, to whom the pure Gospel had not 
 been preached for centuries, until they were visited 
 by the American (Non-Episcopal) missionaries a few 
 years since, and who require to be instructed almost in 
 the very alphabet of Christianity, these people have a 
 regular ministry, and a place in the Church Catholic, 
 while the "Free Church of Scotland" Avhich has lately 
 borne so illustrious a testimony to the truth and power 
 of Christianity and sacrificed all its earthly emoluments 
 and honours, to maintain the " crown rights of the 
 Redeemer," is a " schismatical organization," in a 
 posture of rebellion against the Bishops, the lawful 
 governors of the Church, and, therefore, against Christ 
 himself. In other words, High-Church charity is a 
 
 1 See Chapter V. 2 Tract, No. 47. 
 
320 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 charity that concerns itself primarily, not about ques- 
 tions of faith and holiness, but about " endless gene- 
 alogies" and pedigrees. It can look with stoical 
 apathy upon a conflict like that which has recently 
 shaken Scotland to its centre ; but it is put into ecsta- 
 cies when a corrupt Church draws forth from its 
 archives a musty and spurious catalogue of Bishops 
 reaching back to the Apostles. In can spurn the 
 intelligent and virtuous yeomanry of New England, 
 while it embraces, as genuine children of the Church, 
 the Lazzaroni of Italy. Where the Apostolical Suc- 
 cession is concerned, it sticks at no common obstacles. 
 It treats even bulls of excommunication like straws — 
 be they ever so " Apostolical." It does not scruple — 
 so comprehensive and fervent a charity is it — to ac- 
 knowledge both the Latin and Greek Churches as 
 Churches, though each of them has excommunicated 
 the other, and one of them has excommunicated the 
 Church of England, and, of course, the Episcopal 
 Church in this country. In all cases where it can 
 catch a glimpse of the genuine "succession," it dilates 
 and glows with an ardour worthy of that charity that 
 *' belie veth all things," and puts up with rebuffs which, 
 it would seem, must extinguish it if it were not in 
 truth the charity that '^beareth all things." It is only 
 when it turns towards a schismatical, Non-Prelatical 
 body that it begins to shrink and shrivel, Hke the 
 leaves of the sensitive plant when they are touched, 
 or like the brilliant apples of Sodom, which, on being 
 compressed, are transmuted into a handful of ashes. 
 This is the only test it cannot bear. And the effect 
 that follows the application of it, shows that, in prin- 
 ciple, there is little to choose between High-Church 
 "charity" and that "charity" whose exploits com- 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 321 
 
 pose SO large a part of the annals of Papal Rome. 
 Its ready tolerance of error, its undisguised affinity 
 for some of the worst features of Popery, and its fierce 
 denunciations of the Protestant Churches, give pres- 
 age of what might be expected from the system if 
 it once obtained the power to enforce its arrogant 
 pretensions. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE SCHISMATICAL TENDENCY OF THE SYSTEM. 
 
 High-Churchmen have been wont to talk with a 
 great deal of complacency, about the unity and peace 
 of their own Church, as compared with the various 
 "sects" around them. To cite authorities on this 
 point would be superfluous: for the sort of cant here 
 alluded to pervades the whole tone of their ministra- 
 tions and writings, and gives a colouring even to their 
 social habits. It would be very easy to show, and 
 indeed has been, in part, shown in this volume, that 
 notwithstanding their horror of " sectarianism," the 
 very essence of sectarianism impregnates their prin- 
 ciples ; and that while they glory in being " the 
 Church," their scheme tends to the subversion of the 
 true Church of Christ. Without undertaking to dis- 
 cuss these topics in form, they will be incidentally 
 illustrated in the remarks I design to make on the 
 alleged conservative and harmonizing tendency 
 of the Prelatical system. 
 
 It is an unpalatable truth to Prelatists, but their 
 
322 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 unseemly boastings have made it necessary to state 
 itj that Prelacy has been eminently the paj^ent of 
 schisms and divisions. Jerome informs us that the 
 scheme was set up originally as a remedy for schism. 
 It turned out, however, in this case, as it usually 
 has where man has undertaken to improve a divine 
 institution, that the remedy was worse than the 
 disease. The history of the visible Church from the 
 fourth century to the sixteenth, is, as I have had 
 occasion to observe before, very much a history of the 
 quarrels and crimes of the Bishops. Since that period 
 several secessions have taken place from the Church 
 of England. Whether all of these have been justifia- 
 ble or not, it is not material to inquire. The principal 
 of them were made necessary by the tyranny of her 
 rulers. " She has, indeed, created separation to a 
 greater extent, and in more varied forms, than any 
 
 other Protestant Church in Christendom By her 
 
 despotic constitution and her unwarrantable ceremo- 
 nies, she has driven from her pale thousands and tens 
 of thousands of the most pious and enlightened of 
 British Protestants. When the Act of Uniformity was 
 passed, it was not without weighty reasons that in a 
 single day two thousand of the most learned and 
 godly ministers that ever adorned a Christian Church, 
 resigned their livings and retired from her commu- 
 nion." ^ This memorable event took place on St. Bar- 
 tholomew's day, August 24th, 1662. The sole ground 
 on which this large body of faithful and pious men 
 were ejected from their livings, was, their refusal to 
 assent to every thing contained in the Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer. In many parts of the kingdom they 
 could not procure the Book in time to examine it ; 
 
 1 Plea for Presbytery, 2d ed. p. 65. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 323 
 
 "so that in their fai'ewell sermons they told their 
 flocks that they were obUged to leave them, for not 
 declaring their assent to a book which they had not 
 been able to see. But this was no obstacle to the 
 ruling party, who wished for the most costly sacrifices 
 at the shrine of absolute obedience, and longed to rid 
 themselves of men who were troubled with a con- 
 science." ^ I forbear to dwell on an event the record 
 of which constitutes one of the darkest of the many 
 dark pages in the history of the English government 
 and its hierarchy. Nor is it necessary to repeat here 
 the arguments by which the Dissenters of that country 
 have vindicated themselves from the charge of schism, 
 and shown that the Establishment is responsible for 
 alienating from her at different periods so many of the 
 best of her children. I will give only a sample of 
 their language on this subject. "We are accused of 
 schism — schism denotes a separation in heart and 
 affections, from those who are walking according to 
 the institutions of Christ. But wherein are we guilty 
 of this offence? If we denied Christ to be the only. 
 Head of the Church, and separated from such as 
 owned him Head, it would be schism; but we assert 
 his sole authority in his Church. If we assumed the 
 right to alter, to add to, or to take away from, what 
 he established, it would be schism; but we plead for 
 the integrity of Christ's constitution and associate with 
 those who do. Show us that we separate from a 
 Church of which Christ is the Head, whose doctrines 
 are the pure and simple doctrines of the Gospel; 
 whose worship is that which Christ prescribes; which 
 maintains a godly discipline by restraining transgres- 
 sors from her communion, and admitting only such as 
 
 • Bogue and Bennett, I. 78. 
 
324 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 appear to be his true disciples; which displays kind 
 forbearance and gentle condescension to weak and 
 tender consciences, and from these marks demonstrates 
 itself to be the Church of Christ. Show us that Ave 
 separate from such a Church, and we will confess our 
 iniquity and own ourselves guilty of schism. But, if we 
 separate from a mere P arliamentary Church, which 
 was formed into shape out of the chaos of Popery, 
 by acts of the English legislature, and had no exist- 
 ence before the year 1560 — a Church, which in none of 
 its features bears a resemblance to any thing earlier 
 than the ecclesiastical constitution of the fourth or fifth 
 century, and, in some, to what did not appear till the 
 ninth or tenth — a Church which has so many things to 
 be complained of in its constitution, its head, its 
 doctrines, its worship, its services, its sacraments, 
 its discipline, — to call this schism, and charge us as 
 schismatics, because we are not of her communion, 
 and cannot conscientiously declare our unfeigned as- 
 sent and consent to all her multifarious code : — to call 
 this schism! Surely it is full time that the word were 
 dropped, and that the accusation ceased. Those who 
 would impose such inventions on the disciples of 
 Christ, instead of his institutions, are the schismatics, 
 not those who separate from them for conscience' 
 sake.'^^ 
 
 The same spirit which has driven so many enlight- 
 ened and conscientious Christians into the Dissenting 
 Churches in England, is displaying itself now in the 
 warfare the High-Church party is waging against 
 other denominations. That party are not satisfied 
 with the peaceful exercise of their own rights and 
 privileges. One might suppose that if they really 
 
 » Ibid. pp. 149—51. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 325 
 
 believed their heritage to be the paradise they repre- 
 sent it, they would be content to enjoy it: or, if they 
 must needs make aggressive movements in any direc- 
 tion, that they would bend their efforts to the subver- 
 sion of the idolatry and superstition which still hold 
 so large a portion of the race in bondage. 
 
 " The world is all before them where to choose" — 
 a world, two-thirds or three-fourths of which is en- 
 slaved to false and oppressive systems of religion. If 
 they are smitten with so fervent a zeal for the honour 
 of Christ and the glory of his Church, here surely is 
 a field wide enough to give their benevolent sympa- 
 thies full play. It is a field, too, which needs their 
 sympathy. It is filled with the miserable and the 
 lost, the dead and the dying — with millions who must 
 perish unless they speedily obtain that bread of life, 
 which these Prelatists tell us has been entrusted to 
 them alone for distribution. Yet instead of respond- 
 ing to this appeal and sending forth an army of mis- 
 sionaries to redeem these interminable moral wastes, 
 they ore laying out their main strength in a united 
 and furious attack upon the Protestant Churches. 
 The annihilation of these Churches seems to be, at 
 present, the leading object of their ambition. They 
 cannot brook the idea that there should be a Church 
 on earth which is not governed by Prelates; or that 
 any man who has received no better ordination than 
 Timothy had, viz. " by the laying on of the hands of 
 the Presbytery," should be recognized as a Christian 
 minister. Judging from their conduct, they regard 
 the existence of such Churches and ministers as the 
 chief hinderance to the spread of Christianity, and 
 deem it an end worthy of their first and best exertions, 
 to put them out of the way. 
 
 28 
 
326 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 Nor is this the whole of the picture. Not only are 
 they neglecting the work of missions, to carry on this 
 contest against other churches ; but their principles, 
 should Providence permit them to be enforced, must 
 seriously embarrass, if not, in some instances, actually 
 defeat, the eflbrts of those churches for the diffusion 
 of the Gospel. I have in view, in this remark, the 
 High-Church theory of the Church and its dioceses, 
 so often mentioned in this work. According to that 
 theory, the Romish, Greek, Armenian, and Syrian 
 Churches, are all parts of the- true Church, while the 
 Non-Episcopal Protestant Churches are no Churches. 
 Any attempt to interfere with the existing arrange- 
 ment of the former Churches, is a sin. To organize 
 a church within their limits, as missionaries are ac- 
 customed to do in heathen lands, would be schismat- 
 ical. Nay, Non-Prelatical churches are not to be 
 allowed, if there be any way of preventing it, to send 
 missionaries to these countries. They cannot give 
 them Christianity. The Oriental Christians are in 
 the true Church now, and all that Protestant " secta- 
 ries" could do would be to allure them out of the 
 Church into the world — to wrest from them the 
 Christianity they have, without supplying them with 
 any thing as good in place of it. It is on this 
 ground that the leading High-Church organ ^ in this 
 country, has charged the missionaries of the American 
 Board, with spreading "pestilential and seditious 
 DOCTRINES among the Christians of the East," and 
 with making common cause with the turks against 
 the Eastern Church." If these are the honest con- 
 victions of that party, they cannot but do every thing 
 in their power to thwart the missionary operations of 
 
 • See the "Churchman" of November 25th, 1843. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 327 
 
 our churches. If they cannot cripple, our resources 
 at home, they must, if possible, prevent our mission- 
 aries from gaining a footing within the domain of the 
 Church Catholic abroad. The vast empire over which 
 the Pope sways his sceptre, and the rival empire of 
 the Greek Hierarchy, with their several dependencies, 
 are to be guarded from the intrusion of such men as 
 Mills and Brainerd, and Carey and Williams, lest 
 they should infect them with "disorganizing and anti- 
 Christian errors."! Even the Episcopal churches are 
 not to attempt the renovation of those withered 
 branches, except in subordination to their respective 
 rulers. They have no right (such is the theory) to 
 send a missionary into any foreign diocese without 
 permission from its ecclesiastical head. Wherever 
 any church has established a diocese, its jurisdiction 
 is to be respected. If the Romish Church, for exam- 
 ple, should erect dioceses in the Island of Borneo, and 
 supply them with Bishops and other clergy, this 
 would secure to her the spiritual control of that Island, 
 and the Episcopal Church could not establish a mis- 
 sion there or employ any means to evangelize the 
 natives, without her permission. 2 
 
 It is easy to see how injurious this whole scheme 
 must be to the propagation of pure Christianity. 
 " What immense continents must thus be preserved in 
 their idolatry and superstition unbroken, and what 
 stumbling-blocks must be raised up to the reception 
 of the truth, in those quarters where the advocates of 
 the new views feel themselves at liberty to attempt 
 any missionary undertaking! What must the open- 
 ing mind of a heathen inquirer think to see professed 
 evangelical Christians cordially welcoming the de- 
 
 'Ibid. 2Seepp. 134, 5. 
 
328 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINljJ OP 
 
 graded, idolatrous Papist as a Christian brother, and 
 turning away with disdain from Protestants who give 
 evidence of the faith and love, the disinterestedness 
 and zeal — in short, all the graces of the Christian 
 character — as if they were heathens, and all because 
 they do not observe the same external rites in the 
 same form? Though there had been nothing else, 
 this necessary want of harmony of feeling and effort 
 for the evangelization of the world, would be an omen 
 most adverse to the claims of the Anglican School. It 
 would show that they preferred outward forms and 
 order to the glory of God in the conversion of souls; 
 but when taken in connection with the various con- 
 siderations which have been suggested, it proclaims 
 that the system as a whole, whatever may be the irre- 
 proachable and even amiable character of some who 
 hold it, and whether men generally are aware of it or 
 not, is decidedly anti-Christian, fitted to retard instead 
 of advancing the kingdom of the Redeemer." ^ 
 
 Facts like these illustrate the pretended conserva- 
 tive and harmonizing influence of High-Church 
 principles. If history is to be trusted, those principles 
 are eminently scHisMATicAL in their tendency; and 
 the system to which they belong can only be regarded 
 "as a fire-brand in the household of faith."^ — It will 
 be claimed, however, or would have been until re- 
 cently, that Prelacy has secured to the Churches 
 ivhich have adopted it, a much larger measure of 
 peace and unity than are enjoyed in other com- 
 munions. This point may, like the other, be safely 
 referred to the arbitration of history, or left to each 
 one's observation. But it is proper to note that when 
 
 ' Lorimer's Manual of Presbytery, p. 277. Glasgow edition. 
 2 Oxford Divinity. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 329 
 
 Prelatists boast of the unity of their Churches, they 
 do not mean what the sacred writers mean by this 
 term. When they speak of unity, it is of " the unity 
 oifaith,^^ of th6 "unity of the Spirit, ^^ of Christians 
 being " baptized by one Spirit into one body," and of 
 their being made " one in Christ Jesus.'' On unity of 
 this kind, the Bible sets a high value. But the unity 
 of Prelatical Churches is of a different sort. I do not 
 mean that there is no oneness of faith and spirit 
 among their members — for no one can doubt that they 
 embrace, within their various communions, a large 
 number of truly pious and devoted Christians who are 
 one in Christ, and therefore one with each other, — but 
 I mean that this is not required even in those who 
 minister at their altars. The unity they insist upon is 
 an external, as distinguished from a spiritual unity — 
 a unity of order, as distinguished from a unity of doc- 
 trine — a unity the test of which is submission to Pre- 
 latical authority, as distinguished from a unity the 
 test of which is the cordial adoption and faithful main- 
 tenance of a specific and scriptural system of faith. 
 Whether this is a wise arrangement or not, is a ques- 
 tion on which there will be a difference of opinion. 
 Prelatists usually contend that it is. They are accus- 
 tomed to urge it as a proof of the superiority of their 
 organization to those of other Churches, that they allow 
 this latitude of theological opinions among their clergy. 
 Of the fact there can be no doubt. Witness the 
 theology of the Romish and Eastern Churches. That 
 of the Church of England is probably still more hete- 
 rogeneous. « The religion of the Church of England," 
 says Mr. Macaulay, in an article already quoted, " is, 
 in fact, a bundle of religious systems without number. 
 
 28* 
 
330 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 It comprises the religious system of Bishop Tomline, 
 and the religious system of John Newton, and all the 
 religious systems which lie between them. It com- 
 prises the religious system of Mr. Newman, and the 
 religious system of the Archbishop of Dublin, and all 
 the religious systems which lie between them. All 
 these different opinions are held, avowed, preached, 
 printed, within the pale of the Church, by men of un- 
 questioned integrity and understanding." ^ The same 
 diversity of faith is seen among the Episcopal Bishops 
 and clergy in this country. The theological pendu- 
 lum vibrates through a larger arc within that single 
 Church, than it does within all the other evangelical 
 churches combined. For there are tied together there 
 the system of John Calvin and the system of Tract 
 No. 90,^ and "all the systems that lie between them." 
 To talk of the unity of such a Church, can do no 
 harm provided it be understood that nothing more is 
 meant by it than that all the diversified sects and 
 schools which enter into its composition have united 
 in adopting its forms of government and worship, 
 and agreed to live together. But it seems puerile to 
 parade this fact as a proof of the efficacy of Prelacy 
 in producing unity. It is no great achievement for 
 any scheme of polity to produce such unity as this. 
 Few of the Reformed Churches have thought it worth 
 seeking: most of them have shunned it as fraught with 
 peril to their peace and orthodoxy. The Church of 
 Rome prizes it, and has attained it to at least an equal 
 degree with any Churches under Diocesan Episcopacy. 
 And any Church may have \ifor a time, which will 
 lay more stress upon forms than substance, and make 
 
 » Miscell. III. 306. 2 See the Carey ordination. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 331 
 
 its clergy dependent, for promotion, upon their eccle- 
 siastical superiors. Permanent peace and substantial 
 union, however, can never be obtained in this way in 
 a Frotestant Episcopal Church. Protestantism will 
 not abide such a conglomeration of views on funda- 
 mental points of faith. The whole history of the 
 Church of England proves this. That Church has 
 not been without her periods of repose, but these 
 have uniformly been succeeded by great convulsions. 
 She is now rocking to and fro like a city in an earth- 
 quake, — and from a similar cause. The hostile ele- 
 ments she has always carried in her breast, have been 
 gathering strength for the last quarter of a century, 
 and now that the match has been appUed, the explo- 
 sion is terrific. I do not ask it tauntingly, but I can- 
 not forbear asking the question, could any thing less 
 have been expected ? When conflicting systems of 
 faith have been brought together in other churches, a 
 similar result has followed: why should it not be so 
 in the Episcopal Church ? A church with a tesselated 
 theology may be a very pretty sight to a politician 
 or an amateur philanthropist ; but churches of this 
 kind require to be kept, like other rarities, in a cabi- 
 net. They are to be looked at, not handled — for 
 show, not for use. Before they can be used efl'ective- 
 ly for any length of time, the mosaic work must be 
 taken out. Judaism was unwilling to go out of the 
 Church, when Christianity came in : " the son of the 
 bond-woman" insisted upon being " heir with the son 
 of the free woman." This led to strife. The Apostle 
 was applied to for a remedy. His prescription was one 
 which some of his "successors" would have been very 
 slow to give : — " Cast out the bond-woman and her 
 son." So it has been with the Church of England. Her 
 
332 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 Reformers, as I have shown, tried to have " the bond- 
 woman cast out," but another woman on the throne 
 befriended her, and she was not ejected. Ample room 
 was provided for sound doctrine and evangehcal piety; 
 but, unhappily. Queen Elizabeth's passion for "the 
 old rehgion," secured a corner for that too. As 
 a natural consequence, whenever there has been 
 vitaUty enough in the body to call its slumbering 
 energies into play, there has been a conflict. Some- 
 times, for a long period together, there has been no 
 conflict, because there has been no life. The dead are 
 always quiet. If the Church of England enjoyed a 
 dignified repose during a considerable part of the last 
 century, it is sufiiciently accounted for in the fact 
 stated by Mr. Romaine, that " of her ten thousand 
 clergy, there were not seven that preached the Gos- 
 peV^ Evangelical religion revived at length, and 
 "the old religion" revived too; for when "the sons 
 of God come to present themselves before the Lord, 
 Satan" will "come with them" — if he can. Hence 
 the present struggle. It is a struggle between true 
 spiritual religion and Popery — two things which the 
 Church of England system has made tenants in com- 
 mon, under a belief that the strong arm of Prelacy 
 would be able to keep the peace between them. But 
 Prelacy, strong as it is, is not strong enough for this. 
 It cannot, with impunity, join together two things 
 which God has put so far asunder. They may, 
 perhaps, compromise their present differences, and go 
 on again together for a time; but it will be only a 
 truce. There can be no permanent peace — no genu- 
 ine, scriptural unity — in the body, until one or the 
 other is " cast out." This is not said by way of ad- 
 vice. No Non-Episcopalian would presume to tender 
 
THE APOSTl)LICAL SUCCESSION. 333 
 
 advice in a case like this. I say it, as a Non-Episco- 
 palian, in self-defence. High-churchmen glory over 
 us on the ground of their pretended unity and the 
 efficiency of their system as a conservator of the 
 peace. My answer is, not merely that their churches 
 are now rent (as others have been before) with dis- 
 sensions; but that the elements of strife are so inter- 
 woven in their system, that as long as it remains 
 what it is, lasting unity and tranquillity are out of 
 the question. When they do enjoy peace, it is not 
 the kind of peace which we value most ; and it rests 
 on so precarious a basis, that to boast of it, is like a 
 man with the ague boasting of health, in the intervals 
 between his chills, .^//churches have been taught — 
 the Episcopal with the rest — that creeds and forms 
 are not of themselves adequate to keep out error and 
 strife. They are undoubtedly useful, when framed 
 agreeably to the Scriptures, in promoting this end; 
 but the main reliance of Churches, as well for this as 
 every other blessing, must be upon the power and 
 grace of Him whom the venerable Apostle saw " walk- 
 ing in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks and 
 holding the seven stars in his right hand." 
 
334 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 ASPECT OF THE SYSTEM TOWARDS INQUIRING SINNERS. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 I HAVE dwelt long upon the characteristics and 
 
 TENDENCIES OF THE HIGH-CHURCH SYSTEM, but theiB 
 
 is one of its phases not yet distinctly presented, which 
 is too important to be wholly overlooked. The sys- 
 tem claims to hold out to men the only way in which 
 they can be saved — to be the only system which can 
 guide them into the path that leads to heaven. It is, 
 therefore, due to its advocates and to the cause of 
 truth, to notice, before closing this work, the aspect 
 
 WHICH IT WEARS TOWARDS AN HONEST INQUIRER 
 AFTER THE WAY OF SALVATION. The jallcr's qilCS- 
 
 tion, "What must I do to be saved ?'^ must be, with 
 any individual, the most solemn of all questions. 
 Wrung as it commonly is from a heart oppressed 
 with a sense of sin and trembling under the appre- 
 hension of Divine wrath, it requires to be met with a 
 kind, prompt, and explicit answer. Such was the 
 answer the jailer received : " Believe on the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." 
 (Acts xvi. 31.) Very different is the answer that 
 must be given to this question by a consistent High- 
 Churchman — an answer eminently fitted to increase 
 the inquirer's perplexity and distress. I do not say 
 that a consistent High-Churchman would not direct 
 him to believe in Christ as the only Saviour; but 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 335 
 
 fidelity to his principles would require him to state 
 further, that he could not come to Christ except 
 through the Church, and that in order to exercise 
 faith in Him *he must be baptized by a minister who 
 could trace his lineage to the Apostles, through an 
 unbroken Prelatical succession. Failing of this, (he 
 would be bound to inform him,) there would be no 
 hope of salvation for him except in God's "uncove- 
 nanted mercies.'' ^ To the class of Prelatists whom I 
 have in view, this answer doubtless appears lucid and 
 satisfactory ; because their minds are made up as to 
 where the Church and the successors of the Apostles 
 are. But it might be otherwise with the inquirer. It is 
 no extravagant supposition, that with him these might 
 still »be open questions. And if so, the tender of bap- 
 tism, say by his own Rector, would not meet his case. 
 According to the instructions given him, the turning 
 point of his salvation lies in his receiving baptism 
 from a minister in the line of the Apostolical Succes- 
 sion. The mere assertion of his Rector that he is in 
 this line, only shows that he himself thinks so. The 
 man demands proof of the fact. And unless he is 
 wilhng in a matter of infinite moment to himself, to 
 go forward without knowing whether he is in the 
 broad or the narrow way, he must sit down — anxious, 
 heavy-laden, alarmed, as he is — to study the ques- 
 tions, whether the Church in which Providence has 
 placed him, is a true Church, and whether his pastor 
 has really received the gift of the Holy Ghost by re- 
 gular transmission from the Apostles. Those who 
 have read the previous chapters of this work, will be 
 able to form some idea of the difficulties he must en- 
 counter in prosecuting these inquiries. If, on the 
 
 ' See Chapters I. and II. 
 
336 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 one hand, he finds a large number of ingenious and 
 learned writers advocating the claims of his Church 
 (supposing him to be an Episcopalian) to the genuine 
 succession; he will, on the other, find at least as 
 many more, of equal learning and piety, who either 
 deny the necessity of any such succession, or deny 
 that the Episcopal Church has any claim to it. Of 
 these last, not a few will be individuals who have 
 carefully investigated the whole subject, analyzed the 
 pretended catalogues of Bishops, and sifted the entire 
 evidence on which the theory rests. In addition to 
 this, his embarrassment will be increased by the fact 
 that the Church of Rome, which is admitted by a 
 large portion of his own Church to be a true Church, 
 pronounces the Episcopal Church to be no Church, 
 and ridicules the notion that she has the Apostolical 
 Succession. It would be of no avail to say to a man 
 in these circumstances, ^' Hear the Church." You 
 would have to convince him, in the first place, of his 
 obligation to "hear the Church;" and when this 
 was accomplished, he would tell you that the very 
 object he was labouring at, was to find the Church. 
 On the principle that the Church could be known 
 only by the possession of an uninterrupted chain of 
 Prelates, the further he pushed his researches and the 
 more he read and reflected on the subject, the more 
 his doubts and perplexhies would be multiplied. 
 Such a man might, through the merciful interposition 
 of the Spirit of God, at length discover the true foun- 
 dation and rest upon it; but the probabilities are 
 quite as great that he would land in the gloom of 
 infidelity. 
 
 The practical working of the system in this par- 
 ticular, will be even more strikingly exhibited if the 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 337 
 
 case of an inquirer be supposed in some country 
 where there are only Romish or Greek, and Non-Pre- 
 latical Protestant Churches or ministers. Take, for 
 example, the Sandwich Islands. The American 
 Missionaries have been instrumental, through God's 
 blessing, in redeeming those islands, to a great extent, 
 from the most debasing idolatry, and conferring upon 
 them Christianity and civilization. The French gov- 
 ernment has, at the cannon's mouth, forced the help- 
 less natives to receive Rorhan Catholic priests among 
 them, who are zealously propagating their supersti- 
 tions. According to the High-Church theory, a Sand- 
 wich Islander who should be led to serious reflection 
 about his spiritual concerns, would be more likely to 
 learn the way of salvation from one of those priests 
 than from any of the Protestant Missionaries. Nay, 
 by going to the priests and receiving baptism he 
 would be regenerated and brought into a covenant 
 relation with God; while by listening to the Protest- 
 ant ministers, he would be giving heed to men who 
 had usurped the sacred office and whose counsels he 
 could not follow without jeoparding his salvation. — 
 So as to an inquirer in Syria or Constantinople. It 
 would be the duty of such a man to apply for direc- 
 tion to one of the ignorant and deluded priests of the 
 Greek, Syrian, or Armenian Churches, in preference 
 to any of the educated and excellent Non-Episcopal 
 ministers who, under the care of the American Board, 
 have been for many years trying to rekindle the 
 almost expired flame of Christianity in those benighted 
 regions. Those priests could j^w/ him into the way 
 of salvation; but our missionaries could not guide him 
 to the Lamb of God ! 
 
 29 
 
338 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OP 
 
 This is no fancifal or exaggerated representation ; 
 but a candid exhibition of the adaptation of the High- 
 Church system to the case of inquiring sinners. It is, 
 indeed, one of its very worst features, that it is fitted 
 to perplex, and where it does not perplex, to delude 
 all who, in the critical circumstances of an awakened 
 soul, are not prepared to follow blindly the dictates 
 of men who assure them that they can trace their 
 spiritual paternity to the Apostles, and that, therefore, 
 to be baptized by them* will secure to them regene- 
 rating grace. The contrast between this scheme, 
 in its treatment of this interesting class of persons, 
 and the glorious Gospel of Christ, must be apparent 
 to every one who is even superficially acquaiuted 
 with the New Testament. 1 dismiss the topic, there- 
 fore, without entering into any minute elucidation 
 of it. 
 
 My subject is not exhausted, but I feel that it is time 
 to bring this volume to a close. I have given in 
 Chapter I., my reasons for entering upon this investi- 
 gation, by exhibiting, from their own writings, the 
 exclusive and arrogant pretensions of the High-Church 
 party. In Chapter II. to VI. inclusive, I have brought 
 the dogma of an unbroken prelatical succession to the 
 test of Scripture, of History, and of admitted facts — 
 exposed the fallacy of its principles, and contrasted it 
 with the true doctrine of succession. In the second 
 part of the work, on the characteristics and tendencies 
 of the system, I have endeavoured to show that it 
 proposes an unauthorized and delusive rule of faith — 
 that it puts the Church in Christ's place — that it is at 
 variance with the whole scope and tenor of the New 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 339 
 
 Testament — that it tends to aggrandize the prelatical 
 clergy and to substitute a mere ritual rehgion for true 
 Christianity — that it is essentially intolerant and schis- 
 matical — and that in its practical working it is adapt- 
 ed to harrass and delude those who are honestly in- 
 quiring for the way of salvation. 
 
 In taking my leave of the subject, I repeat the 
 remark with which I set out, that on the part of Non- 
 Episcopalians this controversy is a work of self- 
 defence. We have been forced into it. We claim 
 to have a chartered right, 
 
 " Purchased and seal'd with blood divine," 
 
 to a participation in the privileges and blessings of 
 the Christian Church. If we claimed the whole 
 Church, we should give just ground of offence to pre- 
 latical sects. But we put forward no such preten- 
 sions. Notwithstanding the manifold defects which 
 we see in its organization, we recognize the Epis- 
 copal denomination as entitled, with ourselves, to a 
 share in the blessings of God's covenant. High- 
 Churchmen, however, are not satisfied with this. 
 They come into our churches and say, " You are no 
 churches, and you never can be until you assimilate 
 your polity and worship to ours, and your ministers 
 place themselves under the rule of our Bishops." 
 This is the ground of the controversy. As long as 
 this demand is pressed, there must be controversy. 
 Much as we value peace and desire to cultivate it, we 
 cheerfully forego the advantages of it, if they are to 
 be purchased only by surrendering our churches to 
 the domination of Prelacy. Those who like that sys- 
 tem, are welcome to enjoy it. But we can find noth- 
 
340 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE OF 
 
 ing in its history, from its origin in the third or fourth 
 century to the present day, to inspire iis with a pas- 
 sion for it. And when the attempt is made to force 
 it upon us, we shall not fail to use all suitable means 
 for averting so serious a calamity, and preserving 
 inviolate the freedom wherewith Christ hath made us 
 free. 
 
 While, however, this is the immediate ground of the 
 present controversy,! have not concealed the fact in this 
 volume, that there is another which has great weight 
 w4th Non-Episcopalians. The Word of God, as un- 
 derstood by most commentators, predicts that a great 
 revival of Fopery will take place about this period 
 of the world. When Bunyan wrote his immortal alle- 
 gory, two hundred years ago. Giant Pope in conse- 
 quence of "the many shrewd brushes he had met with 
 in his younger days, was grown so crazy and stiff in 
 his joints, that he could do little more than sit in his 
 cave's mouth, grinning at Pilgrims as they went by, 
 and biting his nails because he could not come at 
 them.'' The Papacy continued in this infirm state 
 until down to the close of the last century: and people 
 began to doubt whether the torpid mass could ever 
 be revivified. This skepticism has passed away. 
 That Church has, within the last twenty-five years, 
 been waking from its lethargy, until now new life is 
 infused into every part of it. The " man of sin" 
 is evidently preparing for his last and fiercest onset 
 upon "the saints of the Most High God." The 
 secret of this transformation is to be found in the 
 revival of the Order of the Jesuits, the most insidious 
 and effective agency which even the Church of Rome 
 has ever had for opposing true Christianity. 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 341 
 
 Simultaneously with this extraordinary and omi- 
 nous change in the internal condition of the hierarchy, 
 a movement still more portentous occurs without its 
 limits. There springs up in the bosom of a Protestant 
 Church, a party, small at first, but soon comprising a 
 very large number of its most learned, able, and 
 influential divines, who set about "unprotestant- 
 izing" their own Church, and reducing it to its for- 
 mer bondage. Not satisfied with bringing back into 
 -their own communion the heresies and mummeries 
 which their fathers cast off at the Reformation, 
 they re-assert the authority over other Churches 
 which the Pope has always claimed, and employ all 
 their resources to carry their arrogant pretensions 
 into effect, and to disseminate their pernicious doc- 
 trines. 
 
 Protestants cannot look upon these movements 
 with indifference. I say these "movements," but 
 they are properly parts of the same movement. Of 
 the two, we have more to dread from the Oxford 
 Popery than from the Roman Popery — especially in 
 this country. It is more refined, more gentle, and 
 recommended hj more agreeable associations, both 
 civil and social. The inexperienced and unwary are, 
 therefore, more liable to be captivated and ensnared 
 by it: and souls are more likely to be ruined. Both, 
 however, are tending to one ultimate result, the sub- 
 stitution of an external for a spiritual religion — the 
 setting up of a kingdom of meats and drinks, in place 
 of that kingdom which is "righteousness and peace 
 and joy in the Holy Ghost.'^ In these circumstances, 
 it behoves even the humblest of those who are con- 
 cerned for the "peace of Jerusalem,'^ and the honour 
 
 29* 
 
342 THE HIGH-CHURCH DOCTRINE, ETC. 
 
 of Christ, to aid in counteracting the efforts of Ro- 
 manists and their " Anglo-CathoUc" alUes. We may 
 not, if we ivould, suppress our testimony against 
 their subtle and destructive errors. It is with this 
 feeUng, and under this strong conviction of duty, 
 that this volume has been written. It is my un- 
 worthy and inadequate response to what I believe 
 to have been a call of Providence as imperative 
 as it certainly was unexpected. To His blessing 
 I now commend it — praying that He may make 
 it instrumental, in some humble measure, in arrest- 
 ing the progress of error and superstition, and pro- 
 moting the cause of " pure and undefiled religion." 
 
343 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Note to page 201. 
 
 The treatise from which this passage is taken, *' On the 
 Necessity of Reforming the Church," has hitherto been in- 
 accessible to the mere English reader. A translation of it 
 has recently appeared in London, and is already reprinted 
 in this country. The public will now have an opportunity 
 of seeing for themselves with how much ingenuousness Cal- 
 vin has been treated by various Prelatical writers, in refer- 
 ence to a sentence which occurs in this work. This sen- 
 tence has been quoted times without number, for the purpose 
 of producing the impression that Calvin thought Episcopacy 
 the scriptural form of government, and that he was extreme- 
 ly anxious to have the Continental Churches organized upon 
 that plan. Thus, Bishop Hobart makes the following repre- 
 sentation, (Apology, p. 91.) " Calvin, in his book concern- 
 ing ' the necessity of Reforming the Church,' makes a decla- 
 ration which has frequently been adduced : ' If they would 
 give us such an hierarchy, in which the Bishops should so 
 excel, as that they did not refuse to be subject to Christ,' &c., 
 ' then I will confess that they are worthy of all anathemas, 
 if any such shall be found who will not reverence it, and 
 submit themselves to it with the utmost obedience.' What 
 strong language is this ! He could not get an Episcopacy, 
 but what was subject to the Pope of Rome. ' But,' says he, 
 
 * if they would give us an hierarchy subject to Christ alone,' 
 he not only professed a willingness to receive it, but de- 
 nounces an anathema against all who should reject it. Nay, 
 so firm appears his conviction that such an Episcopacy was 
 scriptural and primitive, that he expresses a doubt whether 
 
 * any such should be found.' " 
 
 The impression this passage is adapted to make, is, that 
 Calvin, in penning the sentence in question, was writing 
 
344 APPENDIX. 
 
 on the subject of organizing the Continental Churches. 
 Bishop Hobart's avowed object in quoting it, is to show that 
 this great Reformer " approved in the strongest language of 
 a primitive Episcopacy, such as the Church of England 
 possessed." He subsequently appeals to it again and again, 
 to show that Calvin regarded an Episcopacy like that of the 
 Church of England, as the true Scripture model, and that 
 his heart was set upon having the other Reformed Churches 
 assimilated to it. He makes Calvin say, " If they would 
 give us such an hierarchy," &c. ; whereas he simply says, 
 let them show us (exhibeant) such an hierarchy. And in 
 his paraphrase of the sentence he says, " He (Calvin) could 
 not get an Episcopacy," &c. 
 
 This whole representation is stamped with gross unfair- 
 ness. Calvin's remark has no reference whatever to the 
 organization of the Reformed Churches. He is repelling the 
 charge brought against them by the Papists, that they, the 
 Reformers, had made a schism in the Church. This he does, 
 by showing that the unity of the Church consists not in 
 any mere outward organization, but in oneness of faith and 
 union with Christ. Pastors, he says, "are invested with the 
 government of the Church on no other terms than that of 
 being ministers and witnesses of the truth of God." He 
 denounces an anathema against all who would violate the 
 unity of the Church, " as Paul describes it." The Papal 
 See, however, had usurped a primacy to which it had no 
 just claims, and pronounced all those schismatics who re- 
 fused submission to its authority. This, he show^s from 
 Cyprian, is setting up a false test for " ascertaining the true 
 communion of the Church." And to illustrate his own idea 
 of schism, he thus proceeds : — "Heresies and schisms, there- 
 fore, arise when a return is not made to the origin of truth, 
 when neither the head is regarded, nor the doctrine of the 
 heavenly Master preserved. Let them show us a hierarchy 
 in which the Bishops are distinguished, but not for refusing 
 to be subject to Christ, in which they depend upon him as 
 the only Head, and act solely with reference to Him, in 
 which they cultivate brotherly fellowship with each other, 
 bound together by no tie but his truth; then, indeed, I will 
 confess that there is no anathema too strong for those who 
 do not regard them with reverence, and yield them the 
 fullest obedience. But is there any thing like this in that 
 false mask of hierarchy on which they plume themselves ? 
 
APPENDIX. 345 
 
 The Roman Pontiff alone as Christ's Vicar, is in the ascen- 
 dant, and domineers without law." 
 
 Every candid reader must perceive that there is no allu- 
 sion here — not the slightest — to the polity of the continental 
 Churches — no intimation of a wish to have them Episcopally 
 organized — no hint of a preference for Prelacy over Presby- 
 tery. The passage relates entirely to the charge of schism 
 urged against them for quitting the Romish Church. The 
 whole amount of it, is, "If the Church of Rome were a pure 
 Church, united in the profession and maintenance of Christ's 
 truth, and provided with faithful and godly Bishops and 
 Pastors, in that case separation from it would be schismati- 
 cal, and I would anathematize him who should be guilty of 
 it." In other words, Calvin was not so hostile to Prelacy 
 (which he and all the Reformers regarded as a hitman 
 institution) but that he considered it as the duty of those 
 whose lot Providence had cast in a Prelatic church, to remain 
 there as long as it had the truth, enjoyed the labours of 
 pious Bishops, and maintained a pure worship and scriptural 
 discipline. This is the fair import of that famous testimony 
 for EpiscoPxVCy, which is to be found paraded under Cal- 
 vin's name in all the modern High-Church polemical works, 
 from octavos down to three-penny pamphlets. 
 
 One other circumstance must be mentioned, which gives 
 an air of absolute ludicrousness to the grave attempt of 
 Episcopal writers to make out that Calvin, in the passage 
 above quoted, was sighing for an Episcopacy like that of 
 the English Church, as the best blessing that could be 
 desired for the continental churches. The Letter in which 
 this passage occurs, was written in 1544. This was only 
 nine years after the Papal supremacy was abolished in 
 England. The Reformation there was, indeed, hardly be- 
 gun. Popery was still the religion of the court and the 
 people. It was still (says Bishop Short, in speaking of the 
 state of things at the close of Henry VIII. 's reign, 1547) a 
 capital offence to deny the corporal presence of Christ in 
 the Lord's Supper; the cup was still denied to the laity; an 
 unnecessary and compulsory restraint was imposed on the 
 marriage of the clergy ; .... the use of private masses was 
 continued ; the necessity of auricular confession was still 
 sanctioned ; and the Latin language still used in the mass." 
 To crown all, the licentious and despotic Henry had put 
 himself into the Pope's place. He was the acknowledged 
 
346 APPENDIX. 
 
 " Head of the Church." The Bishops took out their com- 
 missions in his name, and held them during his pleasure. 
 So that the Church had only exchanged one tyrant for 
 another. And this was the model church to which Calvin 
 longed to assimilate the churches of the continent ! This 
 was the " EpiscorACY" which no Church could voluntarily 
 decline without incurrino; his "anathema!" 
 
 Note to Chapter XII. 
 
 Episcopal writers are in the habit of lauding Prelacy as 
 the only guardian of the truth. They are fond of prepar- 
 ing and exhibiting catalogues of the " sects," large and 
 small, of all countries, and their several modes of belief, for 
 the purpose of showing that the communion of the " Church 
 Catholic" affords the only preservative against heresy. 
 These documents, in so far as the leading Protestant denomi- 
 nations are concerned, are usually mere caricatures. And 
 if it were otherwise — if Protestantism were really the mother 
 of heresy, that they pretend it is — with what decency could 
 they repeat the charge? Where Protestantism has led one 
 individual into error. Prelacy has led five. Look, for ex- 
 ample, at the Church of Rome. In the creed of Pius IV., the 
 authorized summary of the Papal faith, are enumerated, 
 tradition, the seven sacraments, the Tridentine doctrine 
 of justification, transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the 
 mass, purgatory, invocation of saints, indulgences, venera- 
 tion of images, and, finally, " all other things delivered, 
 defined, and declared by the sacred canons, and general 
 councils, and particularly by the holy council of Trent." 
 " Out of this faith," it is added, " none can be saved." 
 Such is the creed of a Prelatic Church — a true branch of 
 the Church Catholic, according to High-Churchmen — which 
 embraces, as estimated by Malte-Brun, 116,000,000 of 
 members. 
 
 Take, again, the other great division of the Church Catho- 
 lic — the Greek Church. This Church retains the seven 
 sacraments, claims, like Rome, the power of working mira- 
 cles, holds to the intercession of saints, clerical celibacy, 
 transubstantiation, pilgrimages, prayers for the dead, and, in 
 a word, to nearly all the Popish superstitions. A late writer 
 cited by Mr. Bickersteth in his " Divine Warning," in intro- 
 
APPENDIX. 347 
 
 ducing an epitome of the faith and religious observances of 
 that body, says, its members may, with few exceptions, 
 *' be classed into infidels or unbelievers, formalists, and 
 bigots." This Church numbers, according to Malte-Brun, 
 about 70,000,000 of members. 
 
 It will be time enough for High-Churchmen to talk of 
 " the development of modern systems," and to upbraid Prot- 
 estantism with a tendency to generate heresies, when they 
 can show that it has authoritatively imposed such abomi- 
 nable corruptions, both of doctrine and worship, as tliose of 
 the Latin and Greek Churches, upon one hunched and eigh- 
 ty-six millions of people. 
 
 The comparison might be brought nearer home. Those 
 who boast of Prelacy as the only conservator of orthodoxy, 
 would do well to consider the present state of the Church of 
 England. It is amazing with what assurance they can talk 
 about the alleged errors of the Protestant denominations, 
 when Popery (i. e. " Popery without a Pope,'''' as the pres- 
 ent Pontiff has aptly defined Puseyism) is spreading like 
 wildfire through their own Church, and already includes, as 
 is confidently asserted, several thousand of its clergy among 
 its supporters. In this system, tradition is associated with 
 the Bible as the rule of faith; " the Church usurps the place 
 of the Saviour, and is made an idol;"^ baptismal regenera- 
 tion and justification are taught; preaching is depreciated; 
 the doctrine of the atonement is brought forward " with re- 
 serve;" "voluntary austerities are magnified;" "forms of 
 prayer are idolized;" and " much is made of external things, 
 such as bowings and dresses, and turnings of the body, and 
 mere outward services." " We are told, in this school, that 
 there is a true and proper sacrifice for remission of sins 
 made in the Lord's Supper by the minister, in a strictly 
 sacerdotal character; that sin after baptism has no promise 
 of pardon ; that departed saints are to be invoked ; prayers 
 made for the dead; Catholic councils are infallible; the cler- 
 gy may, by authority of the Church, be obliged to celibacy; 
 the primacy of St. Peter is maintained, and the strong testi- 
 mony of revelation against the Apostacy is softened into a 
 description of it, as our sister and mother.''''^ " Here," to 
 quote the language of the excellent Episcopal author of the 
 work from which this passage is taken, " is distinctly the 
 defihng and polluting breath of the false prophet. The 
 
 « Bickerstcth. 2 gee " Divine Warning," pp. 58-75. 
 
348 APPENDIX. 
 
 doctrines of tlie Gospel are removed, and the souls of 
 men are starved with the once cast away husks of the 
 
 man of sin Men are again tricking themselves 
 
 out in the tinselled dresses of the harlot of Babylon, and 
 renouncing the golden faith and godly love of our holy, 
 heavenly, and martyred Reformers." And none of these 
 men, he might have added, are disciplined for their deadly 
 errors. Behold here, then, the potent efficacy of Pre- 
 lacy as the infallible safeguard against heresy ! — Most 
 apposite to this " development," are Dr. Wainwright's ob- 
 servations on what is styled " the development of modern 
 systems." " No one," he says, " who believes in the exist- 
 ence of a visible Church of Christ on earth, can doubt that it 
 was designed to be the teacher and protector of evangelical 
 truth, as well as the depository of holy ordinances. If, then, 
 it can be made clearly manifest, that in any system of eccle- 
 siastical discipline, professing to be the Church, holy doc- 
 trines which have ' every where and at all times' been con- 
 sidered as fundamental parts of gospel truth, have gradually 
 been obscured, cor?'vpted, or exploded, or that opinions un- 
 knoum to the Gospel — opinions extravagant, contradictory^ 
 irreconcilable icith Scripture — have been bred and foster- 
 ed, is it not right, is it not the part of true charity, to solicit 
 those who yet adhere to this system, to examine once more 
 the spiritual house they inhabit, to ascertain if it is indeed 
 * built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, 
 Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone?' " Let 
 Prelatists take the friendly warning, and examine, with the 
 Bible in their hands, the foundations of the Churches in 
 which the errors above specified are preached, printed, and 
 circulated, without let or molestation from those to whom 
 " Christ has transferred his Headship." 
 
 THE END. 
 
Date Due 
 
 iH^k^i» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f) 
 
 PRINTED 
 
 IN U. S. A.