^c
B i^^
?^IQ^
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation
http://www.archive.org/details/essayonapostolicOOpowerich
AN ESSAV
f ON ^ tl^ /
APOSTOLICAL SUCCES
BEING
A DEFENCE OF A GENUINE PEOTESTANT MINISTEY,
AGAINST THE EXCLUSIVE AND INTOLERANT SCHEMES
[^ PAPISTS AND HIGH CHURCHMEN;
AND ^
SUPPLYING A GENERAL ANTIDOXe^TO POPERY.
^/
' ALSO, ^£ K
A CRITIQUE '^'V
BY THE HONORABLE AND REVEREND A. P. PERCEVA^J,^.C.L.
CHAPLAIN IN ORDINART TO THE QUEEN J ^^
and '^^
A REVIEW OF DR. W. F. HOOfi.'S;SERMO]Sl,
Vicar of Leeds, on " Heab the Church," preached before the Queen, June 17, 1838.
ON THE APOLOGY FOR APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION f^^
BY THOMAS POWELL,
WESLEYAN MINISTER.
SECOND EDITION, THIRD THOUSAND,
Carefully Revised and much Enlarged.
LONDON:
PUBLISHED rOR THE AUTHOR,
BY THOMAS WARD AND CO. 27, P^ERNOSTER ROW.
SOLD BY JOHN MASON, Uj'^ITY ROAD.
MDCCCXL.
^nttxtti at Stationfv'ji f^all.
CONTENTS.
PAGE.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION 7
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION, 8
INTRODUCTION, 9
SECTION I.
STATEMENTS OF THIS DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION BY ITS
ADVOCATES, 13
SECTION II.
THE STATE OF THE GENERAL QUESTION, 21
SECTION III.
NO POSITIVE PROOF FROM THE SCRIPTURES OF THESE HIGH CHURCH
CLAIMS — THE COMMISSION OF JESUS CHRIST TO THE APOSTLES —
THE CLAIM OF APOSTLESHIP FOR BISHOPS — HIGH PRIESTHOOD OF
BISHOPS — THE CASE OF TIMOTHY AND TITUS — THE ANGELS OF THE
SEVEN CHURCHES, 26
SECTION IV.
TH9 GENERAL SPIRIT AND SCOPE OF THE GOSPEL OPPOSED TO THIS HIGH
CHURCH SCHEME, 62
SECTION V.
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THESE CLAIMS, CONTINUED. — BISHOPS AND
PRESBYTERS THE SAME, PROVED FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT, ,. 77
SECTION VI.
THE SAME ARGUMENT CONTINUED— PRESBYTERS AND BISHOPS THE SAME ;
PROVED FROM THE PUREST CHRISTIAN ANTIQUITY, 86
APPENDIX TO SECTION SIX, 135
SECTION VII.
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AT THE REFORMATION AGAINST THESE CLAIMS, 138
SECTION VIII.
BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS THE SAME ORDER, SHEWN BY THE TESTIMONY
OF ALL THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES IN THE WORLD, 162
SECTION IX.
PRESBYTERS AND BISHOPS SHEWN TO BE THE SAME ORDER, BY THE
TESTIMONY OF THE GREATEST DIVINES OF ALL AGES, 192
^
0? THB '"^
CONTENTS.
SECTION X.
NO SUFFICIENT HISTORIC EVIDENCE OF A PERSONAL SUCCESSION OF VALID
EPISCOPAL ORDINATIONS, 203
SECTION XI.
NULLITY OF THE POPISH ORDINATIONS. CHARACTER OF THE POPISH CHURCH,
AND POPISH BISHOPS, BEFORE AND AT THE REFORMATION, 214
SECTION XII.
POPISH ORDINATIONS OF ENGLISH BISHOPS BEFORE THE REFORMATION, 227
SECTION XIII.
NULLITY OF POPISH ORDINATIONS OF ENGLISH BISHOPS, CONCLUDED 240
SECTION XIV.
GENUINE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, 259
CONCLUSION OF THE ESSAY, 282
AN APPENDIX,
CONTAINING,— FIRST,
A CRITIQUE ON THE APOLOGY FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE
APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, BY THE HON. AND REV. A. P. PERCEVAL, B. C. L... 297
SECONDLY,
A REVIEW OF DR. W. F. HOOK's SERMON, VICAR OF LEEDS, ON *' HEAR THE CHURCH," 313
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
The writer of this Essay is alone accountable for all its faults
and defects. He has written it without the counsel or the help
of any man, or of any body of men. He believes, and therefore
he has spoken. Perhaps it will make him some enemies : this
he would regret, as he desires, as much as lieth in him, to live
peaceably with all men. If maintaining the truth should make
him enemies, he cannot help it. Some may think that he speaks
too freely on certain points, and as to certain orders of persons.
All he can say, is, that he thought truth and piety required it.
He would give honour to whom honour is due ; but he hopes he
shall ever shew the greatest courtesy to the truth of God.
Whilst men, or the ordinances of men, oppose not the truth of
God, he would respect them, and would submit to them for the
Lord's sake ; but when they oppose that truth, either in principle
or in practice, he would call no man Father upon earth. The
author makes no pretensions to style : he only regards words
as a plain man does his clothes ; not for ornament, but for
use and decency. The confidence of his language arises from
the conviction of his own mind, and not from any design to
impose his opinions upon others. He dislikes to read an author
who does not appear to believe himself. If any choose to con-
trovert his positions, he freely allows them the liberty which he
has taken. His design is CATHOLIC, NOT sectarian. Truth
is his object : though his efforts should perish, yet he will rejoice
in the triumph of truth. He commits his work to God, and to
his church, praying that the kingdom of our Redeemer may
speedily come; that peace and happiness, truth and justice,
religion and piety, may be established among us, and in all the
earth, throughout all generations ! Amen I
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
The author, on issuing a second edition of this Essay, embraces
the opportunity of gratefully acknowledging his obligations to
the Public for their favourable recep^on of his work.
The diiference between this second edition and the former
one, consists in the addition of some important arguments ; in
the amplification of others ; and in the increase of highly import-
ant authorities from writers of great celebrity, but whose works
are expensive, and rarely to be met with by general readers.
One of the most important additions will be found in the second
sub-section, of Section 3, on the Apostleship of Bishops.* On a
mature re-examination of the works of high church Episcopa-
lians, the author perceived that this was a position which they
esteemed of the very greatest importance, and in which they
placed the greatest confidence. He set himself, therefore, to
furnish a complete refutation of it. The reader is requested to
give that sub-section a very attentive perusal.
It will be found that several of the additional Notes contain
an exposure of the Fallacies in the " Vindication of the Episcopal
or Apostolical Succession, by the Rev. J. Sinclair, M. A. of Pem-
broke College, Oxford, Fellow of the Royal Society, Edinburgh,
Minister of St. Paul's Episcopal Chapel, Edinburgh, &c."
Dr. Hook having requested the Hon. and Rev. A. P. Perceval,
Chaplain in ordinary to the Queen, to take up the Defence of the
high church succession scheme, the Hon. and Rev. Gentleman
has done so; and his work having been announced by the
Doctor's party as a complete Answer to the Essay, the author
has added a Critique on that work. He thinks the exami-
nation of these two specimens of defence by Mr. Sinclair and
the Doctor's chosen champion, Mr. Perceval, will suffice ; and
will shew the reader how futile all such defences are, when
tried on the principles maintained in this Essay.
The Review of Dr. Hook's Sermon, on " Hear the Church,"
having a very near affinity to the argument of the Essay, and
that Review having been considered a complete antidote to the
Doctor's main fallacy, it is retained in the present edition.
A general Index is added to the whole.
* One word there is in tliis edition which would be better altered : Cyprian is called " Arch-
bishop," at p. 1 16 ; " most eminent Bishop" would be better, as the office of Archbishop, as now con-
stituted, did not then exist in Africa.
APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION,
&c.
INTRODUCTION.
" Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you
free," is a divine command. The truth of God, at the Reform-
ation, made the Protestant churches free from priestly tyranny,
and the traditions of men. It is the duty of every Protestant to
watch against all encroachments upon this liberty.
Popery commenced on the principle of exclusiveness and
bigotry. " Out of the church is no salvation ; — the church of
Rome is the only true church ; — ergo, out of the church of Rome
is no salvation." This is the logic of Rome ; enforced, accord-
ing to opportunity of power and circumstances, by excommuni-
cation and confiscation ; by fire and faggot to the body, and
perdition to the soul, against all who have dared to resist its
claims.
All exclusiveness and bigotry generate intolerance. When
any part of God's church asserts its right to the whole inheritance
of his people, it publishes an act of ejectment against the rest;
and the spirit that dictated the ejectment, will, when circum-
stances seem favourable, endeavour to effect its object by perse-
cuting those who do not admit this exclusive claim. To admit
an unjust claim, is to encourage injustice. Our Christian birth-
right is a trust from heaven ; and we cannot " sell it for a mess
of pottage," without an Esau^s profaneness.
B
10 INTRODUCTION.
A certain class of men have, at different times since the
Reformation, come forward to effect that in the Protestant church
which popery endeavours to effect as to the church universal.
This they try to accomplish by a sophistical method of teaching
the doctrine of Apostolical Succession. By this doctrine they
excommunicate all the other Protestant churches in Europe.
This is done seriously and in earnest, and that, too, by men of
considerable influence and learning. The writer is convinced
that the broad absurdity of their arrogant pretensions will be
sufficient to lead many to treat those claims with just contempt.
However, there are some that seem willing to receive the bold
assertions and pretensions of such men, as proofs sufficient to
support their claims. Others, who do not believe them, would
yet be glad to see plain reasons for rejecting them. It is for this
class of persons, chiefly, that the following Essay is designed.
Another object with the writer is to develope the nature of
genuine Protestantism^ and to supply an Antidote to Popery,
Popery is a deep laid scheme. Its principal basis is priestly
arrogance^ generating the direst tyranny. This is not founded
on the WORD of God, but in the traditions of men. This
foundation must be exposed and broken up, or in vain shall we
attempt to break the iron yoke of popery. Now it is a matter
worthy of the most serious and careful observation by the reader,
that nearly all the great succession divines are semi-papists.
Archbishop Laud is supposed to be the father of them. Amongst
his distinguished disciples will be found Dr. Hickes, Bishop
Taylor, the authors of " The Oxford Tracts for the Times,"
Dr. Hook, Vicar of Leeds, &c.
The reader may be surprised to find the celebrated Bishop
Taylor represented as a semi-papist ; let him read his " Clerus
Bomini^^^ and his *' Episcopacy asserted,' and he will see the
evidence of the statement. Bishop Taylor's splendid talents
INTRODUCTION. 11
have imposed upon many, and have gained him more credit than
he deserved. Like many pious Papists, he could write well upon
devotional subjects ; but he is no safe guide as a theologian.
Dr. Hook, and the authors of " The Oxford Tracts for the
Times," are evidently introducing popery into the Church of
England, and spreading it in the nation.
Many of the clergy of the established church are strongly
opposed to the errors of these men, and they have spoken out
manfully in the pages of the Christian Observer. They seem,
however, to be very tender of this doctrine of apostolical suc-
cession. They perhaps think it is calculated to add importance
to their ministry in opposition to the Methodists and Dissenters.
A spirit of exclusiveness is, indeed, very general amongst the
clergy of the established church.
An opinion, too, of the divine right of episcopacy has spread
extensively in the Church of England : most of its clergy seem
willing to believe it. Hence, generally speaking, they are not the
men from whom a refutation of this doctrine of apostolical suc-
cession is to be expected : yet it evidently increases popery in
the church and in the nation. Its exposure and refutation therefore
may be a general benefit to Protestantism.
It will not be amiss here to obviate a difficulty that may
arise in some minds. Perhaps some persons, especially the
members of the Establishment, may think that the writer is
attacking the Church. If by " the Church'' they will under-
stand the principles of the Reformers, Archbishop Cranmer,
Bishop Jewel, &c. on the questions here discussed; then he most
unhesitatingly declares, that, with some trifling exceptions, he
heartily embraces them, and means to defend them ; but if by
" the Church'' they mean the principles of such men as Arch-
bishop Laud, and his disciples the Oxford Tract-men, Dr. Hook,
&o. then he does controvert them ; because he believes them to
/,
12 INTRODUCTION.
be unscriptural, anti-protestant, exclusive, intolerant, and popish.
The author, indeed, writes not to attack, but to defend. These
men make the attack. The conseqtience of their principles is to
charge all other ministers as thieves and robbers ; they try to
trouble and frighten their flocks ; they expect their gain by
gathering those they never sought out of the wilderness : — what
sort of shepherds, then, should we be to look with indifference
upon such proceedings ? ♦
In prosecuting the subject, we shall first produce the state-
ments of this doctrine of apostolical succession from the advo-
cates of the system. We shall then endeavour to give the
true state of the question, and refute the arguments advanced in
favour of that system. In the next place, the arguments against
these claims will be brought forward, shewing the whole to be
contrary to the principles of the Reformation, and leading to
persecution and Popery. Lastly, the nature of the orAj genuine
and absolutely essential apostolical succession will be briefly
unfolded. The whole will be concluded with some practical
inferences, and counsels of peace to the Protestant churches
at large.
SECTION I
STATEMENTS OF THIS DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION BY ITS
ABLEST ADVOCATES.
The design of the following pages is, first, — the refutation of
certain errors fraught with pernicious consequences to the peace
of the whole Christian church ; and then the estahlishment of
Scriptural truth in their place. To give the authors, accused of
maintaining these errors, as fair a trial as the limits of this Essay-
will admit, we shall, in the commencement, introduce copious
extracts from the Works of the most distinguished amongst them.
This will enable the reader to judge of the pertinence of the
arguments against them. The importance of the subject, and
the celebrity of the writers, will, it is hoped, prevent the extracts
from appearing tedious.
We shall arrange them under three heads : —
1. As to their doctrine of apostolical succession ;
2. As to the necessity of ordination by succession Bishops ;
3. As to the nullity or worthlessness of all other ordinations,
and the ministrations belonging to them.
First, then, as to their doctrine of apostolical succession.
Bishop Taylor's " Episcopacy Asserted," was published by royal
command. He had splendid talents ; and doubtless he exerted
them to the utmost to please his royal master, and to support a
cause which he enthusiastically admired. We select him as a
leading advocate to give the cause the fairest chance of success.
He closes his argument for the divine right of this doctrine of
apostolical succession, as follows ; — " The Sum7ne of all is this,
that Christ did institute Apostles and Presbyters, or 72 Disciples.
To the Apostles he gave a plenitude of power, for the whole
commission was given to them in as great and comprehensive
clauses as were imaginable, for by vertue of it, they received a
power of giving the Holy Ghost in confirmation, and of giving
his grace" in the collation of holy orders, a power of jurisdiction
and authority to governe the Church ; and this power was
14 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
not temporary, but successive and perpetually and was intend-
ed as an ordinary office in the Church, so that the successors
of the Apostles had the same right and institution that the
Apostles themselves had, and though the personall mission was
not immediate, as of the Apostles it was, yet the commission and
institution of the function was all one. But to the 72 Christ
gave 710 commission but to preaching, which was a very limited
commission. There was all the immediate Divine institution of
Presbyterate as a distinct order, that can be fairely pretended.
But yet farther, these 72 the Apostles did admit in partem
solicitudinis, and by new ordination or delegation Apostolicall,
did give them power of administering Sacraments, of absolving
sinners, oi governing the church in conjunction and subordination
to the Apostles, of which they had a capacity by Christ's calling
them at first in sortem Ministerii, but the exercise, and tlie actu-
ating of this capacity they had from the Apostles. So that not
by Divine ordination, or immediate commission from Christ, but
by derivatio7i from the Apostles (and therefore in minority and
subordination to them) the Presbyters did exercise acts of order
and jurisdiction in the absence of the Apostles or Bishops, or in
conjunction consiliary, and by way of advice, or before the con-
secration of a Bishop to a particular Church. And all this I
doubt not, but was done by the direction of the Holy Ghost, as
were all other Acts of Apostolicall ministration, and particularly
the institution of the other order, viz. of Deacons. This is all
that can be proved out of Scripture concerning the commission
given in the institution of Presbyters, and this I shall afterwards
confirme by the practice of the Catholick Church, and so vindi-
cate the practices of the present Church from the common
prejudices that disturbe us, for by this account. Episcopacy is not
only a Divine institution, but the ONLY order that derives imme-
diately from Christ." *
Dr. Hickes, another distinguished scholar and divine of the
Church of England, denominated Bishop and Confessor by the
Oxford Tract-men, thus speaks, — " Bishops are appointed to
succeed the Apostles, and like them to stand in Christ's place,
and exercise his Kingly, Priestly, and Prophetical Office over
their flocks ; can you, when you consider this, think it novel, or
improper, or uncouth, to call them Spiritual Princes, and their
» Episcopacy Asserted, p. 46-48, ed. Ox. 1642, 4to.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 15
Dioceses, Principalities, when they have every thing in their
office that can denominate a Prince ? For what is a Prince, but
a chief Ruler of a society, that hath Authority over the rest to
make Laws for it, to challenge the Obedience of all the Members,
and all Raiihs of Men in it, and Power to COERCE them, if they
will not obey ? They stand in God's and Christ's stead over
tlieir flocks, the clergy as well as the people are to be subject to
them, as to the VICEGERENTS of our Lord And the Successors
of the Apostles, the Bishops, like Spirilual Princes, exercise the
same COERCIVE Aulhorily that they did in inflicting Spiritual
Censures upon their disobedient Subjects. It would require a
Volume to shew you the various Punishments with which they
corrected their disobedience. They degraded Clergymen from
their Order, and as for the People, they put down those who
were in the uppermost Class of Communion into the Station of
Penitents, and other inferior Places ; others they forbid to come
farther than the Church Doors, and those whom they did not so
degrade, they often suspended from the Sacrament. The Con-
tumacious both of the Clergy and Laity they punished with
Excommunication ; from which, after very long and very
severe Penances, they absolved some ; and others, who were
enormous, and very frequent Lapsers, they would not reconcile
to the Peace of the Church, but in the Danger, and Prospect of
Death. I need not tell you how much the ancient Christians
stood in awe of the APOSTOLIC Rod in the Hands of their
Bishops, especially of Excommunication, which they looked upon
as the Spiritual ^^ and Sword to the Soul, and thought more
terrible than death."'*
And Dr. Hook, the present Vicar of Leeds, thus states his
views on the subject: — " Some persons seem to think that
the government of the Church was essentially different in
the days of the Apostles from what it is now, because they
do not find the names and titles of the ecclesiastical officers
precisely the same. For instance, as I have just said, he whom
we now call a Presbyter, or Priest, was frequently styled in the
New Testament, a Bishop. But it is not for names that we con-
tend. We ask what was the fact, and ihefact was this : that the
officer whom we now call a Bishop, was at first called an
Apostle, although afterwards it was thought better to confine
b On the Dignity of the Episcopal Order, pp. 191, &c. Lond. 1707, 8vo.
16 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
the title of Apostle to those who had seen the Lord Jesus, while
their successors, exercising the same rights and authority^
though unendowed with miraculous powers, 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 unhroken spiri-
tual descent of ordination, derived their mission from the Apostles
and from our Lord. This continual descent is evident to every
one who chooses to investigate it. Let him read the catalogues
of our Bishops ascending up to the most remote period. Our or-
dinations descend in a direct unbroken line from Peter and Paul,
the Apostles of tliQ Circumcision and the Gentiles. These great
Apostles successively ordained Linus, Cletus, and Clement,
Bishops of Rome ; and the Apostolic succession was regularly
continued from them to Celestine, Gregory, and Vitalianus, who
ordained Patrick Bishop for the Irish, and Augustine and Theo-
dore for the English. And from those times an uninterrupted
series of valid ordinations has carried down the Apostolical
Succession in our churches to the present day. There is not a
Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, among us, who cannot, if he please,
trace his own spiritual descetit from St. Peter or St. Paul."*"
In the next place let us hear what is said about ORDINATION
by succession Bishops, even when wicked and heretical.
Archdeacon Mason's " Defence of the Church of England
Ministry" was begun and completed by the patronage, and under
the counsel of Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, and was dedi-
cated to king James I. Its authority is high among the Church
of England divines. He writes in the form of a dialogue, between
a Romish priest, Philodoxus, and a Church of England divine,
called Orthodoxus. The title of Chapter eleventh. Book 2, is
this, " Does Schism or HERESY take away the power of conse-
cration .?" He goes on to bring Philodoxus to confess that neither
heresy, (p. 175,) nor degradation from the office of a Bishop,
(p. 176,) nor schism, (p. 180,) nor the MOST EXTREME WICKED-
NESS, {quamvis enim viri essent omnium sceleratissimi, p 178,)
nor "ANY THING ELSE, can deprive a person once made a Bishop
of the power of givingTRUE ORDERS."
" Orthodoxus. Quod candidb largiris, cupidh arripimus.'^
« Two Sermons on the Church and the Establishment.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 17
The Church of England divine says, " whatyoUy'' the Papists,
" candidly grant, WE JOYFULLY ExMBRACE ! !" ^ Every pious
reader must be grieved to the heart to see the defenders of an
important section of the Protestant Churcli joijfuUy embrace the
impious position, that a Bisliop is a true Bishop, though a heretic,
and the MOST wicked of men ! — and all for what ? why, merely
to keep up the figment of episcopal ordination and succession.
Indeed this is inevitable on the exclusive scheme of episcopacy,
jure divino. If this perishes, they suppose their Christianity
perishes. It must perish, on their scheme, or come through
the hands of the moral 7nons(ers of Rome. Hence these impious
positions ^ve joy f idly embraced to defend it.
Lastly, these authors say, that no ordinations but «uch as are
performed by succession Bishops, are valid and divine. This, also,
with them is a necessary consequence. Thus ^Bishop Taylor :
" Without (the offices of episcopacy), no Priest, no ordination,
no consecration of the Sacrament, no absolution, no rite, or Sacra-
ment legitimately can be performed in order to eternity." '
The learned Dodwell declares — " None but the Bishop can
unite us to the Father and the Son. Whence it will further
follow that tvhoever are disunited from the Visible Communion
of the Church on Earth, and particularly from that Visible
Communion of the Bishop, must consequently be disunited from
the whole visible Catholick Church on Earth ; and not only so,
but from the Invisible Communion of the Holy Angels and Saints
in Heaven, and, which is yet vaore, from Christ and God himself.
It is one of the most dreadful aggravations of the condition
of the DAMNED that they are banished from the Presence of the
Lord, and from the Glory of his Power. The SAME is their
condition also who are disunited from Christ by being disunited
from his Visible Representative J^ (the Bishop.) ^
Dr. Hook, on this point, says, " You will observe how important
all this is which I have now laid before you. Unless Christ be
spiritually present with the ministers of religion in their services,
those services will be VAIN. But the ONLY ministrations to which
he has promised his presence is to those of the Bishops who are
successors of the first commissioned Apostles, and the other
clergy acting under their sanction, and by THEIR AUTHORITY."
d Vindicse Eccles. Anglicanae, edit. sec. fol. Lond. 1638. e Episcopacy Ass. p. 197.
i One Altar and One Priesthood, 1683, pp. 387 and 397.
C
18 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
" I know the outcry which is raised against this — the doctrine
of the Christian Church for 1800 years — I know the outcry that
is raised against it hy those seels which can trace their origin
no higher than to some celebrated' preacher at the Reformation,
But I disregard it, because I shall, by God's help, continue to
do, what I have done ever since I came among you — namely,
declare the whole counsel of God, without regard to consequences
or respect of persons, and at the same time, as far as in me lies,
live peaceably with all men." e
A passage or two from the Oxford " Tracts for the Times"
may suffice, though all their volumes are impregnated with the
same principles.
" The Ao/2sco/?a//y ordained ministers.
Now we deny every one of these positions. And we shall
shew, —
1 . That Bishops and Presbyters are, by divine right, the
SAME ORDER ; and that Presbyters, by divine right, have the
same power and authority as Bishops ; that ORDINATION by
Presbyters is equally valid with that of Bishops ; and, conse-
quently, that the ministry of all the reformed Protestant churches
is equally valid with that of any episcopal church :
2. That Presbyters are as much the SUCCESSORS of the
Apostles as Bishops are :
8. That a succession of the Truth of DoqTRlNE, of Faith
and Holiness, of the pure Word of God, and of the Sacramento
22 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
duly administered, is the ONLY essential Succession necessary
to a Christian Church :
4. That all are true Christian CHURCHES where such a
ministry, and such ordinances are found.
Here it should he well observed, that the distinguishing
character of the scheme we oppose, is its unchristian exclu-
sivetiess and intolerance. If its advocates had contended only
for tJie lawfulness or allowahleness of an ecclesiastical arrange-
ment for a class of ministers whom they choose to call Bishops,
without excluding the Presbyters of other churches from their
scriptural power and authority to perform all the duties ne-
cessary for the being and well being of the christian church,
tliis might have passed : but this does not satisfy them. No-
thing will answer their design, but the degrading of the
Presbyters of those churches, and all Presbyters, to an in-
capacity for performing those duties which God has committed
unto them, and the setting up of an order of Bishops, by
divine right, wdth the SOLE and exclusive powers of ordain-
ing ministers, and of governing them and the church to the
end of the world. Again, if these writers had contended
simply for the iinportance of a succession of pious ministers,
m.a^ettled state of things, in any church, as a great blessing
to that church, and an encouragement to the faith of its members,
without making an unbroken line of succession ABSOLUTELY
essential in all states to the very being of a church, they
would have acted commendably ; and not a word of disap-
probation of such a succession is found in this Essay. But
this would have allowed, with the early christian Fathers, that
the succession of Apostolical F^ITH and doctrine is the ONLY
essential succession : this, however, is too liberal for our high
churchmen ; it would not answer their intolerant purposes. Bishop
Taylor, the Oxford Tract-men, &c. solemnly maintain, that with-
out an unbroken line of such Bishops as their scheme maintains,
and their ordinations from the Apostles, there is no ministry, no
promise of Christ, no blessings in any of the ordinances of religion ;
and that, consequently, the Scotch church, the Lutheran church,
and all the Protestant churches in the world, are consigned, like
heathens, to the uncovenanted mercies of God !
As an Epilogue to this drama, these writers, after this ex-
communication, sometimes ofect to feel a little charity for the
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 23^
excommunicated, and say, " We do not hurt them — the church
doors are open — they can come in if they please — they shut
themselves out, &c." Just so says popery: "We are the church,*'
say they, — " its doors are open." And they will " compass sea
and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, they make
him twofold more the child of hell than themselves." " But if a
person does not see reason for the dominion of his holiness of
Rome, for denying the evidence of his senses in their doctrine of
Transubstantiation, &c., then they consign his soul to perdition,
and his body to the secular arm to be burned. If you say, "this
is cruel," it is replied, " Oh ! no : we pity him — we do not hurt
him — the church doors are open — he may come in if he pleases —
yea, we ijitrcat him to come in — he shuts himself out — his blood
must be upon his own head." The reader must determine
whether or not this charity is from above.
We repeat, then, that in perusing this or any other work on
the subject, the reader must never forget that the establishment
of the/«c/ of some kind of an order of Bishops having existed in
the church from an early period, and of the/«c/ of an unbroken
line from the same period, would not establish the system of these
men. It might be allowed that both are important to the
well being of a church ; and yet it would not follow that they
are necessary to the being of that church. No proof will do
for the above scheme, but the proof that the Lord Jesus Christ
has ABSOLUTELY determined that no ministers but such Bishops
as they feign shall convey this succession ; and that, WITHOUT
this unbroken line of such Bishops, and their ordinations from the
time of the Apostles, he will give NO blessing to the ministry
or ordinances of any church under heaven, to the end of the
world. No proof but this will suffice to the establishing of their
monstrous scheme. If its advocates would act candidly and
fairly, they should set themselves to produce this proof, or give
up their cause. If the reader keeps this, the true state of the
question, distinctly 'before his mind, their endless assertions and
sophisms will be powerless ; if he does not, he will, of course, be
mystified and misled.
But though we thus state the subject, that the establishment
of the fact of some kind of an order of Bishops from an early
period in the church, and the/ac/ of an unbroken line from the
n Matt, xxiii. v. 15,
24 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
same period, would not support their scheme ; yet, as to such an
order of Bishops as they contend for, and as to such an unbroken
line of succession as they boast of, we DENY the FACT OF BOTH.
God never instituted the first ; and the last does not exist. All
this will be clearly shewn in the sequel.
This being the state of the question, the PROOF of their own
propositions lies upon the succession divines. Their proofs must
be scriptural, clear, and strong. This is evident from the interest
of both parties. The interests of the succession divines and their
followers require such proofs. They venture to suspend tlie
validity of their own ministry and ordinances, and the whole
cliristianity of all their people upon this doctrine : what wretched
apprehensions, then, must they have, except their proof be scrip-
tural, clear, and strong. The interests of other christian churches
require this. The result of this doctrine, they are aware, is to
excommunicate all the other Protestant churches in Europe. He
that attempts this, should shew cause why he does it. His own
character requires this : this also is necessary for the conviction
and conversion of the offenders, and for the satisfaction of the
public mind. Bishop Taylor, and some others, have attempted it ;
we shall examine their attempts. Dr. Hook, indeed, is unwarrant-
ably arrogant and insolent upon the subject. He says, amongst
other arrogant things, in his " Two Sermons on the Church and
the Establishment," " It is very seldom that the clergyman of
the Parish feels it to be worth his while to enter into controversy
with the dissenting teacher. He knows his superiority, and
that he has nothing to gain by the contest." Now this is not so
meek, — first to excommunicate you, and then to insult you for
asking the reason for this sentence. " He knows his superi-
ority, and that he has nothing to gain by the contest." Indeed !
what no justification for this tremendous sentence ? What, then,
has he something to lose here ? Truth always gains : error and
evil deeds only lose by the light. Dr. Hook may possibly find
he has something to lose, if he has nothing to gain. It is a com-
mon trick with the Papists to be the most confident where they
have least proof. They know many of their deluded followers
will exercise an implicit faith in their assertions. This will do —
reasoning would possibly lead many to doubt — perhaps to do
more. It is wise in such a cause to avoid it, and to treat your
adversary with scorn. Why not ? you have " nothing to
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 25
gaW by the controversy. Dr. Hook, however, has favoured
us with the outline of his scheme and argumentation. These we
shall notice in their place.
Now though the proof, as we have said, lies upon these
assertors of this personal succession scheme ; and though no man
ought to be required to prove a negative ; yet as they are shy
of their proofs, and in their stead give the world their important
ipse dixits ; and as their bold assertions may trouble many, an
exposure of the baselessness and futility of these assertions may
be useful. Let the reader remember, that if we can only shew
that a reasonable ^^douhV^ lies upon any part of this scheme, that
doubt will be fatal to it. If we shew more ; if we shew every
PROPOSITION to be DOUBTFUL ; — yea, more still, every propo-
sition to be BASELESS and false ; then the whole fabric falls to
the ground.
D
SECTION III
NO POSITIVE PROOl' FROM THE SCRIPTURES Or THESE HIGH CHURCH
CLAIMS.
We will proceed to examine the scriptural proofs adduced in
favour of these High Church claims. Bishop Taylor has granted,
(what every Protestant ought to insist upon) that, except they
have clear, scriptural grounds for these claims, the attempt to
impose them on the church of God would he tyranny. " What-
soever," says he, "was the regiment of the Church in the
Apostles^ times, that must he perpetuall, (not so as to have all
that which was personall, and temporary, hut so as to have
710 other) for that, and that ONLY is of Divine institution which
Christ committed to the Apostles, and if the Church he not now
governed as then, we can shew no Divine Authority for our
government, which we must contend to doe, and doe it, too, or
he call'd USURPERS." ° So says Chillingworth, in his immortal
declaration, — " The Religion of the Protestants — is the Bible.
The Bible, I say, the Bible only is the Religion of Protestants !
Whatsoever else they believe besides it, and the plain, irrefraga-
ble, indubitable consequences of it, well may they hold it as a
matter of Opinion ; but as matter of faith and religion, neither
can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it them-
selves, nor require the belief of it of others, without most high
and most schismatical presumption.^^ ^
I ought to caution the reader on one point here — it is this,
that he will not blame me if I do not bring forward any such
arguments produced by these divines, out of the sacred scriptures,
as their cause might seem to demand. All I can say is, that I
know of no arguments of this kind ; and therefore I cannot pro-
duce them. I promise him I will produce the best 1 have any
where found urged by these advocates for their scheme. Perhaps,
however, in justice to some eminent writers in favour of Epis-
copacy, I should say, that they substantially give up direct
scripture proof, and rely chiefly upon an induction from the testi-
o Episcopacy Asserted, p. 41. P Religion of Protestants, chap. 7, sect. 56.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 2T
mony of the early Christian Fathers. Thus, Dr. Hammond asks,
*' Who were the Apostles' successors in that power which con-
cerned the governing their churches which they planted ? and
first, I answer, that it being a matter of fact, or story, later than
the scripture can universally reach to, it cannot be fully satisfied
or answered from thence — but will in the full latitude, through
the universal Church in these times be made clear, from the
recent evidences that we have, viz. from the consent of the
Greek and Latin Fathers, who generally resolve that Bishops
are those successors.'"* The celebrated Henry Dodwell has
probably never been surpassed in laborious ecclesiastical learn-
ing, and he devoted it all to the establishment of this system of
cxclusiveness on behalf of Episcopal powers and authority. Now
this high church champion, after all his toil to establish these
claims, fairly gives up all direct scriptural authority for them.
" The sacred writers," says he, " no where professedly explain
the offices or ministries themselves, as to their nature or extent,
which surely they would have done if any particular form had
been presented for perpetual duration."'" And the very learned
Bishop Beveridge himself, another excliisionist, makes substan-
tially the same acknowledgment. He says, " Nothing can be
determined from what the Apostles did in their early proceedings
in preaching the gospel as to the establishment of any certain
form of church government for perpetual duration."'
But let us proceed to the attempts made to find something in
Scripture to support this scheme.
§ I-
Tlie Commission of Jesus Christ to the Apostles.
Their first argument is taken from the Commission of Christ
to the Apostles : " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, bap-
tizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost : Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I
have commanded you : and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto
the end of the world. Amen." * The scheme of high churchmen
asserts that this commission belongs to Bishops alone, as the
exclusive successors of the Apostles, and as the sole rulers and
•J On the Power of the Keirs, Preface. r De Nupero Schismate, sect 14.
• Cod. Can. Ecc. Prim. Tind. p. 317, Lend. 1678, 4to. t Matt, xxviii. 19, 20,
28 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
ordainers of all other ministers to the end of the world. The
proof is ivanting : though Archbishop Potter tells us, that the
passage before us " contains a full declaration of our Lord's
intention J '"^ It would be idle to quote the attempts to supply
this want of proofs by the reiterated assertions of these writers
on the subject. The reader may see them in Bishop Taylor,
sect. 3, Dr. Hook's Two Sermons, &c. The great Reformers
of the English Church thought very differently from these men ;
for they appointed this very commission as a part of the solemn
office for ordaining all Presbyters : thus most decidedly deter-
mining that they believed this commission to belong to all Pres-
byters, as well as to Bishops. There is not, indeed, a single
syllable in the passage about distinct orders of Bishops and
Presbyters. The whole commission plainly belongs equally to
every Minister of Christ, in every age, as it does to a Bishop.
The Lord made no distinction ; and the servant that attempts it,
attempts a tyranny over his brethren for which he has no divine
warrant. To see that our Lord intended no such thing as this
proud scheme, let us hear him in other places on the relation of
Miiiisters, one to another. " But be not ye called Rabbi: for 07ie
is your Master, even Christ ; and all ye are brethren. And call
no man your father upon the earth : for one is your Father,
which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters : for one is
your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you
shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall
be abased ; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."^
" But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them. Ye know
that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise
LORDSHIP over them ; and their great ones exercise authority
upon them. But so shall it not be among you : but whosoever
will be great among you, shall be your minister : And whosoever
of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the
Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and
to give his life a ransom for many.""^ The only just conclusions
that can be drawn from these passages, are, that all Ministers of
the gospel are equal by divine authority ; and that the only im-
portant distinctions before God will be those of deeper piety,
more devoted labours, and greater usefzdness to the church of
God. *' Whosoever will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all."
u Church Government, p. 121, ed. Bagster, 183P. v Matt, xxiii. 8-12. «• Mark x. 42-45.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 29
Great dependence is placed by others upon our Saviour's
words on John xx. 2i-23 — "Then said Jesus to them again,
Peace be unto you : as my Father hath sent me, even so send I
yoti. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and
saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost : Whose soever sins
ye remit, they are remitted unto them : a?id whose soever sins ye
retain, they are retained " Now this is just as inconclusive as
the other ; nay, the very indefiniteness of the Saviour's language,
in both passages, is against them ; for, had he meant what they
would have him to mean, he would, in a matter, according to
this scheme, so all important, have said so ; but he did not say
so, which proves decidedly that he did not mean so. And here
also, again, it is unfortunate for these writers, as belonging to
the Church of England, that her Reformers have indisputably
shewn, that, in their views, this whole passage, whatever power
and authority it conveys, belongs PROPERLY to Presbyters, as
well as to Bishops, by applying the whole to Presbyters in the
solemn act of their ordination to the ministry. We speak of the
Book of Orders, or the Office for ordaining Priests (Presbyters)
and Bishops as it was constituted by the great English Reformers ;
and as it continued till 1661, when it was altered to what it is
at present. See Section VII. of this Essay.
in.
Tlie claim of Apostleship for Bishops.
But it is said, and contended for, that Bishops are now what
the Apostles were in their time. To be sure some things are ex-
cepted, as the pretence would otherwise immediately refute itself.
Let us hear Bishop Taylor : " In the extraordinary priviledges
of the Apostles they had no successors, therefore of necessity a
successor must be constituted in the ordinary office of Apostolate.
Now what is this ordinary office ? Most certainly since the
extraordinary (as is evident) was only a helpe for the founding
and beginning, the other are such as are necessary for the per-
petuating of a Church. Now in clear evidence of sense, these
offices and powers are Preaching, Baptizing, Consecrating, Or-
daimng and Governing. For these were necessary for the per-
petuating of a Church, unless men could be Christians that
were never christened, nourished up to life without the Eucharist,
become Priests without calling of God and ordination, have their
30 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
sinnes pardoned without absolution, be members and parts and
sonnes of a Church whereof there is no coadunation, no authority,
no Governour. These the Apostles had without all question,
and whatsoever they had, they had from Christ, and these were
eternally necessary : these then were the offices of the Apostolate,
which Christ promised to assist for ever, and this is that which
we now call the Order and Office of Episcopacy. The Apostolate
and Episcopacy which did communicate in all the power, and
offices which were ordinary and perpetuall, are in Scripture
clearely all one in ordinary ministration, and their names are
often used in common to signify exactly the same ordinary
function."'' ^^ Imposition of hands is a duty and office necessary
for the perpetuating of a Church, ne gens sit Vnius ^tatis, least
it expire in one age : this power of imposition of hands for Ordi-
nation was fix't upon the Apostles and Apostolike men, and NOT
communicated to the 72 Disciples or Presbyters ; for the Apostles,
and Apostolike men, did so de facto, and were commanded to doe
so, and the 72 never did so, therefore this office and ministry of
the Apostolate is distinct and superior to that of Presbyters, and
this distinction must be so continued to all ages of the church,
for the thing was not temporary but productive of issue and
succession, and therefore as perpetuall as the Clergy, as the
Church itself." y
"For farther confirmation," says Bingham, "of what has been
asserted, it will not be amiss here to subjoin next a short account
of the Titles of Honour which were given to Bishops in the
primitive church. The most ancient of these, is the title of
Apostles ; which, in a large and secondary sense, is thought by
many to have been the original name for Bishops, before the
name Bishop was appropriated to their order. For Sit first they
suppose the names Bishop and Presbyter to have been common
names for all of the first and second order ; during which time,
the appropriate name for Bishops, to distinguish them from mere
Presbyters, was that of Apostles. Thus Theodoret says express-
ly, * The same persons were anciently called promiscuously both
Bishops and Presbyters, whilst those who are now called Bishops,
were' (then) * called Apostles. But shortly after, the name of
Apostles was appropriated to such only as were Apostles indeed;
and then the name Bishop was given to those who before were
X Pages 14, 15. 7 Page 27.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 31
Called Apostles.' Thus, he says, Epaphroditus was the Apostle
of the Philippiaiis, and Titus the Apostle of the Cretans, and
Timothy the Apostle of the Asiaticks. And this he repeats in
several other places of his writings."
"The author under the name of St. Ambrose asserts the same
thing ; * That all Bishops were called Apostles at first.' And
therefore, he says, that ' St. Paul, to distinguish himself from
such Apostles, calls himself an Apostle, not of man, nor sent by
man to preach, as those others were, who were chosen and sent
by the Apostles to confirm the Churches.' Amalarius cites ano-
ther passage out of this same author, which speaks more fully to
the purpose : * They,' says he, * who are now called Bishops,
were originally called Apostles : but the holy Apostles being
DEAD, they who were ordained AFTER them to govern the
churches, could not arrive to the excellency of those first ; nor
had they the testimony of miracles, but were in many respects
inferior to them ; therefore they thought it NOT DECENT to
assume to themselves the name of Apostles ; but dividing the
names, they left to Presbyters the name of the Presbytery, and
they themselves were called Bishops.' "
" This is what those authors infer from the identity of the
names. Bishop and Presbyter, in the first age : they do not
thence argue (as some who abuse their authority have done
since) that therefore Bishops and Presbyters were all one ; but
they think that Bishops were then distinguished by a more ap-
propriate name, and more expressive of their superiority, which
was that of Secondary Apostles."^
So Dr. Hook: — " The officer whom we now call a Bishop
was at first called an Apostle^ although afterwards 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 unendowed with miraculous powers,
contented theinselves with the designation of Bishops."*
The importance of these extracts must apologize for their
length. Powerful efforts are sometimes made to hold up this
system by claiming authority for it from the precedents of scrip-
tural Bishops. This, however, its ablest advocates seem to be
conscious is untenable ground. They find something more in-
definite about the office of Apostles. This makes it more easy
z Page 21, Vol. I. fol. Lond, 1726. a Two Sermons on the Church and the Establishment.
32 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
to indulge in suppositions and assertions. Besides, the scheme is
an imposing one : Sole, exclusive successors of the Apostles !
What may they not do, if they can establish this ? The world
must bow to their awful authority. The Pope has shewn us
what may be accomplished in subjugating the bodies, and souls,
and substance of mankind, by one such successor : what would
be the state of the world, then, were every Bishop established
as a Pope in his diocese ? To say this is all exaggeration, is to
contradict all past history and experience.
The nature of the subject, the boldness of these claims, and
the confidence with which they are urged, demand a careful in-
vestigation of this Apostleship of Bishops. But before we
enter upon that investigation, it will not be irrelevant to notice,
how these and similar advocates of this high scheme of Episco-
pacy disagree with each other.
Bishop Taylor declares that, if this high church scheme be
not the same as was in the Apostles' times, and if they " cannot
shew divine authority iov it, they must be called wswrjoers."^
But the famous Henry Dodwell, one of its most learned and
strenuous advocates, affirms, — " That all the reasoning from
which men conclude that the whole model of ecclesiastical disci-
pline may be extracted from the writings of the New Testament^
is very precarious. There is," says he, " no passage of any
sacred writer which openly professes this design. Indeed there
is not one which so treats of ecclesiastical government, as if the
author, or the writer's author, the Holy Spirit, had intended to
describe any one form of church government as being to remain
every where as for ever inviolate. The sacred penmen have
nowhere declared, with sufficient clearness, how great a change
must take place in church government when the churches
should first withdraw from the communion of the synagogues.
They nowhere clearly shew how much was allowed to the
personal gifts of the Holy Ghost, and how much to places and
offices. They nowhere, with decided clearness, distinguish the
extraordinary officers, who were not to outlive that age, from
the ordinary ministers who were not to cease till the second
coming of Christ. Indeed, all things of this nature were then
so generally known, and they so suppose this knowledge in
what they say, that they never for the sake of posterity explain
b Episcopacy Asserted, p. 41,
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 33
them ; concerning themselves only with present things, and
leaving the future. They nowhere professedly explain the offices
or ministries themselves, as to their nature or extent ; which
surely they would have done if any particular form had been
prescribed for perpetual duration.""
The learned Dr. Bentley declares, that " our Bishops, with
all Christian antiquity, nevei^ thought themselves and their order
to succeed the Scripture ETrto-xoTot, (Bishops) but the Scripture
A7ro?oXo» (Apostles) : they were hn^oxo^ twv AwojoXwy, the Successors
of the Apostles. — The Presbyters^ therefore, while the apos-
tles LIVED, were ETrto-xoTrot, Bishops, Overseers."'^ Yet Dod-
well, superior to Bentley in ecclesiastical learning, positively
affirms, that " the office of the Apostles perished with the
Apostles; in which office there never was any SUCCESSION to
any of them, EXCEPT TO JUDAS THE TRAITOR." «
Let the reader also remark, here, that the scheme of the
Apostleship of modern Bishops, fully concedes the point, that
Bishops and Presbyters were, in the Apostles days, one and the
SAME ORDER. For these advocates never reckon more than three
orders in the ministry, viz. — (1) Bishops, whose appropriate name,
they say, is Apostles; (2) Priests or Presbyters ; and (3) Deacons.
Now were we to reckon Scriptural Bishops and Presbyters as dis-
tinct orders, this would make, for the Apostles days,/owr orders :
and would contradict their own enumeration of orders. It follows,
therefore, that their plan of Apostleship fully concedes that Scrip-
tural Bishops and Presbyters, not only had these names in com-
mon, so that Presbyters were called Bishops, and Bishops were
called Presbyters indifferently, but that they were really one and
the same order. Accordingly, Dr. Hammond says, that Pres-
byters, as mentioned in Acts xi. 30, were Bishops ; also in Acts
xiv. 23, and other places. And he says that the word Presbyter
was ^' fitly made use of by the Apostles and writers of the New
Testament, and affixed to the GOVERNORS of the Christian
church." — " And altliough this title of Presbyter have been also
extended to a second order in the church, and is now only in
use for them, under the name oi Presbyter, yet in the Scripture
times, it belonged PRINCIPALLY, if not alone, to Bishops, there
being no evidence that any of that second order were then insti-
<^ De Nupero Schismate, sect 14. d Rundolph's Enchir. Theol. Vol. V. p. 204.
e De Nupero Schismate, pp. 55, 68, ed. Lond. 1704, 12mo.
34 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
tuted." In plain English, the Dr. fairly grants that Presbyters,
in Scripture times^ were Bishops, and Bishops were Presbyters :
i. e., they were one and the same order and office. And Bentley
affirms that " Presbyters, while the Apostles lived, were Bishops."
We proceed, however, to investigate further these claims of
the rights and authority of Apostles for modern Bishops. Let
us consider whom it is said they succeed, and to what they suc-
ceed. The claim amounts to this, that modern apostles, by
voluntary humility called Bishops, are the exclusive successors
of the twelve Apostles ; that they succeed them in those rights
and in that authority which no other order of ministers possess-
ed : and that this inheritance is indivisible:, i. e. that it cannot
belong to two different orders of men at the sarne time ; yea, that
it is itself the very essence of the order of modern apostles ; so
that no individual could possess it but he would, by the nqvj fact
of this possession, immediately become an Apostle himself.
To establish their scheme, these advocates must shew two
things : 1 st. that the order of the twelve Apostles was to be an
ordinary, standing order in the church ; and 2ndly, they must
shew divine law, positive divine law, for the exclusive suc-
cession of modern bishops to the rights and authority of these
Apostles. For if the order of the twelve Apostles was extraor-
dinary and temporary, the claim to succeed them in that which
had no continuance beyond themselves, is a vain presumption :
and if there be no divine law for giving to Bishops the exclusive
rights and authority of the twelve, then the assumption of such
rights and authority, without divine law, is an impious assump-
tion, and an attempt at an intolerable usurpation in the church
of Christ.
This being the state of the question, on this point, we come to
inquire into the proofs.
The proofs produced are of two kinds, first, scriptural;
secondly, ecclesiastical. As this is a question of divine right,
scriptural authority alone can decide it. Ecclesiastical or human
authority, as authority, is impertinent, and can decide nothing
one way or another. However, we shall examine it in its place.
First, then, the Scriptural proofs. The claims being so high
and awful, the proofs must be clear, plain, and powerful. Dr.
Barrow's remarks on the matter of proofs as to the Pope's
Supremacy, will hold with equal fordje as to the Supremacy of
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 35
Bishops. We shall insert them, with words in brackets, shew-
ing tlveir application to this system. " If," says he, " God had
designed the Bishop of Rome [Bishops as supreme over ministers
and people] to be for a perpetual course of times Sovereign
Monarch [Mo?iarc/is] of his church, it may reasonably be sup-
posed that he would expressly have declared his mind in the
case, it being a point of greatest importance of all that concern
the administration of his kingdom in the world. Princes do not
use to send their Vice-Roys unfurnished with Patents clearly
signifying their commission, that no man out of ignorance or
doubts concerning that point, excusably may refuse compliance;
and, in all equity, promulgation is requisite to the establishment
of any LAW, or exacting obedience. But in all the Pandects of
Divine Revelation, the Bishop of Rome [or, the Supremacy of
Bishops,] is NOT so much as once mentioned, either by name,
or by character, or by probable intimation ; they cannot hook
him [them] in otherwise than by straining hard, and framing a
long chain of consequences, each of wJiich is too subtle for to
constrain any man's persuasion. — In the Levitical Law all
things concerning the High Priest ; not only his Designation,
Succession, consecration. Duty, Power, Maintenance, Privilege
of its High Priest, [of Bishops as High Priests] whereby he
[they] might be directed in the administration of his [their]
office, [of their Supremacy] and know what observance to
require. Whereas also the Scripture doth inculcate duties of
all sorts, and doth not forget frequently to press duties of respect
and obedience towards particular Governors of the church ; is it
not strange that it should never bestow one precept, whereby we
might be instructed and admonished to pay our duty to the Uni-
versal Pastor ? [to these Supreme Pastors ?] especially consider-
ing, that God who directed the pens of the Apostles, and who
intended that their writings should continue for the perpetual
instruction of Christians, A\di foresee how requisite such a precept
would be to secure that duty ; for if but one such precept did
appear, it would do the business, and void all contestation about
it."^ Thus also speaks the learned Stillingfleet in his celebrated
Irenicum : " We shall dissuss the nature of a divine RIGHT,
and shew whereon an unalterable Divine Right MUST be found-
ed." Very well: now high churchmen say that modern Bishops
t Dr. Barrow's Treatise on tho Pope's Supremacy, Supp. b, p. 155, &c. ed. Lond, 1680, 4to.
36 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
have divine right to " the rights and authority of Apostles." Let
Stillingfleet state the law of the case.e " Jus (law) is that which
makes a thing to become a duty : so jus quasi jussum^ diwAjussa
jura, as Festus explains it, i. e. that whereby a thing is not only
licitum (lawful) in men's lawful power to do it or no, but is
made debitum, (duty) and is constituted a duty by i\\e force and
virtue of a Divine Command. — Whatsoever binds Christians
as an universal standing law, 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 be-
lievers to the world's end, as is clear in the case of baptism, and
the Lord's Supper." Let, then, such a law, such " a divine com-
mand, an universal standing law, 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" — let such a law be shewn for the claim of the rights
and authority of Apostles as belonging to modern Bishops, and the
question is ended. We all cordially submit to, and acquiesce in,
such a divine law. But, if no such law be produced ; if no such
law can be produced ; if no such law ever was promulgated ;
then, to urge such a claim upon the consciences of all other
ministers and people, and, on this baseless assumption, to pro-
nounce all their ordinances void, all their ministers as Korah,
Dathan, and Abiram ; what is this but to curse those whom
Christ has blessed ? what, but to introduce a system of usurpa-
tion in the church of God, essentially destructive of its peace to
the end of the world ?
This for the nature of the proofs. But to proceed ; — it will
be proper here, in order to avoid ambiguity, to notice the different
significations of the term Apostle. The general meaning of the
term Apostle, is, one sent, a missionary, a messenger. Accord-
ingly, when the Saviour sent forth the twelve, he also, saith
St. Luke, "named them Apostles:' These are called THE
Apostles, by way of eminence. Eusebius says, " The Lord Jesus
Christ called twelve Apostles, whom ALONE amongst the rest of
his disciples he denominated with pecidiar honor, his Apostles. "•»
They are also called " the twelve" in various parts of the New
g Stillingfleet's Irenicum, Part I. chap. 1. ^ Eiiseb, E. H. Lib. 1. cap. 10.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 8T
Testament : the "Apostles of Christ,'' in opposition to Apostles
of men, or of churches, 1 Cor. i. 1 : 2 Cor. i. 1 : U, 13, and in
many other places. The term when applied to others is simply
" Apostle," or " the Apostle," or " Messenger of the churches."
The term Apostle is also applied in the New Testament to
several other individuals in a ynore general, and less dignified
sense. It is, m this sense, applied to designate all who were
sent to preach the gospel; the twelve Apostles, and all other
preachers. Tliis is proved hy the following passages: — Matt,
xxiii. 34, compared with Luke xi. 49. For the Apostles, as
mentioned in Luke, are explained in Matthew hy being called
" wise men and Scribes ;" that is, all teachers or preachers of the
gospel. So Dr. Hammond in Matt, xxiii. 34, " Prophets and
others learned in your religion, which receiving the faith (Matt,
xiii. 52) shall preach it to you ;" and therefore in Luke xi. 49,
he translates the word " Apostle" by the word " Messenger ;"
and so Tremellius translates the Syriac there. Dr. Whitby, in
Matt, xxiii. 34, explains " wise men and scribes," by " true
interpreters of the Law and the Prophets," and instances Stephen
the deacon as one of them. Thus Calvin, Mr. S. Clark, and
Dr. A. Clark, interpret these passages to mean all preachers of
the gospel; and, indeed, they do not seem capable of any other
interpretation. In this sense, several of the Fathers call the
seventy disciples, sent forth by our Lord to preach the gospel.
Apostles. Apollos, who was nothing more than a lay preacher,
is also in this sense called an " Apostle," compare 1 Cor. iv. 9,
with V. 6 ; so is Barnabas, Acts xiv. 14 : and see 2 Cor. xi. 13,
with V. 15. Rom. xvi. 7. Rev. ii. 2.
The word Apostle seems, also, to be applied in the New
Testament in a more general sense still, to signify any Messenger
on public business, whether a preacher of the gospel, or not.
Though we notice this sense of the term Apostle last, yet it is,
in truth, the most proper sense of the word ; and the former
meanings only shew particular applications of this general one.
Thus Dr. Hammond on Luke vi. 13: "The name (Apostle)
hath no more in it" than to " signify Messenger on Legate."
" Among the Jews all sorts of Messengers are called Apostles.
So Ahijah, (1 Kings, xiv. 6,) is called a-KKYt^oi ATvo^oXog, that is, a
harsh Apostle, or Messenger of ill news. And in the Old Tes-
tament the word \s no otherwise used. Among the Talmudists
38 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
it is used of them that were, by the Rulers of the Synagogues,
&ent out to receive the tenths and dues that belonged to the
Synagogues. And, in like manner, the fnessengers of the church
that carried their liberality, or letters congratulatory, from one
to another, are by Ignatius called ^eo^^o^iao* and ^sov^io-^vrod, the
divme carriers, or Embassadors ; and so in the Theodosian Codex
tit. de JudcBis, Apostoli are those that were sent by the Patriarch
at a set time to require the gold and silver due to them." Thus
the persons who were chosen by the churches to carry the money
collected in Greece for the poor brethren at Jerusalem, are called
the Apostles ; i. e. as our translators justly render it, " the Mes-
sengers of the Churches.'^ 2 Cor. viii. 23. This is explained by
the Apostle Paul himself, where he says, in 1 Cor. xvi. 3, "And
when I come, whomsoever ye shall aj)prove by your letters, them
will I send to bring your liberality to Jerusalem :" as in 2 Cor.
viii. V. 19, he speaks of them as " chosen of the churches to travel
with us with this grace," with this liberal contribution. The
reader will observe that St. Paul does NOT number Titus with
these Apostles, or more properly. Messengers ; and for this plain
reason, these Messengers were persons chosen or ordained by
the churches to this business, — Titus was NOT ; but only sent in
company with them by the Apostle ; they, therefore, were Mes-
se7igers of the churches, and THEY only, 2 Cor. viii. 23, " Whe-
ther any do inquire of Titus, he is MY partner and fellowhelper
concerning you : or our brethren be enquired of, THEY are th«
MESSENGERS of the churches, and the glory of Christ." In Phil. ii.
25, it seems to be used again to mean ^public Messenger, a Mes-
senger of the Church, sent on THEIR public business. Bishop
Taylor here actually* perverts the sense by a false translation.
i No man's name should shield him when he perverts the truth. This is not the only instance
in which Bishop Taylor has been guilty of perverting the truth to serve a system. Quoting the
annotation of Zonaras, p. 280, upon the twelfth canon of the Laodicean Council,—" Populi saffragiis
dim Episcopi eligebantur," he translates, "of old time Bishops were chosen not without the
suffrage of the people," instead of " by the suffrage of the people,"— and this is done evidently to
weaken or alter the sense of the passage, as a proof of the people's power formerly in choosing the
Bishop "by their suffriiges." He tells his reader, at p. 55, that Jerome is dissuading Heliodorus 1
^from taking on him "the great burden of the Episcopal office." Now Jerome commences his :
discourse on the subject by saying, "Provocabis ad Cleros?"— "Do you now come to the ..
Clergy ?" But then Jerome, in the next line, speaks of thesb Clergy, without any distinction, I
as " Succeeding to the Apostolical Degree." Here is the secret. So Jerome must be made to j
speak to Heliodorus about " the great burden of the Episcopal office!" Again, in the very same
page; "Feed the flock of God which is among you, said St. Peter, to the Bishops of Pontus,
Galatia, Cappadoda, Asia, and Bithynia. Similia enim Successoribus suis Petrus scripsit prsecepta,
sadth Theodorus, St. Peter gave the same praecepts to his Successors, which Christ gave to him,"
p. 55. Here he iinds Theodoret speaking of Apostolical Successors ; so they must be mads
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 39
He renders August Opp. Tom. 4, App. p. 9, ed. Sugd. 1664,
P Hieronyrai Comment, in Epist. ad Galat. Lib. 1, cap. 1.
a Grotii Annot in Poll Syn. iv, 1 , 280. * Tertull. ad versos Marcion, L. iv. cap. 24.
46 OxN APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
companions, and assistants of the Apostles." Augustine and
Jerome prove that it was commonly applied, in their day, to any
priest, to all priests, even to the w^orst of priests. However
the Bishops of that day, knowing that it did not tr\ily belong to
them, thought it not decent to use it, and to be called Apostles ;
they, therefore, laid it aside. Their modesty was commend-
able : in this our advocates do not choose to be their successors.
But, if the argument from the name fails them, what was
the fact, as to the thing itself ? Do ecclesiastical writers say
that Bishops were, in fact, the successors to the preroga-
tives of the Apostles ? There is no doubt that they soon
began to write in an inflated style about Bishops. Their
opinions are worth no more than their reasons for those
opinions are worth ; their opinions can decide nothing without,
or against, the Scriptures. We have seen that, in fact. Bishops
possess no scriptural claim to the prerogatives of the twelve
Apostles. But do ecclesiastical writers really say that Bishops
possessed these prerogatives ? Do they say that Bishops have
immediate inspiration of what they teach ? that they are infal-
lible ? that they have unlimited authority ? or that they have
the prerogative of communicating the power to work miracles ?
Speak, ye lofty succession men ! Ye are silent ! you dare not say
that they do ! I dare say that they do not. Prove me mistaken.
Nay, so far from Bishops being said to be the exclusive succes-
sors of the Apostles in any thing, the greatest ranter in antiquity
for Bishops, viz., Ignatius, or rather the corrupter of his epistles,
plainly says, that " Presbyters preside in the place of the council
of the Apostles." — " Be ye subject to your Presbyters as to the
Apostles of Jesus Christ." — " Let all reverence the Presbyters as
the Sanhedrim of God, and AS the college of Apostles."—
" See that ye follow the Presbyters as the Apostles.''
Do ecclesiastical writers say, that anciently Bishops governed
the church as Bishops now govern it ? They say that the go-
vernment of the church was in common, i.e., by the common
council of the Presbyters^ ii\\Q first Presbyter' being for distinc-
tion's sake, and for the sake of order,* called Bishop. Even
Ignatius caUs this council of the Presbyters " the Sanhedrim of
God — the council of the Apostles — the college of the Apostles."*
r Ambrosii Com, in Ephes. 4. » Heronymi Com. in Tit. cap. 1.
t Ignat, Ep. ad Mag. et ad Trail.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 47
And CypriaD, next to Ignatius as to high notions about Bishops,
declares that he did " nothing without the council of Presby-
ters ; that the mutual honour of each required him to act in this
manner."" But do Bishops now govern the church so ? No
such thing. At the Conference, at Worcester House, about the
King's (Charles II.) Declaration, when Ministers desired that
the Bishops should exercise their church power with the counsel
and consent of Presbyters, Bishop Cosins (one of the most learned
Bishops in the Canons, Councils, and Fathers) presently replied,
" If your Majesty grants this, you will UNBISHOP your Bishops.''"
Do the Early Fathers say that Bishops had, by divine right,
the sole power and authority of ordaining to the ministry ?
Never ! Ignatius says, that Presbyters were not even to baptize,
nor do anything, without the Bishops. This no more proves that
they could not ordain than they could not baptize. But the
Fathers give us the reason of this restriction upon Presbyters,
viz. that it was for the honour of the Bishop, for the peace of
the church, and to prevent divisions : so say Tertullian, Jerome,
and Augustine. All this proves their opinion of a divine right
for good order, and peace in the church, and that such an
arrangement was the besst way of securing these ends ; and it
proves nothing more. All deduced from it besides, is mere
sophistry and chicanery. But the matter of ecclesiastical au-
thority will be discussed more at large in the following sections.
The result, then, of this investigation of the Apostleship of
Bishops, is, 1st. that the greatest champions of high church
Episcopacy are divided amongst themselves upon it ; 2nd. that
the scheme necessarily concedes that scripture Bishops and
Presbyters were one and the same order ; 3rd. that every pre-
rogative which the twelve Apostles had, as distinguished from
scripture Presbyters, was temporary and extraordinary, and
that Bishops inherit none of them ; 4th. that as to the name of
Apostle, as appropriate to the twelve, the claim of Bishops to it
is absurd, as it could not be appropriate to the twelve, and yet
common to others ; 5th. that, as used in a larger sense, all
preachers of the gospel had it alike, in the apostles days ; and
after those days also. So that neither in the name, nor in the
thing, is one single prerogative found, to which Bishops have any
" Cyprian Op. Ep. 6, ed. Pamel.
▼ Calam3f8 Abridg, of Bapter's Life and Times, Vol I. p. 171, Lond. 1702, 12mo j and see deci-
sive evidence on the same point in Abp. Usher's Reduction of Episcopacy.
48 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
exclusive claim. Presbyters, therefore, are as much Apostles as
Bishops are ; and, by the word of God, as the Reformers declare,
they are one and the same office and order : all distinctions be-
tween them are of human origin ; and consequently have no
more than human authority.
Finally, then, we conclude with Dodwell, that " the office of
the Apostles perished with the Apostles ; in which office there
never was any succession to any of them, except to JuDAS the
TRAITOR :" — with the learned Dr. Barrow, we conclude, " The
Apostolical office, as such, was -personall and temporary ; and
therefore, according to its nature and designe, NOT successive or
communicable to others in perpetuall descendence from them.
It was, as such, in atl respects extraordinary, conferred in a
speciall manner, designed for speciall purposes, discharged by
speciall aids, endowed with speciall privileges, as was needfull
for the propagation of Christianity, and founding of Churches.^
With Whitaker, the celebrated Protestant champion, that
" Munus Episcopi nihil est ad mnnus Apostolicum — that the
office of a Bishop has nothing to do with the office of an Apostle J*^""
And thus, being fortified by Protestant authorities, we concur
with Bellarmine, the great Popish controversialist, that " Epis-
copi nullam habent partem verce Apostolicce auctoritas —
Bishops have no part of the true Apostolical autho-
RiTY."y
The early Bishops were, indeed, frequently called Apostles by
ecclesiastical writers, because they then were the chief in preach-
ing the gospel, and converting the heathen to God. This is what
our missionaries now do. They are the modern Apostles of
Christianity. Xavier, who never was a bishop, was the Apostle
of Japan. But when do our modern Bishops undertake this^
labour ? At the time of the Reformation Latimer lashes them
for their entire neglect of preaching. Stimulated by the zeal of
other churches, a few persons have gone out from the church of
England as Bishops amongst the heathen, as the Bishop of Cal-
cutta, &c. Let them have their due praise. The writer honours
such men as the present Bishop of Calcutta. However they are
not strictly Apostolical Bishops : they generally go where the
laborious missionary has FIRST laid the FOUNDATION. There
w Dr. Barrow on the Pope's Supremacy, Sup. iii. p. 113, ed. Lond. 1680, 4to.
X Whitaker, de Pontif. Quest, iii. cap. 3, 69, ut citatur in Alt. Damasc. p. 104.
y Bellarm. de Romano Pont. Lib. 4, cap. 25.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 49
perhaps has not been a single instance, for the last thousand
years, of a Bishop deserving the title of Apostolical Bishop, by
going to preach Christ where he was not named. Away, then,
with all this parade about Apostolical Bishops !
§3.
High Priesthood of Bishops.
Another argument is attempted to be deduced from the HIGH
PRIESTHOOD among the Jews. The very learned Henry Dod-
well, in his " One Altar," lays great stress upon this argument.
See also Bishop Beveridge, Cod. Can. Ecc. Prim. Vindicat.
Lib. 2, cap. 11, sect. 9. It is a matter of regret to find such
excellent men, forced, by a false system, to such unsuitable argu-
ments. They assume, as indisputable, that the High 'Priest
among the Jews was of a different order from that of the other
Priests. This is more easily asserted than proved. The Scrip-
tures speak of the whole Priesthood, including equally the High
Priest and all the other Priests, as ONE order. Num. xviii. 1 ;
Heb. vii, 11, 12, " And the Lord said unto Aaron, Thou and thy
sons and thy father's house with thee shall bear the iniquity of
the sanctuary : and thou and thy sons with thee shall bear the
iniquity of your priesthood." — "If therefore perfection were
by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the
law,) what further need was there that another priest should
rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after THE
ORDER of Aaron ? For the PRIESTHOOD being changed, there is
made of necessity a change also of the law." Bishop Beveridge
himself asserts, that even " Aaron is never, in the Books of Moses,
styled any thing more than simply the Priest. In these Books,
neither Aaron, nor Eleazar who succeeded him in the High
Priest's office, is ever any otherwise denominated than by the
term Priest, as common with him and all the other Priests.
Nor, through the whole Pentateuch, except in two or three
places where the later administration of the Jewish church is
mentioned, is the title " High " Priest used ; though the mention
of his office in superintending the other Priests is constantly oc-
curring."^ But still this title is not, in the Scriptures, given
exclusively to one, the first or head Priest; "for," says Godwin,
« Codex Can. Ecc, Prim. Vind. &c. p. 316, ed. Lond. 1678, 4to,
G
50 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
" when king David distributed the whole company of them into
twenty-four ranks or courses, the chief of every rank was called
Summus Sacerdos istius classis : the chief Priest of that rank.
Hence it is, that we read of mani/ High Priests assembled toge-
ther, Mark xiv. 1."* That there was not any essential differ-
ence between the office of the High Priest, usually so called, and
the office of the other Priests, is demonstrated from this, that in
the case of the High Priest's pollution, another of the Priests
performed his office^ and was called Sagan, the High Priest's
vicar or deputy.^ The question, indeed, is of no real- importance
to our argument ; for the Aaronical priesthood has ceased for
ever: and "the priesthood being changed, there is made of
necessity a change of the law,'''' Heb. vii. 12. Nevertheless, the
assumption so common w4th high churchmen, that there were
really two incompatible orders of priests under the law, is, I
believe, as utterly false, as the reasoning from it to the subject of
the Christian ministry, is utterly irrelevant. The simple and
true answer, however, to all they can draw from the High
Priest's office, is, that we have, as Christians, one, and oiSiLY ONE
High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ. To attempt more than this
runs direct into the Popedom. Indeed this assumption of Bishops
being High Priests, is not the only case in which may be clearly
seen the tendency of high church principles to go direct into
Popery. The whole system of high church episcopacy is sup-^
ported by arguments so similar to those used to support Popery,
that the celebrated Treatise of Dr. Barrow against the Supremacy
of the Pope, might, in great part, by a change of persons, the
Bishops for the Pope, be applied with equal effect to the destruc-
tion of the one, as of the other. A few passages will be found
in this Essay, extracted from that unanswerable work, exemplify-
ing the truth of this remark. When will Protestant Bishops,
and highflying divines, lay aside these foolish, judaizing, popish
reasonings ? The continental Reformers spake strongly against
these things ; and they were afraid that the quantity of " empty
and popish ceremonies," as they termed them, left in the English
church, would degenerate into something of this kind. The
Letters of Calvin, Martyr, and Zanchy shew this. That sainted
youth. King Edward VL, thus speaks on this point : " Moreover
the PAPISTS say, that as under the old law there was a high
» Godwyn'B Moses and Aaron, B. 1, c. 5. b See Godwyn as just quoted.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 51
priest, or arclibisliop, of the Jews, so there ought now to be a
HEAD, or SUPREME minister, amongst the Christians. To which
I answer, that the priesthood of Aaron and Moses represented
the SUPREMACY of our Saviour Qhrist^ and not the Pope." See
his Treatise against the Supremacy of the Pope. This, with
other evidence to be adduced in the following parts of this Essay,
will shew that this succession scheme does not properly belong
to the English church, as established at the Reformation, but
that it is a corruption of later date.
I 4.
The case of Timothy and Titus pleaded to defend High Church
Episcopacy.
Again, the case of Timothy and Titus is brought forward to
support this scheme. " As I besought thee to abide still at Ephe-
sus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge
some that they teach no other doctrine," 1 Tim. i. 3. " Where-
fore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God
which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands," 2 Tim. i. 6.
" For THIS CAUSE I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in
order the things that are wanting, and ordain ELDERS in evefy
city, as I had appointed thee," Titus iv. 5. These are the prin-
cipal passages on which the stress is laid. From these passages
an attempt is made to prove that Timothy and Titus were made
Bishops in the MODERN sense of these terms ; the one, of Eplie-
sus, and the other of Crete; that they had the government of
ministers as well as of the people ; and that, as such, they had
the sole power of ordaining other ministers. The reader must
be struck with the shifting, protean character of this scheme.
We have just seen an attempt to make modern Bishops to be
properly Apostles ; and the authorities they use say, " that those
who are now called Bishops, were called Apostles, and that
anciently Bishops and Presbyters were the SAME PERSONS," i. e.
that modern Bishops and ancient Bishops are NOT the same.
And Dr. Bentley is positive that their scheme makes modern
Bishops NOT " succeed the Scripture Bishops, but the Scripture
Apostles ;" and that Presbyters, therefore, while the Apostles
lived, were " Ewto-xwot," Bishops. But here, in the case of Timo-
thy and Titus, we find the ground is changed, and an attempt
is made to claim superiority for modern Bishops from Timothy
52 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
and Titus, as ancient Bishops. The reason of this shifting cha-
racter is plain enough — its ablest advocates find no foundation
sufficient and firm beneath them. A sure sign of a weak cause !
In the first place, we may remark, that all the advocates for
making modern Bishops to be successors of the twelve Apostles,
and NOT of Scripture Bishops, must give up all arguments from
the case of Timothy and Titus in favour of their scheme : see
page 33 and 40 of this Essay, where this point is more largely
brought out. This silences Bishop Taylor, Dr. Hook, the Oxford
Tract men, and all such writers and their followers, as to
Timothy and Titus.
Secondly. Whatever they were, their special duties, as above
signified, cannot be brought in as an unalterable rule for a standing
order of men, with the same powers and authority ; (1,) because
there is no intimation of any such thing in the text ; (2,) because
they had the direct or immediate authority of the Apostles for what
they did, which none others can plead ; (3,) because some steps
might be necessary in places where a ministry had never existed
amongst a newly- gathered people, which are not necessary after
the establishment of a church and its ministry ; (4,) however,
the truth is, that Timothy and Titus did nothing, and were com-
manded to do nothing, but what a superintendent in the Lutheran
church, a senior or moderator in the French church, &c. would
have consistently performed in similar circumstances ; and yet
this would be no proof that such a superintendent was, by divine
right, possessed of powers and authority incompatible with the
other Presbyters of that church ; for all these churches solemnly
maintain equality, by divine right, amongst all Gospel ministers.
The following extract from the " London Cases," i. e. Discourses
written by a number of Bishops and Divines of the Church of
England against Dissent, will establish what I say. " Pass we
next," says the writer, "to the Reformed Churches of Germany,
which are in effect governed by Bishops, whom they call Super-
intendents. Their office is described in the Harmony of Con-
fessions, p. 227, to visit parochial ministers, to preside in Synods,
to examine and ordain persons fit for the ministry, &c. And
when in the Book of Policy (A.D. 1581) for the Kingdom of
Scotland, the office of Superintendents is described, it is in these
words. Imprimis, the Superintendent of Orkney, his Diocese
shall be the Isles of Orkney, &c.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 53
" The Superintendent of Rosse, &o.
" The Superintendent of Edenbrough, &c.
" The Superintendent of Glascow, &c.
" In all ten Superintendents for that kingdom.
" Then follows i\\Q function ^m^ power of the Superintendent
— He shall plant and erect churches, order, (i.e. ORDAIN) and
appoint ministers, visit, &c."*'
Now what did Timothy or Titus do more than these Super-
intendents ? Nothing. Yet in these churches, whilst such
methods were adopted for peace and order, no lordly and ex-
clusive claims, by divine right, were set up for one minister
against another ; no principle maintained declaring all ordinan-
ces vain, if other ministers than these superintendents had, by
the consent of the church, ordained, &c.
But, thirdly, Timothy and Titus are never called Bishops in
the Scriptures. The subscriptions at the end of the Epistles are
of 720 authority ; but only mere human tradition. And even were
it proved that they were called Bishops, as the word was then
used, it would not follow that they were Bishops in the sense of
our modern high churchmen. It will be seen, as we proceed,
that Bishops and Presbyters, in the Apostles time, were identical.
To prove their point, therefore, our succession men have not only
to prove that they were called Bishops, but they must also prove
them, as Bishops, to have had power, &c. incompatible with
Presbyters, as Presbyters. Now, as to Timothy, he is called an
Evangelist : " But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions,
do the WORK of an Evangelist, make full proof of thy iliinistry,"
2 Tim. iv. 5. The first Evangelists, like the first Apostles, had
superior gifts, as is evident from Ephes. iv. 11, and modern
Bishops can no more claim this office than any other Minister.
As to the argument from tradition, for their being Bishops, we
shall see what that is worth by and bye.
Fourthly- Timothy had, most evidently, presbyterian ordina-
tion; and, therefore, according to such men, could be nothing
more than a Presbyter :" " 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. The episcopal suc-
cession divines strive hard to avoid this, and to give apostolical
ordination, by pleading, (2 Tim. i. 6,) "Wherefore I put thee in
<•- London Cases, Vol. I. Judgment of the Foreign Reformed Churches, &c. pp. 4.5, 46, 4to, 1690.
54 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
remembrance that thou stir np the gift of God, which is in thee,
by the putting on of my hands.'' To understand this passage,
the reader should keep in mind that the conferring of the Holy-
Ghost, as to miraculous powers, belonged peculiarly to the
Apostles, as a, PROOF of their Apostleship. To see this, read
attentively the following passages : — " Now when the Apostles,
which were at Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the
word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John ; who, when
they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive
the Holy Ghost ; for as yet he was fallen upon none of them,
only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then
laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
And when Simon SAW that through laying on of the Apostles'
hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, say-
ing, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands,
he may receive the Holy Ghost:" Acts viii. 14 — 19. "And
when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came
on them ; and THEY SPAKE with tongues, and prophesied :"
Acts xix. 6. Here it is evident, that the gift peculiarly attend-
ing the laying on of the Apostle's hands, was the gift of the
Holy Ghost, in miraculous power. The Apostle, therefore, laid
his hands on Timothy, that he might be blessed with some of
those miraculons gifts. This was a distinct matter from Timo-
thy's ordination, which was performed by the laying on of the
hands of the Presbyters. This is the true interpretation of
these passages. Timothy's ordination, therefore, was properly
Presbyterian.
But suppose we grant to these divines, that the Apostle joined
with the Presbytery in Timothy's ordination ; what then ? Oh !
it would be apostolical ordination ! and Bishops being infolded in
the Apostles, it would be episcopal ordination; ergo, Timothy
was a Bishop. If the argument were worth anything, it would
prove that he was ordained an Apostle : but it has no founda-
tion. The Apostle Paul and Barnabas ordained Presbyters in
every city : but they are never said to have ordained Bishops. I
doubt not but high churchmen think that it was. very unfortunate
that St. Paul was not as careful about episcopacy as they are.
They would have taught hun how to write better. He should
have written, that Timothy was ordained a Bishop by the hands
of the Apostles. But he wrote by the hands of the Presbytery.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 55
Sad stroke to high chiu'chmen ! Now whatever hands might
be employed, the denomination of a thing is always taken from
that which was designed to be the chief cause or instrument in
the act. This is a universal rule. The hands of the Presbytery
are spoken of by the Holy Spirit as the c/i2* Usheri Diss. p. 136; and see p. 13, ed. Oxon, 4to. 1644.
J Ep. to the Magnesians. k Ep. to the Trallians. 1 Ep. to the Smyrnians.
N
98 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION*
given his consent. Wheresoever the Bishop shall appear, there
let the people also be ; as where Jesus Christ is, there is the
catholic church. It is NOT lawful mthout the Bishop, neither
to baptize, nor to celebrate the holy communion ; but WHATSO-
EVER he shall approve of, that is also pleasing unto God ; that
so whatever is done, may be sure and well done. — He that does
anything without his knowledge, ministers unto the Devil."""
There is no stronger passage in favour of high church episco-
pacy in his Epistles than this. The term translated " LAW-
FUL," E|ov E?t, frequently means '^ pervnitted,^'' as by custom, or
courtesy ; so Acts xxi. 37, " May I speak unto thee." Acts ii,
29, " Men and brethren. Let me freely speak unto you,
Efov EiTTEiv." Hence it does not necessarily mean divine law, but
only what is matter of custom or courtesy. The expression,
^'Let no man do any thing of what belongs to the church sepa-
rate from the Bishop," simply signifies, that where a Superin-
tendent had been appointed for the sake of order, that order was
to be kept. Very right. So say all churches where a Superintend-
ency has been established, though making no pretensions to di-
vine right for it. To suppose the passage to mean that a Presbyter
absolutely had not power, by divine right, to baptize, to celebrate
the holy communion, nor to do ANY thing that belongs to the
church, except the Bishop bade him, is absurd, and is confuted
by Ignatius himself; for he says, " the PRESBYTERS are in
the PLACE of the Apostles." Surely men that are the " San-
hedrim of God and the College of the Apostles,"" have divine au-
thority to baptize, &c., when occasion should require it, whether
the Bishop bade them or not. Indeed, fifty places might be
quoted from COUNCILS, and better writers than the author of
these Epistles, where this mode of expression means nothing but
human arrangement. We find Bishops themselves forbid by a
council to do certain things without the Archbishop. "" Is the
order of Archbishops, then, by divine right, also? These ad-
vocates will not say so. " No Bishop was to be elected or or-
dained," says Bingham, " without their (the Metropolitans')
consent and approbation ; otherwise the canons pronounce both
i\\Q election ^xidi the ordination NULL."'* What will our high
m Ep. ad Smyrn. Sect. 8.
n See the Council of Antioch, (90 Bishops,) A.D. 341, Can. 9.
o Binghara, B. 2, chap. 16, Sect. 12.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 99
churchmen make of this — a matter determined by the authority
of hundreds of Bishops in council ? Will they say it has
divine right? Then numbers of the English Bishops' ordina-
tions were NULL ab initio : for they frequently were not ordained
by their Metropoiitany nor with his consent. Nay, it will DE-
STROY Archbishop Parker's Ordination, upon which all the
ordinations of the present Bishops and clergy of the church of
England depend. For the canons require a Metropolitan to be
ordained by his Patriarch, or, at least, by all the Bishops of his
province. Now Parker was ordained by neither, but against
the consent of they^rs^, and only by three or four, if any, of the
last, many of the rest being opposed to his ordination.
Even Bishops were not allowed to do ANY THING of import-
ance WITHOUT the Presbyters. Bishop Overall himself affirms
this in his letters to Grotius,? ^^ Nolum est antiquitus, nihil ma-
joris momenti Episcopum SINE concilio sui Presbyterii fecisse.
It is a known matter that anciently the Bishop did NOTHING of
moment WITHOUT his council of Presbyters." So Cyprian
apologises for ordaining only a Subdeacon without the Presbyters
and Deacons, Ep. 24.
But Ignatius says, " WHATEVER the Bishop shall approve
of, that is also pleasing to God.^^ Now it is clear that he makes
the power or authority of the Bishop in restraining and in per-
mitting to be equal. Whatever he could prohibit the Presbyters
from doing, he could equally appoint and approve of their doing
the same thing. He could restrain them from baptizing, and he
could appoint them to baptize. His authority in both respects
was equal. Apply this to ordaining Ministers. Suppose he
could restrain Presbyters from ordaining ; he could equally ap-
point them to ordain Ministers ; and then their performance
of this duty " WOULD BE PLEASING TO GoD." Then Presby-
ters, as Presbyters, have as much inherent power to ORDAIN, as
they have to baptize, or to do ANY THING else in the church.
This is clearly the doctrine of Ignatius. Now all churchmen
allow they have the power and authority as Presbyters to bap-
tize. They have, therefore, from the principles of Ignatius,
power and authority to ordain Ministers, to confirm. Sec, as
much as Bishops have. The only difference was, that for the
P EpistoliB Prtettantium Vironim, p. 460, ed. secund.
100 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
honor of the Bishop, and by ecclesiastic arrangement, they were
not to do these things without the permission of the Bishop.
Hence, then, even Ignatius says nothing to prove high church
Episcopacy of DIVINE RIGHT ; but the contrary, that ''Presby-
ters are in the place of the Apostles,^' " the College of the Apos-
tles,"" " the Sanhedrim of GodJ' Stillingfleet says, " In all those
thirty five testimonies produced out of Ignatius's Epistles for
Episcopacy, I can meet with but one which is brought to prove
the least semblance of an Institution of Christ for Episcopacy ;
and if I be not much deceived, the sense of that place is clearly
mistaken too."*^ The Bishop, as Superintendent, for the sake of
ORDER, had, by ecclesiastical arrangement, the oversight of all,
and authority to regulate the administTation of the affairs of the
church. So have the Lutheran Superintendents ; so have the
Wesley an Methodist Superintendents : but they and all the
other Ministers of those churches are equal by Divine right. So
were all the Ministers in Ignatius's time.
Polycarp was contemporary with Ignatius. There is ex-
tant an Epistle under his name ; having much greater marks of
genuineness and purity than any of those under the name of
Ignatius: indeed, there appears no reasonable ground of objection
against it. He commences by saying, " Polycarp and the Pres-
byters that are with him, to the church of God, which is at Phi-
lippi." He exhorts them to be " subject to the Presbyters and
Deacons, as unto God and Christ." He never ONCE mentions
such a word as Bishop from the commencement to the conclu-
sion. How different this from the Episcopal Mania of the
Pseudo- Ignatius ! How different, too, from what would be the
style of modern Episcopalians I Would a modern Bishop write
to the church or diocese of another Bishop, and yet never men-
tion such a term as Bishop ? No such thing. This proves,
along with a thousand other things of the same character,
which for brevity's sake we omit, that modern Episcopacy,
leaving out of question divine right, has no resemblance to the
government of the church in the days of Clement and Polycarp.
Justin Martyr flourished about A.D. 155. The most cele-
brated passage in his works, relating to the present question, is
in his Apology, from c. 85 to 88. The President of the Christian
x\ssembly he denominates Trgosjw?. In these chapters, this term,
n Ircn. 309.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 101
and this only^ as designating the Minister, occurs six times :
neither the term Bishop nor Presbyter is used at all. The word
simply means a President. Reeves, the Translator of Justin, a
churchman, and who loses no opportunity of opposing Sectari-
ans, allows, in his notes on the passage, that the tt^oejw? of Justin,
the Probati seniores of Tertullian, the majores natu, in Cyprian's
works, (Ep. 75,) and the tt^oe^wte? w^Ecr/SuTE^oi, or presiding Pres-
byters, of St. Paul, (1 Tim. iv. 17,) were all one and the same.
Now Tertullian, Cyprian, (or rather Firmilian, the celebrated
Bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia,) and St. Paul, all mean
Presbyters. Their language cannot be otherwise interpreted
without violence. " Presbyter," says Bishop Jewel,' " is ex-
pounded in Latin by natu 'major '"'^ The Bishop was, doubtless,
included in the Presbyter ; they were both one. Indeed, Ire-
naeus, in an Epistle to Victor, called in later days Bishop of
Rome, thus addresses him, (circa, A.D. 200,) " The Presby-
ters who, before Soter, PRESIDED over that church which you
now govern, — I mean Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus, Teles-
phorus, and Xystus." Here this ancient and celebrated writer
expressly calls those persons PRESIDING PRESBYTERS, whom
later writers call Bishops of Rome. This demonstrates that the
President in each christian church, in the time of Justin, was
a Presbyter,
Irenaeus flourished about Ann. Dom. 184. He mentions
both Presbyter and Bishop, but he uses them synonymously.
Some persons who have only seen the PARTIAL quotatmis of
high church succession divines may doubt my assertion. How-
ever, they shall judge for themselves, and then decide what
opinion they can have of the fairness of these writers. These
divines have generally quoted Irengeus about the succession of
Bishops, as though he meant a succession of Bishops by divine
8 " If ye (Mr. Harding) had been either so sagely studied as ye pretend, and your friends have
thought, ye might soon have learned that Presbyter or Priest is nothing else but senior, that is,
an Elder, and that a Priest and an Elder are both one thing. And therefore, whereas St. Paul
saith : Adversus Preshyterum accusationem ne admiseris, St. Cyprian, translating tlie same, saith
thus: Adversus Mqjorem natu accusationem ne reciperis. Your own Doctor Thomas Aquina
sjuth : Presb3rter Graec6, Latinfe Senior, interpretatur. St. Hierome saith : Idem est Presbyter qui
Episcopus. These two words, TTPEcrjSuTEPOj, ffgES-/SuTaT05, are expounded in Latin, Ncttu
major, Natu maximus, 1 Tim. 5. Cyprian ad Quirin, Lib. 3, c«p. 76. Thom. Secund. Secunda,
quest. 184, Art 6, Dist. 24, Cleros. Hieron. ad 1 Tit c. 1." Bp. Jewel's Defence of the Apology,
Part 6, p. 527, fol. ed. 1609.
' Defence of the Apology, Part. 6, p. 527. fol. cd. 1689.
102 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
right, and of Bishops alone as Successors of the Apostles. Let
us hear him on the other side. He is, in the following passage,
speaking of some who left the Scripture^ and pretended Tradi-
tion for their errors. " But," says he, "when we appeal to that
Tradition which has been preserved to us by the SUCCESSIONS
o/" Presbyters in the churches — quae per Successiones Pres-
BYTERORUM in ecclesHs custoditur — they presume they are wiser
not only than the Presbyters, but even than the Apostles, and
that they have found the truth in a purer form."" In the next
chapter he calls this succession the succession of Bishops, which,
as it is agreed on both sides, we need not quote. In the very
celebrated Epistle, above-mentioned, to Victor, Bishop of Rome, -
he speaks of Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, and Xys-
tus, presiding as Presbyters over the church of Rome ; though
these persons, by later writers, are all reckoned as Bishops of
Rome. These Presbyters are all, even by Papists and high
churchmen, put as links into the succession chain: they have no
chain without them. He repeats the same mode of speaking of
these Presiding Presbyters three times over in this letter, though
a short one, and never uses any other; never calls them
Bishops. He uses the word Bishops as to the Asiatics, but not
as to the Romans ; which would almost lead one to think tliat
the term Presbyter, at Rome, in that age, was still considered
the most honourable denomination, as it certainly seems to have
been in the Apostles' days, and for some time after. For what
provincial Bishop w^ould write to the Archbishop of Canterbury,
and, referring him to half-a-dozen of his predecessors in that
See, would yet never call them any thing but Presbyters, except
he thought the title was the most honourable one ? " Would not
any man now bee deemed rude and saucy, who should talk in
that style" to the Archbishop ? "^ Again, "Wherefore obedi-
ence ought to be rendered to those who ARE Presbyters in the
church, WHO have, as we have shewn, succession from the Apos-
tles, and who, WITH the succession of their Episcopacy, have a
sure deposit of the truth divinely granted to them according to
the good pleasure of our Heavenly Father." "^ These are said to
be Presbyters, i. e. properly such, " qui in ecclesia SUNT Pres-
B YTERI . ' ' But these Presbyters have the true Apostolical Succes-
sion, and, as Presbyters, have Episcopacy ; that is, preside over
» Lib. 3, c. 2, V Barrow's Pope's Supremacy, Supp. 5, p. 167, 4to, 1610. w Lib. 4, c. 43.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 103
the church, rule the church in common. In the next chapter,
speaking still of Presbyters as presiding over the church, he
tells us that we ought to FORSAKE those who were wicked,
though they held the chief seat, and that we ought to cleave to
those who joined jmritij of doctrine to holiness of life : " Now
those who are by many received as Presbyters, yet serving their
own lusts, and not having the fear of God before them ; but,
being pufifed up with the chief seats, (principalis consessio,) use
others with contumely, and say to themselves, ' None see the
evils we do in secret ;' these are reproved by the Lord, who
judges, not according to glorying appearances, but according to
the heart. From all such we ought to depart, and to cleave
to those who preserve, as we have said, the Doctrine of the
Apostles, and, along with their order of Presbyter, maintain
sound words ; and show, for the instruction and correction of
others, an irreproachable conversation. The church will nourish
^wch Presbyters ; of whom also the Prophet (Isa. Ix. 17,) speaks,
' I will give thy Princes in Peace, and thy Bishops in righte-
ousness.' Of whom also the Lord spake, ' Who, therefore,
is a good and wise servant, whom his Lord shall place over his
hou^hold, &c.* What can be clearer than that Irenaeus here
:s of Presbyters and Bishops as the same ? He says, the
>het spake of these Presbyters when he said, " I will give
thy Bishops,'^ &c. Presbyters and Bishops, therefore, with
Irenaeus, were the SAME ORDER, and equally Successors of the
Apostles.
One point more Irenaeus will help us to rectify. The high
church divines quote him as though he meant that a succession of
PERSONS, viz., of Bishops, according to their views, was ABSO-
LUTELY NECESSARY to the existence of Christianity and its ordi-
nances. We shall see that he means no such thing. He says,
as above, we are to leave those Ministers who leave the truth,
notwithstanding their pretence to personal succession. What
he principally aims at is this, to prove an uncorrupted tradition,
succession, or delivering down of Apostolical TRUTH, FAITH, and
holiness to succeeding generations; and he uses the argument of
a succession of Ministers, called indifferently Presbyters and
Bishops, to prove the succession of truth against the monstrous
heresies of his day, in which the Scriptures were denied or cor-
X Lib. 4. cap. 44.
104 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
rupted; just as we use now, against Infidels, the uninterrupted
and uncorrupted tradition of the Scriptures themselves, and
Scripture TRUTH to the present day. Accordingly, Irenseus says,
"We cannot know the plan of salvation, any otherwise than by
those persons through whom the Gospel has come down to us.
This they first proclaimed by their personal ministry. After-,
wards they delivered the will of God to us in their divinely in-
spired writings^ the Sacred Scriptures, which were henceforward
to be the FOUNDATION and PILLAR of our FAITH." ^ The here-
tics shuffled to avoid the force of this. * ' When we argue from the
Scriptures, they (the heretics) accuse the Scriptures as not having
the right Doctrine, neither as sufficient authority ; that they con-
tain views so diverse that they cannot be understood by those who
are ignorant of Tradition." — How like Popery, Dr. Hook,
and the Oxford Tract Men! — He then recites some of the ravings
of the heretics, and says, "Such are the persons against whom
we contend ; persons whom nothing can hold, but who wriggle,
like serpents, into every form, to escape from the grasp of truth.
Wherefore, we must use EVERY mode of arguing against them,
that, being confounded with the discovery of their errors, we
may, if possible, convert them to the truth." "^ The personal
succession of Ministers, (Presbyters and Bishops he calls them
indifferently,) in the Christian church, was one mode of argu-
ment. This was secondary and auxiliary to another, which
was the succession of the Doctrine of Christian Truth, the suc-
cession of the TRUE Faith. Hear the great Protestant champion,
Whitaker, in the days of Elizabeth, speaking of the succession
maintained by the early Fathers, Irenseus, &c., -'Faith, there-
fore, is as it were the soul of this succession, which being want-
ing, a naked succession of persons is as a dead body. The
Fathers, indeed, always much more regarded the succession of
Faith than any unbroken series of men."* Irenaeus first remarks
that the Apostles taught no such delirious tenets as the heretics
held, nor any secret doctrines. " Then," he saith, " the Chris-
tian church at Rome possessed this ^ Tradition of the Truth by
y Lib. 3, c. 1. ^ Lib. 3, c. 2. » Whitakeri Opp. v. 1, p. 506, ed. Gen, 1610.
b The reader will see the importance of keeping in mind the difference between Tradition, as
matter of unwrittex report, and Tradition as the conveying from age to age of a written word.
The first kind of Tradition is necessarily confused and uncertain ; it is not in human nature to
prevent it. The second kind is capable of the utinost certainty that historic evidence can give, and
that human language can communicate. Now it was the first kind of Tradition, oral Tradition,
unxvritten report, that the heretics pretended was to be the rule of interpreting the Scriptures : so
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 105
the Apostles, according to the Faith preached by thein ; and pro-
ceeds to confirm this statement by mentioning the succession of
Ministers in that church : " We shall declare that which was
delivered from the Apostles, which the church of Rome possesses,
the Faith they preached to mankind ; and which has come
down to us through a successmi of Bishops reaching to the pre-
sent time."" Here a succession of persons is made auxiliary to
the main point, the succession of Faith. We allow this argu-
ment its full weight. Where a real succession of faithful minis-
ters has existed, it is one mode of proving the true Faith. But
does Irenaeus say that there is no other mode, that no churches
have the faith who have not this succession ? He never says so.
He says, *' the Scriptures are henceforward^ from the time of the
Apostles, to be the pillar and ground of our Faith."^ Does he
say that all are to be received as true ministers who are in the
succession ? No. He tells us we are to forsake those whose
lives are wicked, and to cleave to the good.
TertuUian flourished about A.D. 198. Many readers know
that he is quoted with as much triumph by the succession divines
as though it were impossible for us to find any thing in TertuUian
to pfove the identity of Bishops and Presbyters, or against their
doctrine of succession. Let us examine TertuUian. In the
work usually quoted on this subject, he writes against the
heretics, such as those referred to by Irenaeus. He is designing
to shew, that what is first in docti'ine is the truth ; and that the
heresies he opposes sprung up after the Apostles' times, and
were, therefore, extraneous and false : "But if any of the he-
retics dare to connect themselves with the Apostolic age, that
they may seem to be derived from the Apostles, as existing un-
der them, we may say, ' Let them, therefore, declare the origi7i
of their churches ; let them exhibit the series of their Bishops, so
coming down by a continued succession from the beginning, as to
shew their first Bishop to have had some Apostle or Apostolical
do the Papists and high church divines generally. The second kind of Tradition, that is, the con-
veying dorm from generation to generation the Truth of God, and the Faith preached by the Apot.
ties, by conveying the written record of this Faith, emphatically THE SCRIPTURES,— this is
the Tradition of the Primitive Church ; this is the Tradition of Protestantism. Popery, and Semi-
Popery, in all their ramifications, are founded on oral Tradition, unmritten report; and are full of
uncertainty and confusion. True Protestantism is founded on the Scriptures, the tmitten
Record of God's Will, and has, in its mode of communication and interpretation, the utmost pos-
sible clearness and certainty. .^
« Lib. iii. e. 3. d Lib. iii. c. 3.
O
106 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
man as his predecessor or ordainer, and who continued in the
same Faith with the Apostles.^ For this is the way in which the
apostolical churches calculate the series of their Bishops."" This
passage is the triumph of succession divines. Now that a succes-
sion ofininisterswas rightly urged against those who, by rejecting
or corrupting the Scriptures, introduced into the Christian
church the wildest ravings, such as the Corinthians, the Valen-
tinians, Basilidians, &c., we have shewn in our observations on
Irenaeus ; to which place we request the readet* to refer, as the
subject is the same in both authors. But is this all TertuUian
says about the rule of FAITH, in opposition to heretics ? The
reader shall judge of the conduct of those who would lead others
to believe it to be so. Within half-a-dozen lines of the passage
above quoted, he shews that he only meant this per so7ia I succession
^fsron^^ode of shewing the main point, viz. the succession of
apostolical FAITH : " But if the heretics feign or fabricate such a
succession, this loill NOT help them. For their DOCTRINE itself,
compared with the doctrine of the Apostles will, by its own di-
versity and contrariety, pronounce against them, that it had not,
as its author, either any apostle or apostolical man ; for as there
was no difference among the Apostles in their doctrine, so nei-
ther did any apostolical men teach any thing contrary to them ;
except those who DIVIDED /rom the Apostles, and preached
DIFFERENTLY. To THIS FORM of trial will appeal be made by
those churches HENCEFORWARD daily established, which, though
they have neither any of the Apostles nor any apostolical men for
their founders, yet ALL agreeing in the SAME faith, are, from
this CONSANGUINITY OF DOCTRINE, to be esteemed NOT LESS
APOSTOLICAL than the former. Therefore our churches having
appealed to BOTH forms of proving themselves to be apostolical,
let the heretics shew some form by which they can prove the same.
But they cannot shew this ; for it does not exist : therefore they
are not received into communion by those churches which are
every way apostolical, FOR THIS REASON, because of the DIFFER-
ENCE of their FAITH, which is in no sense apostolical." Oh \
TertuUian, this is hard ! What ! will not a succession of Bishops
HELP us AT ALL, without a succession of the faith taught by the
Apostles ? So he says. But what is a heavier stroke still, he
says the succession of FAITH alone will make a church equally
g De Praescript, c. 32.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 107
apostolical as those who have the succession of faith and the suc-
cession of persons too. This is death to the scheme of our high
church divines. He has much more to the same purpose in this
very treatise: — "What if a bishop, or a deacon, or a widow, or
a virgin, or a doctor in the church, or a confessor, shall have
fallen from the failhy shall heresy by them obtain the authority of
the truth ? What ! do we prove FAITH BY PERSONS, and not
rather persons by the faith ?" c. 3. " Our Lord instructs us
that many ravening wolves will be found in sheep's clothing. —
Who are these ravening wolves, except deceitful workers, that
lurk in the church to infest the flock of Christ ? Who ^xe false
prophets, but FALSE preachers ? Who are false apostles, ex-
cept those who preach an adulterated gospel ?" c. 4. Hear
this, ye semipopish succession divines ! who frequently preach
for doctrine the commandments of men, and make void the law of
God by your doctrine of traditions. But to proceed with Tertul-
lian on the succession of faith : " Immediately after the day of
Pentecost, the twelve Apostles, which by interpretation means
Missionaries, first having preached the faith to the churches
throughout Judea, then went into the whole world, publishing
the very sarne doctrine of the same faith to the nations of tlie
earth. Churches were established in every city by the Apostles ;
from which churches the SUCCESSION of faith, and the seeds of
DOCTRINE, were derived to other churches; and daily continue
to be derived, to GIVE them existence «s churches. And BY
THIS PROCESS these succeeding churches will be esteemed apos-
tolical, as the offspring of apostolical churches." Here the
reader sees again it is faith, and faith only, i. e. the true doctrine
of the gospel, which constitutes the ESSENTIAL CHARACTER o/'a
Christian church. Again, " I am an HEIR of the Apostles. As
they provided for me as by WILL, committing the same to the
faith, and establishing it as by OATH, so / hold it. But they have
disinherited you heretics, and cast you out as aliens and enemies :
BUT WHENCE are heretics aliens and enemies to the Apostles ?
it is by opposition of DOCTRINE." c. 37.
But what says TertuUian about the order of Bishops by DI-
VINE RIGHT ? You shall hear : " The highest jjriest, who is the
Bishop, has the right of administering baptism. Then the Pres-
byters and Deacons, yet NOT without the authority of the
Bishop, BECAUSE of the HONOR of the church." Well, (our
108 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
opponents will reason) here, at least, Bishops are high priests ;
now the high priest was an order by divine right superior to the
other priests ; it follows, then, Bishops are a divine order above
Presbyters. Besides Presbyters can do nothing without the
Bishop's authority. What can be more decisive ? So triumph
our high churchmen from this passage. Their triumph shall be
short. They have not generally the honesty to quote the i^ery
next words, as this would spoil all in a moment. We will give
the whole passage : " The highest priest, who is the Bishop, has
the right of administering baptism. Then the Presbyters and
Deacons, yet not without the authority of the Bishops, BECAUSE
of the honour of the church, THIS BEING PRESERVED, peace is
preserved. OTHERWISE the RIGHT belongs even to laymen.
However, the laity ought especially to submit humbly and mo-
destly to the discipline or ecclesiastical regulations of the church
in these matters, and not assume the office of the Bishop, seeing
their superiors, the Pf-esbyters and Deacons, submit to the same.
Emulation is the mother of divisions. ' All things are lawful to
me,' said the most holy Paul, * but all things are not expedient.'
Let it suffice that you use your LIBERTY in cases of necessity,
when the condition of the person, or the circumstances of time
or place compel you to it." ^ This is too plain to need comment.
To prevent divisions, as Jerome says, to secure the peace of the
church by taking away emulation, the mother of divisions, Ter-
tullian shews, one Presbyter was placed over the rest, as the
highest priest, that is, the highest Presbyter ; and yet by no
divine right: all, even laymen have, he says, "the RIGHT."
His words are, " Alioquin etiam laicis JUS es^." This is enough
for our present argument, and, with other bearings of his words,
we, at present, have nothing to do.
In his most celebrated work, his Apology, whilst describing
the order and government of the church, he says, " Praesident
probati quique SENIORES, &c. Approved Elders or Presbyters
preside amongst us ; having received that honor not by money,
but by the suffrages of their brethren.^'' cap. 39.^ Reeves, who
was, as has been remarked, a rigid churchman, in his note on
f De Baptismo, c. 17.
g "Seniores are, in the Greek language, called Presbyters," says the learned Popish Ecclesiastical
Historian, Cabassutius. Notitia Eccle. p. 53. Indeed this is, beyond all doubt, the direct and proper
sense. Scapulasays, *' v^tcr^VTiPOS, Senior j" Schrevelius : **ffPEO"/3uTE^oj, Presbyter, senior;"
and Suicer: *' TrgscT-^yxEPOj, id est, senior."
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 109
the place, says, " the presiding Elders here are undoubtedly the
same with the n^oEswf in Justin Martyr." (vid. p. 101 of this
Essay.) Here the Presbyters preside. One as Primus Presbyter,
as the highest Priest or highest Presbyter, was, by the suffrages
of his brethren, appointed or ordained to preside over the rest ;
and, for distinction's sake, was called Bishop, So in another
very noted passage in his Praescriptions against Heretics, he
speaks of the apostolical churches " over which the APOSTOLICAL
CHAIRS siiW. presided.'^ The order was usual, in the meetings
of ministers in the primitive church, for the ministers' chairS to
be set in a semicircle. The ?mddle chair was raised a little above
the rest. The highest Presbyter or Priest sat in this, and the
other Presbyters or Priests sat round him. The deacons were
never allowed chairs ; they always stood. I mention the fact
without justifying it. Now these were the chairs Tertullian
means. The Presbyters sat in them, and thus in council presided
over the church in comjnon. So says Jerome, " the church was
governed hy the comrnon council of the Presbyters^ Here, then,
Presbyters are apostolical successors, sit in apostolical chairs,
and are the SAME ORDER with Bishops.
Clemens Alexandrinus flourished about A.D. 204. He says
but little that bears on the subject before us. A passage in the
Sixth Book of his Stromata is sometimes referred to as support-
ing high church episcopacy ; but a close examination of it will
shew that it supports nothing of the kind. He tells his reader,
in the beginning of this book, that his design in it, and in the
seventh, is to describe the true ^' gnostic,^' or the perfect man.
He properly begins by shewing, that he must be like God. He
thus proceeds : — " Seeing God is indeed the good Parent, He is
permanently and immutably engaged in beneficence. Inactive
goodness is no goodness : true goodness is certain to be engaged
in acts of goodness. He therefore who having subdued bis
passions, and having attained true self-denial, daily practises
with increasing success true beneficence : he is a perfect gnostic,
and is equal to angels. Thus shining as the sun in acts of good-
ness, he sedulously proceeds by true knowledge, and the love of
God, like the Apostles, to the mansion of holiness. The Apostles
were not chosen as Apostles because of any natural excellence
or inherent virtue of theirs ; for Judas was elected along with
the rest : but they were elected by Him who saw the end from
110 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
the beginning, Matthias was not elected with the rest, yet
when he had shewn himself worthy to he an Apostle, he was
appointed in the place of Judas. Hence it follows, also, that
that those now who walk in the Saviour's commandments, living
as perfect gnostics according to the gospel, ^all- he enrolled /
amongst the Apostles. He is truly a Presbyter of the church,
and he is a true deacon or servant of the will of God, who does
and teaches what God has commanded, and NOT he who has
been ordained by the imposition of hands : neither is a Presbyter
counted a righteous man, because he is a Presbyter, but a righ-
teous man, because he is a righteous man, is enrolled in the trite
Presbytery: and though upon earth he be not honored with
sitting i7i the first throne, yet he shall sit on i\\o^e four and twenty '
thrones judging the people, as John speaks in the Revelation.
There is only one covenant of salvation, coming down from the
creation of the world, through different ages and generations,
in various modes of administration. It follows, therefore, that
tJiere is only one unchangeable salvation, given by one and the
same God, and applied by one and the same Lord, (Jesus Christ,)
according to different dispensations. For which cause the mid-
dle wall that separated the Jews from the Gentiles has been
taken away, that so of twain he might make one peculiar people ;
and that they both might come to a unity of faith ; both have one
and the same election. And of the elect, whether Jews or
Gentiles, those are more particularly so, who, according to this
perfect knowledge, have been gathered from the church on earth,
and honored with the magnificent glory of sitting on ihefour and
twenty thrones, as Judges and Administrators, in that assembly
where the grace of time is crowned with a double increase. For *
even in the church here on earth, there are promotions of Bishops,
of Presbyters, and of Deacons ; which are, I suppose, imitations
of angelic glory, and of that state which awaits those who walk
in the footsteps of the Apostles, and in the perfect righteousness
of the gospel. These, the Apostle tells as, being received up
into the clouds, shall first be engaged in suitable services, and
then advanced to the Presbytery, according to the promotion of
glory, (for glory differs from glory,) until they grow to a
perfect man."
We have given the whole of this passage that the reader may
judge for himself. First, then, it is plain that Clemens set a
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. HI
comparatively light estimate upon ordination by imposition of
hands, if separate from true piety. Secondly, he says he sup-
poses that the " promotions of Bishops, of Presbyters, and of
Deacons, are imitatmis of angelic glory ;" by which he appears
only to mean heavenly glory in general. He never mentions
different orders of Angels in the passage: the vs^riter of the
Revelation to whom he refers never uses the word Archangel,
or orders of Angels. Thirdly, as to this angelic or heavenly
glory, he explains himself by speaking of the four and Iwenty
Elders (Presbyters) as the summit of it, — the highest perfection
of that glory, that indeed in which the Apostles are found. No
higher place is assigned in the Scriptures to the Apostles them-
selves, than to sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of
Israel, Matt. xix. 28. And he makes being " like Angels,"
being "like the Apostles." He speaks of his "perfect man,"
being " enrolled amongst the Apostles," and explicates his mean-
ing by going on to shew, that though he should not on earth be
" honored with sitting in a first throne, yet he shall sit in the pres-
bytery of those four and twenty thrones, judging the people :"
the Apostles, therefore, according to Clemens, sit on such thrones.
They belong to that presbytery. That presbytery is the man-
sion of holiness for the perfect man. Here is no place for the
Bishop over this presbytery, without placing him over the
Apostles themselves. With Clemens, then, nothing belonging
to the church, either in heaven or on earth, is higher than a true
Presbyter. We hope multitudes of good Bishops will be there :
but, if Clemens be right, it will be their highest glory to be
perfect Presbyters.
But Clemens has a passage in the beginning of the seventh
book of the same work, in which he clearly maintains the iden-
tity of Bishops and Presbyters. Speaking of the public worship
of God, in opposition or contrast to mental worship, he says,
" One part of it is performed by superior ministers, another part
by inferior ministers. — The superior part is performed by Pres-
byters ; the inferior, or servile part, by the Deacons,''' Here
Bishops are included in the Presbyters, that is, they are one and
the same order and office. This is another important testi-
mony against high church episcopacy.
Origen flourished about A.D. 230. All he says is conform-
able to the statement of Jerome, viz. that Presbyters and Bishops
/uiTI7BIlSIT7i
112 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
are substantially the same order ; the circumstantial difference is,
that one Presbyter was set over the rest, and distinguished Ijy
the denomination oi Bishop. If we shew this substantial identity,
it will follow, of course, that the difference is only circumstantial.
Let us hear Origen : " Dost thou think that they who are
honored with the priesthood, and glory in their priestly order,
walk according to that order ? In like manner, dost thou sup-
pose the deacons also walk according to their order ? Whence
then is it that we often hear reviling men exclaim * What a
Bishop!' * What a Presbyter!' or 'What a Deacon! is this
fellow.' Do not these things arise from hence, that the priest or
the deacon, had, in some thing, gone contrary to his order, and
had done something against the priestly, or the levitical order."*
Here is the priesthood and priestly order, and the levitical order :
the Bishop and Presbyter are EQUALLY put into the ^rst, i e.
the p7nesthood, or priestly order; and Deacons are noticed in the
place or order of the Levites. The Bishops and Presbyters are
spoken of as one and the same order. In another part, speaking
of the queen of Sheba admiring the order of Solomon's servants,
Origen's lively imagination supposes that Solomon's household
typified the church of God ; and Solomon's servants, the ministers
of the church : — " Imagine the ecclesiastical ORDER, sitting in
the seats or chairs of Bishops and Presbyters. She saw also the
array of servants standing to wait in their service. This (as it
seems to me) speaks of the order of deacons standing to attend
on divine service."J Here one and the same ecclesiastical order
includes both Bishops and Presbyters. Again : " What will it
profit me to sit in a HIGHER chair, if my works are not answer-
able to my dignity.'"' This is his mode of representing the
circumstantial difference of a Bishop, occupying the dignity of a
" higher chair," in sitting, with his co-presbyters, to preside over
the church. For he says the Presbyters preside over the church
too. Thus, addressing his hearers in Hom. 7, on Jeremiah, he
says, " We, of the clerical order, who preside over you.''
Now every one knows that Origen was NEVER any thing more
than a Presbyter. Speaking in another place of the ambition of
some persons to be great in the church, he says, " They first
desire to be deacons, but not such as the Scripture describes,
I Horn, 2, in Num. J Hom. 2, in Cant,
k Horn. 6, in Ezek.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 113
but such as devour widows' houses, and for pretence make long
prayers, and therefore shall receive a heavier judgment. Such
deacons consequently will go about to seize the HIGH chairs' of
Presbyters — PRIMAS cath^edras. Some also, not content with
that, attempt more^ in order that they may be called Bishops,
i. e. Rabbi; but they ought to understand that a Bishop must be
blameless, and have the rest of the qualities described there,
(Titus i. 6, &c.) so that thoiigh men should not give such a one
the NAME of Bishop, yet he will BE a Bishop before God,'^^
This is the general style of Origen on this subject, and the sub-
stance of what occurs in his Works, on the matter. It is clear
enough that Jerome has given us the sense of Origen, as well as
of the rest of the ancients. He was perfectly acquainted with
Origen's opinion, and translated many of his Works. Bishops
and Presbyters, with Origen, were the same order ; they RULED
the church in common, the Presbyters presiding with the
Bishop ; he having a higher chair, and being distinguished hy the
name oi Bishop.
Cyprian flourished about A.D. 250. He was a great and
good man, and nobly sealed the truth with his blood as a martyr
of Christ. However he certainly had somewhat inflated views
on the dignity of a Bishop, and is considered to be as high as any
of the primitive fathers in his notions on the subject. Yet they
amount to no more than Jerome's statement. Let the man that
says they do, produce the proof. As high language may be pro-
duced from Jerome as any used by Cyprian ; yet Jerome ex-
pressly tells us his sober view was, that, by divine right. Bishops
and Presbyters were the same. The language, therefore, that
Cyprian uses, is to be interpreted as consistent with this identity
of Bishops and Presbyters. It is of much importance to keep
this in mind. Another thing may assist the reader's judgment
here. He has seen the levelling views of TertuUian. Now it is
well known that Cyprian was so passionate an admirer of
TertuUian as never to let A DAY pass without reading some part
of his writings ; and his language, in calling for his Works to be
brought him regularly for this purpose, was, "DaMagistrum
— Give me the master.'' The admiring scholar must resemble
his master. We shall see even under Cyprian, that the church
was ruledin common by the Bishops and Presbyters. Cyprian did
» Tract. 24, in Matt 23.
P
114 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
not suppose he ought to DO any thing of moment in his church
without the council of his clergy. Writing to his Presbyters
and Deacons, he says, " From the beginning of my episcopacy I
determined to do nothing of my own accord, but only by your
council, and with the consent of the people. When, by the grace
of God, I return unto you, then we will, as our mutual honor
requires, confer in common upon tJiose things which have been
done, or which still remain to be done.'"" But he goes further
than this. He shews his opinion that the Presbyters had poivers,
by divine right, io perform ANY of a Bishop's duties, in his absence.
In his seclusion from the rage of his persecutors, he writes to his
Presbyters and Deacons, saying, " I beseech you, according to
your faith and religion, that you perform your own duties, and
also those belonging to me, so that nothing may be wanting either
as to discipline or diligence." Ep. 5. Again, having mentioned
matters of church government; " I rely upon your love and your
religion, which I well know, and by these letters I exhort and
COMMIT THE CHARGE to you, that you, whose presence does not
expose you to such peril, would discharge MY duty, act in my
place, (vice mea), and perform all those things which the
administration of the church requires." Ep. 6. These passages
are decisive in proof, that, substantially, the Bishop and Presby-
ter were in Cyprian's opinion the same. The presiding power
of the clergy is very strongly put by him, when, in writing
to Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, he speaks of them as " Com-
presbyters of Cornelius," Ep. 42 ; and " the most illustrious
CLERGY presiding WITH THE BiSHOP over the church.'' Ep. 55.
Again, as " the sacred and venerable consistory of his clergy.^''
Ep. 55, p. 107. He applies the term praepositus, president, as
well as pastor, to the Presbyters and to the Bishops in common.
Ep. 10, 1 1, 23, and 62. Indeed, in Ep. 20, he applies it to Pres-
byters alone, as distinct from the Bishop. Cyprian uses the term
Collega for a Bishop, very frequently. The fourth council of Car-
thage, A.D. 398, thus speak on the subject: "As in the church and
in the consession of the Presbyters, the Bishop sits in a higher seat
than the Presbytery, so in other places let him know that he is
truly a Colleague, Collega, of the Presbyters : can. 35." This was
in the very city in which Cyprian had been Bishop. There were
214 Bishops in the council, amongst whom was the famous
m Ep. 6, ed. Pamel, 1589.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 115
St. Augustiii, at that time Bishop of Hippo. This canon be-
came embodied in the Canon Law, and makes part of the Law
of the Romish church to this day. In his angry Epistle to
Pnpian, a Bishop and Confessor, when put upon the point of
clearing himself from some charges of pride, haughtiness^ &c.
which Pupian had mentioned to him in a letter, he stands in the
defence of the divine authority of his office in the church : he says
the Lord strengthened this divine authority by a revelation in a
dream; and he places it upon this, that he e^as A PRIEST, sacerdos.
None of our high churchmen deny that a Presbyter is a Priest,
or sacerdos. The council of Carthage, in the canon just now
mentioned, use the word sacerdotes for Presbyters only, " Epis-
copus — collegam se Sacerdotum esse cognoscat — let the Bishop
know that he is the Colleague of the Priests, or Presbyters.''
Such is the solemn determination of 214 Bishops, the great
Augustin amongst them. Cabassute, the learned Romish histo-
rian of the councils, says of this council, " Never were more
excellent and comprehensive regulations made for church disci^
pline than in this council ; so that its decrees may be said to be
a storehouse of instruction as to the regulation of the whole order
of the clergy." Here again, then, the Bishop and Presbyter are in
substance the same. Indeed, according to Dr. Barrow's view of
the following passage, Cyprian distinctly declares that, at the first,
"/or a time,'' there were no Bishops as now ; but that they were
afterwards, and by human authority, constituted to take away
schisms, exactly according to Jerome's statements. Cyprian says,
"Heresies are sprung up, and schisms grown from no other
root but this, because God's Priest was not obeyed ; nor was
there one Priest or Bishop for a time in the church, nor a judge
thought on for a time to supply the room of Christ." Ep. 55.
" Where," says Dr. Barrow, " that by the church is meant any
particular church, and by Priest a Bishop of such church, any
one not bewitched with prejudice by the tenour of Saint Cyprian's
discourse, will easily discover.""
The Epistle on the Unity of the Church will develop the same
thing. He explains and confirms his views by the case of the
Apostles. Peter, he thinks, had the Ji?'st grant of the keys,
though all had equal power. " After the resurrection, each and
a /I of the other Apostles had equal power given to that of
n Barrow's Tope's Supremacy, p. 141, ed. 4to, 16R0,
116 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
Peter." This, he supposes, gives a 'principle of unity, a kind
of headship, with EQUALITY of power amongst all. Having
laid down his scheme in the Apostles, he applies it to all minis-
ters. "All are pastors, but ihejlock is only one, which was
fed by all the Apostles with unanimous consent.'''' He proceeds
to point out the duty of keeping this unity in general, and shews
the importance of the Bishops of different parts of the church
acting on the same plan, in order to prevent the scheme of
Novatus and others, who tried to gain over, and did gain over,
some of the Bishops to tlieir side. This was good advice. Then
" all ministers ar6 pastors," as really as all the Apostles were
Apostles : and one person in each city or district having a kind
of headship over others, for the sake of unity, perfectly consists
with equal powers amongst all; as much so as that the Apostles
had all equal power, notwithstanding the headship of Peter.
Whether Cyprian was right or wrong in his opinion about
Peter's headship, makes no difference to our present argument.
We give his scheme merely to shew Cyprian's views of the sub-
stantial identity of Bishops and Presbyters, with the shadow of a
distinction between them in the headship of the Bishop. The
remark again easily suggests itself, that the same mode of argu-
ing which our high churchmen employ for their view of Bishops,
jure divino, is employed with equal plausibility by the Papists
for the UNIVERSAL headship of the Pope. Cyprian maintained the
DIVINE RIGHT OF EQUALITY amongst all pastors, and that the
difference was circumstantial and non-essential. The contrary
tends to Popery. So the celebrated high church Dodwell fairly
pushes himself, on this very point in Cyprian, to this clear es-
tablishment of the Popedom — " Christ, as the Head of the church,
is NOT SUFFICIENT to its unity, but there must be beside a visible
head in the visible church." ° Glorious news for Popery ! And
all are doomed as schismatics to eternal damnation by Dodwell
and the Oxford Tract-men who do not submit to this Popish
dogma ! I Cyprian, hower, directs the people to forsake wicked
ministers. He says, " A people obedient to the Lord's commands,
and fearing God, ought to SEPARATE themselves from a wicked
Bishop, and not partake of the sacraments of a sacrilegious priest,
seeing they chiefly have the power of electing worthy ministers,
and of rejecting the unworthy." Ep. 68.
• Dodwelli Diss. Cyprian, No. 7, Sect. 22,
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 117
Bishop Beveridge and the learned Dodwell have selected the
following as the strongest passage in Cyprian for high church
Episcopacy. If this can he shewn to fail that scheme, then no-
thing in Cyprian will support it. As Cyprian is, perhaps, the
highest in his notions on this subject of all the genuine Fathers,
it will conduce to the purpose of our argument to give this passage
a thorough examination. The passage is in his " Epistle to the
Lapsed, who themselves had written to Cyprian about the
peace or reconciliation to the church, which Paul, the martyr,
had given to them." The passage is as follows : — " Our Lord,
(whose precepts we are obliged to reverence and observe,) when
arranging matters that regard the honor of the Bishop and the
order of his church, thus speaks in the gospel, and says to Peter,
* I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I
build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it : and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, shall be
loosed in heaven.' Hence the ordination of Bishops, and the
arrangement of the church, have, through different times and
successions, come down to the present, so that the church is
placed upon the Bishops : and all acts of the church are governed
by these same Presidents of the church. Seeing then this is
established by divine law, I marvel that certain persons" — these
lapsers, '* should have the temerity to write to me in such a man-
ner," — telling him (Ep. 29,) that they did not need his (Cyprian's)
Letters of Peace, since Paul, the martyr, had given them such
Letters; — "seeing," says Cyprian, " the church is constituted of
the Bishop, the Clergy, and of all the faithful of the people. Far
be it indeed from the truth of the case, and from the long-suffering
of God, that the church should consist in the number of the
Lapsed."
Here then let us, first, explain the case of the Lapsed; second-
ly, the laws of church government in Cyprian's time, on this and
similar matters.
First, the Lapsed: — These were persons who had fallen from
their faith in the persecution. They were eager to be admitted
to the peace of the church, before they had given those proofs of
their recovery from their fall which were then generally judged
necessary in such cases. Some of the martyrs (persons who had
118 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
survived their sufferings in the persecution) from the honors they
had gained by their constancy, had obtained great influence in
the church, and had, though only laymen, given Letters of Peace
to the lapsed, without the concurrence of the Bishop and of the
clergy in general. Some few of the Presbyters had acted in the
same disorderly manner, " contemning the Bishop and arrogating
the WHOLE authority in this matter to themselves." Ep. 10.
Secondly, let us explain the laws of church government, in
Cyprian's time, on this and similar matters. Cyprian then,
himself, in numberless places, states that these laws required the
mutual concurrence of the Bishop, the Presbyters, the Deacons,
and of all the faithful of the church : so that he could not,
" durst not,''' he says, do any thing of importance without them :
of course, no individuals, as a party, could do anything without
him and the other clergy with him. This law he expressly and
repeatedly applies to such cases as ordaining Readers, Deacons,
&c. and he expressly applies it to this case of reconciling the
lapsed. In this act the Bishop and the Clergy both equally laid
their hands upon the lapsed in restoring them to the peace of the
church — " manu eis ab Episcopo ET Clero imposita ,"" Ep. 10.
The question in dispute, then, was not between the Bishop
and the Presbyters ; nothing of the kind: but between the Bishop
with the clergy in general, on one side, and a faction in the
church on the other. Cyprian claims no sole powers for the
Bishop. He repeatedly acknowledges that the power and au-
thority of the Bishop was so LIMITED, that he could do nothing
of importance of himself. His office was to convene the church,
and preside over, or superintend, the acts of the church: " all acts
of the church are governed by these presidents." He was then
nothing more, by Cyprian's own account, than a li-inited Super-
intendent, unable to do any thing of general importance ALONE ;
but whose office it was to superintend all the affairs and proceedings
of the church, whether those proceedings were by the ministers or
the people, separately or conjointly. Presbyters could, in an
emergency, exercise all the powers of this office; for so Cyprian
himself requests and commands them to perform all things in
his office that belonged to the government of the church. This
superintendency, Cyprian (though his meaning is not clear)
seems to think is established by divine law : his proofs are, the
authority given to Peter, the ordinations of Bishops, the arrange-
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 119
ments of the church, and the successions of Bishops to each other.
Sometimes, however, he seems to have doubted this point, viz.
that this superintendency was established by divine law : for in
the passage above given from him by Dr. Barrow, he says there
was no such president or judge for a time in the church, and
that this was the cause of the heresies that arose for want of it.
But Cyprian is very expert at using divine authority. He pleads
his ^^ night visions — nocturnas visiones^^ — for this. Ep. 10. He
styles the election of Cornelius by the clergy and people, " the
judgtnent of God and of Christ." Ep. 46 and 52. This is fre-
quently his way of answering his adversaries on disputed points.
So in some disputed ordinations, Ep. 55 : and similar things in
many other places, he thus makes them to be by divine authority.
For Cyprian to plead this kind oi divine authority for this super-
intendency, amounts to little ; and such certainly appears to be
his style of reasoning in the passage in dispute. This limited
superintendency, then, is Cyprian's Episcopacy ; and such is the
divine right which he pleads for this limited superintendency.
This is the very utmost that the strongest passage in Cyprian,
himself the strongest advocate in antiquity, can prove. Does
this then establish high church Episcopacy ? Cyprian, who was
the Archbishop of that part of Africa — yea, Cyprian durst not,
coul Jlioi^^cfoT any thing of importance without consulting his
Presbyters and Deacons ; and frequently the people also : his
Presbyters in his absence, when need required, could perform
all that belonged to his office without him. Will this super-
intendency satisfy a high church Bishop ? no, verily, nor a low
church Bishop either. When it was proposed at the Conference,
at Worcester House, about the King's (Charles II.) Declaration,
that " the Bishops should exercise their church power loith the
counsel and consent of Presbyters,'''' Bishop Cosins (one of the
most learned Bishops in the Canons, Councils, and Fathers,)
presently replied, " If your Majesty grants this, you will UN-
BISHOP your Bishops:'' see p. 47 of this Essay.
FIRMILIAN, Bishop of Csesarea in Cappadocia, was very cele-
brated in his day. He was cotemporary with Cyprian. A very
long letter of his is found in Cyprian's Works. He says, " All
power and grace is in the church, in which Presbyters pre-
side, and have the power of baptizing, confirming and ORDAIN-
ING. Omnis potestas et gratia i?i ecclesia constituta sit, uli
120 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
PRAESIDENT MA J ORES NATU, QUI et haptizandl, et MANUM
IMPONENDI, et ORDINANDI, posddent POTESTATEM." This is
every way a DECISIVE TESTIMONY. The manner in which he
puts it, shews that he had not a suspicion that the assertion had
anything in it contrary to Cyprian's views. Had Cyprian be-
lieved in the divine right (Tf the order of Bishops, as possessing
the SOLE POWER and authority of ordination and con-
firmation, he would necessarily have opposed the doctrine of
Firmilian as a dangerous heresy. He did not. The consequence
is plain : he did not hold such a view of the divine right of
Bishops.
The decisive language of Firmilian gives a proper key to
Cyprian. The letter of Firmilian has the most perfect authen-
ticity. Firmilian is equal, or even superior authority to Cyprian
himself. Eusebius (Eccles. Hist. L. 6, c. 26) says, " he was very
famous.'' " He made," says Howel, " A much more consider-
able figure in the church at that time than the Bishop of Rome.
Firmilian was president of this council,'' i. e. the council of An-
tioch. P Firmilian's testimony is as high and as decided as
language can make it. And it does not speak of isolated facts,
but of the practice of the church. It was the practice then for
Presbyters to preside over the church, to confirm, and to ORDAIN.
Suppose this chiefly to have been confined to the country of
Firmilian, that is to Asia Minor ; this is abundantly enough. Fir-
milian was known over the whole Christian ^^orld. The PRAC-
TICE was NEVER condemned; the ordinations were NEVER
OBJECTED to. This case is worth a THOUSAND single instances
of ordination ; for such a matter could not be established as
practice, and then continued as practice, in the most celebrated
part of the Christian world at that time, without resulting in the
ordination of thousands of ministers.
We have now gone through all the principal writers that
speak on the subjects in question, during the FIRST THREE CEN-
TURIES ; and we see that their authority utterly fails to maintain
the views of our high church divines on the order of Bishops and
APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION ; and establishes the contrary.
A few observations on some of the later Fathers shall close
this section.
Athanasius flourished A. D. 350. Some writers on Episcopacy
P Howel'9 Pontificate, p. 24.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 121
quote an Epistle of his to a monk named Dracontius, in favour
of Bishops by divine right, as an order with powers incompatible
with the office of Presbyters. Here is the usual fallacy of such
writers, in presuming that any mention of Bishops always means
SUCH an order of Bishops as this. Indeed they must write upon
this fallacy, or they must drop their pens. But this is begging
the question, and proves nothing. Now in this Epistle of Atha-
nasius, there is not a syllable about the difference between Bishops
and Presbyters. The substance of the whole is this — Whether
a monk, who was a layman, should enter the Christian ministry
and brave the dangers that \lien threatened all in that office ; or
whether he should, coward like, shun those dangers by remain-
ing in the desert and in the cell. Athanasius presses the argu-
gument that to despise this ministry, there spoken of as to a
Bishop, was to despise the ordhiance of Christ. Very true. We
all believe this. But what does it prove as to the question before
us ? just nothing. Such are the best of their attempts at proving
their scheme from the Fathers of any age, either early or late.
We shall not swell this volume by a lengthened exposure of them.
The case of Ischyras's ordination, mentioned by Athanasius, is
not decisive for either side of the argument ; though a thorough
examination of it, would, perhaps, be decidedly against the high
church scheme.*!
Ambrose flourished about A. D. 370. A Commentary on
St. Paul's Epistles, published in his Works, is sometimes supposed
to have been the Work of Hilary, a deacon of Rome. Divines
generally seem to admit its worth and weight to be equal, whe-
ther it be ascribed to Ambrose or Hilary. The deacons of that
day had risen greatly in the principal churches, and had become
eminent. The cause was this : the deacons had the principal
management of the goods of the church. The churches had be-
come very rich, even before Constantine's time. The number of
deacons was limited to seven, in the church of Rome; and this
whilst the Presbyters amounted to more than seven times seven.
The deacons, therefore, had much power and influence. Some
of them were amongst the most able and learned men of the age.
Athanasius was only a deacon, whilst he was one of the most
celebrated champions for the faith in the great council of Nice,
q See StUKngfleet's Irenioum, pp. 381, 383.
Q
122 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
Ambrose then, or Hilary, says, " After churches were consti-*
tuted in every place, and offices appointed, things BEGAN to be
arranged DIFFERENTLY from what they were in the beginning;
for, at the firsts all taught, and all baptized. But if all had con-
tinued to be allowed to perform the same things, it would have
been absurd, and the ministry would have become vile and con-
temptible. The Apostles' writings are not altogether agreeable
to the order of things as NOW practised in the church. For
Timothy, who was ordained a Presbyter by Paul, he calls a
Bishop ; because the firsts or chief Presbyters, were called
Bishops. His words are " Primi Presbyteri Episcopi appella-
tanturJ' * FiRST, or chief Presbyters, were called Bishops;
and, as one departed, the next succeeded to the office. But be-
cause the next in succession were sometimes found unworthy to
hold the PRIMACY, the custom was changed by the provision of
a council ; so that not the next in order, but the next in merit,
should be made Bishop, and CONSTITUTED such BY the jtidgtnent
of a number of the Presbyters, lest an unworthy person should
usurp, and become a general scandal." "^ " The Presbyter and
Bishop, had ONE and the same ordination. The Bishop is
the chief among the Presbyters — Episcopus est qui inter Presby-
teros Pri7nus.''^ Here it is plainly stated that the usages of the
church, in his day, were different from what they were in the
Apostles' time ; and therefore they could only be of human au-
thority, and not of divine right. The Presbyters and Bishops,
he says, had " one and the SAME ORDINATION." The conse-
cration of Bishops, as now used, has no scriptural authority: it
is merely a ceremony. Then he proceeds to say, that a presi-
dency became established. This, at the Jirst, took place by mere
seniority, and one was CONSTITUTED Bishop by the judgment
of the other Presbyters: the Presbyters made the Bishop ;
and this precedency was given to one Presbyter as Bishop, for
the honor of the church and the ministry, and not by any
* Mr. Sinclair, (p. 90,) chooses to display some wit, and to shew his knowledge, by declaring that
"a Prime Presbyter, as presiding in the college of Presbyters," is an " invention of the modern
followers of Aerius"— that " this poetic personage, this creature of the dissenting imagination, was
created by David Blondel." Mr. Sinclair, of course, talks by hearsay about Ambrose, otherwise his
wU would havQ been spoiled, and his learning improved.
r Com. in Ephes. cap. 4. • s Com. in 1 Tim. iii.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 123
divine 7ight, Indeed, he says, it was different from apostolic
usage.
We may here introduce the matter of Aerius. I consider it
of little importance ; and the opinion of Epiphanius about it is
much of the same value. Stillingfleet says, " I believe, upon the
strictest inquiry, Medina's judgment will prove true, that Hieron,
Austin, Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Theophylact, were all of Aerius's judgment as to the identity of
both name and order of Bishops and Presbyters in the primitive
church; but here lay the difference: Aerius from thence pro-
ceeded to separation from the Bishops and their churches, because
they were Bishops."' But then, say the advocates of Episcopacy,
Epiphanius wrote against his opinion, and numbered Aerius
amongst heretics because of it. As to Aerius's views, we have
heard Stillingfleet's opinion. They who say he was accounted
a heretic solely for maintaining that Bishops and Presbyters
were, according to the Scriptures, the same, do not know what
they say. Who maintained this more boldly than Jerome ? but
iieither Epiphanius, who was a friend of Jerome's, nor any other
person, ever counted Jerome a heretic on this account. Augustin
says, " Aerius maintained that a Bishop could NOT ordain. He
opposed the existence of the distinction between a Bishop and
Presbyter; he rejected it ; he also fell into the HERESY of the
Arians, &c." And as to Epiphanius, whatever he was beside,
he was a hot-headed, meddling bigot. He quarrelled with John,
Bishop of Jerusalem ; and ordained in John's diocese without
his leave. He collected a council in Cyprus to condemn Origen's
Works, and wrote to Chrysostom to do the same thing. Chry-
sostom refused. Epiphanius had the temerity to enter Constan-
tinople, Chrysostom 's See, in order to cause the decree of Cyprus
against Origen to be put in execution there. Before he entered
the city, he ordained a deacon in one of Chrysostom's churches.
He refused to hold communion with Chrysostom himself; threat-
ened that he would, publicly, in the church, at Constantinople,
with a loud voice, condemn Origen, and all who defended him.
He came to the church, but being warned by Chrysostom that
he might expose himself to danger, from the people, he desisted.
He tried to persuade the Empress that God would spare the life
of her son, (who was then dangerously ill,) if she would only
t Iren. p. 376. » Vid. Augustini de Heresibus, No. 53.
124 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
persecute the defenders of Origen. He defended praying for the
dead : Aerius opposed it. So he put Aerius into the list of here-
tics. Bishop Taylor himself says, * He that considers the Cata-
logues (of Heresies) as they are collected by Epiphanius, &c.
shall find that many are reckoned for heretics for opinions in
matters disputable, and undetermined, and of no consequence ;
and that in these catalogues of heretics there are men numbered
for heretics, which by every side respectively are acquitted, so
that there is no company of men in the v^orld that admit these
catalogues as good records, or sufficient sentences of condemna-
tion.' "' And Dr. Cave, an unexceptionable authority with high
churchmen, says, " He (Epiphanius) was one of no great judg-
ment and reasoning, he generally took his account of things upon
trust, suffering himself to be imposed upon by those narratives
which the several parties had published of the proceedings,
either of their own or of their adversaries side, without due
search and examination, which ran him upon infinite mistakes,
inco7isistencies, and confusions.'^'"
Chrysostom, who flourished A. D. 400, says, "Paul, speaking
about Bishops and their ordination, what they ought to possess,
and from what they must abstain, having omitted (1 Timothy iii.)
the order of Presbyters, he passes on to that of Deacons. Why
so, I ask ? because the difference between the Bishop and the
Presbyter is ALMOST NOTHING. For the Presidency of the
churches is committed to Presbyters^ and the QUALIFICATIONS
which the Apostle requires in a Bishop, he requires in a Presbyter
also ; being above them solely by their ordination, and this is
the ONLY thing they, the Bishops, SEEM to have more than
Presbyters."^ This last remark refers to what is supposed to
be the sheet anchor of episcopacy, in the modern sense, i. e. the
^ power of ordinatio7i. Chrysostom says they were the SAME in
▼ Lib. of Prophes. Sect. 2, Du Pin, Biblioth, Patrum, cent 4th.
w Dr. John Edward's Pratrologia, p. 53, ed. 1731, 8vo. x Com. in 1 Tim. iii.
y There is a radical absurdity at the bottom of all these mighty pretensions about the power of
Ordination. It is as plain as that two and two make four, that the greater always includes the less.
Now the two sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the gp^eatest ritual ordinances in the
Christian Church. A Sacrament is, by all divines, considered above all other ritual ordinances.
Ordination is not a Sacrament. It is therefore less than a Sacrament. He that has power and au-
thority to perform the greater, has power and authority to perform the less. All Presbyters, by the
confession of our opponents, have power and authority to administer the Sacraments oi Baptism and
the Lord's Supper, the greater : all Presbyters, therefore, have power and authority to administer
ordination, the less. This, to a reasonable mind, would settle the whole question j but as the prenc
dices of some people are so strong as to take away the force of clear reason, we have met the
opponents on their own ground.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 125
every thing else. Even as to ordination he only mentions the
FACT of the difiference, and not the divine right. And as to the
fact, his language is by no means decided. Jerome also himself
has a remark of a similar kind in his Epistle to Evagrius :
" What does the Bishop which the Presbyter may not do,
except ordination." The interpretation of the one may be suffi-
cient for the interpretation of the other. Jerome, then, it should
be remembered does, in that Epistle, tnost 'plainly declare that
Bishops and Presbyters are the same. He then says, that
" after the Apostles' times, one Presbyter was placed over the
rest as a remedy against schism. For at Alexandria, from the
Evangelist Mark up to Heraclas and Dionysius, the Bishops,
(about A.D. 250) the Presbyters always elected one from
amongst themselves, and placed him in the higher chair, and
they, the Presbyters, gave him the name of Bishop ; in the same
manner as an army may make its general ; or as Deacons elect
one of themselves whose industry they know, and call him
Archdeacon. For what does a Bishop do," (i.e. now he means
about A. D. 400) " except ordination, which a Presbyter may
not do ?" Here then, it is evident, that Jerome speaks simply
of the fact and custom which had THEN, in his day, become es-
tablished, as to what Bishops do, and Presbyters may not do ;
not of the power or right of Presbyters, or that they could not by
divine right do what the Bishops did. This custom, or ecclesi-
astical arrangement, which, for the honor of the Bishop and the
church, made ordination generally a prerogative of the Bishop's
office, Jerome advises the Presbytery to comply with. There-
fore " they MAY not^'' because of this custom, especially without
the Bishop's licence, ordain. Any other supposition would make
Jerome contradict, in the same page, what he had most firmly
maintained. His illustrations shew the same. The custom of
the church at Alexandria was evidently intended by him as an
example oi ordination by Presbyters; else why mention it as
something which had CEASED, in his day, to be common. The
Prebyters, at Alexandria, prior to A. D. 250, elected one of them-
selves, placed him in the chair, {all the consecration he had) —
and gave him his title of Bishop. It is trifling to say, as Epis-
copalians do, * Perhaps there were Bishops present who laid
on hands and consecrated him.' This is little short of contradict-
ing Jerome. He certainly makes the Presbyters the doers of all
126 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
that was done in making the Bishop. The case of the army-
making its general is another instance which he mentions in
illustration of his position. Every schoolboy knows that the
Roman army in those days, frequently created their generals by
acclamation ; and it is to these proceedings Jerome alludes : the
lawfulness of the thing was no more nesessary to his argument^
tlian the lawfulness of the unjust steward^ s conduct to our Lord's
argument. It is ihefact, and its bearings which are important.
The Deacons, too, then appointed one of themselves as their head,
calling him Archdeacon; so the Presbyters make a Presbyter
their head, and call him Bishop. The army made the general ;
the deacons the archdeacons ; and the Presbyters made the
Bishop. This is plainly the sense. Presbyters, then, or-
dained even Bishops, in the see of Alexandria, from the time
of St. Mark up to Heraclas and Dionysius, that is, for about the
first 200 years after Christ. What need be clearer, than that
Jerome's exception only regards the CUSTOM of the church in
his day, (about 150 years after what he refers to at Alexandria,)
and not the power or right of the Presbyters to ordain. Stilling-
fleet has moreover quoted, in confirmation of this view, the tes-
timony of Eutychius, the Patriarch of Alexandria, who expressly
affirms, " that the twelve Presbyters constituted by Mark, upon
the vacancy of the See did choose of their number one to be head
over the rest, and the other eleven did lay their hands upon
him, and blessed him, and MADE him Patriarch," or Bishop.^
The manner it seems varied, the thing was the same. There
NEVER was any universally established manner oi making Bishops
in the Christian church, excepting the Scriptural one, by which
every man is made a Minister and a Bishop at once, by one
and the same ordination. Chrysostom's language is similar to
Jerome's, and admits the same interpretation. He positively says,
that the Bishop had then nothing above Presbyters but ordina-
tion ; and speaks doubtingly as to this : " This (ordination) is the
only thing they SEEM to have more than Presbyters." But even
were he to speak with the utmost certainty, his language only
states the fact, and not the laio. It was the fact, I believe,
generally, in Chrysostom's days, for the HONOR of the Bishop
and the church, and (as they supposed) to prevent divisions, that
Bishops only ordained Bishops. This is perfectly consistent with
» Stillingflect's Iren. p. 274,
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 127
all we have said to shew the identity of Bishops and Presbyters
by divine right. However, Calderwood, Alt. Daraascen. p. 160,
shews that a more accurate translation of Chrysostom's language
will give a very different view of his meaning : the latter mem-
ber of his sentence, correctly translated, being as follows—" The
Bishop being above the Presbyter solely by their" (the Presby-
ters') " suffrage ; and by this alone they seem to assume an unjust
superiority over the Presbyters." This proves that Chrysostom
considered Bishops and Presbyters to be really and by divine
right the same in all things, and taxes the Bishops with abusing
the power given them by the suffrage of the Presbyters, injuri-
ously to depress those very Presbyters.
The Questions on the Old and New Testament, found in the
Works of St. Augustin, are mostly quoted as his by Episcopal
writers : they could not find fault with me, therefore, if I claim
their authority as his authority. However it is supposed they
were written by a more ancient author than Augustin. In
Quest. 101, whilst rebuking some Deacons who put themselves
before the Presbyters, he says, " The superior Order contains
the inferior ; for a Presbyter may perform the office of a Deacon,
an Exorcist, or a Reader. By a Presbyter you must understand
a Bishop ; as Paul, the Apostle proves, when instructing Timo-
thy, whom he oiTlained a Presbyter^ what sort of a person he
ought to be whom he was to ordain a Bishop. For what is a
Bishop but the First Presbyter, that is, the highest Priest. Fi-
nally, he addresses such as Fellow-Presbyters, Fellow-Priests.
But does the Bishop ever address the Deacons as Fellow-
Deacons ? No indeed ; and the reason is because they are so
much inferior. — For in Alexandria, and through the whole of
Egypt, the Presbyter consecrates (i. e. confirms) when the Bishop
is not present." Here Timothy is a Presbyter ; he as a Presbyter*
ORDAINS Bishops. St. Paul is said to mean a Bishop when he
speaks of a Presbyter : and Presbyters also perform confirmation,
in the Bishop's absence, " through the whole of Egypt.''
That Presbyters both possessed and exercised the right of
ordaining ministers in the Primitive Church, appears moreover
by the 13th Canon of the Council of Ancyra, A.D. 315 :— " 'Tis
not allowed to Village Bishops to ORDAIN Presbyters or Deacons ;
NOR is it allowed EVEN to CiTY PRESBYTERS to do this in ANO-
THER Diocese without the license of the Bishop.'' High Church
128 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
Episcopalians declare they cannot understand this Canon ! It
must be imperfect, or corrupt, or I know not what. So Socinians
treat the Scriptures when they are plainly opposed to their
schemes. However, no man who understands the Greek text
of the Canon, will deny that the above is a fair translation.
Here, then, in the first place, the Chor-episcopi, or country
Bishops, are utterly forbid to ordain, and are evidently treated
AS INFERIOR to city Presbyters. Now Bishop Taylor, and
many other learned Episcopalians, fully admit that these Chor-
episcopi, or Village Bishops, had, by divine right, the power to
ORDAIN. Therefore the power of the City Presbyter to
ORDAIN Presbyters and Deacons, is clearly supposed in the
Canon ; and is NOT taken away, but only limited in its exercise.
He was not to ordain " in another Bishop's diocese without hia
license ;" very proper : but then it is as clear as though the
Canon had said so, that the City Presbyter might and did ordain
Presbyters and Deacons in the diocese of his own Bishop ; and
might do the same in any other diocese by the license of the
Bishop of that diocese. It seems they had been guilty of the
irregularity referred to in the Canon. However there is no
limitation as to the diocese where they reside ; though the rules
of order would require such things to be done with the consent •
of the Bishop. Here, then, is another triumphant proof of the
power of Presbyters to ordain.
There is considerable evidence arising to the same point from
the illustrious Council of Nice, A.D. 325, which condemned
Arianism, and so greatly promoted the establishment of the
Orthodox Faith on the doctrine of the Trinity. A Bishop, they
say, was to be constituted by Bishops. But in their Epistle to
the church of Alexandria, and the other churches of Egypt, they
seem to speak of Presbyters as still frequently ordaining Presby-
ters. They are speaking of the clergy who had not gone away
in the division with Miletius. Their words are — " But as for
those who, by the grace of God, and your prayers, have been
found in no schism, but have ever remained immaculate in the
Catholic Church, it pleased the Holy Synod that they should
have power to ORDAIN, and give up the names of such as were
worthy to be the clergy ; and in short, to do all things according
to the Ecclesiastical Law and Sanction." " The Synod took away
» Socrat Eccles. Hist, Lib. 1. c. 9.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 129
tliis power from all the Miletian clergy who had made division ;
but as to those of the clergy of Alexandria, and the other
churches of Egypt, who had not, they allowed their power of
ordaining^ &c. to REMAIN. Valesius thinks Christopliorson is
mistaken in applying this passage to Presbyters ; but Valesius's
reasons do not invalidate Christophorson's view. For even as
to those from whom this power of ordaining was taken away,
the Epistle says, they were to " continue possessed of their DIG-
NITY and OFFICE, but yet they were to acknowledge themselves
always inferior to all those that had been approved of in every
DIOCESE and church, and who liad been ordained before by our
dearest colleague in the sacred function, Alexander." Now how
could Bishops retain their honor and offrce, in the same
DIOCESE, whilst OTHER BiSHOPS OVER THEM had the sole
honor and office of Bishops in those dioceses ? This is absurd.
It remains, therefore, that they spake of Presbyters. These
Presbyters, their language shews, both possessed and exercised
the power of ORDAINING Presbyters and Deacons; though at
that time they direct that Bishops should ordain Bishops.
The regulations about ordination in the Christian church,
appear to have been chiefly derived from the regulations of the
Jewish Synagogue. To make this plain, we will here repeat the
statement of those Jewish regulations as given by Mairaonides,
and will add a few remarks upon them. " In ancient times,"
says he, (i. e. the times before Hillel the elder, who died about
ten years after the birth of Christ,) " every one who was or-
dained himself, ordained his scholars. But the wise men, in
order to shew particular reverence for Hillel the elder, made a
rule that no one should be ordained without the permission of the
President, neither should the President ordain any one without
the presence of the Father of the Sanhedrim, nor the Father
without the presence of the President. But, as to other mem-
bers of the Sanhedrim, a7iy one might ordain, (having obtained
permission of the President,) by joining with himself two others ;
for ordination cannot regularly be performed except three join in
the ordination." '^ " In the ancient times" of the church, " any
one who was ordained himself, ordained others :" the Presbyters
ordained Timothy, and each church " was ruled by the Presby-
ters in common." Then, probably, about the middle of the
b Vid. Selden De Sj-ned. Lib. 2, c. 7, p. 173, 4to. Amstel. 1679.
R
130 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
second century, one Presbyter was elected by the rest to preside
in the presbytery, and over the general acts of the church. This
presiding Presbyter was, for distinction's sake, called Bishop: a
term which up to that time had been common to all the Presby-
ters, but which henceforward became appropriated to this pre-
siding Presbyter. For the honor of this Bishop, or President,
" a rule was made that no one should be ordained without his
permission," neither could he regularly ordain without the per-
mission of the Presbyters, as is most clearly proved by many
examples in Cyprian himself, wlio apologized for ordaining a
reader or snbdeacon without their permission, even at the time
when the rage of his enemies made it unsafe for him personally
to consult them. With the permission of the Bishop, however,
the Presbyters continued to ordain, as occasion required, for the
first three hundred years : see the proof of this in the language
of Firmilian, the celebrated Bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia,
ajid the decisions of the councils of Ancyra and Nice, in the
preceding pages. At Alexandria, it seems that the custom for
the Presbyters there to ordain their President or Bishop, con-
tinued until A.D. 250, as Jerome testifies. But the power and
authority of the Bishops gradually increased by their uniting to
support each other; by the pride and ambition of many of them,
(for the Fathers themselves give abundant evidence of this,) and
by their pleas that submission to their authority was essential to
prevent schisms, and to the peace of the church. They ventured
at length in the council of Nice, not indeed to prohibit Presby-
ters from ordaining Presbyters ; but to make a law that Bishops
ALONE should ordain Bishops. Of course, as the council was
principally made np of Bishops, there would not be any oppo-
sition. Yet Ambrose expressly declares that the Bishops and
Presbyters had " one ordination," i. e. really such ; as the conse-
cration of Bishops is only a ceremony. Such is the origin, and
such is the history of Episcopal ordinations. Presbyters still
unite with Bishops in ordaining Presbyters in the Church of
England, though Bishops alone ordain Bishops. If this be used
as a matter oi prudential arrangement by a particular branch of
the Christian church, it may be justified on the principle that
such non-essential things may be left to the discretion of each
church to determine ; but when it becomes urged as divine law ;
when, upon this principle, the ministers of churches who use no
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 131
such Episcopal ordinations, are declared to be NO ministers, and
all their ordinances VAIN ; here the whole question is altered
altogether : the peace of the Cliristian world at large is broken ;
the ministers and people of all other churches are insulted ; a
monstrous system of spiritual tyranny is introduced ; and a
many-headed- Popery is established upon this shallow pretence of
the SOLE authority of Bishops by divine right.
That Bishops ordaining or consecrating Bishops is a non-
essential, demonstrably follows from the proofs that have been
given in these pages, that the order of Bishops itself is a mere
matter of Ecclesiastical arrangement, and has no divine right.
At first they were made merely by the election of their fellow-
Presbyters, as in the church of Alexandria, for nearly 200 years.
Then it seems some ceremony was used in placing them in the
higher chair or throne, as it was called ; so the term for it came
to be ENTHRONIZATION. Yet SO far was it from impressing any
indelible character, as they call it ; or conferring, as an act, extra-
ordinary powers, forming a distinct order, that this enthronization
or consecration was frequently repeated, when an individual was
removed from one bishopric to another. So, for instance, Socrates*'
speaking of Miletius, who first had been Bishop of Sebastia,
afterwards of Beraea, but after this was sent for by the inhabit-
ants of Antioch to be their Bishop, says that here, at Antioch,
another, a third enthronization was performed. Many cases of
a similar character might be given. And, indeed, that the con-
secration of Bishops was not considered at the Reformation to
be, like ordination, incapable of repetition, will be evident from
the fact, that many Bishops were then consecrated anew when
translated to other Bishoprics ; as may be seen by the instances
and the words given from the Registers, in Courayer on English
Ordinations.'^ The Oxford Tract-men have a little outwitted
themselves in publishing Archbishop Cranmer's Translation of
Justas Jonas's " Sermon on Apostolical Succession and the Power
of the Keys," as containing the " mature and deliberate judgment"
of Cranmer on these subjects. For, after speaking of ordination
as performed by the Apostles upon others for " the ministration
of God's word,'^ he adds, " And THIS was the consecration, or-
ders, and unction of the Apostles whereby they, at the beginning,
made Bishops and Priests, and this shall continue in the church
c Eccles. Hist. P. 2, chap. 44. ^ P. 65, English Translation, London, 1725, 8vo,
132 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
even to the world's end. And whatsoever rite or ceremony hath
been added more than this, cometh oimarCs ordinance and policy,
and is not commanded by God's word." Now Cranmer, we
shall see, in the next section, distinctly maintained that Bishops
and Priests were, by the law of God, the same. Here he says
that that consecration, orders and unction whereby the Apostles
appointed individuals to the ministration of God's word, was the
only real ordination they had ; for " whatsoever rite or ceremony
hath been added more than this, cometh of ma^i^s ordinance and
policy, and is not commanded by God's word." " Cranmer and
Barlow," says Courayer, " affirm that the consecration (of a
Bishop) is not necessary, and that the designation (or appointing
to the office) is sufficient."*
We wish to study brevity ; otherwise it would be easy to
shew at length the same point, viz. that the ordination or conse-
cration of Bishops, as distinct from their ordination as Presby-
ters, has nothing in it but a mere human ceremony of appointing
an individual to some specific duties in the church. The word
of God has not a syllable upon it : therefore it is utterly void of
DIVINE authority. There is not a particle of genuine evidence
upon it for the first hundred years after Christ. It never had,
in any age, any thing that essentially distinguished it from the
ordination of a Presbyter. This is abundantly evident from
Morinus's celebrated Work on Ordinations. There it is sheWn,
that in every thing but imposition of hands, different churches
and different ages have varied from each other ; and, in most
of the matters, have varied without end. Now that cannot
be essential to a thing which sometimes does not exist with it at
all; and this is the case with every thing belonging to the con-
secration of Bishops, excepting imposition of hands ; and even
this, in some cases, was not used. Imposition of hands is com-
mon to the ordination of a Presbyter as well as to that of a
Bishop: it cannot be cofmmon to both, and yet €9>sentially DIS-
TINGUISH the one from the other ; there is nothing, therefore,
in the consecration of a Bishop, nor ever was, that essenti-
ally distinguished it from the ordination of a Presbyter. If it be
pleaded that the church has appointed words to be used at this
consecration to distinguish it from that of a Presbyter ; we grant
it. But then the church never had any authority from Scripture
e P. 147 3 and see Burnet's Ref. v. i. Record. No. 21.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 13S
to do more in this than to make it a prudential ecclesiastical
arrangement. The Reformers of the Church of England did
not even appoint any words for the act of consecration to distiii-
guish the office of a Bishop from that of a Presbyter : the words
that now distinguish them were added in later times.
If, then, the consecration of Bishops is a mere human cere-
mony, it is impossible that the act of Bishops, as Bishops, in
ordination, can have any divine efficacy or authority above that
of Presbyters. Bishops may ordain one another for ever, but
this would never change tlie matter. A cypher multiplied by a
cypher always produces a cypher. All the authority, then, that
Bishops have to ordain men to the ministration of God's word
and sacraments, arises from their authority as Presbyters, and
from THIS ALONE. Scores of Bishops in the Romish church
never were Presbyters: yet these men have ordained Pres-
byters and Bishops in the church without number. Through
these our high churchmen have received their boasted orders.
Such is their vaunted " unbroken series of VALID ordinationsy^
and Apostolical Succession !
The tenacity of high churchmen to their exclusive and in-
tolerant scheme, must be my apology to the reader for the length
of this Section. We will now state the result of the inquiry : —
1 . No clear evidence appears that any of the Fathers of the
first three centuries, or any council, ever maintained this high
church doctrine of the divine right of Bishops ALONE to be
successors of the Apostles, and to ORDAIN and GOVERN pastors
as well as people.
2. No DISTINCTION appears between the office of Presbyter
and Bishop in the Epistle of Clemens Romanus, nor in the
Epistle of Polycarp, the most ancient and genuine pieces we
have in the first century.
3. In the second and following centuries, a CUSTOM GRADU-
ALLY becomes established for one Presbyter to be placed over the
others ; and the term Bishop, or Superintendent, becomes ap-
propriated to him alone.
4. The ancients assign, as the REASON for this arrangement,
the ho7ior of the church, — the peace of the church, — the pre-
vention af schisms or divisions, — and the unity of the whole. So
Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary or Ambrose, Augustin and Jerome.
5. Presbyters presided over the church; in some places
134 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
it would seem chiefly : but even where a superintendeucy had
taken place, they appear with the Bishop, as sitting to rule in
common with him ; and without them he could not do any thing
of importance in the church. So Ignatius, TertuUian, Justin
Martyr, Origen, Cyprian, Cornelius, Firmilian and Jerome.
6. Presbyters ordained ; this is, as to the fact, proved
by Firmilian, the celebrated Bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia ;
by the custom of the church of Alexandria for the first 200 years
after Christ ; by the testimony of Jerome and Eutychius ; and
by the Council of Ancyra, and the Council of Nice.^ — The right
or power also necessarily follows from their being the same order
as Bishops.
7. Presbyters are the SUCCESSORS of the Apostles; this is
distinctly stated by Ignatius, Irenseus, and Jerome. We have
not yet given a most striking passage of Jerome on this point.
Hear him then : "Do you approach to the clergy ? — God
forbid that I should speak disparagingly of the CLERGY : they
are SUCCESSORS to the degree of Apostles, — qui Apostolico
gradul succedentes.^^ And, after mentioning the difficulties and
dangers of their station, he says, " Non est facile stare loco
Pauli; tenere gradum Petri,^' — " It is no easy matter to stand
in the place of Paul, nor in the degree of Peter. ^^ ^
8. The ONLY true and indispensable succession to the Apos-
tles is the successmi of faith, and 7iot of Persons: Irenaeus,
TertuUian, and Ambrose. This last Bishop says, " They have
not the succession of Peter, who have not the faith of Peter." s
The conclusion is, then, that in the purest Christian antiquity.
Bishops and Presbyters were, by divine right, THE SAME ; " all
the difference which existed in fact between them was almost
nothing ;" and was merely by custom, or the 7.ise of the church,
as a prudential measure, to promote order, peace, and unity.
Ordination by Presbyters, and all other acts of Presbyters, are,
by divine right, EQUALLY VALID with those of Bishops: the
successiofi of FAITH is the only true succession. Ministers and
churches who do not hold this ; who adulterate it ; are to be
FORSAKEN ; and those ALONE received as TRULY apostolical suc-
cessors. Ministers, Ordinances, and Churches, where this faith
is preached as the apostles preached it, and as they left it to us in
the Sacred Scriptures as their last will and Testament, sealed
f Epis. ad Heliodorum de Vita Eremetica. e De Penitentia.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 135
as with their oath, and their blood. Let the semi-popish divines,
allowed improperly in the Church of England, and the thorough-
going Papists of our country, look about them. Their succession
is NOT the succession of the Jpostles, NOR of the earliest Fa-
thers ; but i\. fabrication of their own, based \^\ion false assiwip-
tiotis, and built up by bigolri/ and intolerance, out of human
traditions, forged authorities, Viwdi abominable idolatries : see Sec-
tion 10th of this Essay.
APPENDIX TO SECTION VI.
ON THE ECCLESIASTICAL ACCOUNT OF THE BISHOPS OF THE SEVEN
CHURCHES MENTIONED IN THE REVELATION ; AND ON THE SUP-
POSED DIFFICULTY OF ACCOUNTING FOR THE EXISTENCE OF EPIS-
COPACY AT so EARLY AN AGE OF THE CHURCH.
There are two points which Episcopal writers consider of
much importance in this controversy, and which we have not
yet introduced. They might chronologically have been intro-
duced sooner; but the reader will here examine them with
greater advantage, after the preceding discussion : they are
1 . As to what are called the Bishops of the seven churches
of Asia, mentioned in the Revelation of St. John : and
2. The supposed difficulty of accounting for the existence of
Episcopacy at so early an age of the church, except on the
principle that it is jure divi?io, established by divine right.
First, then, as to what are called the Bishops of the seven
churches of Asia, mentioned in the Revelation of St. John. As
most of the difficulty upon both these points arises from the
ambiguity of the words Bishop or Episcopus, and Episcopacy, let
it be premised that there are three different senses in which these
words are used in this controversy. As to the word Bishop: —
this word is used in the New Testament — 1. as synonymous
with the word Presbyter; " The names are common ;" see pages
80 — 82 of this Essay; 2. somewhere in the second or third
century the word Bishop was applied to distinguish the Primus
Presbyter, appointed by the suffrages of the other Presbyters,
and by ecclesiastical arrangement, as superintendent of ministers
and people ; 3. high churchmen use it for an order of ministers
claiming powers and authority incompatible witli the office of
Presbyters. Now we grant there were Bishops in the seven
churches of Asia in i\\e first sense ; but we deny that there is
136 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
any solid proof of their existence, in the second sense, in these
seven churches. Clemens Romanus who, according to the
best authority, wrote A. D. 96 to the church at Corinth, (com-
paratively in the neighbourhood,) mentions not a syllable about
a Primus Presbyter as superintendent over the Presbyters.
Presbyters, according to Clemens, then " ruled the church in
common.^^ The Revelation is supposed to have been written
only four years after this time. As to Bishops in the third
sense, high church Bishops, we utterly deny that there is any
evidence of any such Bishops in the seven churches. Even
the corrupted Epistles of Ignatius would not sustain the au-
thority of high church Bishops ; for Presbyters are there made
EQUAL to the Apostles : are they so with high church Bishops ?
Nay, so far from this. Bishop Taylor maintains that Bishops
ONLY are properly Pastors, § 25 ; Doctors, or Teachers, § 26 ;
and Priests, § 27 : so that, on this scheme, poor Presbyters are
only a sort of tolerated Pastors, existing by the leave of the
Bishops: see § 9 of his Episcopacy Asserted. As to Tradition,
on this question, there is none that can be surely depended upon.
Take, for instance, the case of Timothy's being Bishop of Ephe-
sus. There is absolutely none that gives him the rights and
authority of a high church Bishop. But, passing the question of
the kind of Episcopacy, for a moment, is there any satisfactory
proof of the fact, that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, one of
these seven churches ? I unhesitatingly answer, there is not;
see page 56 of this Essay. Dr. Whitby grants, " that he can
^ndi nothing on this subject in any writer oii\\Q first three centu-
ries.^^ But then he says " this defect is abundantly supplied by
the concurrent suffrage of the fourth and fifth centuries." Well,
let us see. He refers to Eusebius first, and very properly : for
succeeding authors generally took their reports from him. If
the /oz^??^am fails us, the streams must fail too. Now Eusebius
honestly confesses, that though he made it a main point, in
writing his history of the early ages of the church, to inquire
into such matters, yet all was dark, and he " could noichere find
so much as the bare steps of any who had passed that path of
inquiry before him," excepting something like " a torch here and
there afar off.'' Then, speaking of Paul and Peter, and the
churches founded by them, he says, " Now how many, and what
sincere followers of them have been approved as sufficient to
take the cliarge of those churches by them founded, is not easy
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 137
to say, except such and so many as may he collected from the
words of Saint Paul.'' Does this sort of evidence abundantly
supply the defect of the total silence of the first three centuries ?
Aud nothing better is to be found. Eusebius says, "Timothy is
reported to have been the first that w^as chosen to the bishopric
of the Ephesian church." He gives no authority, vv^hich he
alw^ays does when he has it. The report is evidently only guess
work, in its origin, having arisen from St. Paul's mentioning his
name in connexion with Ephesus ; but see page 5Q> of this Essay.
The stories in ecclesiastical liistory about the early Bishops and
Founders of churches, are generally full of confusion and con-
tradiction ; they are mostly the inventions of a later age : see
Section 10. But were we to grant these statements (confusion
as they are) to be true, they never make the powers and authority
to be those of high church Bishops ; the preceding discussion has
abundantly shewn this. The result, then, of this investigation
of ecclesiastical authority, and of tradition on this point, is, that
there were Bishops in the seven churches of Asia ; for Bishops
and Presbyters are spoken of by Clemens Romamis, the best
authority on the subject, as one and the same ; that there is no
clear evidence of a superintendency, in the seven churches, of a
Primus Presbyter as over ministers and people ; and that, as to
high church Bishops, it would be a burlesque to compare them
with the Bishops of the seven churches, and of Clemens Romanus.
Secondly, let us consider the supposed difficulty of accounting
for the existence of Episcopacy at so early an age of the church,
except on the principle that it is jure divino, — established by
divine right. Hei-e we must remember the distinction, above
made, as to the different meanings of the word Bishop : the
same applies to the word Episcopacy. 1 . We grant a scriptural
Episcopacy by divine right, in which Bishops and Presbyters
are identical; 2. we grant an ecclesiastical arrangement of Su-
perintendency, otherwise called Episcopacy ; 3. we grant a
USURPATION of powers and authority claimed for Bishops by
divine right, otherwise also called Episcopacy. Now we have
no difficulty in accounting for \hQ first, or scriptural Episcopacy.
The second also is easily accounted for, as is shewn from Jerome,
&c. in the preceding pages. The third kind, viz. high church
Episcopacy, had 7io existence in the early ages of the church ;
we have not to account, therefore, for what did not exist,
s
SECTION VII
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AT THE REFORMATION AGAINST THESE CLAIMS.
I know it would "be in vain for nie to attempt to persuade
many churcli people that I am not writing against the church
of England. They mean the church as necessarily implying a
divine order of Bishops, ^c. I mean the church, according to the
principles of the^ Reformers. They mean the church wdth
all its state importance, its wealth, its emolument, &c. The
question of Church and State, in the abstract, is a matter of in-
difference to me ; and I think it is indifferent also in the eye of
the Scriptures. At the utmost, however, the connexion of a
church with the state is only a circumstance : it is not essential
to the existence of the church. The church is spiritual. The
church is, under God, founded on its doctrines, discipline, and
ordinances ; on the faith and the piety of its members. In this
light I view the Church of England. Taking the Church of
England in this view on the question before us, as constituted at
the Reformation, I w^ite not a sentence to oppose it, but daily
pray for the blessing of God upon it, and upon all other Christian
churches. Taking the words as frequently used by bigoted
churchmen, I utterly deny the truth and scriptural character of
their claims and pretensions; I believe them to be semi-popery,
and necessarily leading to bigotry, intolerance, and persecution.
Believing, as I do, that this is the nature and tendency of these
claims, I think myself bound in conscience to put away all
flattering titles as to any unQXi or order of men, and to speak as
plainly and powerfully as I can to the overthrow of this system
from its foundation. Amicus Socrates, Amicus Plato, sed inagis
Amicus Veritas : — Socrates is my friend, Plato is my friend, but
Truth is my friend above all friends.
h Froude, a leader amongst the Oxford Tract-men, says, " Really / hate the Heformation and
the Reformers more and more." — " Why do you praise Ridley ? Do you know sufficient good
about him to counterbalance the fact that he was the associate of Cranmer, Peter Martyr, and
Bucer ? As far as I have gone, too, I think better than I was prepared to do of Bonner and
Gardiner.*'— Frowrfc'* Remains. Very consistent !
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 139
Having come through the Scriptural view, and the view of
the Fathers, on the identity of Bishops and Presbyters, we pro-
ceed to shew that the English Reformers maintained that
Bishops and Presbyters are, by divine right, the same ORDER ;
if this be proved, the whole system of high church succession-
men falls to the ground. For if Presbyters be, by divine right,
the same order as Bishops, then their spiritual power and au-
thority are the same ; all their ordinations are equal to Episcopal
ordinations ; the ministry and ordinances of all the other Pro-
testant churches in Great Britain, and on the Continent, as being
administered by Presbyters, are equally Scriptural with those of
any modern Episcopal church: consequently all these EXCLUSIVE
and arrogant high church claims for Episcopal ordinations, &c.
will vanish before the light and power of truth. Bigotry will
lose its support, and intolerance its plea for persecution . Christian
truth and Christian liberty will extend their hallowing influences
over the whole land. Then shall the heathen and the Infidel
exclaim, " See how these Christians love one another !"
WiCKLiFFE, who is called the morning star of the Reforma-
ation, says, " / boldly assert one thing, viz. that in the primitive
church, or in the time of St. Paul, two orders of the clergy were
sufficient, that is, a Priest and a Deacon. In like manner /
affirm, that in the time of Paul, the Presbyter and the Bishop,
were names of the same office. This appears from the third
chapter of the First Epistle to Timothy, and in the first chapter
of the Epistle to Titus. And the same is testified by that pro-
found theologian Jerome." '
But to come to those who actually formed the Articles, the
Book of Orders, and the plan of the government of the Church
of England. We shall give every reader the opportunity of
seeing, with his own eyes, the truth of the matter, by extracts
from original documents, as published by Bishop Burnet in his
History of the Reformation. They appear to be the determina-
tions of a Convocation of Archbishops, Bishops and Divines ;
for Cromwell, the King^s Vicar General, sig7is first, as presiding
over the convocation. As these writers use the expressions
" Deacons or Ministers ; Priests or Bishops," it is hardly neces-
sary to say to the most cursory reader, that they mean the same
» Wickliflfe's Trialogus, as quoted by Vaughan in his excellent Life of Wickliffe, Vol. II. p. 275,
«d.l881,Lond.
140 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
office by each of the terms in the separate clauses, " Deacon or
Minister; Priests or Bishops." Bishop Burnet observes, "Ano-
ther thing is that both in this writings and in the Necessary
Erudition of a Christian man, Bishops and Priests are spoken of
AS ONE a7id THE SAME OFFICE." Priest, by these Reformers,
every where means Presbyter.
Bishop Burnet's remarks on the nature and value of these
Documents, shall now introduce them. He says, " After some
of the sheets of this History were wrought off, I met with
manuscripts of great authority, out of which I have collected
several particulars, that give a clear light to the proceedings in
those times. — I shall here add them." " In this writing, Bishops
and Priests are spoken of as one and the SAME office. It had
been the common style of that age,'^ says he, " to reckon Bishops
and Priests as the same office. ^^
Here follow extracts from the Document called " A Declara-
tion made of the Functions and Divine Institution of Bishops and
Priests. An Original."
" As touching the Sacraments of the Holy Orders, we will
that all Bishops and Preachers shall instruct and teach our
people committed by us unto their spiritual charge,"
" First, — How that Christ and his Apostles did institute and
ordained in the New Testament — certain Ministers or officers,
which should have spiritual power, authority, and commission
under Christ, to preach, &c. and to ORDER and consecrate others
in the same room, order and office, whereunto they be called and
admitted themselves : and finally to feed Christ's people like good
pastors and rectors, &c."
" Item ; That this office, this ministration, this power and
authority, is no tyrannical power, having no certain laws or
limits within the which it ought to be contained, nor yet
none absolute power, but it is a moderate power, subject, de-
termined, and restrained unto those certain LIMITS and ENDS
for the which the same was appointed by God's ordinance ; —
it appeareth that the same was a limited power and office,
ordained especially and only for the causes and purposes before
rehearsed." —
" Item ; That this office, this power and authority, was com-
mitted and given by Christ and his Apostles, unto certain persons
only, that is to say, unto Priests or Bishops, whom they did
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 141
elect, call, and admit thereunto by their prayer and imposition
of their hands."
" Secondly, — The invisible gift or grace conferred in this
sacrament, is nothing else but the power, the offices and the
authority before mentioned : the visible and outward sign is the
prayer and imposition of the Bishop's hands, upon the person
which receiveth the said gift or grace. And to the intent the
church of Christ should never be destitute of such ministers as
should have and execute the said power of the keys, it was also
ordained and commanded by the Apostles, that the same sacra-
ment should be applyed and ministered by the Bishop from time
to time, unto such other persons as had the qualities, which the
Apostles very diligently descryve (describe) ; as it appeareth evi-
dently in the third chapter of the First Epistle of St. Paul to
Timothy, and his Epistle unto Titus. And surely this is the
whole vertue and efficacy, and the cause also of the institution
of this sacrament, as it is found in the New Testament ; for
albeit the Holy Fathers of the church which succeeded the
Apostles, minding to beautifie and ornate the church of Christ
with all those things which were commendable in the Temple
of the Jews, did devise not only certain other ceremonies than be
before rehearsed, as Tonsures, Rasures, Unctions, and such other
observances to be used in the administration of the said sacra-
ments, but did also institute certain inferiour orders or degrees.
Janitors, Lectors, Exorcists, Acolits and Subdeacons, and de-
puted to every one of those certain offices to execute in the church,
wherein they followed undoubtedly the example and rites used in
the Old Testament ; YET THE TRUTH IS, that in the New Testa-
inent there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in
Orders, but only of Deacons or Ministers, and of Priests or
Bishops : nor is there any word spoken of any other ceremony
used in the conferring of this sacrament, but only of Prayer, and
the imposition of the Bishop's hands."
" Thomas (Ld.) Cromwell, (the King's Geoffrey Downes.
Vicar General.) John Skip.
T, Cranmer, Archbp of Canterbury. Cuthbert Marshall.
Edward, Archbp. of York. Marmaduke Waldeby.
John, Bishop of London, Robert Oking.
Cuthbert, Bishop of Durham. Nicholas Heyth.
John, Bishop of Lincoln. Ralph Bradford.
142 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
John, Bishop of Bath. Richard Smith.
Thomas, Bishop of Ely. Simon Matthew.
John, Bishop of Bangor. John Prynn.
Nicholas, Bishop of Salisbury. William Buckmastre.
Edward, Bishop of Hereford. William Maye.
Hugo, Bishop of Worcester. Nicholas Wotton.
John, Bishop of Rochester. Richard Cox.
Richard, Bishop of Chichester. John Edmonds.
Richard Wolman. Thomas Robertson.
John Bell. Thomas Baret.
William Clyffe. John Nase.
Robert Aldridge. John Barbar.
(Some other hands there are that cannot be read,) Doctors of
Laws, and Doctors o^ Divinity. '^^
Here the reader sees the Church of England solemnly declare,
in Convocation, that Bishops and Presbyters are one and the
same office. Their ^^ power, authority, and commission under
Christ" are made EQUAL ; in which is expressly laid down their
equal power, authority, and commission " to ORDER (ordain)
and consecrate others in the same room, order and office, where-
unto they be called and admitted themselves." This is their
solemn view of the ^'Divine Institution of Bishops and Presbyters "
What then can the reader think of those divines of this church
who deny that Bishops and Presbyters are, by divine right, ac-
cording to the true Church of England, one and the same office ;
and deny also that ordination by Presbyters is, by divine institu-
tion, EQUAL to ordination by Bishops ? If any should pretend that
the doctrine of this church has been altered since the time above
referred to, let him shew when and where; let him produce the
documents published by the church, met in solemn convocation
rescinding or repealing the above, and AS PLAINLY declaring the
order of Bishops to be by divine institution superior to, and
incompatible with, ^;he office of Presbyters as such ; and that
such Bishops ALONE have " power, authority, and commission,
under Christ, to order and consecrate others in the same room,
order, and stead, whereunto they be called and admitted them-
selves." Nothing short of this will avail. They know they
cannot do it.
The date of the above document Burnet shews to be 1537 or
1538. In Burnet's account of the drawing up of a " Declaration
k Burnet's History of the Reformation, Collection of Records, B. 3, Add. No. 6,
143 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
of the Cliristian Doctrine for Necessary Erudition of a Christian
Man," he remarks, that the Convocation Books are lost ; but
that Fuller, his only guide, " assures the world that he copies out
of the Records with his own >^rt;2fl? what he published." Now
Fuller calls the assembly of Bishops, &c. that drew up tliis
Declaration, a Convocation. Burnet has a little doubt of the
correctness of this statement. But all he says is easily reconcila-
ble with it. It would be out of all rule to allow trifles to set aside
the statement made by a grave divine, declaring to the world that
" he copies out of the Records with his own hand. " The Assem-
bly, then, was a Convocation. This point is thus decided by
Dr. Laurence : " Before its publication it was approved by the
Coiwocation then sitting, in which it was examined in parts, as
appears evident from the Minutes of that assembly, in Wilkins's
Concilia Magnse Britanniae, v. 3, p. 868." ^ The work thus
drawn up, examined, and approved by the Convocation, — "the
Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man," was published by
royal authority, and hence also usually called the King's Book.
No determinations in the Church of England can have higher
authority. In the Chapter of Orders, they " expressly resolve
that Priests and Bishops, by God's Law, are one and the same ;
and that the POWER of ORDINATION and excommunication be-
longs EQUALLY TO BOTH."™ What can be more decisive!
Comment would darken this clear statement ; and to multiply
words would be to dilute and weaken its force.
The following are extracts from their decisions, individually.
Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury. — " The Bishops
, and Priests were at one time, and were no two thi?igs ; but BOTH
one office in the beginning of Christ's religion."
Bishop of London. — " I think the Bishops were first; and
yet I think it is 7iot of importance, whether the Priest then made
the Bishop, or the Bishop the Priest; considering after the
sentence of Jerome, that in the beginning of the church there
1 Dr. Laurence's Bampton Lectures, p. 191.
m Calamy's Defence of Nonconformity, Vol. I. p. 91, ed. 1703. This is the substance of that
chapter, given in the words of Calamy. Its words in the Necessary Erudition are such as the
following: "Of two orders only, that is to say. Priests and Deacons, Scripture maketh express
mention." Here Presbyters and Bishops are both one order. ^^ All \sivii\)\ powers wcvA^ authoritiet
of one Bishop over another were to be given to them by the consent or ordinance, and positive lawM
of men only, and not by any ordinance of God in Holy Scripture." Then speaking of ministers of
the gospel in general as successors of the Apostles, they say that " Christ set them all indifferently,
and in LIKE potwr, dignity, and attthority."
144 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
was none (or if it were, veri/ S7nall,) difference between a Bishop
and a Priest, especiallT/ touching the SIGNIFICATION."
Dr. Robertson. — " I do not think it absurd that a Priest
should consecrate a Bishop, if a Bishop cannot be had."
Dr. Cox. — " Although by Scripture, (as St. Hierome saith)
Priests and Bishops be one, and therefore the one not before the
other ; yet Bishops, as they be NOW, were AFTER Priests ; and
therefore MADE OF (bi/) Priests."
Dr. Redmayne. — " They all be of like beginning, and at
the beginning were BOTH one, as St. Hierorae and other old
authors shew by the Scriptures, wherefore one made another
indifferent 1 1/. '^ — Burnet says that Dr. Redmayne " was esteemed
the most learned and judicious divine of that time." When the
Convocation " were about to state the true notion of faith, Cran-
mer commanded Dr. Redmayne, who was esteemed the most
learned and judicious divine of that time, to write a short treatise
on these heads ; which he did with that solidity and clearness,
that it will sufficiently justify any advantageous character that
can be given of the author."
Here we find not only the most express statements that the
Reformers of the Church of England believed " Bishops and
Presbyters to be one and the same office,'' but that PRESBYTERS
MADE, that is, ORDAINED BiSHOPS, and Bishops Presbyters,
indifferently.
The reader is now prepared to see through another common
mistake. The book for ordaining Priests and Bishops is appealed
to in proof that the Church of England maintains that Bishops
and Presbyters are not, by divine institution, one and the same
office. Now the principal Bishops and Divines who composed
the Book of Ordination in king Edward's time, were the same
as those whose views on the divine institution of Bishops and
Priests have been given above, and whose decisions in solemn
Convocation, ratified by royal authority, we have just heard.
This book, the Book of Orders, was put forth in the time of king
Edward VI. Cranmer, and most of the other compilers, out-
lived him. The interpretation, therefore, of this book, as then
put forth, which would go to maintain Episcopacy as by divine
right to have powers and authority incompatible with Priests or
Presbyters, as such, would be to assert that these eminent men
determined one thing in solemn convocation, and then immedi-
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 145
ately put forth a book contradicting their former determination,
without ever giving any intimation of such a change in their
views !
Two parts of the Book of Ordination are appealed to by these
writers for the purpose of maintaining the superiority of Epis-
copacy by divine right : the part of the office for ordaining a
Bishop, as distinct from that part of the office for ordaining a
Presbyter ; and the Preface to the book itself.
First, then, as to the part of the office for ordaining or con-
secrating a Bishop : let the reader keep in mind, that the question
is not whether the English Reformers made a class of ministers
called Archbishops and Bishops, distinct from Priests or Pres-
byters, no one denies this ; but the question is, did they do this
on the principle of the divine right of the order of Bishops, as
distinct from, superior to, and incompatible with Presbyters as
Presbyters ; or did they do it as an ecclesiastical arrangement,
for the honor of the Bishops and the church ; for order, peace,
unity, and good government ? — They have solemnly answered
for themselves, that, " by DIVINE institution," Bishops and
Presbyters were one and the same office ; therefore they meant
the distinction above referred to merely as an ecclesiastical ar-
rangement according to the views of the Christian Fathers, for
the purposes just now specified. This is further evident from a
fact of which many readers are not aware : it is this, that in the
original book, and up to the time of Charles II., there was NO
DIFFERENCE in the words of ORDAINING a Bishop, to distin-
guish his office from that of a Presbyter, Bishop Burnet grants
*' there was then no express mention made in the words of or-
daining them, that it was for the one or the other office/.' It
cannot be denied ; the old form is standing evidence of the fact.
In the time of king Charles II., about 1662, the Bishops who
had the care of revising the ordination service, after these words,
" Receive the Holy Ghost," — ADDED, with regard to Priests, —
" for the office and work of a Priest, now committed unto
thee by the imposition of our hands :" — and, with respect to the
Bishop, " for the office and work of a Bishop in the church of
God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands,
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost." And in the interrogatories put to the Bishop elect,
there is one added, not anciently used, namely this : " Will
T
U6 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
you be faithful in ordaining, sending, or laying hands upon
others ?" with this answer — " I will so be, by the help of God."
Moreover those passages of the New Testament that speak so
expressly on the duties of a scriptural Bishop, were made part
of the OFFICE of ordaining a Priest or Presbyter, and continued
so until 1662. The form of ordaining a Presbyter commenced
with the Epistle, as it is termed, out of Acts xx. 17 — 35 : or, in
its place, 1 Tuu. iii. entire. The reader will do well to read the
places. Then for the Gospel, — the commission given by our
Lord to his ministers, as in Matt, xxviii. 18, and other passages
out of John, chap. x. and xx. Now these passages, thus applied
to Presbyters, in the solemn act of setting them apart to their
office, clearly shew that the Book of Orders, up to 1662, bore
solemn testimony to their being, by divi?ie right, scriptural
Bishops; and the VERY COMMISSION (Matt, xxviii. 18) about
which high churchmen make such a parade as belonging SOLELY
to Bishops as a distinct order, superior to, and incompatible with
Presbyters simply as such, — this very commission, is, in this
solemn act, given by the Reformers to Presbyters ALONE, and is
never applied to Bishops as such, in any part of their ordination.
In the Revision of 1662 these scriptures were o?nitted in the form of
ordaining a Presbyter, and were generally transferred to the form
of consecrating a Bishop. There was, indeed, in the old form of
the consecration of a Bishop, very little scripture employed . The
Reformers, it is clear, looked upon it only as a decent ceremony,
but as having no scriptural authority, nor conferring any ad-
ditional divine authority .° The changes in 1662 may be thought
to shew the wishes of some of the parties concerned ; but still
they do not alter any principle in the old form. All the altera-
tions consist in detail and arrangement.
The Reformers of the Church of England, also, appointed
Presbyters to perform the imposition of hands in ordaining
Presbyters, along with Bishops. So directs the Book of Ordain-
ing Priests, &c. " When this prayer is done, the Bishop, WITH
THE Priests present, shall lay their hands severally upon the
head of every one that receiveth the order of Priesthood ; the
receivers humbly kneeling upon their knees, and the Bishop say-
ing, receive the Holy Ghost," &o. As the Reformers believed
that Bishops and Presbyters were, by the Scripture, one and the
same office, this ordination was, in their view, the ONLY real
n Vide Burnet's Records, Bk. 3, No. 21, Quest. 10-14.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 147
scriptural ordination constituting any person a minister of God's
word. Presbyters then are actually ordainers in ALL the scrip-
tural ordi?ialions that ever have taken place in the Church of
England. Several acts of parliament have ratified the ordination
of snch as were ordained by Presbyters only. Thus in the 13th
of Elizabeth, cap. 12 — " An Act for the Ministers of the Church
to be of sound Religion. — That the clnirches of the Queen's
Majesty's dominions may be served with Pastors of sound reli-
gion, Be it enacted, that every person under the degree of Bishop,
which doth or shall pretend to be a priest, or minister of God's
holy word and sacrament, by reason of any other Form of
Institution, Consecration, or Ordering, (ordaining) than the
Form set forth by Parliament, shall declare his assent and sub-
scribe the Articles," and on these conditions he shall retain
orders and benefice. So in the I2th Caroli, cap. 17 — "Be it
enacted, that any ecclesiastical person or minister, being ordain-
ed by any ecclesiastical persons, &c. shall be, and is hereby
declared, adjudged, and enacted to have been, be and continue
the real and lawful Incumbent, Parson, Rector, Vicar and
Possessor of the said ecclesiastical Benefice, Livings and Promo-
tions respectively, to all intents and purposes whatever." By
these Acts, hundreds of ministers, who had no more than Pres-
byterian ordination, or ordination by Presbyters alone, without
the presence of any Bishop, were confirmed in their livings as
true ministers in the Church of England. See a License also to
this effect by Archbishop Grindal, " approving and ratifying the
form of ordination," by a Scotch Presbytery, of Mr. Morrison,
a Scots divine ; and giving him commission " throughout the
whole diocese of Canterbury, to celebrate divine offices, to
minister sacraments, &c."° "No Bishop in Scotland, during
my stay in that kingdom," saith Burnet, Bishop of Sarum, "ever
did so much as desire any of the Presbyterians to be re-ordained.^'^
Bishop Cosin, speaking of the presbyterian ordination of the
French Churches, says, " If at any time a minister so ordained
in these French Churches came to incorporate himself in ours,
and to receive a public charge, or cure of souls amongst us, in
the Church of England, (as I have known some of them to have
o Neal's Hist, of the Puritans, Vol. I.
P Bishop of Sarum's Vindication, printed London 1696, pp. 84, 85, as quoted by Owen in his
'* Ordination by Presbyters," Introd.
148 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
60 done of late, and can instance in many other before my time)
our Bishops did not re-ordain him before they admitted him to his
charge ; as they must have done, if his former ordination in
France had been void. Nor did our laivs require more of him,
than to declare his public consent to the religion received amongst
us, and to subscribe the articles established." See a letter from
Dr. John Cosin, afterv^^ards Bishop of Durham, to Mr. Cordel,
who scrupled to communicate with the French Protestants upon
some of the modern pretences, published by Dr. Isaac Basire,
Archdeacon of Northumberland, in his Account of Bishop Cosin,
annexed to his Funeral Sermon, and given as an Appendix to
" the Judgmejit of the Church of England in the case of Lay
Baptism." "^ It is a curious fact, that anciently Incumbents,
Rectors, &c. were styled Prelates.' As the constitution of
this church has established an order of men as Bishops or Super-
intendents, requiring all important matters to be under their
superintendency, and that no ordinations especially should be
performed without them, it is right enough to refuse any one re-
gularly to minister in that church, who positively and wilfully
resists this arrangement. If this be done without claiming divine
right for this superintendency, and without attempting to un-
church other churches because they do not adopt it, the writer
would not say one word against it. Every church has a right
to use its own judgment in such matters.
Now for the second point, viz. the Preface to the Book of
Ordination :
The words in the Preface — " It is evident unto all men,
diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from
the Apostles' time, there hath been these orders of ministers in
the Christian church ; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons," — are
the same as they were in king Edward's ordinal, and therefore
have the sa^ne interpretation ; for there is nothing declared to
the contrary in the Revision of 1662. The question here, then,
can be only as to the meaning which the Reformers attached to
the term order. Now we have seen that the Fathers used it
for a distinction of persons in the church, possessing equal powers,
q Second edit. London, 171?.
r Johnson's Clergyman's Vade Mecum, Vol. I. pp. 183, 212, ed. 44;h. Bishop Burnet, in the
Preface to his Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England, shews that sereral
Abbots, though no more than Prefbyters, not only wore the Mitre, but ordained even Bishops.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 149
by divine right as gospel ministers. The Reformers were
familiar with the writings of the Fathers. The proper inter-
pretation of their language then, is, that they mean, that from
the Apostles' times such distiiictions as Bishops, Presbyters, and
Deacons had existed ; NOT that the office or duties of a Bishop
were by divine institution incompatible with the office of a Pres-
byter as a Presbyter ; for they expressly affirmed the contrary.
The Bishop of London, as above quoted, along with Cranmer,
intimates that there might be " some small difference between a
Bishop and a Priest in the beginning of the church." That some
distinction did exist even in the Apostles' time, we do not deny.
We only deny that the powers and authority of Bishops and
Presbyters were incompatible with each other as such, by divine
right. There is considerable proof, as was shewn in Section 3,
that Presbyters were superior in honour and duties to Bishops,
perhaps as much so as rectors are to curates ; yet not so as to
constitute authority and powers incompatible with the office of
Bishops. The Preface, then, contains no proof of Bishops, by
divine right, as an order such as high churchmen pretend.
Additional evidence will arise both to the above interpretation
of the Book of Orders, and to the general question, by the testi-
mony of Bishop Jewel.' Jewel was Bishop in Elizabeth's time,
considerably after the publishing of the Book of Ordering Bishops,
Priests, and Deacons. He stands in the very first class of Re-
formers for talent, piety, and learning ; and for the ability with
which he defended the Church of England against the Papists.
*•' His Apology," says Dr. Randolph, " has had the sanction of
public authority, and may therefore be relied on as containing
the final and decided opinion of our Reformers, approved in the
general by the church at large." * The Apology was published
in 1562. Harding, a Jesuit, published a Confutation of it. Jewel
replied in a Defence of his Apology. This Defence, embodying
the Apology also, was in such universal and high repute, that it
was placed in the parish churches to be read by all, as giving
the best view of all the matters therein contained, corroborated
■ Richard Harrel Fronde, a first-rate Oxford Tract-man, speaking of this illustrious writer,
says, "Jewel was what you, (the Oxford Tract-men) in these days, call an irreverent Dissenter.
His Defence of his Apology disgusted me more than almost any work I ever read. He laughs at
the Apostolical succession, both in principle and as a fact ; and says that the only succession worth
having is the succession of doctbine."— Frou(fc'# Remains.
* Preface to Dr. Randolph's " Enchiridion Theologicum."
150 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
by the authorities of Scripture and the Fathers of the first six
centuries. Many have probably seen this huge folio, fastened
with chains to a reading desk, in the church. The edition from
which I quote, has a large strong iron plate at the bottom, with
a hole through it, where the chain had been formerly fastened.
In his Apology, he says, " That the Catholic church is the king-
dom, the body, and spouse of Christ ; that Christ is the only
Prince of this kingdom ; that there are in the church divers or-
ders of ministers ; that there are some who are Deacons, others
who are Presbyters, and others who are Bishops, to whom the
instruction of the people, and the care and management of reli-
gion are committed :" part 2, sect. 6. Now here is the distinction
of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, called " divers orders^
Does this great writer, and champion of the Church of England,
then, mean that Bishops are an order, by divine right, with
powers and authority incompatible with Presbyters, as such ?
Let him explain himself in his Defence. Harding it seems, for
the sake of cavilling, had introduced the question of the differ-
ence between Priests and Bishops, or " The distinction of a
Bishop and a Priest," as he himself expresses it. Bishop Jewel
says, " Here to weigh down the AUTHORITY of GoD's HOLY
WORD, Mr. Harding hath brought in a heap of ordinary stale
quarrels of the difference between Priests and Bishops ; of Lent ;
of the Communion Book ; of the Homilies ; of the order of Ser-
vice ; and of the perpetual virginity of our Ladie. His WHOLE
DRIFT herein is to bear us in hand, that there is very little or
NO AUTHORITY in the Scriptures; and that the WHOLE credit
and certainty of our FAITH resteth ONLY in the church of Roine.
But what means Mr. Harding here to come in with the differ-
ence between Priests and Bishops ? Thinketh he that " Priests
and Bishops hold only by TRADITION ? Or is it so horrible a
heresy as he maketh it, to say that by the Scriptures of God, a
Bishop and a Priest are ALL ONE ? Or knoweth he how far,
and unto whom he reacheth the name of heretic ? Verily Chry-
sostom saith, * between a Bishop and a Priest in a manner there
is 710 difference.'' St. Hierome saith, somewhat in rougher sort,
" Jewel does not here mean the distinction only, but the things themselves also : for his (Hard-
ing's) whole drift, and the whole drift of Popery, is "to bear us in hand that there is very little or
no authority in the Scriptures s and that the whole credit and certainty of our Faith resteth only in
the Church of Rome.'"— A remark which no Protestant should ever forget. To accomplish this,
some of their greatest men have exerted all their learning and ingenuity.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 151
* I hear say there is one become so peevish, that he setteth Dea-
cons before Priests, that is to say, before Bt's/iopa : whereas the
Apostle plainly teaches us, that Priests a7i(l Bishops be ALL ONE.*
Augustin saith, * What is a Bishop but the first Priest, — that is,
the highest Priest.' So saith St. Ambrose, ' There is but one
consecration of Priests and Bishops : for both of them are Priests,
but the Bishop is the first.' All these, and other more holy
Fathers, together with St. Paul the Apostle, for thus
SAYING, by Mr. Harding's advice, must be holden for hereticks."*
He thus quotes Augustin in another place : "Augustin saith 'the
office of a Bishop is above the office of a Priest' (not by authority
of the Scriptures, but) after the names of honor which the CUS-
TOM of tlie church hath now obtained," p. 100. The words
" Not by authority of Scripture,'' are Jewel's own words, put in
to explain Augustin's sense. Jewel we see perfectly agrees with
Cranmer, and the rest of the Bishops and Divines who formed
the Constitution, Government, and Book of Ordination, of the
Church of England. He believes *' Bishops and Presbyters, by
the Scriptures of God, are ALL ONE ;" that, as Augustin saith,
" the office of a Bishop is above the office of a Priest (NOT by
authority of the Scriptures, but) after the na?nes of honor which
the CUSTOM of the church hath obtained." His mention, as we
have seen, in the Apology, of ^^ Divers orders. Deacons, Presby-
ters and Bishops," does not imply that the order of Bishops has,
by " Authority of Scripture," prerogatives incompatible with
Presbyters, but that, whilst by the Scriptures, as to rights and
authority, they are one, yet they are there distinct names, and
that the Bishop is the first Priest or Presbyter, and above the
other Presbyters by the names of honor which the CUSTOM of
the church hath obtained. So meant the Reformers, and so
means the Ordination service.
Dr. Whitaker, who lived in the time of queen Elizabeth, was
a profoundly learned divine of the Church of England, and a
mighty champion of the Reformation against Popery ; he says,
" I confess that there was originally no difference between a
Presbyter and a Bishop. Luther, and the other heroes of the
Reformation, were Presbyters, even according to the ordination
of the Romish church ; and, tlierefore, they were, jure divino,
Bishops. Consequently, whatever belongs to Bishops, belongs
r Page 202, M. ed, 1609.
152 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
also, jure divino, to themselves. As for Bishops being afterwards
placed over Presbyters, that was A HUMAN arrangement for the
removal of schisms, as the histories of the times testify." ^
Hooker appears to maintain the very same view in his fifth
Book of Ecclesiastical Polity, a work of the very highest au-
thority with the Church of England, and for its reasoning, its
language, and its learning, the admiration of all. The sixth,
seventh, and eighth books are of NO AUTHORITY ; they were
not published by himself, and are acknowledged to have been
altered much by other hands ; so that no confidence whatever
can be placed in them as Hooker's. In the fifth book, sect. 78,
he says, " Touching the ministry of the gospel of Jesus Christ,
the WHOLE body of the church being divided into laity and
CLERGY, the clergy are either Presbyters or Beacons,^'' Now
where are Bishops ? nowhere, except they be one and the same
as Presbyters. Nothing can be plainer. "For of Presbyters,
some were greater, some less in power, and that by our Saviour's
own appointment ; the greater, they which received fulness of
spiritual power, and the less, they to whom less was granted."
Let the reader carefully attend, and he -w^U see that by the
greater Presbyters he means the first Apostles endowed with
power of miracles, &c., and by the less or inferior Presbyters, he
means all other ordinary Christian ministers, without distinction.
He goes on — " The Apostles' peculiar charge was to publish the
gospel of Christ unto ALL nations, and to deliver them his ordi-
nances received lij immediate revelation. Which pre-eminence
excepted, to ALL other officew and duties incident to their" (i. e.
the Apostles') "order, it was in them to ordaine and consecrate
whomsoever they thought meet, even as our Saviour did himself
assign seventy others of his own disciples inferior Presbyters,
whose commission to preach and baptize was the same which the
Apostles had." Here, then, ALL are inferior Presbyters, except
the twelve Apostles, who received greater fulness of spiritual
power, and delivered ordinances by immediate revelation ; and,
which preeminence excepted, to ALL other OFFICES and DUTIES
incident to the order of the twelve Apostles, ALL the inferior
Presbyters were ordained and consecrated by the Apostles. " To
these two degrees''' (as above-mentioned) " appointed of our Lord
and Saviour Christ, his Apostles soon after annexed deacons.'^ —
"' Whitakeri Opp. V. I. pp. 509 et 510, fol. Genev. 1610.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 153
"It appearetli, therefore, how long these three degrees of eccle-
siastical order have continued in the church of Christ," (1.)
" the highest and largest, that which the Apostles,^'' (2.) " the
7iext that which the Fresbi/te?'s" (3.) " the lowest, that which
Deacons had." — " Evangelists were Presbyters, of principal suffi-
ciency." — ** Pastors, what other were they than Presbyters
also." — "I beseech them, therefore, which have hitherto troubled
the church witli questions about degrees and offices of ecclesiastical
calling, because they principally ground themselves upon two
places, (1 Cor. ii. 28. — Ephes. iv. 7 — 12,) that all partiality \'a\^
aside, they would sincerely weigh and examine whether they
have not misinterpreted both places, and all by surmising IN-
COMPATIBLE offices where nothing is meant but sundry graces,
gifts, and abilities which Christ bestowed." — " It clearly ap-
peareth, that churches APOSTOLIKE did know but three degrees
in the power of ecclesiastical order, at the first," (1 .) ^^ Apostles, ^^
(2.) '^Presbyters,'" and (3.) ''Deacons;'^ AFTERWARDS, instead
of Apostles, Bishops, concerning whose order we are to speak in
the seventh book." This he never published. But he has clearly
given his judgment that Presbyters and Bishops in *'^/?o^^o/2C
churches,'' were one and the same order and office. All the
ordinary powQrs and offices of Apostles, he affirms, belong to
all gospel ministers, whom he calls, COMPARED with the twelve
Apostles, " inferior Presbyters." The powers of ordination were
among those powers, and therefore belong equally to them all, by
divine right, whether Bishops or Presbyters. They were all one
and the same in *' APOSTOLIKE CHURCHES." Bishops, as super-
intendents over other ministers, were NOT, according to Hooker,
in the Apostolike churches ; they arose afterwards.
Hooker's design was not to establish the DIVINE RIGHT of
Episcopacy, but to oppose the exclusive claim for the divine right
of Presbvterianism ; and to shew that the ceremonies and disci-
pline of the Church of England were lawful, i. e. NOT anti-
scriptural, not sinful. Accordingly we find him, in the third
Book of his celebrated work, actually and ably reasoning against
the exclusive divine right of any special form of church govern-
ment: "We must note," says he, "that he which affirmeth
speech to be necessary amongst all men throughout the world,
doth not thereby import that all men must necessarily speak one
kind of language : even so the necessity of polity and regiment
U
154 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
in all churches may he held, without holding any one certain
form to he necessary in them all." — " The general principles
(of Scripture) are such as do not particularly prescribe any one,
hut sundry may equally he consonant unto the general axiomes of
the Scripture.'* — "We reckon matters of government in the
number of things accessary^ not things necessary." — " But as for
those things that are accessary, those things that so belong to the
way of salvation, as to alter them, is no otherwise to change that
way, than a path is changed by altering onely the uppermost face
thereof, which be it laid with gravel, or set with grass, or paved
with stones, remaineth still the saine path ; in such things be-
cause discretion may teach the church what is convenient, we
hold not the church further tyed herein unto Scripture, than
that against Scripture nothing be admitted in the church, lest
that path which ought always to be kept even, do thereby
become to be overgrown with brambles and thorns. "^ — " I there-
fore conclude, that neither God's being author of laws for go-
vernment of his church, nor his committing them unto Scripture,
is reason sufficient, wherefore all churches should for ever be
bound to keep them without change." This surely is sufficient
to destroy for ever the claims of high churchmen to the authority
of Hooker in favor of their exclusive system. Hooker did not
deny that Presbyterianism was a valid form of church govern-
ment, but he denied its exclusive validity ; and maintained that
Episcopacy, when adopted by the church, was equally valid.
So also the 36th Article : — " The Book of Consecration of
Archbishops, &c. dotli contain all things necessary to such
consecration and ordering ; neither hath it any thing, that of itself
is superstitious and UNGODLY." Many of the Puritans and rigid
Presbyterians denied this ; and were utterly opposed to an order
of Bishops at all, even as a human arrangement, as perpetual
governors of ministers as well as of people. This arose from
what they had seen of it in Popery, and in some who abused it
in their day. Though Popery did not maintain the divijie right
of Bishops, yet the Pope gave them rights, power, and jurisdic-
tion ; and the Bishops, in return, took a solemn oath to be FAITH-
FUL to the Pope ; they joined their authority to rivet the
chains of priestly tyranny and bondage upon the church. The
name of Bishop, therefore, as well as that of Pope, had generally
become hateful at the Reformation and afterwards.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 155
As tbe documentary evidence in this Section lias been con-
sidered highly valuable, the reader probably will not regret the
insertion of an extract from Dr. Field's Work " Of the Church."
Dr. Field was a learned divine of the Church of England in the
days of queen Elizabeth, and of James I. Mr. Palmer has pro-
nounced his Work to be profoundly learned. It is highly valued ;
and is both very scarce and very dear, so that but few readers
can have access to it. This learned defender of tlie Church of
England tlius speaks on the subject of the identity of Bishops and
Presbyters: — " But they will say, whatsoever may be thought
of these places wherein Bishops did ordain, yet in many other
none but Presbyters did impose hands ; all which ordinations are
clearly void : and so, by consequence, many of the pretended
reformed churches, as namely those of France, and others, have
no ministry at all. The next thing, therefore, to be examined
is, whether the power of ordination be so essentially annexed to
the order of Bishops, that none but Bishops may in any case
ordain. For the clearing whereof we must observe, that the
whole Ecclesiastical power is aptly divided into the power of
order, and jurisdiction. Ordo est rerum parium dispariumque
unicuique sua loca Iribuens congrua dispositio : that is, — Order is
an apt disposing of things, whereof some are greater and some
lesser, some better, and some meaner, sorting them accordingly
into their several ranks and places. First, therefore, order doth
signify that mutual reference or relation, that things sorted into
their several ranks and places, have between themselves. Se-
condly, that standing, which each thing obtaineth, in that it is
better or worse, greater or lesser than another, and so accord-
ingly sorted and placed, above or below other, in the orderly
disposition of things. The power of holy or ecclesiastical order,
is nothing else but that power which is specially given to men
sanctified and set apart from others, to perform certain sacred
supernatural and eminent actions, which others of another rank
may not at all, or not ordinarily meddle with. As to preach the
word, administer the sacraments, and the like.
" The next kind of ecclesiastical power is that of jurisdiction.
For the more distinct and full understanding whereof we must
note, that three things are implied in the calling of ecclesiastical
ministers. First, an election, choice, or designment of persons fit
for so high and excellent employment. Secondly, the consecrating
156 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
of them, and giving them power and authority to intermeddle
with things pertaining to the service of God, to perform eminent
acts of gracious efficacy, and admirable force, tending to the pro-
curing of the eternal good of the sons of men, and to yield unto
them whom Christ hath redeemed with his most precious blood,
all the comfortable means, assurances, and helps that may set
forward their eternal salvation. Thirdly, the assigning and di-
viding out to each man, thus sanctified to so excellent a work,
that portion of God's people which he is to take care of, who
must be directed by him in things that pertain to the hope of
eternal salvation. This particular assigntition giveth, to them
that had only the power of order before, the power of jurisdiction
also over the persons of men.
" Thus, then, it is necessary that the people of God be sorted
into several portions, and the sheep of Christ divided into several
flocks, for the more orderly guiding of them, and yielding to them
the means, assurances and helps that may set them forward in the
way of eternal life ; and that several men be severally and speci-
ally assigned to take the care and oversight of several flocks and
portions of God's people. The Apostles of Christ and their suc-
cessors, when they planted the churches, so divided the people of
God converted by their ministry, into particular churches, that
each city and the places near adjoining, did make but one church.
Now because the unity and peace of each particular church of
God, and flock of his sheep, dependeth on the unity of the pastor,
and yet the necessities of the many duties that are to be perform-
ed in churches of so large extent, require more ecclesiastical
ministers than one : therefore though there be many Presbyters,
that is many fatherly guides of one church, yet there is one
amongst the rest that is specially pastor of the place, who, for
distinction sake, is named a Bishop ; to whom an eminent and
peerelesse power is given, for the avoiding of schisms and factions :
and the rest are but assistants and coadjutors, and named by the
general name of Presbyters. So that in the performance of the
acts of ecclesiastical ministry, when he is present and will do
them himself, they must give place : and in his absence, or when
being present he needeth assistance, they may do nothing with-
out his consent and liking. Yea so far, for order sake, is he
preferred before the rest, that some things are specially reserved
to him only, as the ordaining of such as should assist him in the
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 157
work of his ministry, the reconciling of penitents, confirmation
of such as were baptized, by imposition of hands, dedication of
churches, and such like.
" These being the diverse sorts aud kinds of ecclesiastical
power, it will easily appear to all them that enter into the due
consideration thereof, that the power of ecclesiastical or sacred
order, that is, the poioer and authority to intermeddle with things
pertaining to the service of God, and to perform eminent acts of
gracious efficacy, tending to the procuring of the eternal good of
the sons of men, is EQUAL and the SAME in ALL those whom we
call Presbyters, that is, fatherly guides of God's church and
people : and that, ONLY for order sake, and the preservation of
peace, there is a limitatwn of the use and exercise of the same.
Hereunto agree all the best learned amongt the Romanists them-
selves, freely confessing that that, wherein a Bishop excelleth a
Presbyter, is NOT a distinct and higher order, or power of order,,
but a kind of dignity and office, or employment only. Which
they prove, because a Presbyter ordained per sallum, that never
w^as consecrated or ordained deacon, may notwithstanding do all
those acts that pertain to the deacons order : (because the higher
order doth always imply in it the lower and inferior, in an emi-
nent and excellent sort.) But a Bishop ordained per saltum, that
never had the ordination of a Presbyter, can neither consecrate
and administer the sacrament of the Lord's body, nor ordain a
Presbyter, himself being none, nor do any act peculiarly pertain-
ing to Presbyters. Whereby it is most evident, that that wherein
a Bishop excelleth a Presbyter, is l\OT a distinct power of ORDER,,
but an eminency and dignity only, specially yielded to one above
all the rest of the same rank, for order sake, and to preserve the
unity and peace of the church. Hence it foUoweth, that many
things which in some cases Presbyters may lawfully do, are pe-
culiarly reserved unto Bishops, as Hiercytne noteth ; Potius ad
honorem Sacerdotii, qucLm adLegis necessitatem ; — Rather for the
honour of their ministry, than the necessity of any law. And
therefore we read, that Presbyters in some places, and at some-
times did impose hands, and corifirm such as were baptized:
which when Gregory, Bishop of Rome, would wholly have for-
bidden, there was so great exception taken to him for it, that he
left it free again. And w^ho know^eth not, that all Presbyters, in
cases of necessity, may absolve and reconcile penitents ; a thing
158 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
in ordinary course appropriated unto Bishops ? and why not hy
the same reason ordain Presbyters and Deacons in cases of like
necessity ? For, seeing the cause why they are forbidden to do
these acts, is, because to Bishops ordinarily the care of all
churches is committed, and to them in all reason the ordination
of such as must serve in the church pertaineth, that have the
chief care of the church, and have churches wherein to employ
them ; which only Bishops have as long as they retain their
standing : and not Presbyters, being but assistants to Bishops in
their churches. If they become enemies to God and true religion,
in case of such necessity, as the care and government of the
church is devolved to the Presbyters remaining Catholick, and
being of a better spirit : so the duty of ordaining such as are to
assist or succeed them in the work of the ministry pertains to
them likewise. For if the power of order and authority to inter-
meddle in things pertaining to God's service, be the same in all
Presbyters, and that they be limited in the execution of it, ONLY
for orders sake, so that in case of necessity, every of them may
baptize and confirm them whom they have baptized, absolve and
reconcile penitents, and do all those other acts which regularly
are appropriated unto the Bishop alone ; there is no reason to be
given, but that in case of necessity, wherein all Bishops were
extinguished by death, or being fallen into heresy, should refuse
to ordain any to serve God in his true worship ; but that Pres-
byters, as they may do all other acts, whatsoever special chal-
lenge Bishops in ordinary course make unto them, might do this
also. Who then dare condemn all those worthy ministers of God
that were ordained by Presbyters in sundry churches of the world,
at such times as Bishops in those parts where they lived, opposed
themselves against the truth of God, and persecuted such as
professed it.
" But seeing Bishops and Presbyters are in the power of order
the same ; as when the Bishops of a whole church or country
fall from the faith, or consent to them that so do, the care of the
church is devolved to the Presbyters remaining Catholick ; and
as in the case of necessity they may do all other things regularly
reserved to Bishops only, (as Ambrose sheweth, that the Pres-
byters of Egypt were permitted in some cases to confirm the
baptized, which thing also Gregorie after him durst not con-
demn,) so in case of general defect of the Bishops of a whole
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 159
country, refusing to ordain any but such as shall consent to their
lieresies, where there appeareth no hope of remedy or help from
other parts of the church, the Presbyters may choose out one
among themselves to be chief, and so add other to their numbers
by the imposition of his and their hands. This I have proved
in my third book out of the authorities of Armachaniis, and sun-
dry otlier, of whom Alexander of Hales speaketh. To which
we may add that which Durandm hath, where he saith : That
Hierome seemeth to have been of opinion, that the highest power
of consecration or order, is the power of a Priest or Elder. So
that every Priest, in respect of his priestly power, may tninisler all
SACRAMENTS, CONFIRM the baptized, and give all ORDERS :
howsoever for the avoiding of the peril of schism, it was ordained
that one should be chosen to have a pre-eminence above the rest,
who was named a Bishop, and to whom it was peculiarly reserved
to give orders, and to do some such other things. And after-
wards he saith : That Hierome is clearly of this opinion." *
One observation more shall conclude this Section. Some
may suppose, that if the power of orders or ordaining, does not
belong solely to Bishops, and so constitute them by divine right
a superior order, yet that the power of jurisdiction does. By
jurisdiction is meant the Bishop's power of governing and judg-
ing both 7ninisters and people. As to the fact, the Bishops of the
Church of England have this power each in his own diocese ;
but by what right or law ? If Episcopacy, as a superior order,
with the high prerogatives claimed for it, be of divine right, this
jurisdiction must also be of divine right : but if there should be
express acknowledgment in the constitution of the Church of
England that their jurisdiction is of merely HUMAN origin, this
will be another clear proof that, according to this church. Bishops
have, by divine right, none of these prerogatives over Presbyters,
but are by the Scriptures one and the same office. Whatever
views may be entertained as to the scriptural right of the king of
England to be supreme head of the church, it is certain the
Church of England maintains it as a fact ; and here we have
only to do with FACTS. Now the Act of Parliament in the 26th
year of Henry VIII., declares that the king " shall have full
power and authority from time to time, to visit, repress, redress,
reform, order, correct, restrain, and amend such errors, heresies^
X Dr. Field on the Church, fol. ed pp. 155—157 and 704, Oxford 1628,
160 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
abuses, offences, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be,
which by any manner of spiritual authority ov jurisdiction, ought
or may lawfully be reformed." This was in 1535. According
to the full power here given, commissions were issued to those
who had bishoprics, giving them a liceyise for their jurisdiction as
Bishops; and they only held their jurisdiction on good behaviour,
and at the king's pleasure. They are as follows : — " Henry the
VIII. king of England and France, Defender of the Faith, Lord
of Ireland, and, under Christ, Supreme Head of the Church on
earth, to the Reverend Father in Christ, Edmund, Bishop of
London, peace, seeing ALL the authority of JURISDICTION, and
every kind of jurisdiction, as well that which is called secular,
as that which is called ecclesiastical, emanates primarily
from the kingly power as from a supreme head, &c. We, de-
siring to accede to your humble supplication for this purpose,
commit our office and authority to you in the manner and form
hereafter described, and declare you to be licensed and appointed,
therefore, to ordain to holy orders, &c. Also to make such visi-
tations, &c. as the Bishops of London, your predecessors, in past
times, might exercise, by the laws of this realm, and not other-
wise, &c. And to do every thing that in any way concerns
Episcopal authority and jurisdiction, over and above those things
which are known to be committed unto you by authority of the
Scripture, in our stead, name, and authority. Having great con-
fidence in your sound doctrine, purity of conscience, integrity of
life, and faithful industry in the performance of your duties, &c.
WE LICENSE YOU, by these presents, during our pleasure, &c. to
answer before us as to your duty, at your bodily peril; admonish-
ing you in the mean time to exercise your office piously, holily,
according to the rule of the gospel, and that you never at any
time promote ANY ONE TO HOLY ORDERS," &c. (i. e. otherwise
than is here directed.) "In witness whereof we have com-
manded these presents to be made and confirmed by our seal for
Ecclesiastical causes. Given November 12th, 1539, and thirty-
first year of our reign. " Now these commissions profess to direct
in matters " besides and beyond what are known to belong to
Bishops in the Scripture." What are those matters ? The
answer is plain as to the meaning of the commission, for it
mentions — The ordination of ministers, episcopal visitation, and
jurisdiction over ministers and people in that diocese. As Bishops,
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 161
none of these things belong to them any more than to any other
minister, except by human authority. I am aware Bishop Burnet
and others complain of the liardship of these commissions, and say
that they were laid aside afterwards : this does not in the least
alter the question of law and authority. By 37th Henry VIII.
cap. 17, it is enacted and declared, — " That Archbishops, Bishops,
&c. have NO manner o{ jurisdiction ecclesiastical, but by, under,
and from his royal majesty." These powers of the sovereign
were renewed again as laio in Edward VI. and in Elizabeth's
reign ; and they continue to be the law of the land, as to the
Church of England, to the present day.
The conclusion, then, as to the Church of England, is, that
the divine right of Bishops is no part of its constitution ; but that
Presbyters and Bishops are, by authority of the Scripture, one
and the same office ; that Presbyters have EQUAL divine right TO
ORDAIN ; but that, as a human arrangement, the order of Bishops
is lawful: and that the Book of Ordination has " all things neces-
sary for that purpose ; neither hath it any thing of \isQ\i super-
stitious or ungodly. ^^^ All this I believe ex animo.
How lamentable ! that any ministers of this church, forget-
ting the principles of the Reformers, and violating the spirit of
the gospel, should weaken Protestantism and strengthen the
hands of Popery, by insulting all other Protestant ministers as
schismatics; denouncing their ordinances as the offerings of
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram ; thus destroying the peace of all
the Protestant churches in the world ! May heaven soon lead
them into more Christian, brotherly, and pacific views ! May
all Protestant churches unite, on the basis of the Bible, and in the
spirit of Christianity, to proclaim a pure gospel, and to bring in
the Redeemer's kingdom over all the earth I
y Dr. Holland, king's Professor of Divinity at Oxford, says, " That to affirm the office of Bishop
to be diflferent from that of Presbyter and superior to it, is most false ; contrary to Scripture,
to the Fathers, to the doctrines of the Church of England, yea to the very schoolmen themselves."
Dr. Dwight's Theology, Vol. V. p. 184, 8vo.
w
SECTION VIII
BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS THE SAME ORDER, SHEWN BY THE TESTI-
MONY OF ALL THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES IN THE WORLD.
To hear some high churchmen talk on this subject, a person
would be led to think, that surely all the Christian cliurches in
the world, ancient and modern, must have maintained that
Bishops are, by divine rights a distinct order, with powers and
prerogatives of a very extraordinary and EXCLUSIVE character.
How otherwise could it be, we should suppose, that men pretend-
ing to learning should dare to speak so pompously about them,
and about the consequences of being blessed with such an order ?
The only reasonable answer that can be given, is, that they do
not understand the subject. It has already been shewn that the
Fathers did not maintain such a doctrine ; no council ever main-
tained it ; and we now proceed to shew that no Christian church
ever maintained this doctrine.
The African church never maintained it ; as is clear by the
case of the church of Alexandria, which was, at one time, one of
the four or five great Patriarchates into which the churches in
the whole world were divided. Gregory Nazianzen speaking,
in his oration upon Athanasius, about the importance of the See
of Alexandria, says, " it is as though you should say that its
Bishop is Bishop of the whole wortd.''^ Tertullian, one of the
most illustrious African Fathers, teaches most expressly that
Bishops had no superiority by divine right : Jerome's testimony
is decisive, as he lived so near to Egypt, having spent a great
part of his life in Palestine.
The Greek church never maintained the order of Bishops by
divine right : this is proved from the testimony of Firmilian,
Bishop of Csesarea ; by the council of Ancyra, in the third
century ; and from the Epistle of the council of Nice. Theodoret,
also, a Greek Father in the fifth century, proves the same, as
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 163
quoted in Section 3. And there is no sufficient evidence, I be-
lieve, that the modern Greek church has decided differently from
the ancient Greek church.
Let us come to the Western Church, as it is called, the
Christian church in Europe ; and this as either included in the
Latm church, or in those churches that have separated from
that church.
The church of Rome never maintained such an order of
Bishops, by divine right, as our high churchmen maintain. We
have seen the testimony of Jerome and Augustin, whose w^ritings
have had greater authority in that church than the writings of
all the other Fathers besides. Jerome's opinion, nay his very
words were put into the Canon Law, the Ecclesiastical Law of
that Church : canon, Olim, Dist. 95, et canon, Legimus, Dist. 93.
And John Semeca, a doctor of the canon law, in his Gloss or
Comment on the Law : " They say indeed that in the first age
of the primitive church the names and offices of the Bishops and
Presbyters were commoii ; but that in the second age of the
primitive church, both the names and offices BEGAN to be dis-
tinguished.^'' The canon, Legimus, Dist. 93, contains Jerome's
Epistle to Evagrius entire. The first chapter, under Distinction
95, is, as we have said, in the very loords of Jerome, as giv&n at
page 90 of this Essay. The sixth chapter is wholly taken from
the Treatise on the " Seven Degrees" found in Jerome's works,
as mentioned above at page 89. It is as follows, "Behold, I de-
clare that Presbyters have the power to perform the sacraments,
even whilst their own Bishops are standing at the altar. But,
seeing it is written — * Let the Presbyters be honored with double
honor, especially such as labor in the word of God,' it is the duty
of Presbyters to preach ; their blessing edifies the people ; con-
fir^nation by them is suitably performed ; it is proper for them to
give the communion ; it is necessary that they should visit the
sick, pray for the weak, and perform all the sacraments which
God has given. Let none of the Bishops, inflated, on this ac-
count, with tlie e7ivy of a diabolical temptation, shew their wratli
in the church, if the Presbyters sometimes exhort the people; if
they preach in the churches ; if, as it is written, they bless the
people. To any one that opposes these things, I would say. Let
him who forbids the Presbyters what God has commanded them,
tell me, who is greater than Christ ? or what is to be preferred
164 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
to his body and to his blood? If the Presbyter consecrates
Christ, when he pronounces the blessing upon the sacrament on
the altar of God ; is not he worthy to bless the people, who is
worthy even to consecrate Christ ? It is by your bidding, O ye
most unjust Bishops ! that the Presbyter, as to the laity and the
women, has been deprived of the office of giving God's benedic-
tion^ — has lost the very use of his tongue — has no confidence to
preach — has been mutilated of every part of his poivers and au-
thority — nothing but the hare name of a Presbyter is left — the
plenitude and perfection of his consecration are taken away. Is
this your honor, O ye Bishops, thus to bring ruin upon the flock ?
For when by your power you take away from the Pastors the
privilege of performing with diligence what God has command-
ed, contagion and destruction spread among the flocks, and you
bring evil upon the Lord's inheritance, whilst you wish alone to
be great in the church. We read, that in the beginning. Pres-
byters were commanded to rule in the affairs of the church —
Presbyters were sometimes in the councils of Bishops ; for
Presbyters themselves, as we read, were called Bishops : ac-
cordingly it is written to a Bishop, ' Neglect not the gift which
is in thee by the laying on of my hands ; ' and, in another place,
to Presbyters, ' (The Holy Ghost,) who has made you Bishops to
rule the Church of God,' But proud Bishops hate to have this
name given to Presbyters : they do not approve of what Christ
approved, who washed the feet of the disciples — who was bap-
tized by John, though John exclaimed that he needed to be
baptized by him. I write these things for this purpose, that if
the ERROR OF PAST TIME cannot be remedied, humility at least
may at present be preserved, that Presbyters may perform those
things in their churches, which are done at Rome, in the East,
in Italy, in Crete, in Cyprus, in Africa, in Illyricum, in Spain,
in Britain, and even in part of Gaul ; and which is done in
every place where that humility continues which takes place in
heaven, (a matter still higher,) where the seats of angels have
their due order." The writer of this Essay expressly disclaims
any intention by this quotation to reflect upon all Bishops, as
unrighteous or tyrannical men. Many Bishops, in difierent
ages, have been truly men of God. His chief object in the quo-
tation is to shew the views of the Romish church on the subject
of Episcopacy by divine right, at the period when this part of
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 165
the canon law was composed. Episcopacy, in general, is cer-
tainly here declared to be an ERROR of past times : and Bishops,
many of them, are spoken of as usurping tyrants. Presbyters
are spoken of as despoiled by them of the authority and useful-
ness which, by divine right, truly belonged to Presbyters.
Part of the seventh chapter of the council of Hispala, in
Spain, in the seventh century, is worth translating : — " It has
been reported to us that Agapius, Bishop of Cordova, has fre-
quently appointed Village Bishops (Chor-episcopi) or Presbyters
(who by the canons are both one) to consecrate altars and churches
without the presence of the Bishop. Which, indeed, is not to be
wondered at, principally for this reason, that the Bishop is a man
ignorant of ecclesiastical discipline. Therefore it ought to be
determined unanimously, that no sucli license should be used
amongst us, knowing that the appointment and consecration of
an altar is not allowed either to a Presbyter^ or to a Village
Bishop. For in the Sacred Scriptures, the Lord commanded that
Moses alone should erect the altar in the tabernacle, that he alone
should anoint it, because he was the high priest, as it is written
concerning him, * Moses and Aaron among his priests.' There-
fore that which the head priests alone might do, of whom Moses
and Aaron were types, the Presbyters, who resemble Aaron's
sons, ought not to presume to seize. For though in the dispen-
uition of the sacred mysteries most things are common to Presby-
ters and Bishops, yet some, by the authority of the Old Testament y
and some by the authority of the Emperors laws, and by ecclesi-
astical rules, the Presbyters know to be forbidden to them, as the
consecration of Presbyters, Deacons, and Virgins, the erection of
an altar, the. Benediction, and the Unction ; seeing it is not per-
mitted to them to give the benediction to the church, nor to con-
secrate altars, nor to lay on hands in baptism, nor to give the
Holy Ghost to such as are converted from heresy, nor to make
the unction or holy ointment, nor to sign the forehead of the
baptized with the holy ointment, nor even to reconcile a penitent
publicly in the time of mass, nor to give recommendatory letters.
For all these things are disallowed to Presbyters, because they
are not in the highest part of the priesthood, which by the command
of the CANONS belongs ONLY to Bishops. '^ Here are distinctions
enough, with a witness, between Bishops and Presbyters. And
here is a true history of them : — an argument from a type or
166 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
figure in the Old Testament ; ecclesiastical rules ; and the Em-
perors laws. But do these make the distinction to be of divine
right? The council expressly declares the very reverse, and
that it is " hy the command of the canons." Besides Presbyters
and Chor-episcopi, Village Bishops, are treated as the same : one
law is applied to both. Now Bishop Taylor and others grant
that Village Bishops had the power to ordain, &c. and that such
regulations only limit its exercise ; the same is true as to Pres-
byters. And the author of the Treatise on the Seven Degrees,
above mentioned, gives the same account. He says, — " The
ordination of clergymen, the consecration of virgins, the dedication
of altars, and the preparation of the chrism, were reserved to the
Bishop SOLELY /or the purpose of giving him authority or honor,
lest the discipline of the church, being separated amongst many,
divisions should arise between the ministers, and should produce
general scandal. For this cause also the election of Bishops has
lately been transferred to the metropolitan ; and whilst this high
power is given to the metropolitan, the same power is taken away
from others ; so that the Bishops themselves, ashighpriests,begin to
feel another placed over them ; and this not as a matter of divine
right, but as a matter of necessity, arising from the nature of the
case." Here the ground of the distinction between Bishops and
Presbyters is considered to be the same as that between Bishops
and Archbishops, — that is to say, it is merely an ecclesiastical,
prudential arrangement.
Mr. Johnson, the translator of the canons of the Universal
Church, a strong succession advocate, and a man of great learn-
ing, says, — " That opinion, that the order of Priests and Bishops
was the SAME, prevailed in the church of Rome for four or five
ages (centuries) before the Reformation." ' Thus, then, we have
the history of the matter in this church up to the Reformation.
Jerome determines the point in his day, A.D. 400. The canon
law does the same, A.D. 1200. The learned Mr. Johnson, an
unexceptionable witness with high churchmen, settles the point
for 500 years before the Reformation. Bishop Burnet, too, we
have seen, says, that at the Reformation it was "the commo?i
style of that age to reckon Bishops and Priests the same office.
Finally, the Council of Trent positively refused to acknow-
ledge the doctrine of the order of Bishops by divine right. They
2 Clergyman's Vade Mecum, Vol. II, pref. 64.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 167
tlecreed that the hierarchy was of divine right, and that Bishops
were in fact above Presbyters ; but the Pope's Legates, and all
wlio more especially belonged to the court of Rome, most strenu-
ously opposed the doctrine of divine right of Bishops. In these
matters we only speak to facts ; and the facts are as above
stated, as any one may see by consulting the acts and history of
the Council.
It perhaps may surprise some, that we so decidedly charge
the succession scheme as semi-poperi/, when, in the doctrine of
the divine right of Bishops, an essential part of the scheme of
our high church divines, the church of Rome differs from them.
The reader has only to consider, that the same end may be aimed
at by different means. This is the case here. We said, in the
commencement of this Essay, that these high churcJi divines
" come forward to effect that in the Protestant church, which
Popery endeavours to effect as to the church universal." Their
machinery is different. The popery of Rome created a one^
headed Pope ; our high church divines try to create a many-headed
Pope. The popery of both has one mind, — bigoted, exclusive,
intolerant, and persecuting. Alt the jurisdiction of popery centres
in the Pope. He imparts of HIS FULNESS to the Bishops ; they
SWEAR FIDELITY to the Pope. They support the Pope, and the
Pope supports them ; and altogether they unite to bind the
church in fetters of iron. Our succession-men place all aidhority
by divine right in the Bishops. The Bishops, according to this
scheme, are to reward them, by giving them the exclusive right
to minister the ordinances of Christ. They are to support each
other, in order to form a chain to bind in Popish bondage the
Protestant church, or else to excommunicate from the pale of
Christianity such as bend not to their authority. Prevention is
better than cure ; and it is hoped that this humble effort, under
God's blessing, may do something to expose the Popery lying at
the root of the scheme it opposes. The authors of the Oxford
Tracts for the Times are English Jesuits, and aim to accom-
plish for Anglican-popery, what the Roman Jesuits do for Roman'
popery. There is a conspiracy: it is disguised popery! May
heaven scatter their counsel, and cause the gospel to run and
be glorified I
We have shewn that the original reformed Church of England
gives no sanction to this semi-popish scheme : see Sect. 7.
168 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
TJie Lutheran church never maintained the divine right of
Bishops. The Archbishop of Cologn joined them, but they never
used his episcopal powers to give an order oijure divino Bishops
to their church. They retain the name, in some places, but they
have no jure divino episcopal ordinations. About 1528, says
Haynes, in his translation of Melchior Adam's Life of Luther,
" by the advice of Luther, and by the command of John the
Elector, was ordained a Visitation of the churches in Saxony."
In 1528 Luther put forth an " Institution of Visitors." Haynes
quotes Luther, saying, " We are Visitors, that is Bishops, and
we find poverty and scarcity every where. The Lord send
forth workmen into his harvest. Amen." And in another place
to Spalatinus, " Our visitation goeth on, of what miseries are we
eye witnesses ; and how often doe we remember you, when we
find the like or greater miseries in that harsh natured people of
Voytland. Let us beseech God to be present with us, and that
he would promote the work of his poore Bishops, who is our best
and most faithful Bishop against aU the arts and forces of Satan.
Amen." And again, — " In our visitation in the territories of
Wittemberg, we find as yet all pastors agreeing with their people,
but the people not so forward for the word and sacraments." *
Again, " Luther vn'ote thus to Melancthon : * concerning obedi-
ence to be performed to the Bishops, as in jurisdiction and the
commo7i ceremonies, I pray you have a care, look to yourself,
and give no more than you have, lest ye should be compelled
again to a sharper and more dangerous warre for the defence of
the gospel. I know that you always except the gospel in those
articles: but I fear lest afterward they should accuse us of
breach of our covenant, and inconstancy, if we observe not what
they please. For they will take our graunts in the large, larger,
largest sense, and hold their own strictly, and as strictly as they
can. In briefe, I wholly dislike this agitation for concord in
doctrine, as being a thing utterly impossible, unlesse the Pope
will abolish his popedom.' " ^ Luther was 7io more than a Pres-
byter, but HE ORDAINED THEIR FIRST BiSHOP. " About this
time the bishoprick of Neoburgh, by Sala, was voyd ; there
Nicolas Amsdorf, a divine born of a noble family, was*^ enstalled
a Page 71, 4to, London, 1641. b Pages 83, 84.
c Melchior Adam, in the Life of Amsdorf, mentions this matter as follows : " OnTthe 20th day
of January, l542^The Elector Frederic, and J. Ernestus, the brother Dukes of Saxony, being pre-
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 169
by Luther, at the command of the Elector of Saxony, the Patron
of that Diocese ; and Julius Pflugius, whom the canons of the
colledge chose, was refused. Luther placed him in the Bishoprick
Jan. 20, A. D. 1542. This thing, as many conceived, gave oc-
casion to other stirres, and very much offended the emperour,
who mnch affected Pflugius for divers respects. Of this we see
more in Amsdorf's life. After this Luther wrote a book in the
German tongue, and call'd it ' The Pattern of the Inauguration
of a true Christian Bishop.' " ^
" The gospel," says one of the Lutheran articles, *' gives to
those that are set over the churches, a command to teach the
gospel, to remit sins, to administer the sacraments, and jurisdic-
tion also. And by the confession of all, even our adversaries, 'tis
manifest, that this power is, by divine rights common to all that
are set over the churches, whether they be called Pastors, or
Presbyters, or Bishops."
" But one thing made a difference afterwards between Bishops
and Presbyters, viz. : Ordination, because 'twas order'd that one
Bishop should ordain Ministers in several churches : but since
Bishops and Pastors are NOT different degrees by divine right,
'tis manifest, that an ordination, performed by a pastor in his own
chiych, is valid ; and that the common jurisdiction of excommu-
nicating those that are guilty of manifest crimes, does belong to
all Pastors.""
The party of high churchmen have lately republished a
Tract of Mr. Charles Leslie, the nonjuror, on episcopacy, in a
periodical called " The Voice of the Church." In this Tract,
Leslie says, the Lutherans '•'-still retain Episcopacy.'''' Now could
such men as Leslie, and can such men as Dr. Hook and the
Oxford Tract-men, be ignorant of the principles and facts just
stated about the Lutheran church ? Can they be ignorant,
therefore, that the Episcopacy of the Lutheran church, and the
Episcopacy which they advocate, have little in common but the
name ; and that these two systems of Episcopacy totally differ in
all the great points for which high churchmen most strenuously
contend ? If they are not ignorant of these things, where is the
sent, in the city of Neobarg, by Sala, this noble and unmarried person, (Amsdorf) nas ordained
Bishop by Lviher : Nicolas Medler, the pastor of Neobnrg, George Spalatinus, the pastor of Aldon-
burg, and Wolfgang Steinius, another pastor, yowj'ng- with Luther in the imposition of hands."
d Page 102. f Abridgment of Mr. Jas. Owen's Tlea, pp. 40, 41.
X
170 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
honesty of leading the public mind astray by the mere amUguilies
of language ? It is painful to be under the necessity of exposing
these dishonourable proceedings. But these gentlemen must
blame themselves. The fault is their own ; and it is but justice
to the public to expose it.*^
The French churchy and the reformed church in Germany,
both maintain equality of Bishops and Presbyters. The Synod
of Dor I, representing the reformed church of Germany, adopted
the Confession of Faith belonging to the Belgick church. The
31st article contains this statement: " As regards the ministers
of the divine word, they have every where the same power and
authority." The Pastors and Seniors of the French churches,
met in national council at Vitry in 1682, subscribed the same
Confession. King James sent some English Bishops and Divines
to the Synod of Dort. They gave their suffrages to this Con-
fession, along with the rest of the divines, as is clearly stated in
Session 146. This consent was caught at by some to impugn the
very existeiice of an order of Bishops at all in the church of Eng-
land, even as a mere prudential or ecclesiastical arrangement.
Carlton, Bishop of Chichester, who was one of those that had
been present at the Synod of Dort by the order of king James,
replied to this misinterpretation of their consent to that article,
and shewed that he and his colleagues had objected to such a
construction of the sense of the articles as would encourage
opposition to all exercise of superintendency by one class of
ministers over others. The members of the Synod with whom
he conversed, declared they wished for some such superintenden-
cy as they supposed the English Bishops exercised, as calculated
to promote good order, and to prevent divisions in the church.
Yet they all, the English Bishops and divines too, gave their
votes for the Confession just quoted, that, " as regards the
ministers of the divine word, they have everywhere the same
f The Rev. J. Sinclair has occupied about about ten pages of his Work on Episcopal or Apos-
tolical Succession, with the sophistical ambiguity noticed in the text : he has placed it in front of all
his arguments, as though he had nothing better to produce. In this attempt, he tries to bring in
the Lutheran church, Calvin, Beza, &c. for the support of Episcopacy by divine right. The reader
has seen the case of the Lutheran church. The Augsburgh Confession expressly declares, that,
" according to the gospel, or jure divino, no jurisdiction belongs to Bishops as Bishops." Beza acknow-
ledged Bishops, so does the New Testament. He distinguishes them into three kinds,— scriptural,
human, and Antichristian : high church Bishops he classes amongst the lai^t : see references to him
and to Calvin, &c. in the following Section. What delusion, to pretend the authority of these
Reformers for such an Episcopacy as Mr. Sinclair and his high church brethren maintain !
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 171
power and aiUhorityJ'^ The case seems to be this :« they all be-
lieved that, by divine right, all ministers of the divine word,
Bishops and Presbyters, were equal ; but that as a prudential
ecclesiastical arrangement, an order of Bishops as superintend-
ents over other ministers, was not antiscriptural, nor ungodly ;
but calculated to promote order and peace in the church, and to
prevent divisions. This has certainly been the general opinion
and practice of the church from the beginning of the second cen-
tury, up to this day. The church is placed between two evils —
the tyranny of the people, and the tyranny of ministers. The
divine plan favors neither. The Scriptures lay down only general
principles, and leave the details of church government to every
society ; and whilst nothing is done contrary either to the letter
or the spirit of Scripture, by either ministers or people, we may
approve of all, and leave all to the full exercise of their own
choice. Whoever takes upon him to condemn those who keep to
these limits, is an enemy to the peace of the church.
It is a plain scriptural principle that ministers are to govern
the people ; — that they are to govern according to the letter
and spirit of their commissio?i ; — and that, whilst they so
govern, the people are bound hy the authority of the word of God
to submit to their government, and to honour them as those who
watch for their souls ; but when ministers violate the law of their
commission, their authority so far ceases, and the people are, in
that proportion, free from the obligation to obey them. A well-
guarded superintendency of one class of ministers over other
ministers, if determined upon by the church, is allowable ; and
is a useful arrangement. All such plans must be judged by their
own character and administration. Every reflecting reader will
equally admire the divine wisdom in what is defined, and in what
is undefined. What is defined, guards against anarchy ; what is
undefined, guards against tyranny. May heaven grant both
ministers and people to see and preserve their privileges, without
abusing the same, either to anarchy or tyranny.
The Remonstrants perfectly acquiesced in the above principles,
as may be seen in their Apology by Episcopius.'*
g So Bishop Carlton, in his Treatise of Jurisdiction, p. 7, quoted by Calamy in his defence of
Moderate Nonconformity : " The power of Order, by all writers that I could see, even of the Church
of Rome, is understood to be immediately from Christ given to all Bishops and Priests alike in
their Consecration." Calamy, Vol. I. p. 104, edit. 1703.
h Episcopi Opp. Vol. II. par. secund. p. 22C, fol. ed. 1665,
1T2 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
The Waldenses had the same principles. There are twa
reasons for mentioning this remarkable people here. The first
is, an occasional pretence by some churchmen, that they have
had their order of episcopacy by divine right through this
church ; another is, a feeble and ineffectual attempt of some
Moravian historians to claim for that church some superiority on
the same ground. In " An Account of the Doctrine, Manners,
Liturgy, and Idiom of the Unitas Fratrum^ (i. e. the Moravians)
taken from, and comprising the Supplement (dedicated to the
church of England) of the Vouchers to the Report of the Com-
mittee of the Honorable the House of Commons, concerning the
church of the Unitas Fratrum^ lately printed in folio," London,
1749, 8vo. v^e have a long extract from a letter of Jablonsky, a
Moravian Bishop, to Archbishop Wake. In this he quotes
Comenius, another Moravian Bishop and Historian, in proof
that " the Bohemian brethren, arising from the ashes of Huss,
regularly received the Episcopal order — Anno 1467," as follows :
" The brethren's chief concern vs^as about pastors for the souls:
w^hence they should get them, when those they had at present
should decease. It was too uncertain a thing, to wait till some
of the Roman ordination, for the love of truth, should come over
to them. And they remembered, that the forementioned primate
of Bohemia^ Archbishop Rokyzane, had often testified that all
must be renewed from the bottom. Therefore an ordination was
to be begun at home, by that power which Christ had given his
church. But they were afraid, that it might not be a regular
ordination if a Presbyter should create a Presbyter, and not a
Bishop. At length in the year 1467, the chief persons from
Bohemia and Moravia, to the number of about seventy, met
together in a village near Richnow, called Lkota; and, having
poured forth many prayers and tears to God, that he would
vouchsafe to shew whether he approved of their design, they
resolved to enquire the divine will by lot. They chose, therefore,
by vote, nine men from among them ; and, having put into the
hands of a child twelve pieces of paper folded up, they • bid him
distribute to those niiie men. Now nine of the papers were
empty, and only on three stood written — It is : so that it was
possible they all might get empty papers, which would have
imported a negative will of God. But so it was, that the three
written ones came into the hands of three among them, viz.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 173
Matthias Kuhnwald, a very pious man ; Thomas Przelaiicius, a
learned man; and Elias Krzenowius^ a man of singular prudence.
These found Stephen, Bishop of the Waldenses, who sending for
the other Bishop, and some of the ministers, declared to them
their descent from Constantine's time ; and also the articles of
their doctrine, and the dreadful sufferings they had undergone in
Italy and France ; and having heard again, with approbation
and congratulation, the account which ours gave of their with-
holding themselves as well from the Calixtines also now, as
formerly from the Pope ; and, finally, to enable these three
ministers to ordain, they created them Bishops by imposition of
hands, and sent them back in peace." This is Comenius's ac-
count, who died 1670. Then Jablonsky speaks of the succession
of these Bishops in " The Unity," as having " gone on uninter-
ruptedly from the first beginning of the Unity till 1650 ;" and he
proceeds with an account of the succession till the time of writing
to Archbishop Wake. At the close of his letter, the mention of
the " Episcopal Succession" occurs three times in two pages ;
and at page 135 the church of England is spoken of as " their
07ily Episcopal sister in the Protestant world."
Arvid Gradin, a person of great trust, and employed on the
most important embassies amongst the Moravians, thus briefly
describes this affair: " Being solicitous about a regular and Apos-
tolical ordination of Pastors, there met in the year 1467, out of
all Bohemia and Moravia grave and pious men, about seventy in
all, who sent three of their number, being marked out by lot, to
Stephen, Bishop of the Waldenses, then under banishment in
Austria. He having called together the other Bishops, his
colleagues, consecrated these three persons, who were ministers
and teachers remarkable for their piety and learning, Bishops,
by imposition of hands: their names were Matthias of Cunewald,
Thomas Praelautensis, and Elias Chrzenovitz." He then speaks
of " Comenius complaining that he, like Elias, was alone left re-
maining, without any hopes of handing down the Apostolical
Succession which was lodged in him ; and accordingly he wrote,
in the year 1660, a very melancholy lamentation^ and dedicated
it to the English church." This, and much more in the same
authors, shews a disposition unduly to magnify Episcopal ordina-
tion and succession. Indeed I think that both Comenius and
Jablonsky really believed in the divine right of Episcopacy, as
174 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
did many divines of the church of England in the times of Come-
nius — times of much high churchism in England. ,It was well
for the brethren that the truth of the matter was not so ; other-
wise the church of God had perished amongst the Bohemians
when Comenius died, for Bishop Holmes informs us in the work
noticed below, that the succession expired in that branch at the
death of Comenius, and was not renewed again for nearly one
hundred years, viz. in 1735.
However, since the publication of the first edition of this Essay,
I have received a candid and excellent letter on the subject of
Moravian Episcopacy, from the Rev. Benjamin Seifferth, a Mo-
ravian minister at Kimbolton. From this I am happy to learn
that the Moravians do not hold Episcopacy to be of divine right.
Mr. Seiiferth refers in proof of this, amongst other authorities, to
the "History of the United Brethren," by the Rev. John Holmes
of Fulneck, Yorkshire, who is a Bishop of the Moravian church.
At pages 50 to 53, Vol. I. the Rev. John Holmes gives the follow-
ing account of the matter of sending to this Stephen, the supposed
Bishop of the Waldensian church, for Episcopal ordination : —
"A most important subject of deliberation, both at their Synods
and at other times, was how to maintain a regular succession of
ministers, when those who now exercised the ministry among
them, and who had previously been ordained among the Calix-
tines, were dead. For the purpose of coming to a final decision
on this point, a Synod was convened in 1467, and met ih the vil-
lage of Lhota, in the house of a person of the name of Duchek.
Seventy persons were assembled at it, consisting of ministers,
noblemen, scholars, citizens, and peasants, deputed by the several
congregations of the brethren in Moravia and Bohemia.
" The Synod was opened by fasting, prayer, and reading the
Scriptures. After much deliberation, they came to a unanimous
resolution to follow the advice of Lupacius and others, and to
elect their ministers from their own body. With the example of
the election of Matthias before them, (Acts i. 15 — 26,) who was
appointed by lot, they conceived that they were not acting con-
trary to Scripture by adopting the same mode, and they reposed
implicit confidence in the Lord, who alone hath the disposal of
the lot, (Prov. xii. 33,) that, in a case of such emergency as the
present, which involved such important consequences to their
whole church, He would counsel them according to his will.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 175
They first nominated twenty men, from among whom nine were
chosen, being in their opinion dnly qualified for the office of the
ministry, men of approved piety and irreproachable conduct, and
possessing a thorough knowledge of divine truth, and much
practical experience. Of this inimber they determined that
THREE should be appointed hy lot for the ministerial office.
Being thus agreed on preliminaries, they prepared twelve slips
of paper, on three of which they wrote the word EST, {this is the
7nan,) and left the otlier nine blank. All the twelve slips of
paper were then rolled up, put into a small vase, and mixed
together.
" Hereupon Gregory addressed the assembly, admonishing
them to be fully resigned to the direction and will of God, our
heavenly Father, to whom they had referred the decision, whom
of these nine men He chose to become ambassadors of his Son in
the church. He encouraged them confidently to expect that God
would hear and answer their prayer. After this they repeated
their supplications to the Lord, entreating him so to overrule their
present proceedings, that the affirmative lot inscribed with the
word EST, might be received by such only of the nine men, pre-
viously nominated, as He himself designed to appoint to the
ministry, or if none of the present candidates were approved by
Him, he would cause each of them to receive a blank, or negative
lot. Prayer being ended, they called in a little boy, directing
him to hand one of the slips of paper to each of the nine men,
who gave them unopened to other members of the Synod. On
opening the papers it was found, that the three inscribed with
EST had been received by Matthias of Kunewalde, Thomas of
Preschelauz, and Elias of Kreschenow. The whole assembly
now joined in a solemn act of thanksgiving to God, joyfully re-
ceiving these three men as pastors and teachers, and promising
them obedience by giving them the right hand and the kiss of
peace. The transaction was closed with the celebration of the
Lord's Supper.
" The brethren, however, soon found that the work was not
yet complete. In their ow7i estimation the ap-poinlment of these
men for the ministry of the gospel, in the manner described, was
sufficiently valid ; but they knew it required something more to
give it equal sanction with the religious public. They required
regular ecclesiastical ordination. In order to discuss this im-
176 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
portant subject, another Synod was convened before the end of
the year. In this assembly two questions were principally
agitated.
*' The first was, whether ordination by a number of Presby-
ters was equally valid imth that performed by a Bishop ? The
decision of the Synod was to this effect: — That Presbyterian
ordination was consonant to apostolic practice {\ Tim. iv. 14,)
a7id the usage of the primitive church, which might be proved
from the writings of the primitive fathers ; consequently the
newly elected ministers might be ordained by those now exer-
cising the sacred functions of the gospel among them, and who
had previously been Calixtine clergymen in priests' orders. But,
as for many ages no ordination had been deemed valid in the
reigning church, unless performed by a Bishop, they resolved to
use every possible means for obtaining episcopal ordination ; that
their enemies might thus be deprived of every pretext for dis-
crediting the ministry among them.
" This decision involved the second question, which was, to
what regularly organized community of Christians the Synod
might look for episcopal ordination. There could in reality exist
but one opinion on this subject. For it was highly improbable,
that any Bishops connected with the Romish church, would
transfer this privilege to the brethren ; and besides this church,
they knew only one other Christian community, to which they
might apply with any hope of success. This was the Waldensian
church. Several circumstances encouraged the brethren to ap-
ply in this quarter. The Waldenses had existed for a long
period as a distinct body of Christians, they constituted a regu-
larly organized society, tracing the succession of their Bishops
from the times of the Apostles ; they had on a former occasion
come to the assistance of the brethren, and now had several
congregations in Austria, served by their own bishops and
ministers.
" Conformably to these resolutions of the Synod, they elected
three of their ministers, who were already in priest's orders, and
sent them to the Waldensian Bishop, Stephen. Havhig informed
him of the object of their visit, the state of the Unity of the
Brethren, and the transactions of the Synod, he received them
with demonstrations of tlje most cordial joy; and in his turn
related the leading events in the history of the Waldenses, and
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 177
gave them an account of their constitution, and the succession of
their Bishops. Hereupon he ordained these three Presbyters
Bishops of the Brethren's church, with imposition of hands,
being assisted by another Bishop, and in presence of the elders.
Of these three first Bishops of the Brethren's church, Melchior
Bradacius is the only one whose name has been handed down to
posterity. He had from the very commencement of the church
of the Brethren rendered it essential service, and merited an
honourable distinction. Of the other two, one had previously
exercised the ministry among the Waldenses, and the other in
the Romish church.
" Scarce had these Bishops returned to their brethren, when
it was resolved to convoke another Synod. This assembly was
principally occupied in amending and completing their ecclesi-
astical constitution. In order to this, their first public act was the
ordination of the three men, lately appointed by lot for the minis-
terial office, (to be) Presbyters of the Brethren's church. One of
thejn, Matthias of Kunewalde was, before the close of the Synod,
consecrated Bishop. They then proceeded to the appointment of
ten Co-bishops, or Conseniors, elected from the body of Presby-
ters. No doubtful proof this of the increasing number of congre-
gations and members, in connexion with the Brethren's church."
The reader will observe several discrepancies between these
accounts.
First, as to the opinion of the ancient Brethren about the real
importance of Episcopacy. Comenius says, — " they were afraid
that it might not be a regular ordination if a Presbyter should
create a Presbyter, and not a Bishop." Arvid Gradin says they
were solicitous about it. Mr. Holmes says that the Synod, after
agitating the subject, decided to this effect : " that Presbyterian
ordination was consonant to apostolic practice and the primitive
church;^'' and that they adopted Episcopal ordination for this
special, prudential reason, viz. " That their enemies might thus be
deprived of every pretext for discrediting the ministry among them.''''
Secondly, Comenius seems to make the meeting at Lhota, in
which Matthias Kuhnwald, &c. were elected, to be called for the
special purpose of sending these three men to Stephen for episco-
pel ordination ; so does Arvid Gradin : Bishop Holmes makes
this meeting appoint these three men to the office of the ministry
without any regard to Episcopal ordination ; for at the close of
178 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
the meeting, " The whole assembly joined in a solemn act of
thanksgiving to God, joyfully receiving these three men as their
pastors and teachers, promising them obedience by giving them
the right hand and kiss of peace."
Thirdly, both Comenius and Arvid Gradin state that the three
men who were sent to Stephen, and consecrated Bishops by him,
were Matthias Knhnwald, Thomas Przelancius, and Elias
Krzenowiiis : but Bishop Holmes says the men who went to
Stephen, and were consecrated Bishops, were not the same as
those mentioned by Comenius and Gradin ; but that one of their
names was Melchior Bradacius ; and that the names of the other
two have not been " handed down to posterity." Then another
Synod, a third, is convoked, according to Bishop Holmes, and
"their first public act was the ordination of the three men,
lately appointed by lot for the ministerial office. Presbyters of the
Brethren's church. One of them, Matthias of Kunewalde, was,
before the close of the Synod, consecrated Bishop."
I must confess that such very striking and material discrepan-
cies, among these highly respectable historians of the Brethren's
church, on a point so important, makes me suspect that there is
very little of perfectly authentic history on the subject of this
matter about Stephen and the Episcopal ordination and succession.
Perrin, who possessed better means of information than almost
any other historian of the Waldenses, differs, as we shall soon
see, from all these historians : according to him, the object of
this, the journey, was different ; the perso?is sent were different,
"two ministers and two elders ;" the transaction between Stephen
and those persons was different : what they did, was 7iot to give
a succession of Bishops, but " in TOKEN of their great joy, and
tliat holy society and correspondence, which they desired to hold
with them, they blessed them, praying and laying their hands
upon them." The whole Episcopal colouring of this affair
seems to have arisen from the high church imagination of Co-
menius ; Jablonsky gladly laid hold of it to propitiate Archbishop
Wake, of the church of England ; and hence others have followed
in the same track.
But let us direct our inquiry to the opinions and practice of
the Waldenses.
The Moravians profess to have their Episcopacy from Stephen,
whom they call Bishop of the Waldenses, in 1467. If the Wal-
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 179
denses neither taught this doctrine of high church Bishops, nor
maintained such an order, then, of course, they could not give
what they possessed not themselves ; and all the authority de-
rived from them for these pretensions comes to nothing.
The doctrine of Episcopacy by divine right, if true ^ is a matter
of the very first importance : all w^ho held it, must have felt it to
be so. Had the Waldenses held tliis, they would have spoken
accordingly, in clear, strong, defined terms. Thus they did speak
on all subjects they believed to be of great magnitude. It may then
be taken as a sure rule, that, whilst the subject was constantly
before them, and yet they never say clearly and strongly that
the order of Bishops, as having superintendency over Presbyters,
was by divine right; — no, nor even mention such a thing as
Bishops amongst them ; that this negative evidence is proof they
did not hold such a doctrine. But when they say much to the
contrary, the proof strengthens still more. Besides, where were
the Waldenses to get the notion ? We have seen that the Roman
church never held it ; the Greek church never held it ; the
Scriptures do not teach it ; — where then were they to get it ?
He that affirms they held it, must prove his affirmation. / deny
it; let it be proved. — I might rest the matter safely here.
The early and authentic writings of the Waldenses are very
few ; yet some light may be obtained from them. Let the reader
keep one thing in mind ; — viz. that suppose it could be proved,
as a fact, that they had Presbyters and Bishops, still this would
not prove that they held the high church notions of Episcopacy
by divine right. Jerome constantly mentions Bishops in the
church, in his day, as a fact, but positively denies the divine
right of Episcopacy. The church of Rome had the distinction
between Bishops and Presbyters as 'd,fact, but never maintained
the divine right of Episcopacy. The Reformers of the English
church established the distinction as B.fact, but never maintained
the divine right. By overlooking or denying this dijGference
between the/ao^ and the divine right, many showy volumes have
been written in favour of Episcopacy, which are nothing but
SPLENDID SOPHISMS from end to end. However, / doubt the fact
of the Waldenses having had Bishops in their earliest history.
I believe it cannot be proved from any of their documents, written
before the time when the Moravians profess to have received the
Episcopal order from them, viz. 1467. Any lat^r evidence will
180 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
be inconclusive. Much to the contrary certainly appears in
their writings before that period, as the following extracts will
shew. They speak of ministers in the following manner : —
" They who are Pastors ought to preach to the people, and
feed them often with divine doctrine ; and chastise the sinners
with discipline:' Written A.D. 1100. "Feeding the flock of
God, not for filthy lucre sake, or (nor) as having superiority
over the clergy :' " As touching Orders, we ought to hold that
order is called the power which God gives to man, duly to ad-
minister and dispense unto the church the word and sacraments.
But we find nothing in the Scriptures touching such orders as
they" (the papists) "pretend, but only the custom of the church."
Treatise of Aiitichrist, A. D. 1220. " All other ministerial things
may be reduced to the aforesaid." Ibid. " Those that being
partakers of the outward ceremonies, instituted ONLY by human
inventions, do believe and hope to partake of the reality of pas-
toral cures and offices, if they be shaved or shorn like lambs, and
anointed or daubed like walls,'' &c. Having described the cere-
monies then used by the Romish church in Confirmation, they
say, " This is that which they call the sacrament of Confirmation,
which we find not instituted either by Christ, or his Apostles —
therefore such sacrament is not found needful to salvation ;
whereby God is blasphe^ned, and which was introduced by the
devil's instigation, to seduce the people, and to deprive them of
the faith of the church, and that by such means they might be
induced the more to believe the ceremonies, and the necessity of
the Bishops." Ibid. Speaking of " Pfls^ors," without any dis-
tinction, they say, " We Pastors do meet together once every
year, to determine of our affairs in a general council. Amongst
other powers and abilities which God hath given to his servants,
he hath given authority to chuse leaders to rule the people, and
to ordain Elders (Presbyters) in their charges according to the
diversity of the work, in the unity of Christ, which is proved by
the saying of the Apostle, in the first chapter of his Epistle to
Titus : ' For this cause I have left thee in Crete, that thou
shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain
Elders (Presbyters) in every city as I have appointed thee.'
When any of us, the aforesaid Pastors, falls into any gross sins,
he is both excommunicated and prohibited to preach." From
MSS. several htmdred years before Luther or Calvin. Here it is
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 181
remarkable, that their quotation from Titus stops^ in such a way,
as 7iot to introduce the term Bishop^ occurring in the next verse.
Why was this ? The following authorities will answer this ques-
tion. Reinerus, the oldest authority on their tenets, as an historian,
(having written about 1250,) says, " they considered Prelates
to be but Scribes and Pharisees ; that the Pope and all the Bishops
were murderers, because of the wars they waged ; — that they
were not to obey the Bishops, but God only ; that in the church
no one was greater than another ; that they hated the very
NAME of Prelate, as Pope, Bishop,'' &c. A similar statement
is given by jEneas Sylvius ; "The Roman Bishop, and all
Bishops are equal. Amongst priests, or ministers of the gospel,
there is NO difference. The name of a Presbyter does not
signify a dignity, but superior merit." J Mr. Faber quotes
Pilichdorf, saying, "they REJECTED the consecration of Bishops,
priests, churches, altars, &C.'"'
Perrin remarks, that " The monk Reinerus reported many
things concerning the vocation of the Pastors of the Waldenses
which are mere fictions : as that they had a greater Bishop and
two followers, whom he called the elder son, and the younger,
and a deacon ; that he laid his hands upon others with a sovereign
authority, and sent them where he thought good, like a Pope.'"
" Against these impostures, here follows what is found in
their writings, concerning the vocation of their pastors." He
then gives the same account from their own writings as we have
given in the text ; but no account of an Order of Bishops is
found in them. There is no distinction amongst them but what
age, or wisdom, or piety, might confer.
Leger gives the monk Reiner's account of this matter a little
differently. He introduces him speaking of the Barbes or Pastors,
saying, "that they had always amongst them some chief pastor,
endowed with the ^ authority of a Bishop, with two coadjutors,
j Catalog. Test: Veritat. Vol. II. k Faber's Vallenses, p. 418, Lond, 1838.
1 Mr. Faber, referring to Gilly's Excurs. to Piedm, p. 73, says, "The venerable Peyrani, when
asked by Dr. Gilly, in the year 1823, whether, in the Vandois church, there had not formerly been
Bishops properly so called, readily answered 'Yes : and I should now be styled Bishop, for my office
is virtually episcopal, but it would be absurd to retain the empty title, when we are too poor to
support the dignity ; and have little jurisdiction save that which is voluntarily submitted to among
ourselves : the term Moderator is, therefore, now in use with us, as being more consistent with our
humiliation.^ " Now if riches and worldly dignities are necessary to Bishops properly such, then there
were none such in the earliest ages of the church, nor of the Waldenses either : the same remark would
apply to any jurisdiction with citnl power to coerce : neither the primitive church, nor the ancient
Waldenses, knew any thing about such jurisdiction. If the term Bishop is an " empty title" without
182 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
one of whom he called his eldest son, and the other \\\s younger,'^""
This is certainly more consistent with the other statements of
Reiner. For how could he say they had a greater Bishop, when
he says they reprobated the very name of Bishops. Bnt he
might say that some chief Pastor was endowed with the au-
thority of a Bishop, &c. Their own writings say, *' The last
received pastors must do nothing without the license of their aS^-
niors : as also those that oxe first are to undertake nothing without
the approbation of their companions, that every thing may be
done amongst us in order. We pastors do meet together once
every year to determine of our affairs in a general council.""
This is the authority the seniors had. Sucli have the Lutheran
and Wesleyan Methodists superintendents. Such had the Bishops
in the days of Cyprian. Yet the Waldenses do not appear to
have had the name of Bishop. They are said to have HATED
THE VERY NAME of Bishop. Much less, therefore, had they
the doctrine of divine right. Indeed this account of Reiner's
about a Bishop with two coadjutors, an elder son and a younger
son, seems properly to be spoken'^of the Waldenses at all, but
only of those who were properly Paulicians : see Mr. Faber's
Vallenses, p. 564 and 565.
Hence it would appear that the Waldenses had no such name as
Bishop for any of their pastors, but that, according to the earliest
historians who knew them best, " they reprobated the very name
of Bishops." Their pastors fed the flock, ruled the flock, and
ordained others to the ministry of the word. The Waldenses,
then, had no doctrine of the divine r?g-A/ of Bishops to govern the
church, and to have the sole right of superintending and ordaining
other ministers. The pretence of deriving the divine right of
Episcopacy through the Waldenses, is, in truth, without any solid
foundation whatsoever.
The Moravian Bishops have no superintendency by the power
of their order over all other ministers ; they are ordained by the
authority of the Elders or Presbyters ; and are subject to the
Conference of Presbyters. They, by the authority of the Pres-
these, something very diflferent from primitive Episcopacy must be meant by it. "But," says
Peyrani, "a Moderator is virtually a Bishop :" yes, as much so as a Lutheran Superintendent or
(^■^(^^^^.y^President. If this is what is meant by being '^' properly" 9. Bishop, then many writers on these
/ subjects express themselves very improperly.
m See Peyran's Historical Defence of the Waldenses, Lond. 1826. App. p. 491 2.
n Perrin, Part 2, B. 1, chap. 10.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 183
byters, ordain other ministers. This office of ordaining ministers
is their only important difference from Presbyters ; and as they
do it by the authority of the Presbyters, it amounts to nothing
but a mere ecclesiastical arrangement.
Bishop Holmes says, (p. 25.) " The writings of Wickliffe
were the means used by God for illuminating the mind of Huss.
Wickliffe himself, on the subject of equality and of gospel
ministers, evidently followed the writings of the ancient Wat-
clenses, for he sometimes uses their very words. Now Wickliffe
boldly affirms all gospel ministers to be equal by divine right.
Huss followed him in this, and maintained the same point, as may
be seen in Fox's Acts and Monuments.** He is charged with
maintaining, and doth not deny it, that he saith " All priests are
of like power ; and affirmeth, that the reservations of the Pope's
casualities, the ordering (ordaining ) of Bishops, and the conse-
cration of Priests, were invented only for covetousness." The
Waldenses taught Wickliffe; Wickliffe taught Huss: they all
inaintained equality ^ by divine right, of all gospel tninisters.
All the Reformers viewed the Bohemian Brethren's church
government in this light.
The English Reformers did. A number of the Bohemians
fled out of Germany into England in the time of Edward VI.
They were incorporated, as a church, under John Alasco. Now
the later Moravians reckon John Alasco as one of their Bishops
at that time. Let us hear Bishop Burnet's history of this matter :
" This summer, John Alasco, with a congregation of Germans
that fled from their country upon the persecution raised there,
for not receiving the Interim, was allowed to hold his assembly
at St. Austin's, in London. The congregation was erected into
a corporation. John Alasco was to be superintendent, and there
were four other ministers associated with him. There were
also 380 of the congregation made denizens of England, as ap-
pears by the records of their patents." p In the king's letters
patent for their incorporation, the following is the style : — " De
uno Superintendente et quotuor verbi ministris erigimus, creamus,
ordinarnus, et fundamus,'' &c. — " We erect, create, ordain, and
found this church, under one superintendent and four ministers of
the word." Would Alasco, who wanted neither talents nor
courage to defend himself, have submitted to the degradation (as
o Vol, I. p. 791, &c. ed. 1G41, foUo. P Vol. II, Part 1.
184 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
a thorough Episcopalian would have supposed it) of being stripped
of his dignity in a solemn deed of incorporation, and made a mere
superintendent ? Would not the same reasoning hold as to the
opinion of the other ministers, and the whole church, upon the
subject ? The word superintendent is repeated ten times over in
these documents ; but never the word Bishop as applied to Alasco,
or to any minister of the Bohemian church.
The Rev. Benjamin SeifFerth, in the letter above mentioned,
speaking of John Alasco, thinks I am in an error in supposing
that the later Moravian historians reckon him as one of their
Bishops. He says, " Count Zinzendorf, indeed, fell into this
error ; but I believe it has been acknowledged to be an error.
Holmes is not chargeable with it ; nor, as far as I am aware, are
any of our writers : and Comenius, and especially Regenvolscius,
shew that a Lasco was not even a member of the Brethren's
church, though a warm friend to it." I have given Mr. SeifFerth's'
statement. Now it seems Count Zinzendorf believed a Lasco, or
Alasco, belonged to the Moravians ; and the highly authoritative
Work above quoted,taken from the Fb?Ycy^ers presented to the House
of Commons, and indeed to both houses of parliament, considers
the transaction in Edward's time to have been with the Brethren's
church, and of course with a Lasco as its chief minister : see
p. 134 of that Work. And, in a note on the same page, they
speak of " one of our (Moravian) Bishops having been in the
commission for Reforming Ecclesiastical Laws in England. We
cannot forbear giving the honored reader two of the most re-
markable passages of our said Bishop John d Lasco's Preface to
the Liturgy, for his Congregation at Austin Friars," in 1550 ; a
similar statement, as to his being a Moravian minister, is made
in a note at p. 108 — " This noble prelate ofoiirs.^^ It is not for
me to decide who is right in this matter.
It would be easy to prove that the Lutheran church viewed
this Bohemian Episcopacy as a mere ecclesiastical arrangement,
amounting in substance to nothing more than the same arrange-
ment amongst themselves ; sometimes denominating the individual
a Superintendent, as in Germany, generally ; and sometimes a
Bishop, or even Archbishop, as in Sweden and Denmark. All
the Swiss and Geneva Reformers prove this by expressing
their approbation of the church discipline of the Bohemians
and Waldenses ; for every body knows that these Reformers
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 185
determinately maintained the eqiuilitij by divine right of all
gospel Diinisfers.
Indeed the story about that Stephen, who, the Moravians
say, conveyed to them this Episcopal Succession, is very differently
related by Perrin, one of the earliest of the modern historians of
the Waldenses. He had more authentic docutnents connected
with their ancient history, than any later historian ever possess-
ed. He says, "about 1467, the Hussites reforming and sepa-
rating their churches from the church of Rome, understood that
there were some churches of the ancient Waldenses in Austria,
lying upon the Frontiers of Bohemia, in which there were great
and learned men ordained, and appointed to be Pastors ; and
that the doctrine of the gospel flourished in its full force and
vigour amongst them : then that they might he informed of the
truth thereof, they sent two of their ministers with two elders,
giving them in charge to inquire into, and know what those
flocks or congregations were ; for what reason they had separated
themselves from the church of Rome ; their principles and pro-
gress; and also to discover and make known unto them the
beginning of their own conduct in Bohemia, and to acquaint
them with the cause and reason of their separation and dissention
from the Romish church.
" These men being arrived, thither, and having found out
those Waldensian churches, after a diligent and careful search
after them, they told them, that they did nothing but what was
agreeable to the ordinances of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the
doctrine of his Apostles, confining themselves wholly to the
institution of the Son of God in the matter of the sacrament.
" It was a matter of great joy and satisfaction to the Wal-
denses, to understand, that a great number of people in Bohemia
had advanced the glory of God, by casting off the corruptions
and idolatries of the Roman church, and exhorting them in God's
name to continue and carry on that work which they had so well
begun, for the knowledge and maintenance of the truth, and for
the establishment of a good order and discipline amongst them ;
in token of their great joy, and that holy society and correspond-
ence which they desired to hold with them, they blessed them,
praying and laying their hands upon ihem.''^ And then, having
mentioned the burning of a great number of the Waldenses in a
P Perrin's History of the Old Waldenses, part 2, book 2, chap. 10.
z
186 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
violent persecution, he says, " Among others, the history gives
us an account of ONE Stephen, an elderly man, who being
burnt there," (at Vienna,) " confirmed many by his constancy. ^^
The translation I quote is by " A lover of our Protestant Es-
tablishment, both in church and state." Perhaps "one Stephen,
an elderly man," should have been translated, ^^ one Stephen, a
Presbyter or Elder. ^^ This is the very Stephen of whom the
Moravians speak as conveying the Episcopal Succession to them.
Hence they sometimes speak about the church of England as
" their only Episcopal Sister.'''' The missionary labours of the
Brethren we would duly estimate ; much may be said for their
simple manners and piety ; yet all such representations as tend
to confine a gospel ministry and gospel ordinances to any Epis-
copal Succession schemes, are to be suspected. Their tendency is
to bind the blessings of Christianity by ordinances that God never
made. No order of men ought to be encouraged to assume such
powers. Simplicity may be frequently beguiled by them, and
may look upon them as harmless ; but those who study the sub-
ject in the light of history, and the knowledge of human nature,
will think very differently.
As to apostolical succession, Reiner testifies that the Wal-
denses maintained, " that those only are the successors of the
Apostles who imitate their lives. Inferring from thence, saith
he, that the Pope, the Bishops, and Clergy, who enjoy the riches
of this world, and seek after them, do not follow the lives of the
Apostles, and therefore are not the true guides of the church ; it
having never been the design of our Lord Jesus Christ to commit
his chaste and well beloved spouse to those who would rather
prostitute it by their wicked examples and works, than preserve
it in the same purity in which they received it at the beginning,
a virgin chaste and without spot.^' This is the true view of the
apostolical succession. The Reformers contended for this. We
rejoice to believe that the Bishops and Presbyters in the Moravian
church have this succession ; but most eminently so their mis-
sionaries, and all other devoted missionaries to the heathen.
May every church zealously contend for this succession, and
may their labours be crowned with apostolical success in the
conversion of thousands and tens of thousands from idols to the
living God !
The matter of the Scotch church, and all tlie dissenting
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 187
churches, as maintaining the identity by divine right of all
ministers, is denied by none, and therefore needs no proof.
The reader will have long since perceived that the main end
of this argument npon the identity of Bishops and Presbyters, as
one and the same office, is to shew that Presbyters have EQUALLY
as much divine authority to ORDAIN others to the christian
ministry as Bishops have. Another prerogative, however, is
generally claimed for Bishops, viz. that of CONFIRMATION. We
have taken but little notice of this ; yet it would hardly suit the
design of this Essay wholly to omit it. We account it not of
suflicient importance for lengthened remark or discussion in a
separate section : a brief notice of it here, therefore, by way of
episode, may suffice. We may comprise all that is necessary
to be said on the subject in two particulars ; first, as to the thing
itself; and secondly, as to the minister who may perform it.
First, as to the thing itself. Those illustrious witnesses to
the truth against popery, the Waldenses, as we have seen,
speaking on this subject, say, " This is that which they call
confirmation, which we find not instituted either by Christ or
his Apostles; therefore such sacrament is not found needful to
salvation ; whereby God is blasphemed, and which was intro-
duced by the devil's instigation, to seduce the people, and to de-
prive them of the faith of the church, and that by such means
they might be induced the more to believe the ceremonies, and
the NECESSITY of Bishops.'^ Wicklifife also says, " It does not
appear that this sacrament should be reserved to a Csesarean
prelacy ; that it would be more devout and more conformable to
Scripture language, to deny that the Bishops give the Holy Spirit,
or confirm the giving of it ; and that it therefore §eems to some,
that the brief and trivial confirmation of the PRELATES, and the
ceremonies added to it for the sake of pomp, were introduced at
the suggestion of Satan, that the people may be deceived as to the
faith of the church, and that the state and necessity of Bishops
may be more acknowledged." ^ Melanchthon observes, "The
rite of confirmation, as retained by Bishops, is altogether an idle
ceremony : but an examination of youth, in order to a profession
of their faith, with public prayer for the pious part of them,
would be useful, and the prayer would not be in vain.'' ' Ravanel,
whose Work had the approbation of the French reformed church,
r Vaughan's Life of Wickliffc, Vol. II. p. 308, sec. ed. 1831. » Loci Communes, de Confirmatione.
188 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
says, " The wrangling Popish divines maintain the dignity and
efficacy of confirmation above the sacrament oi Baptism itself;
for they assert that it is not lawful for any one but a Bishop to
confer it, whilst they concede that Presbyters can administer
Baptism : and they impiously teach that confirmation is a certain
perfecting and consummating of Baptism, as if those were to be
counted only half Christians who are baptized only, and not con-
firmed ; w^hereas the Apostle testifies that we put on Christ in
baptism."* Bishop Taylor boldly declares, that, until w^e are
confirmed, we are imperfect Christians ; such, " without a mira-
cle, are not perfect Christians :" i. e. not really Christians at aU.
Calvin has some admirable remarks upon the subject, Inst. L. 4,
c. 19. He approves of a similar procedure to that mentioned
above by Melanchthon. He exposes the absurdity and impiety
of taking the act of the Apostles in conferring the visible and
MIRACULOUS GIFTS of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of their
hands upon the baptized, as a ground for X\\e pretence of Bishops
to confer the Holy Ghost by the laying 07i of THEIR hands in con-
firmation. He calls them "Apes of the Apostles." He shews
that by this kind of pretence they invalidate baptism itself, thus
making void the commandments of God by the traditions of men,
and exclaims, " O the iniquity of this proceeding !" He then
offers ironically an improved definition of confirmation, viz. that
it is "A marked disgrace to baptism, which obscures the use of
baptism, yea abolishes \i\ the devil's false promise, to draw us
away from the true promises of God." The rite of confirmation
in the English church differs from the popish one in that it is not
called a sacrament ; and some ceremonies are laid aside : in all
other respects it is equally unscriptural in its pretences, and dan-
gerous in its consequences. To establish a claim to it as a
prerogative of Bishops, in imitation of the Apostles, they, the
Bishops, 7mist confer the gift of miracles. The latter they cannot
do : the claim, therefore, exposes Christianity itself to contempt.
This claim ought to be given up. Bishop Taylor, speaking of the
popish doctrine of extreme unction, says, " When the miraculous
healing ceased, then they were not catholics, but heretics, that did
transfer it to the use of dying persons." By this rule he would
convict the church of England of heresy in the use of confirma-
tion. It doubtless embodies serious errors ; though we do not
t Bibliotheca Sacra, sub voce.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 189
say it constitutes heresy. Every Christian has a right to repro-
bate it as a public injury to religion. It is degrading also to all
other ministers, as implying that the sacrament of baptism, as
administered by them, is imperfect. It derogates from the sacra-
ment of baptism itself." Besides, there is the solemn declaration
made by the Bishop, in administering the rite of confirmation,
that the "Almighty and everlasting God HAS GIVEN forgive-
ness OF ALL THEIR SINS," — all their actual personal sins, — to
the MULTITUDES o^ yoitng persons brought to be confirmed, many
of whom are plainly ungodly persons, and who had never been
seen by the Bishop before. This is enough to make any pious
person tremble. It is a daring presumption, only equalled by
the height of Popery itself. The great danger to souls, is, that
multitudes believe it. I pity many good men who are entangled
with these things. The Reformers of the English church might
find some excuse for retaining them, because it was difficult in
the darkness of those times to see the truth in all things ; but
there can be no excuse at this day for retaining them. Every
Protestant ought to protest against these corruptions of Christi-
anity. Melanchthon's view contains all that the Scriptures
warrant.
Secondly, let us consider who is the minister to whom the
administering of this rite belongs. Indeed, as there is no divine
authority for the thing itself, of course there is no divine regula-
tion about the minister. Bishop Burnet grants, that there is
" no express institution of it, neither by Christ nor his Apostles ;
no rule given to practise it." ' The whole is merely a matter of
human arrangement. However, Bishop Taylor dashes off the
affirmation, that " Bishops were ALWAYS, and the ONLY ministers
of confirmation.^'' It is humiliating to find this splendid writer
frequently so reckless in assertion, and so careless of proof.
Bishop Heber candidly acknowledges, in his admirable Life of
Taylor, that " he was any thing rather than a critical inquirer
\xiio facts (however strange) of history or of philosophy . If s\xo\\
a Bishop Heber, in his life of Bishop Taylor, speaking of his work on Confirmation, says, " there
is indeed, a dangerous consequence attendant on both Taylor's arguments, that, by limiting the gift of
the Holy Ghost to Confirmation, he makes baptism, taken by itself, of none effect, or at most, of
no further eflFect, than as a decent and necessary introduction to that which would be, on this
hypothesis, the main and distinctive consignation of a Christian." King James I. at the Hampton
Court Conference, declared his opinion, " that arguing a confirmation of Baptism, as if this sacrament
without it were of no validity* is plainly blasphemous."
V Burnet on the Articles, Art 25.
190 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
alleged facts suited his purpose, he received tliem without exami-
nation, and retailed them without scruple:'^ Vol. II. p. 179, 12mo.
Now to overturn for ever, and from the foundation, his rash
affirmation, and all similar affirmations, we have only to bring
before the reader the indisputable fact, that in the Greek church
it never was confined io the Bisliops, but always was, and is to the
present day, administered by Presbyters and Bishops promiscu-
ously. There is no satisfactory proof, indeed, that it existed at
all in the early ages of the church, after the Apostles' time, in
the sense and manner in which it is now used in the church of
England. As the concluding part of baptism ; and as a way of
confirming the baptism of heretics, it somewhat early came into
the church, as may be seen in Cyprian, Epist. 72 and 76, ed.
Pamel. in Suicer's Thesaurus, Vol. II. col. 1534, &c. ed. 1682;
and Calderwood's Altare Damascenum, p. 257, &c. ed. 1708.
" The inventio7i,^^ says Bishop Burnet, Art. 25th, " that was af-
terwards found out, by which the Bisliop was held to be the only
minister of confirmation, even though Presbyters were suffered
to confirm, was a piece of superstition without any colour from
Scripture. — In the Latin church, Jerome tells us, that in his
time Bishops only confirmed ; though he makes the reason of this
to be rather for doing to them honor, than from any necessity of
law. — It is said by Hilary, that in Egypt the Presbyters did
confirm in the Bishop's absence : so that custom grew to be the
universal practice of the Greek church.'''' The learned Mr. Smith,
in his Work on the " Present State of the Greek Church," tells
us, that "the administration of confirmation is conceded to Bishops
and Presbyters promiscuously'^ in the present Greek church :
p. 1 12, ed. sec. 1678. The church of Rome, as an ordinary rule,
confines it to Bishops, but has always granted that Presbyters,
by the permission of the church, were capable of administering
confirmation ; and Presbyters have actually and frequently ad-
ministered it in that church.^ So much for the truth of Bishop
Taylor's rash and reckless affirmation, that " Bishops were
always, and the only ministers of confirmation."
There is no divine authority for the thing : the present mode
of administering it is full of presumption and danger. In a
reformed state of the matter. Presbyters might, by the wiU
of the church, be equally as efficient administrators of it as
* See the Canon Law, Distinction 95, and Lancelot's Notes on the same.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 191
Bishops. To claim it as a divine prerogative of Bishops, is
like all the other assumptions of this scheme — an utterly baseless
assumption .
Here, then, is abundant proof of the shallowness of the
pretence of some w^ho seem to boast as though almost all the
authority of the Christian church w^as on the side of their high
church claims for Episcopal Succession, The truth is, we see,
that NO Christian church ever maintained it ; many
have expressly NEGATIVED these claims ; NONE ever AFFIRMED
them.
The maintaining of the true scriptural liberty of every
section of the Christian church, is a matter of great importance
to Christianity itself, and to the peace of the Christian world
at large. Whilst no scriptural principles are violated, and
whilst the morals of the church are not corrupted, each
church has the sacred right of adopting what form of govern-
ment it deems the best. No section of the Christian church
has any authority, beyond these principles, to bind the prac-
tises of another church. Every attempt to do this, is essen-
tially popery ; it is antichrist, setting up his throne in the
church above the throne of God himself. Episcopacy, if ad-
ministered with humility, and in a pacific spirit, may, on these
principles of Christian truth, be adopted and justified ; but, if its
advocates become proud and insolent to those churches who adopt
it not ; if they insult the ministers, and endeavour to disturb the
minds of the private members of those churches by unscriptural
declamation and denunciation against the validity of their ordi-
nances ; if they proudly arrogate to themselves the sole right to
administer the ordinances of the gospel : in such a case, they
commence a spiritual usurpation and tyranny in the church of
God. To overturn such a system, is to defend the gospel; and
its overthrow will promote the peace of the whole Christian
world.
SECTION IX
THE GREATEST DIVINES OF ALL AGES SHEWN TO BE AGAINST THESE
EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS FOR THE DIVINE RIGHT OF BISHOPS.
Of course this point has been anticipated in the preceding
sections; for whilst it has been shewn that no church ever
affirmed this order of Bishops by divine right, but that all
churches have substantially negatived it, the doctrine of these
churches proves the opinion of the greatest divines of all ages to
have been against the tenet of Bishops being by divine right an
order distinct from, and superior to, Presbyters ; having govern-
ment over ministers as well as over people ; and the sole power
and authority of ordaining other ministers in the church of God.
But besides their testimony in the voice of their different churches,
many of them have spoken so expressly upon the subject, that it
may be worth while to hear them deliver their own decisions.
First, The Christian Fathers. — We have treated this
subject in a former section. We shall give the learned Stilling-
fleet's opinion in connexion with this point. " I believe," says
he, "upon the strictest inquiry, Medina's judgment will prove
true, that Hieron, Austin, Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chry-
sostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, were all of Aerius's judg-
ment, as to the identity of both name and order of Bishops and
Presbyters, in the primitive church, but here lay the difference,
Aerius from thence proceeded to separation from the Bishops and
their churches, because they were Bishops."*
WiCKLiFFE : — " I boldly assert one thing, viz. that in the
primitive church, or in the time of Paul, two orders of the clergy
were sufficient, that is, a priest and a deacon. In like manner I
affirm, that in the time of Paul, the Presbyter and Bishop were
names of the same office. This appears from the third chapter of
the First Epistle to Timothy, and in the first chapter of the
w Irenicum, p. 276, sec. ed, 1662.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 193
Epistle to Titus. And the same is testified by that profound
theologian, Jerome."*
Erasmus : — " Anciently none were called Priests but Bishops
and Presbyters, who were the SAME, but afterward Presbyters
were distinguished from the Priest ;" ^ i. e. from the Bishop.
Cranmer: — "The Bishops and Priests (Presbyters) were at
one time, and were no two things, but BOTH ONE in the beginning
of Christ's religion." ^
Dr. Whitaker, one of the greatest Protestant champions in
the days of Queen Elizabeth and James I. : — " Formerly there
was no difference between a Presbyter and a Bishop. — For the
placing of Bishops over Presbyters WAS A HUMAN ARRANGE-
MENT — ordo humanus fuit — devised to take away schisms, as
history testifies." *
Calvin : — " The reason why I have used the terms Bishops
and Presbyters, and pastors, and ministers promiscuously, is,
because the Scriptures do the same ; for they give the title of
Bishops to all persons whatsoever who were ministers of the
Beza : — " The authority of all pastors is equal amongst
themselves ; also their office is one and the same." "" As mighty
efforts are often made to bring in the authority of Beza for
these claims, we will add another passage or two from this
great Reformer. In his Work on the Church, De Ecclesia,
above quoted, he begins the 32nd section, thus — "At length
we come to the third species of ecclesiastical offices, viz. that
which pertains to spiritual jurisdiction. Now this jurisdiction
was committed to Presbyters properly SO called ; whose
name implies as much as though you should call them Senators
or Elders The Apostle in 1 Cor. xii. 28, calls them Governors
or Rulers, And Christ designates the college of Presbyters, the
church, because in them resided the SUPREME POWER in the
government of the church." Here " Presbyters properly so
called, have committed to them the spiritual jurisdiction of the
church, and SUPREME poioer.^' How strange! to pretend that
such a writer is an advocate for the supreme power of Bishops by
divine right. Beza, speaking of the angel of the church, mentioned
« Vaughan's Life of Wickliffe, Vol. II. p. 275, sec. ed. Lond. 1831. y Scholia in Epist.
Hieron. ad Nepot. folio 6, Vol. I. ed. 1516. ^ Burnet's History of the Reformation. « Whitakeri
Opp. p. 509-510, fol. Gencv. 1610. b Instit. Lib. 4, c. 8, sect 8. c De Eccles, sect. 29.
a2
194 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
Rev. ii. 1, calls him the President, "who," he says, "ought
in the first place to be admonished about these matters, and then
by him his other colleagues, and so the whole church. But from
this to try to prove the establishment of that order of Episcopacy
which was afterwards introduced into the church of God by
hu7na7i arrangements, is what neither can nor ought to be done :
it will not even follow from this place that the office of President
should necessarily be perpetual; even as it is now at length clear
by that tyrannical oligarchy''' (i.e. the Bishops) " whose >^e«5, or the office of a Bishop, signifies
inspection or oversight of any kind. The Inspectors^ or those
who PRESIDE over the church, ARE Presbyters. The chief of
these Presbyters, AFTERWARDS, by way of excellence, BEGAN to be
called Bishop, as is evident from those canons which are termed
apostolical canons, in the Epistles of Ignatius, in TertuUian,
and others." J When this illustrious scholar had received a copy
of the celebrated Epistle of Clemens Romanus, he tells us he
"read and re-read it." He then gives his judgment in the fol-
lowing manner: — *• Clemens never mentions that extraordinary
authority of Bishops, which, after the death of St. Mark, began
by the ciistom of the church to be introduced at Alexandria, and,
by this example, elsewhere . but he plainly shews, as St. Paul
does, that the churches were then governed by the common council
i> Defence of the Reformation, part 4, p, 95. > Abridgement of Mr. James Owen's Plea, p. 39.
* " When the French churches were earnestly solicited (particularly by Bishop Moreton) to re-
ceive a Clergy ordained by English Bishops, they absolutely refused that motion : Peter Moulin, a
famous French Protestant minister, in his letter to the Bishop of Winchester, excusing^ himself for
not making the difference between Bishops and Presbyters to be of divine appointment, he pleads,
that if he had laid the difference on that foundation, tlte French churches tcould have silenced him."
Ibid. p. 37, 38,
i Annot. in 1 Tim. iii.
196 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
of the Presbyters ; which Presbyters both Clemens and St. Paul
say were the SAME AsBiSHOPS.'"' And, in his posthumous Work,
quoted by many episcopalian writers with the greatest confidence,
and even with something like triumph, he plainly declares^ that
" Episcopal pre-eminence, or the superiority of one minister over
others, is NOT of divine right.'''' " This," says he, " is sufficiently
proved, because the contrary is ^OT proved.''^ Logic this, which
these writers are loell pleased to forget, but which their readers
should always have in mind.
Here, perhaps, is a proper place to point out a mistake into
which many church-of-England divines have fallen. , They have
found that Calvin, Beza, and other illustrious foreigners, praised
the ecclesiastical order in the church of England, and have im-
mediately jumped to the conclusion, that those divines and great
scholars were in favor of Episcopacy by divine right. Now the
whole conduct of Calvin and Beza, for instance, in the govern-
ment of their churches, as well as their declaration in the above
quotations, distinctly shews the contrary. The case of Zanchius
will illustrate the matter still further.
Zanchius, says the Rev. J. Sinclair, " was by some reputed
among the most learned of Calvin's contemporaries." Mr. Sin-
clair, and some others, catch at an admission of this eminent
Reformer, that Episcopacy may be properly established, as one
form of church government, as though by this admission he
meant to support Episcopacy by divhie right. This is a fallacy
which such writers always employ : without it they cannot stir a
single step in this controversy. Zanchius spent nearly the whole
of his life in the services of a church that was wholly Presbyterian.
Thi^ practice, therefore, utterly destroys all the claims o{ exclusive
Episcopalians to the benefit of his testimony. In his Confession
of his Faith, he solemnly delivers his judgment on the subject of
ministerial equality: chapter 25tli contains thirty-nine aphorisms
on the government of the church, and on the ministry of the
gospel. In aphorism 9th, he says that the Lord Jesus Christ
constituted y?^;e orders of ministers, — *' Apostles, Prophets, Evan-
gelists, Pastors, and Doctors, Ephes. iv. 1 1 ." The first three he
says were extraordinary and temporary ; the two last "ordinary
and perpetual." " For," says he, " the frequent mention by the
k Grotii Epist. No. 347, ed. Amstel. fol, 1687.
* De Imperio Sum. Potest, circa Sacra, cap. 11, p. 327, ed. Paris 1647.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 197
Apostles, of Bishops, Presbyters, and Teachers, does not consti-
tute 7iew orders ; for those who are called Pastors are the same
as are always signified by Bishops ; and often by the name of
Presbyters." Zanchius maintained the notion that Presbyters
sometimes meant Lay Elders as church Rulers ; and, therefore,
he says, that Presbyters often signified Pastors, tliough, in his
view, not always. Then, aphorism 10th, the title is, " The
Fathers not condemned by us because they added more orders of
ministers." In aphorism 11th he explains himself about these
7iew orders, added by the Fathers, to what Christ and his Apos-
tles instituted. " Therefore," says he, " seeing that all the
former ministers of the gospel were EQUALLY called Pastors,
Bishops, and Presbyters; and seeing they were ALL OF EQUAL
AUTHORITY ; one began afterwards to be placed over all his
colleagues ; although not as a master or lord, but as a head in a
college to the rest of the fellows of the college : to him principally
was committed the care of the whole church, and therefore it
became the custom to give him alone, by way of excellence, the
name of Bishop or Pastor ; the rest of his colleagues being content
with the name of Presbyter ; so that there began to be only one
Bishop and many Presbyters in each city : this arrangement we
judge is not at all to be condemned. As to which matter the
account of Jerome, and the judgment he delivers in his Epistle
to Evagrius, in his comment on Titus, is embraced by us, where
he declares that this whole arrangement was rather /rom custom
than divine appointment, to take away dissensions and schisms.
On the same ground we think the appointment of Archbishops,
and even of the four Patriarchs, which took place indeed before
the council of Nice, may be excused and defended : although all
these in course of time were carried to the highest ambition and
tyranny. This is the reason why the nearer an approach is
made in the orders of ministers to apostolical simplicity, the
more we approve it ; and we judge that due care should every
where be used to attain to this simplicity." Then, at the close
of the chapter, is an enumeration of errors to be rejected ; the
11 th is, that of " extending the authority of a Bishop beyond that
given by Christ who called him." Here we see Zanchius so-
lemnly declare his faith to be, that " all the ministers of the
gospel instituted by Christ and his Apostles, were equally called
Pastors, Bishops, and Presbyters, seeing they were all of equal
198 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
AUTHORITY;" that Bishops, as siiperinteiidents over other minis-
ters, were " added by the Fathers ;" and that the ground of their
existence, as such, is the same as that of Archbishops and Patri-
archs, which all grant to be rnerelij a human arrangeinent.
Zanchius^ then, maintained that Episcopacy was merely a human
arrangement ; yet these men quote him to prove its dimne right:
Zanchius maintained that it might be approved and justified
when modestly used ; yet these men quote him to maintain its
necessity and its exclusiveness against the validity of all other
forms I
But Calvin, Beza, Zanchius, &c. had no objection to Episco-
pacy as an ecclesiastical arrangement of a superintendency of one
minister over other ministers, for the sake of order and good
government in the church ; provided it could be guarded against
a tendency to ecclesiastical tyranny. Very right. The Wesley-
an Methodists adopt the same opinion, and practice it under a
very extended superintendency. It is so guarded amongst them,
as to prevent the possibility of supposing one minister superior
by divine right to another. The truth of the case is, then, that
these great continental divines and scholars, in their approbation
of the Ecclesiastical arrangements in the church of England,
shew that they really believed thd Episcopacy of that church
NOT to be of divine right, but of human authority : this is the only
legitimate conclusion that can be drawn from their statements
and conduct ; a conclusion directly opposed to the end for which
many of the Episcopalians now quote them. Indeed these men
pervert and abuse the authority of the great Reformers, and
continental divines.
ViTRiNGA : — "All the rulers or governors of the church of
Ephesus were equally, and without the least difference, called
Bishops, Presbyters, and Pastors. (Acts xx. 17, &c. Yea, in-
deed, were we to collect all those places in the historical books,
and epistles of the New Testament, in which the persons presid-
ing over the church are mentioned, under different circumstances,
we should meet with them every where equal both in name and
in office, no difference at all ever being made between them. —
Bishops, Presbyters, and Pastors, according to the style of the
sacred Scriptures, are names designating 07ie and the same order
of men ; they are neither distinguished in the kind of theirorder,
nor their office. This position vsrill stand, I am persuaded, as
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 199
long as the Acts of the Apostles and their Epistles shall be read
without prejudice." '
MOSHEIM : — *' The rulers of the church were called either
Presbyters or Bishops, which two titles are, in the New Testa-
ment, undoubtedly applied to the same order of men.""'
SuiCER : — *' At the first, therefore, all Presbyters were equally
over the flock, and had none over themselves; for they were
called Bishops, and had Episcopal power, and acknowledged no7ie
above lhe?nselves, seeing they all came by order to the PRIMACY,
WHICH PRIMACY was only a matter of order by SITTING in the
FIRST CHAIR, and conferred no superior power. And this was
the constitution of the church under the government of the
Apostles, Afterwards, when Bishops were made above Presby-
ters, both being the same in name and reality, then the Bishops
presided over the Presbyters of each city, all Bishops being
accounted equal. This state of things continued till the council
of Nice, A.D. 325, or a little after. From that time metropolit-
ans were placed over the Bishops of a province, and had the
right of ordaining the Bishops of that province.""
Schleusner : — " For at length, after the Apostles' age, that
difference teas introduced between the Bishops and Presbyters,
that the Bishops should have the greater dignity, as Suicerus
rightly states in his Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus." °
Archbishop Usher: — "I asked him (Abp. Usher) also his
judgment about the validity of Presbyter's ordination ; which he
asserted, and told me that the king (Charles I.) asked him, at
the Isle of Wight, wherever he found in antiquity, that Presby-
ters alo7ie ordained any ? and that he answered, I can shew your
Majesty more, even where Presbyters alone successively
ordained Bishops ; and instanced in Hierome's words, E]nst.
ad Evagrium, of the Presbyters of Alexandria chusing and
making their own Bishops from the days of Mark till Heraclas
and Dionysius." p And his express words, quoted by Dr. Parr,
in his Appendix to the Archbishop's Life, are these — " A Pres-
byter hath the same order in specie with a Bishop : ergo, a
Presbyter hath EQUALLY an intrinsic power to give orders, and
is equal to him in the power of order.^^ "^
1 De Synagog. Vet Lib. 2, cap. 2, pp. 447 and 485. m Eccles. Hist. Vol. I. p. 101.
n Thesaur. Eccles. Tom. I. coL 1180. " Lex. Gr. in Nov. Test. sub. voce eTio-xoWOf.
P Life of Baxter, by Sylvester, fol. Lib. 1, part 2, sect. G3, p. 206.
q See Dr. John Edwards's Discourse on Episcopacy, chap. 14.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 200
Now here is a host of men, whose qualifications for giving
their judgment in this matter were never surpassed, all deter-
mining, with one voice, that, BY DIVINE RIGHT, ALL MINISTERS
OF THE GOSPEL ARE EQUAL ; and that the order of Bishops, as
now existing, is only a HUMAN arrangement.
Here, then, this all-deciding point is placed on the basis of a
Catholic or universal doctrine of the Christian church.
The celebrated rule of Vincentius Lirinensis is, that a doctrine
truly catholic, is one " believed in all places, at all limes, and by
all the faithful. — And we are thus catholick, when we follow
universality, antiquity, and consent : but we follow universality,
when we profess that only to be the true faith which is professed
by the church alt the world over. In like manner, we are follow-
ers of antiquity, when we religiously adhere to that sense of
Scripture which manifestly obtained amongst the Holy Fathers,
our predecessors. And, lastly, we follow consent, when we em-
brace the definitions and opinions of almost all, if not all, the
Bishops and Teachers of the ancient church." •" Vincentius him-
self shews no case in which this rule more fully applied, than it
applies to the position, that all gospel ministers are, by divine
right, equal in power and authority, in the Christian church.
The MAIN PILLAR of this semi-popish succession scheme was
the assumption of the DIVINE RIGHT of Episcopacy. But we
have now shewn that Presbyters and Bishops are one and the
same, by the supreme authority of the Sacred Scriptures
most expressly ; by the consent of the Fathers ; and by the
consent of all the Christian churches in the world. The
following conclusions, then, are fully established : —
1. All the acts of Presbyters are, by divine right, of
EQUAL AUTHORITY with the acts of any Bishops or Archbishops
whatever.
2. Ordination by Presbyters has equal divine authorily^
with ordination by Bishops; and is more conformable to the
Holy Scriptures.
3. Presbyters are EQUALLY as much SUCCESSORS of the
Apostles, in all the rights and authority remaining to the ministers
of Christ, as the Bishops are.
4. Whatever evidence, moreover, there is in any Episcopal
church for an UNINTERRUPTED LINE of Bishops from Peter, or
r Reeves's Translation, chap. 3.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 201
any other Apostle, tliere is the same evidence for an UNINTER-
RUPTED LINE of Presbyters from that very Apostle to the present
clay in every other Protestant church in tlie world. No man
can properly or scriptu rally be a Bishop, except he be first
a Presbyter. Every Bishop, then, necessarily pre-supposes a
Presbyter : where there is no Presbyter, there can be no Bishop,
even on the principles of our opponents. Therefore, wherever
there is an uninterrupted series of true Bishops, there is an
u?iinte7Tupted series of Presbyters also. The Lutheran church,
the Reformed or Calvinistic churches of Germany, the Reformed
French church, the church of Scotland, the Dissenters in general
of Great Britain and Ireland, and the Wesleyan and Calvinistic
Methodists, are all governed by Presbyters. These had an
uninterrupted succession from other Presbyters. Those in the
Scotch church, in the Lutheran church, &c. had an uninterrupted
succession from the Presbyters (Bishops) of the Romish church :
those of the different Protestant churches in England, from the
Presbyters (Bishops) of the church of England. What these
Bishops were, by ecclesiastical or human arrangement, as dis-
tinct from Presbyters^ or REAL scriptural Bishops, adds NO validity
to their acts above Presbyters. This we have already clearly
proved. All they had of real scriptural authority arose from
any claim they might have to be considered as real scriptural
Presbyters. All this authority passed to the Presbyters of the
above-mentioned churches by uninterrupted succession in their
ordination. The human authority of a Bishop does not effect
the question at all. If an uninterrupted succession is worth
anything, it is, therefore, worth as much for Presbyters as for
Bishops. The ministry, the ordinations, the administration of
the sacraments, in all the above-mentioned churches, therefore,
are, even on tliis ground, equally as scriptural, valid, and apos-
tolical, as the ministry, &c. of any Episcopal church. But, if
they have equal validity and apostolicity from the argument of a
succession of persons, many of them have reason to thank God,
on their own behalf, that they have MUCH MORE evidence of the
same thing from i\\e personal piety of their ministers, the doctrines
they teach, the disciptline exercised over their members, the
unsecularized state of their churches, the scriptural character of
their various ordinances, and, above all, in the conversion of
sinners unto God.
B 2
202 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
This EXCLUSIVE, intolerant scheme, then, of apostolical suc-
cession in Bishops alone, as taught by these high church
divines, FALLS TO THE GROUND. It is a MONSTROUS FABRI-
CATION, designed to support a system of usurpation over
ministers and people ; and to maintain a method of excluding
from the pale of Christianity all who do not submit to it. It is
Anglican Popery with many heads, set up irT the place, and to
accomplish the purposes, of the Popery of Rome. Let all true
Protestants protest against it. Let us contend for the succession
of faith and holiness as the only infallible tests of a Christian
church. For this let all the true members of the church of
England contend, both ministers and people. The writer, for
one, will then fervently pray that God may make them a
thousand times as many more as they are at this day. The
world is before us : the faith of the gospel must save it. It is
adapted and designed for this purpose. May the preaching of
this faith, by whomsoever and wheresoever, have free course
and be glorified I
SECTION X
NO SUrFICIENT HISTORIC EVIDENCE OF A PERSONAL SUCCESSION OF
VALID EPISCOPAL ORDINATIONS.
In the close of the last section, we have shewn that the proof
of the EQUALITY, by divine right, of Bishops and Presbyters, is
fatal to the whole scheme of high church successionists ; utterly-
destroying its exclitsive character. Here we might safely rest
the cause. But as pretensions are boldly avowed, by high
churchmen, of their ability to trace the pedigree of their ordina-
tions through an unbroken series of apostolical Bishops ; and as
they employ this topic for the purpose of intolerance, it may not
be without interest, or utility either, if we examine this point
also. Dr. Hook shall state their case : " The Prelates who at
the present time rule the churches of these realms, were validly
ordained by others, who by means of an UNBROKEN SPIRITUAL
descent of ordination, derived their mission from the Apostles
and from our Lord. This continued descent is evident to
EVERY ONE who chooses to investigate it. Let him read the
Catalogues of Bishops, ascending up to the most remote period.
Our ordinations descend in a direct UNBROKEN line from Peter
and Paul, the Apostles of the circumcision and the Gentiles.
These great Apostles successively ordained Linus, Cletus, and
Clement, Bishops of Rome ; and the apostolic succession was
regularly continued from them to Celestine, Gregory, and
Vitalianu^, who ordained Patrick, Bishop for the Irish, and
Augustine and Theodore, for the English. And /rom those times
an uninterrupted series of valid ordinations has carried down the
APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION in our churches to the present day.
There is not a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon among us, who cannot,
if he please, trace his own spiritual descent from St. Peter or
StPauL"^
» Two Sermons, 3rd edition, Leeds, 1837» pp. 7, 8.
201 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
I am perplexed to account for such statements as the above.
I have investigated this subject, and I solemrily declare my belief
that they are UTTERLY FALSE. My perplexity is, I say, how to
account for them. I cannot, I do not think, that the authors of
them mean to say w^hat they know to be false, I suppose they
ivished them to be true ; and, not having time to examine for
themselves, take them upon trust, and give them at second hand.
But then if v^e can find excuse for Dr. Hook's v^ant of knov^-
ledge of his subject, his arrogance can have none. Let the
reader carefully mark the tone of the Dr.'s Two Sermons on the
Church and the Establishment. They Rve full of arrogance and
insolence to all other churches. — " The words of his moutli are
smoother than butter, but war is in his heart : his words are
softer than oil, yet are they drawn swords." " You will ob-
s See Catalogus Testium Veritatis, Vol. II. p. 179-189, ed. 1597.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 221
Platina says that Clement II., A.D. 1048, *' was potso9ied vfiih
poison, prepared, as it was supposed, by his successor. Pope
Damasus II." " " This Danmsus," says he, " invaded the chair
hy force. And this had become so ESTABLISHED A CUSTOM that
any ambitious individual had the liberty of invading Peter's
seat.'' ° Here are apostolical successors ! And even earlier than
this, in the life of Benedict IV., A.D. 898, he says, " the chair
of Peter was usurped, rather than possessed by, MONSTERS of
WICKEDNESS, ambition and bribery." The whole passage is
instructive, and deserves insertion. Speaking about the decline
of the Roman empire, and the decay of its glory, through idleness
and effeminacy^ brought in by luxury^ he says, " the same thing
happened to the papal dignity. The glory of the popedom was
acquired by holiness of life, and the purity of doctrine of the
Bishops of Rome, accompanied with the severest toils, and the
most consummate virtue, in their proceedings : by these means,
and without the wealth and pomp of the world, it daily increased
amidst the most hostile and obstinate persecutors of the Christian
name : but as soon as the church began to wanton with wealth,
her members forsaking their former strictness of living, turned
to a general licentiousness of conduct. All civil restraint being
removed, a general license of sinning everywhere prevailed.
Hence these MONSTERS of wickedness, by whom the most holy
chair of Peter was, through their intrigues and bribes, rather
USURPED than possessed."
Sergius III., A.D. 903, " rescinded the Acts of Pope Formosus,
compelled those whom he had ordained to be reordained, dragged
his dead body from the sepulchre, beheaded him as though he were
alive, and then threw hiin into the Tiber I — See," says Platina,
" what a degenerate race ! They seek the pontificate by bribes,
and having obtained it, they cast behind them all regard to the
worship of God, and contending with each other like the most
ferocious tyrants, that they may reign alone : afterwards, none
being left that can restrain them, they give themselves up to take
their fill in voluptuousness and licentiousness." ^
A.D. 931. " The next," says Howel, " that takes the chair,
is one whom they ought to call a Devil, instead of pseudo-pope ;
and yet lie must be inserted in the catalogue of the Popes ;
though, according to their own confession, the vilest, blackest
n Platina in Vita Clem. II. " In Vita Dam. II, P Vita Sergii. III.
222 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
monster that ever yet defiled the holy purple. This was Pope
John IX., son of Pope Sergius III., by the strumpet Marozia,
(a blessed stock to take an infallible guide from) by whose means
he was intruded into the place of Stephen VII., though, besides
all other impediments, he was incapable of that high office in the
church through want of years. This pontificate was a series of
debaucheries, incest, &c. which would offend the modest reader
to repeat." *^
" John XIII.," I quote Platina, " usurjped the Pontificate.
From his youth up he had been contaminated with every vice,
and all iniquity ; and if any of his time was spared from his
libidinous pursuits, it was rather given to hunting than to prayer.
A council of the Bishops of Italy was called by the Emperor
that they might judge of the life of this MOST wicked of men.
The Pope, fearing the judgment of right-minded men, flies into
the forest, and lies hid for some time in the woods, like a wild
beast. The Emperor departing, his friends recall him, (the Pope)
but he is supposed to have perished by the judgment of God, lest
the church should be ruined by the sedition arising on the sub-
ject. Some say that this 7nost iniquitous man, or MONSTER
rather, perished by being stabbed as taken in the act of adultery.^'*
Such is Platina's account of this 'progenitor of high church
Bishops and Priests ! !
The scene becomes darker still through the following centu-
ries. But the reader has had enough for proof of the point before
us. It would be tedious and disgusting to wade through the
filth of their proceedings. Platina, as we have seen, expressly
calls some of them " monsters ;" and says, " they left no
WICKEDNESS unpractised." Pope Sixtus IV. licensed brothels
at Rome, Pope Alexander VI., A.D. 1492, is thus designated
by Howel: "We are now come to one of the greatest and
horriblest monsters in nature that could scandalize the holy
chair. His beastly morals, his immense ambition, his insatiable
avarice, his detestable cruelty, his furious lusts, and monstrous
incest with his daughter Lucretia, are at large described by
Guiccardine, Ciaconius, &c." ' He that wishes to see more, may
be wearied with the detail in the authorities mentioned ; and
also in Bishop Jewel's Apology and his Defence.
Popes Heretics. — Indeed if ever there were any heretics,
q Pontificate, p. 188. i Pontificate, p. 512—314.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 223
1 think it would be easy to prove that the WHOLE POPEDOM is
ONE CONTINUED HERESY. To be sure the church of Rome has
always held the doctrine of the trinity : so have thousands who
Jiave been denominated heretics. But whilst the church of Rome
has held that glorious doctrine in words, it has maintained in
word and deed so many pernicious ERRORS along with it ; and
has given such paramount importance to these errors, as by
them to corrupt the whole gospel. The Popedom has been the
man of sin, the S07i of perdition, and antichrist; the church
of Rome has been the ^' great whore'' which has corrupted the na-
tions : this has been the solemn view of those best acquainted
with the subject. The smatterers, and sciolists, and credulists,
and liberalists of our day are schoolboys compared with such
men. They are the betrayers of Protestantism. They are more
allied in spirit to Babylon than they are to the New Jerusalem.
The papists acknowledge that Pope Liberius subscribed
Aiianism, communicated with Arians, and consented to the
banishment of Athanasius — that he unhappily and basely felh —
That Athanasius, Hilary, and Jerome, all counted him a heretic,
is acknowledged by Morinus De Ordinationibus, Part 2, p. 284.
Pope Marcellinus sacrificed to idols. " He denied the fact," says
Cabassute, " until he was convicted on indubitable evidence."
Seventy-two witnesses testified to the fact. They say it was
through fear that he did it, in a time of persecution ; but so many
things have been fabricated to wipe off this stain, that one
can be sure of nothing about them. Here, on the heresy of the
Popes, I will quote Bishop Jewel : " Pope Honorius was con-
demned for a heretic in two general councils. In the council of
Constantinople, the words of his condemnation be alleged thus :
* We liave caused Honorius, tlie late Pope of old Rome, to be
accursed: for that in all things he followed the mind of Sergius,
Me ^ere^2c, and confirmed his wicked doctrines.' In the very
Legend of Hilarius, it is mentioned that Pope Leo was an Arian
hei^etic. In a synod holden at Rome against Pope Hildebrand,
it is written thus : ^Incendio tradidimus Deer eta eorumHaeretica:'
— ' We have burnt their Heretical Decrees.' Pope Sylvester II.
was made Pope by necromancy, and in recompense thereof,
promised both body and soul unto the devil. The council of Basil
condemneth Pope Eugenius by these words: *We condemn
■ Vid. Howel's Pontificate, p. 43.
224 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
and depose Pope Eugenius a despiser of the holy canons, a dis-
turber of the peace and unity of the church of God : a notorious
offender of the whole universal church : a siraonist ; a foresworn
man, {perjurum:) amanuncorrigible; ^> schismatic ; a man fallen
from the faith, and a wilful heretic' Now if idolaters, Mon-
tanists, Arians, Monothelites, Nestorians, deniers of the im-
mortality, simonists, sorcerers, maintainers *of filthiness, and
other obstinate and wilful heretics may err, then — it is easily
seen that the Pope may err."
" Verily the council of Basil saith thus : * it is reported and
read that many Popes have fallen into errors and heresies ; it is
certain that the Popes may err: the council hath oftentimes
condemned and removed the Pope, in respect as well of his
heresy in faith, as of his lewdness in life.' " *
Popes Simoniacs. — The evidence of this would Jill a volume.
Platina states it repeatedly, that the pontificate was obtained
by the BASEST PURCHASE." Dr. Whitby gives the following
authorities as to the 11th century. " Glaber, the monk, in-
forms us, that the Emperor, Henry II., having convened all his
Archbishops and Bishops in France and Germany, told them,
'that all ecclesiastical degrees even from the Popedom to the
doorkeepers, were oppressed with damnable simony, and that
this spiritual robbery obtained in all places ; and that the Bishops
not being able to deny this charge, fled to the Emperor's mercy,
who said to them. Go your way, and what you have unlawfully
obtained, endeavour to dispose of well.' "
" Century 12. — St. Bernard, in his commentary on Psalm
xix. saith, ' that the offices of ecclesiastical dignity are turned
into filthy lucre and a work of darkness.^ In his oration of
the conversion of St. Paul, he adds, ' that now all ecclesiastical
degrees ^re given as an occasion oi filthy lucre. ^ In his Book
of Considerations, written to Pope Eugenius, he insinuates, that
" ambitious, covetous, sacrilegious, simoniacal, incestuous per-
sons, fornicators, and such like monsters of mankind, flowed
from all parts of the world to Rome, that by the apostoli-
cal authority they either might obtain, or keep ecclesiastical
honours,' and puts this question to the Pope, — ' Who is there of
t Defence of the Apology, Part 6, p. 536, &c., ed. 1609.
u Vid. Platina de Vitis Pontif. pp. 75, 79, 88, 103, 125, 126, 137, 139, 143, 147, 149, &c. &c. fol. ed.
Colon. 1562.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 225
that whole great city, who received thee as a Pope, witliout the
intervention of some prtce, or hopes of some price ;^ 'these,'
saith he, * are rather pastors of devils, than of sheep.' "
" Century 13. — Matthew Paris, speaking of the miserable
state of the chnrch of England, saith, * then simony was com-
mitted without shame.' "
"Century 14.— Marsilius of Padua, saith, *that men ig-
norant of the Holy Scriptures, undisciplined, and notoriously
criminal, were placed in the highest thrones of the chur^ch by
simo?iy : that they who have visited the church of Rome, may
see plainly, and they who were never there, may learn from an
infinite number of men of credit, that it is become a receptacle
of all rogues and trickers, for all wares both spiritual and tem-
poral. For what is there but a concourse of simo7iiacs from
all places.'"^
Prideaux, whose work was revised and published by his
uncle, the learned Bishop of Worcester, numbers amongst the
Popes "thirty -eight usurping Nimrods ; forty luxurious Sodo7n'
ites ; forty Egyptian Magicians ; forty-one devouring Abaddons ;
twenty incurable Babylonians.^^'' Prideaux was a staunch
churchman. A few extracts from him will shew the reader his
opinion more in detail. We have seen that he acknowledges
" no certainty is to be had" as to the personal succession of the
early Bishops of Rome ; and, in the close of Section 3, he asks,
" whether that succession may conduce to the pope's supremacy,
which faultereth and faileth in the first foundation ? "
Dr. Hook keeps hold of Rome up to Vitalianus. Now it is
somewhat ominous that Vitalianus is the very Pope in whose
reign, as Prideaux remarks, the number of the beast, 666, was
completed. His words are — " Theodorus, a Greek, and one
Hadrian, an African, are sent hither into England by him to
bring in the Latin service, being the year ^&&, just the number of
the BEAST ; of which the word Xnrnvo; and ExxXso-ia iruXiKoc (by
Baleus' reckoning) give a shrewd account." This Theodore
was made Archbishop of Canterbury, and brought into England
the service of the beast, if Prideaux and Bale were right.
Through him Dr. Hook traces his spiritual descent. " Here
about the year 666, (the number of the apocalyptical beast)
Phocas, the parricide, that slew his master Mauritius ; Boniface,
T Whitby's Sermons, No. 11, Appendix, 8?o. » Introdaction for reading Histories, p. 67.
e2
226 - ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
(Pope) the purchaser of supremacy of that villain by simony ;
and Mahomet, the grand imposter, break forth together."*
" Boniface VII.," Baronius saith, " was rather A thief, a mur-
derer, and A TRAITOR to his country, than a Pope." ^ His
inquiries at the end of Section 7, are such as the following : —
" Whether Marozia's and her daughter's pope-making discover-
eth not the skirt of the whore of Babylon ? Whether bastards,
bribers, and atheists, may be acknowledged for Christ's vicars,
or St. Peter's successors ? Whether Boniface the VII., robbing
the church treasury, and purchasing with it afterwards the
popedom^ which he had forfeited, include not in it sacrilege and
simony .?" * Again : " Now comes Hildebrand, the Hetrurian,
(A.D. 1075,) under the name of Gregory VII., without any
election of emperors or clergy, but only by his own intrusion.
He hsidL poisoned some six or seven PopeSy by Brazutus, before he
could get the popedom himself." * In concluding Section 8, —
" In the compass of this period are found, besides a knot of
conjurors, and poisoners, a crew of devilish rebels abusing religion
to varnish their damnable designs^ Maximilian, (A.D. 1510)
the Emperor, was wont to say, " O eternal God, if thou shouldest
not watch over us, how ill would it go with the world which
we govern ? I, a miserable hunter, and that drunkard and wicked
(Pope) Julius:'^
Such are the men, " the monsters,^' who, according to the
principles of popery, are " the rock'' upon which the church of
Christ is built, and against it, as so built, the gates of hell are
never to prevail ; — such are the men, " the monsters,'' who are
believed to be the successors of St. Peter, and the VICARS of
Christ, to which monsters, popery says, Christ has given su-
preme power over the whole church upon earth ; — such are the
men, " the monsters,'' through whom our high churchmen trace
their spiritual descent ! Their glory is their shame.
X Page 99. y Page 108, » Pagre 110. a Pages 117, 118. b Page 143.
SECTION xir,
POPISH ORDINATIONS OF ENGLISH BISHOPS BEFORE THE REFORMATION.
The reader will keep in mind that the particular point now
before us, is, the nullity of popish ordinations of English
Bishops before the Reformation. In the last section was ex-
hibited a brief view of the monstrous wickedness, heresy, and
simony of the Popes themselves. The Popes were the head and
origin of Episcopacy in those times. The master of the house at
that time was, indeed, Beelzebub ; what then was his household,
the Bishops under him, and derived from him ? In this section
we shall shew that the episcopal ordinations in the English
church came through this ^^ series of monsters,*^ the Popes of
Rome. Sometimes this is denied ; and an attempt is made to
claim a better line of succession through the ancient British
Bishops. We shall briefly state the matter of the British
Bishops, and then pass on to the proof of the point proposed in
this section.
The first planting of Christianity in this country is involved
in impenetrable obscurity. The earliest authentic mention of
Bishops in this country, is A.D. 359. The Saxons came over
about A.D. 450. They were enemies to Christianity, and es-
tablished idolatry on its ruins in a great part of the island.
Gildas (who wrote about A.D. 564,) gives a shocking account
of the wickedness of all ranks, and of the misery of the country
in his days. He speaks of " Bishops, or Presbyters," several
times. It is somewhat remarkable, that he never, I believe,
uses the conjunction copulative, and; but always, I think, the
disjunctive, or — " Bishops or Presbyters," as though at that
time, in England, one was understood to imply the other. The
English Reformers, in their account of the Divine Institution of
Bishops and Priests, frequently do the same ; and expressly
declare, individually, that they believe them to be one and the
228 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
same office. Whatever they were in Gildas's time, none need
covet succession from them. Gildas expressly calls them — the
whole priesthood — " children of the devil, who had merely the
name of Priests, but whose office, vilely bought, never could benefit
any; whose blessing was a curse; and whose basely-bought
ordination was a devilish delusion J' ^ "" But these are not the
British Bishops alluded to. The Bishops intended in this ques-
tion derived their ordination from Columba and his coadjutors.
The most authentic history, and indeed almost the only authentic
history, of these Bishops, is found in Bede's Church History of
those times. Bede was an Englishman, and wrote about A.D.
731. The following is the statement he gives us about Columba
and his coadjutors: — " Columba was the first preacher of Christ's
faith to the Pictes, dwelling beyonde the greate mountaines
northward, and the first founder of a monastery in the lie Hu,
which was had in great reverence and estimation a long time,
both of the Scottes (i. e. Irish,) and of the Pictes."*^ " Columban
came to Britannie when the most puissaunt King Bride, Meilo-
cheus's Sonne, reigned over the Redshanks (Picts) in the ninth
yere of his raigne, and did by his learning and example of life,
conuert that nation to the faith of Christ, in consideration
whereof the aforesaide He was geuen him in possession to make
a monasterie ; for the He is not greate, but as though it were
fiue families by estimation. His successours kepe it until this
day, where also he lieth buried, dying at the age of 77 yeres,
about thirty-two yeres after that he came into Britanny to
preach. But before that he travailed to Britannie, he made a
famous monasterie in Ireland, which for the great store of okes,
is in the Scottish (Irish) tong called Dearmach ; that is to say,
a filde of okes : of both which monasteries very many more
religious houses were afterward erected by his scholars, both in
Britannie, and also in Ireland, of all which, the same abbey that
is in the He where in his bodie lieth buried, is the head house.
This He is alwayes wont to haue an abbot that is a priest,
(Presbyter) to be the ruler: to whom both the wholle coun-
trey, and also the Bishops themselves, ought, after a strannge
and unaccustomed order, to be suhiect, according to the example
c Gildas de Excidio Brit. pp. 72, &c, Lond, 1838.
d Bede's Church History, B. 5, chap. 10. Dr. Stapleton's Translation, printed at St. Omers,
1622, 12mo. For proofs that the term Scots meant the Irish, see Bishops Usher and Lloyd.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 229
of tlie first teacher, who was NO bishop ^ but a priest (presbyter)
and moiike." ^ " The report is, that when King Oswald desired
first to haue a PRELATE out of Scotland," (the province of the Scots
or Irish) " who might preach the faith to him and his people, an
other man of a more austere stomacke was first sent : who, when
after a litell while preaching to the English nacion, he did no-
thing prevaile, nor yet was willingly heard of the people, he
returned into his countrey, and in the assembly of the ELDERS he
made relacion, how that in his teaching he could do the people no
good to whom he was sent, for as much as they were folks that
could not be reclaymed, of a hard capacitie, and fierce of nature.
Then the ELDERS (as they say) began in cousaile to treate at
large what were best to be done, being no lesse desyrous that
the people should attayne the saluation which they sought for,
then sory that the preacher whom they sent was not receiued.
When Aidan (for HE also was present at the counsaile) replyed
against the PRIEST of whom I spake, saying, * Me thinkes,
brother, that you haue bene more rigorous then reason would
with that unlearned audience, and that you haue not, according
to the Apostle's instruction, first giuen them milke of milde doc-
trine, vntill being by litle and litle nourished and weaned with
the worde of God, they were able to vnderstand the more perfect
misteries, and fulfill the greater commandements of God.' This
being sayed, al that were at the assembly, looking vpon Aidan,
pondered diligentlie his saying, and concliided iha.t he aboue the
rest was worthie of that charge and bishopricke, and that he
should be sent to instruct those vnlearned payniras : for he was
founde to be chiefely adorned with the grace of discretion, the
mother of all vertues. Thus making him bishop, THEY sent
him forth to preach — sic que ilium ordinantes ad praedicandum
miser unty^
Such is the account in Bede. From this the reader will
observe, that tho Abbot in Columban's time was a Presbyter,
and no Bishop ; that this Presbyter was the RULER of the monas-
tery ; that to this Presbyter " the whole country, and also the
Bishops themselves, ought, after a strange and unaccustomed
order, to be subject.''' Again, he will remark, that, in Aidan's
being made Bishop, the thing is done by a company of SENIORS,
elders or Presbyters. This company sent another person as a
« B. 3, chap. 4. f B. 3, chap. 5.
230 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
PRELATE before Aidan, who had little or no success. He returned
into the convent. His conduct becomes the subject of delibera-
tion and debate ; and Aidan, one of the counsel, BEFORE he himself
was Bishop, reads him a lecture on his mismanagement — a proof
that he considered himself at least his equal in authority and
jurisdiction. He addresses him also as a mere " Priest" or
Presbyter — his office of Bishop having expired, it seems, on his
failing in the mission for which they had given it him. The
other part of the Elders, pleased with the piety Tjnd discretion of
Aidan, immediately determine that he should be sent forth on
this mission instead of the former, to instruct the ignorant and
unlearned, " and THUS ordaining him THEY sent him forth to
preach — sic que ilium ordinantes ad praedicandum miserunty
Now the inquiry is, who ordained and sent forth Aidan to
preach ? Who ! the unbiassed reader will reply, well, the
co7npany of Seniors, Elders, or Presbyters, to be sure! for they
are the persons, and they only of whom Bede speaks in the
passage. So we think the reply must ever be made by every
unprejudiced reader of Bede. There is not a syllable about any
Bishop or Bishops being required, with some authority and
power superlatively above these Seniors, and without which it
would have been sacrilege to ordain Aidan Bishop. There is
nothing in the history of these monasteries, abbots, and Bishops,
that supports such a supposition. The " council of seniors,"
with the Abbot, who was a Presbyter, made and sent forth these
Bishops. The Abbot, " a Presbyter and no Bishop," ruled all
these Bishops when they were made. It is clear, then, that these
Bishops were all ordained and sent forth in their origin by
Presbyters. The stream cannot rise above its fountain ; their
own orders were Presbyterian ; all the orders others derived
from them must, therefore, be Presbyterian also. All these
British Bishops, then, were Presbyterian, and all orders derived
from the7n were Presbyterian orders. There is one fact men-
tioned by Bede which strengthens this conclusion. At the con-
secration of a Bishop, named Chadda, Bishop Wini was assisted
by two British Bishops. Bede says,^ that, " besides this Wini,
there was not any true Bishop and rightly consecrated — canonicb
ordinatus — in all Britanny." This was about A.D. 666. Theo-
dore was made Archbishop of Canterbury about 668. This
e B. 3, chap. 28.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 231
Theodore was very learned in canonical matters. In his visita-
tions, the matter of Cliadda's consecration came under his notice,
and he " reproved Chadda for that lie was not rightly consecrated
— and he did himself supplie and render complete his consecration
after the right and due catholic manner — ordinatwnem ejus demid
catholica ratione consiimmavit^^ — he ordained him over again.
Now why was this re-ordination, but because he considered
there was something in the case of the two British Bishops that,
according to the canons, rendered their ordinations irregular ?
And what was this, but their deriving their ordination from
Presbyters ? And, canonically speaking, this was irregular.
High churchmen are welcome to this admission. But, then, the
fact of these British Bishops having, in their origin, Presbyterian
ordination, seems undeniable. Bishop Lloyd ineffectually en-
deavoured to disprove this.
These men of God had laboured twenty years, and with great
success, before ever the monk Austin set foot in Britain. It is
a mysterious providence that that ambitious, persecuting, and
corrupting church, (for such it even then was,) should have been
allowed to oppress and scatter a church so much superior in
gospel-truth and holiness. Austin failed in argument and au-
thority to overcome the British Bishops and Divines. He
threatened their destruction in a pretended prophecy, and, it is
supposed on rather strong grounds, that he procured war to be
made upon them, in which it is reported " that there were slain
of them who came to pray, (Presbyters,) about a thousand and
two hundred men, and only fifty escaped by flight." ^ Bishop
Jewel, Archdeacon Mason, and others, shew that it is probable
Austin was at the bottom of this horrible slaughter of these holy
men and ministers of God's people. Dr. Hook, like many others,
more inclined to the Popery and pageantry of Rome, than to the
apostolic simplicity and piety of the British Bishops, misleads
his readers in his representation of Austin's success. Arch-
deacon Mason has shewn, by a careful and laborious deduction,
that he " was not the apostle of this island, not of the Britons,
not of the Scots, not of the Picts, not of the Angles, not of the
Saxons, not of all the Jutes, but of Kent alone.'' '
King James, I think it was, remarked that episcopacy was
h Bede, Book 2, chap. 2.
i Vid. Masoni Vindicise Eccles. Ang^lican. Lib. 4, cap. 4, ed. 1G38, Lond.
232 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
the 'religion of kings. Rome has long known this ; and that
church therefore has been noted for ^^ committing fornication
with the ki?igs of the earth."" This was exemplified in the period
we are upon. The Romish Bishops flattered the Kings : the
Kings flattered the Romish Bishops. They united, therefore, to
drive away the simple, pious, and uncorrupted laborious British
Bishops. This they completely effected; and the curse of Popery
rested upon this country for many ages because of this sin. ^11
the English Bishops henceforward became popish, and not a
British Bishop remained. J
We shall not leave this without proof. For the strange con-
fidence with which the most unfounded statements are sometimes
made, on the other side, makes it necessary to he almost tedious
in authorities. I hope and believe such things are often done in
ignorance. Many of these persons have so haughty an air in
their statements, as to merit a severe rebuke for their insolent
attempts at superiority on their baseless assumptions. Our
proofs shall be taken from Bishop Godwin's Lives of the English
Bishops. I use the edition of 1 743, revised and corrected by
Dr. Richardson, Master of Emmanuel College, Cambridge ; and
Canon of Lincoln Cathedral.
We begin witli the Archbishops of Canterbury. Ecclesiasti-
cal rule and practice commonly connected the Archbishop with
the ordinations of all the Bishops in his province. The Pope
as supreme, and above all law, frequently interfered with this ;
but this interference of the Pope will not alter the case as to the
purity of English ordinations. To make the matter as brief and
clear as I can, I will throw it into the form of a table. It might
be greatly enlarged ; but the Metropolitan Sees, and a few
others, will suffice.
j " It had been much better if the English had received Christianity from the Bri tains, if it had
not been below conquerors to be taught by those whom they had subdued. For they would have
delivered this religion to us, without making us slaves to the Pope, whose creature Austin was ;
and the British were aware of this, and therefore opposed him, and adhered to their old customs of
Easter, and baptizing in a manner somewhat difiFerent from that of Rome, and they continued their
former practice in the year 731, when Bede finished his history ; but in a short time after, the Welsh
as well as the English became entirely Romanists."— JoAwsow's Clergyman's Fade Mecum, Vol. I.
p. 34, 4th edit. 1715.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 233
ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY.
A. D. Names of the Bps. S( Archbpt. Where and by whom ordained. Ephcop. Godwin!
668 Theodore Rome, Pope Vitalian 22 ... 41
735 Northelm Rome, Pope Gregory III 5 ... 44
763 Lambert Rome, Pope Paul 1 27 ... 46
891 Plegmund Rome, Pope Formosus (a) 26 ... 48
1020 Agelnoth Rome 17 ... 55
1138 Theobald Loml. Cardinal Albert, the Pope's Legate, 22 ... 69
1174 Richard Anagni, Pope Alexander III. (6) 9 ... 78
1207 Stephen Langton ... Viterbo, Pope Innocent III. (c) 22 ... 86
1245 Boniface (rf) Lyons, Pope Innocent IV. (e) 26 ... 92
(a) " Every body knows the history of Pope Formosus. Stephen VI., his
successor, at the head of his council, having declared the ordinations which he
had administered void, caused all those to be re-ordained whom he had ordered.
Sergius III. renewed all that Stephen had done against Formosus, and caused his
ordinations to be declared null over again." — Courayer's Defence of the Ordinations
in the Church of England, 2^. 259. Courayer was a learned Roman Catholic. His
work is highly esteemed by the divines of the church of England. Now Formosus
ordained Plegmund, Archbishop of Canterbury. He was never re-ordained. He
ordained most of the Bishops in England for twenty-six years. What became
of the succession here ?
(b) According to Onuphrius Panvinius, one of the Popes' most devoted
biographers, the twenty-fourth schism in the popedom was between Alexander
III. and Victor IV. Alexander held his chair by sedition, war, and bloodshed. —
See Platina in his Life. Where was the true succession ?
(c) Pope Innocent III. deposed our King John, and put the kingdom under
an interdict for six years. Upon his restoring the kingdom to John, by his legate,
Pandulph, he placed, as a fine iipon it, a yearly rent of 8,000 marks, and ordered
that the kingdom should be held of the Pope as a fee farm ! He made us a
present of an Archbishop of Canterbury.
(rf) See Bishop Godwin's account of this covetous wretch ; who says, tliat
*' he used all means, good or bad, to scrape money together, under the pretence of
paying the debts of his predecessors; but that he consumed the whole in war.^'
He threw the whole diocese into a flame by his violent and base proceedings.
{e) The reader will think, when he has read the following note, that Archbishop
Boniface had received the spirit from the hand of his holiness, Pope Innocent IV.
his ordainer, — not the Holy Spirit, but the spirit of mammon, the dcemon of un-
righteousness. I take the account of Matthew Paris, as given by Archdeacon
Mason, where much more to the same purpose is to be found. " The avarice of
Rome had proceeded to such a length, and had ascended so high, that Robert, the
Bishop of Lincoln, caused a computation to be made by his clergy of the revenues
which foreign priests and prelates drew out of England; and it was found, by
true computation, that the present Pope, viz. Innocent IV., had impoverished the
universal church more than all his predecessors; and that the annual revenues of
foreign clergymen, whom the Romish church enriched out of England, amounted
to more than seventy thousand marks. The King's revenue alone did not amount
to a third part of that sum.
F 2
234 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
A.D. Names of the Bps. ^ Archbps. Where and hy whoin ordained. \Zlco'^ Godwi!!*
1278 John Peckham Pope Nicholas III. (/) 13 ... 97
1394 Robert Winchelsey Rome, Cardinal Sabinus 19 ... 100
1313 Walter Raynold ... Robert Winchelsey 13 ... 103
1327 Simon Mepham ... Avignon, by order of Pope John XXII. 5 ... 105
1333 John Stratford Avignon, Cardinal Vitalis 15 ... 106
1349 Thos. Bradwardine Avignon, Cardinal Bertrand Ill
" In the year 1253, Robert, Bishop of Lincoln, wrote to this Pope, in these
words : — * Your wisdom will know that I obey the mandates of the apostolical
see with filial affection and devoted reverence ; and, with zeal for your paternal
authority, I oppose and withstand all who oppose the mandates of the apostolical
see. For the mandates of the apostolical see neither are nor can be any other
than the doctrines of the Apostles, and of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Pope, in
the hierarchy of the church, is the vicar of Christ. The holiness of the apostolical
see cannot be opposed to him, (i. e. to Christ.) The tenor, therefore, of your
letters is not agreeable to apostolical holiness, but altogether discordant thereto.
First, because of many such letters, spread everywhere, — a flood of inconstancy,
audacity, impudent pretensions, and irreverence ; of lying, deceiving, ?^c. has broken
in upon all. Besides, except the sin of Lucifer himself, the son of perdition, none
can be more detestable, abominable, and hateful to our Lord Jesus Christ, than
by such BASE frauds to kill and destroy the souls of our pastoral office and
charge.' When these things came to the ears of the Pope, unable to restrain his
wrath and indignation, he, with a terrible countenance, and a haughty mien, exclaim-
ed, — ' Who is this old, crazed, blind fool, who dares, with such ieraevity, judge our
actions ? By Peter and Paul, were it not for our inbred generosity, I would
hurl such confusion upon him, that his folly and punishment should astonish the
world. What! IS NOT THE KING OF ENGLAND OUR VASSAL?
Yea more, even OUR BOND SLA.VE ? And cannot we, by a sovereign nod,
imprison him, and bind him in his ignominy ?' " Pages of this sort of abominations,
practised by the Popes in England, may be seen in Mason, Lib. 4, cap. 14. He
goes through the reigns of thirteen kings, with this evidence of the robberies com-
mitted by the Popes upon this kingdom. I leave the reader to his own judgment
upon these apostolical successors.
(/) Platina says, that Nicholas to enrich his relations, robbed others. " He
took away by violence the castles of certain noble Romans, and gave them to his
own relatives." This robber ordained Peckham, Archbishop 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. 4,000 marks. It will not be uninteresting to hear his answer.
* Behold !' says he, * 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 lately reached me, declaring, that except I answer to it
within a month after the feast of St. Michael, by paying into the hands of the
merchants of Lucca, the sum of 4,000 marks, according to my bargain wtth 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." Admirable
Successors— of Simon Magus ! !
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 235
A.D. Names of the Bps. Sg Archbps. Where and by whom ordained. |^^{ cSiw!*
1349 Simon Islip R. Stratford, Bp. of London, who
was consecrated by John Stratford,
Archb. of Canterbury, (whom see) 16 ... 112
1366 Simon Langham ... Simon Islip, as aftotc ... 115
1414 Henry Chichley ... Sienna, Pope Gregory XII. (ff) 29 ... 126
ARCHBISHOPS OF YORK.
The custom was for the Archbishops of Canterbury to con-
secrate the Archbishops of York ; but the Popes, in the plenitude
of their power, frequently overruled this regulation.*
A.D. Names of the Bps. ^ Archbps. Where and by whom ordained. E^p^cof. GM^.
1119 Thurstan Pope Calixtus £6 ... 668
1147 Henry Murdac Pope Eugenius 6 ... 670
1154 Roger Theobald, Archb. of Canterbury,
(nhom see) 27 ... 673
1191 Geoffrey Plantagenet Tours, by the Pope's order 22 ... 675
1215 Walter Grey by Stephen Langtom, Cw^om 5ee^ 40 ... 677
1258 Godfrey de Kinton Rome 6 ... 682
1279 William Wickwane Rome 6 ... 682
1285 John Romanus Rome... 10 ... 683
1299 Thomas Corbridge Rome, Pope Boniface VIII 4 ... 684
1305 Wm. de Greenfield Lyons, Pope Clement V 10 ... 685
1307 William de Melton Avignon 23 ... 685
1342 William le Zouch... Avignon, Pope Clement VI 10 ... 686
(g) The consecration of Chichley by the hands of Pope Gregory XII. is even
put into Chichley's Epitaph. Now this Gregory was one of the then three
Pretenders to the Popedom ; to end which schism the Council of Constance
was assembled. The history of these confusions has filled volumes. However
Gregory XII. was deposed, and John XXIII. or XXIV. kept the chair. Yet
Chichley received his Episcopal Succession from this Gregory, declared by a whole
council to be no Pope of Rome, no Bishop at all ; and he, Chichley, continued
to communicate these false orders to the English Bishops and Archbishops, even in
the fifteenth century, for twenty-nine yenrs ! What an unbroken line of valid
ordinations ! !
These notes may suffice. They might be multiplied and enlarged greatly,
but this is needless. The fountains are corrupt ; the streams cannot he pure.
Either the Popes or the Archbishops of Canterbury consecrated the Archbishops of
York. These two Archbishops contaminated all the Bishops of their distinct
provinces. Never was a sink of iniquity deeper than this ! !
* Vide Howel's Pontificate, p. 288, &f. and Bishop Godwin, p. 6C8, &c.
236
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
BISHOPS OF DURHAM.
A.D. Names of the Bps. 8f ArcMps.
Where and by whom ordained
1133 Geoffrey Rufus York, Thurstan of York, (whom see)
1153 Hugo Pusar Rome
1197 Philip of Poietiers Rome, Pope Celestine III
1217 Richard de Mariseo Walter Grey, Archbishop of York
(whom see)
1249 Walter de Kirkham Same as the above
1283 Anthony Beak Wickwane,Abp.ofYork,Cj«'^owsee^
1311 Richard Kellow ... Greenfield, Abp. of York CwAom see^
1318 Lewis Beaumont... Rome
1345 Thomas Hatfield... Rome
Years of
Episcop.
Pages in
Godwiru
.. 12
... 734
.. 42
... 735
... 738
.. 9
... 739
.. 10
... 742
■; 28
... 743
5
... 745
. 14
... 745
.. 36
... 749
BISHOPS OF WINCHESTER.
A.D. Names of the Bps. Sf Archbps, lVJiei-e and by whom ordained. EniscoD
909 Frithstan Plegmund, Archbishop of Canter-
bury, (whom see) 23
1070 Walkelin Pope's Legate 27
1174 Richard Toclivius Richard, Archbishop of Canter-
bury, (whom see) 15
1205 Petrus de Rupibus Rome 34
1260 Ethelmar Rome, Pope Alexander IV 1
1262 John of Oxford Rome 3
1282 John de Pontissara Rome 24
1323 John de Stratford... Avignon 10
Pages 171
Godwin.
213
216
217
220
221
222
224
Winchester and Durham are taken as specunens out of the
provincial Sees : it is needless to go further. Proof abundant is
here given that the Episcopal ordinations in tlie church of England
flowed steadily through all the filth of Popery.
We have shewn the sin of simony in the Popedom in the last
Section. The old adage is, " The receiver is as bad as the thief. ^^
The English Bishops regularly traded with Rome in simoniacal
trqffi,ck; evidence enough of this is found in Bishop Godwin's Lives
of the English Prelates. The court of Rome sold every thing,
" Sometimes," says Godwin, " those who had purchased, were,
by a fraudulent clause in a subsequent Bull, thrown out of their
purchase." It was then sold to a second huckster, and the Pope
received double: p. 106. John of Oxford, Bishop of Winchester,
paid 6000 marks to the Pope for his consecration, and the same
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 237
sum to Jordan, the Pope's Chancellor: p. 222. Greenfield,
Archbishop of York, was two years before he could obtain liis
confirmation and consecration from the Pope, and then he paid
9500 marks for the favor : p. 685. When Moreton became Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, Bishop Godwin says, " he spunged from
the Bishops of the provinces a large amount of money, compel-
ling them, by the authority of the Pope, to bear the cost of his
translation to that See — to the amount of £.15,000 : p. 131.
" These, and other enormities, viz. all manner of avarice,
usury, simony, and rapine ; all kinds of luxury, libidinousness,
gluttony, and pride, reign in the court of Rome, —
Ejus avaritice lotus non sufficit or bis
Ejus luxicrue tneretrix non sufficit omnisJ*^ ^
The incapacity of these Lord Bishops was often ludicrous.
When Beaumont was made Bishop of Durham, Godwin says,
" he was lame of both feet, and so illiterate that he could not read
the documents of his consecration. The word 7netropolitic^ oc-
curring, he hesitated, and being unable to pronounce it, he
exclaimed, ' Let us skip it and go on.'' So also when lie came to
the term (snigmate^ " sticking in the mud again^^ says Godwin,
" he burst out into these words, — ' By Saint Lewis ! he was very
uncourteous who wrote that word there'.'' His next successor but
one in the same See, was Thomas Hatfield. When the Pope
was reasoned with, that Hatfield was a young, trifling fellow,
without either knowledge, gravity, or sincerity, he answered, —
" If the king of England (who had requested the Pope to conse-
crate this Hatfield,) had asked me now to make an ASS a Bishop,
I would not have refused him ;" p. 750.
That all Bishops were pledged to Popery before the Reforma-
tion, will be evident from the account of the Pall, and the
Bishop's OATH of fidelity to the Pope. Fox, the venerable mar-
tyrologist, shall state this matter : " This Pope, (Alexander HI.)
among many other his acts, had certain Councils, some in
France, some at Rome in Lateran, by whom it was decreed,
that no Archbishop should receive the Pall, unless he should
first SWEAR. Concerning the solemnity of which Pall, for the
order and manner of giving and taking the same, with obedience
^ Archdeacon Mason's Viudic. Ecdes. Anglican, p. 522.
238 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
to the Pope, as it is contained in their own words, I thought it
good to set forth unto thee, that thou niayest well consider and
understand their doings.
" The form and manner, how and by what words the Pope
is wont to give the Pall unto the Archbishop, in English : —
*' To the honor of Almighty God, and of blessed Mary, the
virgin, and of blessed Peter and Paul, and of our Lord Pope N.
and o^ the holy church of Rome, and also of the church N. com-
mitted to your charge, we give to you the Pall, taken from the
body of St. Peter, as a fulness of the office Pontifical, which you
may wear within your own church upon certain days, which be
expressed in the priviledges of the said church, granted by the
See Apostolick.
" In like manner proceedeth the oath of every Bishop,
swearing obedience to the Pope, in like words as folio weth,
in English : —
"I, N., Bishop' of N., from this hour henceforth, will be
faithful and obedient to blessed St. Peter, and to the holy apos-
tolick church of Rome, and to my Lord N. the Pope. I shall be
in no Council, nor help either with my consent or deed, where-
by either of them, or any member of them may be impaired, or
whereby they may be taken with any evil taking. The council
which they shall commit to me either by themselves, or by
messengers, or by their letters, wittingly or willingly, I shall
utter to none to their hindrance. To the retaining and main-
taining the Papacy of Rome, and the regalities of St. Peter, I
shall be aider (so mine order be saved) against all persons, &c.
So God help me and these holy gospels of God^ ^
The learned Mr. Johnson, who was Proctor for the clergy
of the diocese of Canterbury, says, that "both the Archbishop
of Canterbury, and he of York, from the time of Austin and
Paulinus, down to the reign of Henry VIII. (saving that eight
of this province (York) had it not, viz. those between Paulinus
and Egbert) received a Pall from Rome, for which they paid an
unreasonable sum. This Pall was a supernumeral robe of
lambs' wool, curiously adorned, and worn by the Archbishop
when he celebrated : it is still the arms or device of the Arch-
bishoprick of Canterbury. It was pretended to be an ensign of
archiepiscopal authority, but was in reality a badge of slavery to
1 Fox's Acts and Monuments, Vol. I. p. J59, folio edition, London, 1684.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 239
the See ofRotne.''"" And will the Metropolitan of all England
continue to bear, in the rnost distinguished place and maimer, —
"in REALITY A BADGE of SLAVERY to the SeE of ROME?"
Let the church of England put such things away. They are
discreditable and injurious to the cause of Protestantism in
general.
Here, then, is sufficient evidence of the point that the Episcopal
ordinations in the church of England, before the Reformation,
came through the ^^ series of mo7isters" — the Popes of Rome.
Evidence also has been given that the Bishops, generally, were
as corrupt as the Popes. " Ail ecclesiastical degrees, even from
the Pope to the doorkeepers, were oppressed with damnable
simony." St. Bernard says that "ambitious, covetous, sacrile-
gious, simoniacal, incestuous persons, fornicators, and such like
7nonsters of mankind, flowed from all parts of the world to Rome,
that by the apostolical authority they either might obtain or keep
ecclesiastical honors." Such were the ordainers and the or-
dained ! Blessed channels ! through whom alone the power and
authority to preach a holy gospel is to be communicated for the
salvation of the world !
n> Johnson's Clergyman's Vade Mecum, Vol. I. p. 41, 4th edition, 1715.
SECTION XIII
NULLITY OF POPISH ORDINATIONS OF ENGLISH BISHOPS CONCLUDED.
Having in the preceding Sections exhibited a brief view of
the ordainers of the English Bishops before the Reformation,
and of the persons v^ho were ordained by them, our way is now
clear for the more immediate discussion of these Popish ordina-
tions. Three questions require our consideration here: first,
what is ordination ? secondly, what are the scriptural regula-
tions on the subject, as to the ordainers and the persons to be
ordained ? and thirdly, what, according to these rules, is the
validity of these Popish ordinations ?
First, what is ordination ? Ordination is that act of the
church by which persons are solemnly set apart to the ministry
of the gospel. It is usually performed by laying on the hands of
the ministers already existing in that church. Apostolical usage
countenances this form ; but no particular form was ever made
necessary. The priests under the law had no imposition of
hands in their ordination: the Apostles had no imposition of
hands in their ordination : it is never commanded. It is decent
and proper, but not essential; not necessary to ordination. Some
persons will assert the contrary, and maintain that imposition of
hands is essential to ordination. The reader, who will receive
assertions for proof, will believe them : sufficient scriptural proofs
they have not; and human authority can enjoin nothing as
essential in divine matters, such as the ministry of the gospel.
To make this more clear, we may remark, that all the great
writers on the subject generally grant that there is no command
in the word of God enjoining either any particular matter or
form of ordination: i.e. in plainer language, no particular action,
sign, or form of words, is enjoined as necessary to ordination :
imposition of hands, consequently, is not enjoined, and therefore
is not necessary. If we come to custom, it may be observed.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 241
that the Jewish Sanhedrim, from which it is supposed that the
Christian church took many of its ordination ceremonies, that
this Sanhedrim admitted, for a long period, ordinations to be
performed without imposition of hands. It was frequently done
by a written document, to absent persons, stfnpli/ declaring them
ordained; in the same manner as one of the ministers of the
sovereign would appoint a lieutenant to a county." As to the
opinions of Christian writers on tlie subject, they did not, for
above a thousand years after the Apostles' time, define what
they considered necessary to ordination. When they began to
attempt this, some fixed upon one thing, and some upon another,
in endless confusion. Those who at last came to place iinposition
of hands amongst the essentials, did it upon no other ground than
this, that the church had willed it to be so by its usage. They
grant that the church might have used it or not used it, without
violating any divine authority. The argument, then, is based on false
premises, as it assumes that the church can add to the essentials
of religion. The conclusion, of course, falls to the ground. And
the position remains immovable, that, as there is no command in
the word of God enjoining any particular action, sign, or form of
words, as necessary to ordination ; therefore, no particular action,
sign, or form of words, is necessary to ordination ; consequently, im-
position of hands is not necessary to ordination. We may simply
remark, in conclusion, that the words used by the church of Rome
and the church of England, — " Receive thou the Holy Ghost,
&c." were not used by the Christian church for above a thousand
years after Clirist."
Secondly, what are the scriptural regulations on the subject
of ordinations, as to the ordainers, and the persons to be ordained ?
From the nature of the case, the qualifications are generally the
same as to both parties. The reader is requested carefully to
bear in mind that part of Section Ath, extending from page 69 to
page 76. From this he will see that holiness of life, the call of
God, and soundness in the faith, are required in a minister by our
Lord and his Apostles. The special command given by St. Paul
to Timothy, as to the ordainers, is as follows : "The things that
n See Selden de Syn. B. 2, c. 7, sect. 1.
o See on the points above stated, Morinus de Ordinationibus ; Cabassutii Not Eccles. p. 178;
Altare Damascenum, p. 174, edit. 1708; Stillingfleet's Irenicum, pp. 270 and 392; Masoni de
Ministerio Anglicano, p. 216, &c. ; and Couraycr on English Ordinations, chap. 10, pp. ICl and 197,
edit. Lond. 1725.
g2
242 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
thou hast heard of me among maiiy witnesses, the same commit
thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others ;" 2 Tim.
ii. 2. This cannot reasonably be interpreted to mean less than
these two things : first, that the man is a true believer, a true
Christian ; and, secondly, that he must give suitable evidence
that he will he faithful to the truth and trust of the gospel, as a
steward of its mysteries : less than this would not answer the
divine requisition. Calvin remarks, with his accustomed good
sense, that the Apostle requires them to be ^^ faithful men, not
according to that faith which is common to Christians in general,
but that by way of emphasis they should specially excel \\\ faith."
This is corroborated by the qualification for deacons ; even they
were to be " men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and of
wisdom ;^^ Acts vi. 3.
Then, as to the persons to be ordained : the reader should
keep in mind what has been said in Section 4th, as above referred
to; especially what is laid down by divine authority on the subject
in 1 Tim. iii. 1 — 7, and Titus i. 5 — 9 : " This is a true saying.
If a man desire the office of a Bishop, he desireth a good work.
A Bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,
vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to
teach ; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre ;
but patient, not a brawler, not covetous ; one that ruleth well
his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
(for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he
take care of the church of God ?) not a novice, lest being lifted
up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. More-
over he must liave a good report of them which are without ;
lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." "For
this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order
the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as
I had appointed thee : if any be blameless, the husband of one
wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly.
For a Bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God ; not
selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not
given to filthy lucre ; but a lover of hospitality ; a lover of good
men, sober, just, holy, temperate ; holding fast the faithful word
as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine
both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." Here, personal
piety ; an unblameable life ; knowledge of the gospel, ability to
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 243
teach^ &c: are strictly required. One point deserves especial
notice here, as great mistakes arise from overlooking it, viz.
f he call of God, as preceding all human appointment to the
office of the ministry. This call is stated and proved at page 70.
Archbishop Potter, a high authority on the subject, maintains
" that the w^hole pov^er of erecting the Christian church, and of
governing it since it was erected, is derived from (God) the
Father. But then the Person by vv^hom this power is imme-
diately conferred, is the Holy Spirit. — And the authority and
special grace, whereby the Apostles, and all church officers
execute their respective functions, are in the same manner as-
cribed to the Spirit. — So that all ecclesiastical authority, and
the graces whereby men are enabled to exercise this authority
to the benefit of the church, are the gifts of the Holy Spirit.^'' •*
So Bishop Wilson : " As we consult God, as Jesus Christ liim-
self did, when we ordain men to His service, so should we con-
sult Jesus Christ when we assign them a place in His family.
Would JesHS Christ have given this 7nan the charge of the souls of
this parish ? That we may have the comfort of knowing that
we enter into the ministry by a choice which proceeded from
God, we must have some assurance in our own hearts, that the
glory of God, the good of souls, was in our intention, and that
we were called regularly, and according to the intention of the
church. It belongs to Thee, O Holy Spirit of grace, to send
such guides into Thy church as may lead thy people in the right
way, and to be the guide of those guides." '^ And Peter Damian,
Cardinal — Bishop of Ostia, who assisted the Popes in the 11th
century to settle the question of disputed ordinations, grants
fully, that " all that is great and holy in ordination is by the
receiving of the Holy Spirit; so that their ordination is to be
ascribed to God and not to man ; and that the priests, on their
ordination, do, as it were, become clothed with the righteousness
ofGod^^ From these statements, and from what has been
above referred to, it clearly follows, that, as the call of God must
precede the human appointment, and be the basis upon which it
rests, any human appointment which supersedes, contradicts, or
sets aside, this divine call, is null and void to all intents and pur-
r Archbishop Totter on Church Governincnt, pp. 254—256, edit. Bagst<»r, Lond. 1838.
q Bishop Wilson's Meditations in the Oxford Tracts, No. (55.
"■ Damiani de Ecdes. lust. cap. 3, edit. 1536, 12mo.
244 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
poses. God's call never can contradict his own requisitions.
He who requires in his written word, as qualifications for this
office, that the candidates for it should be '^just and holij^^'
would never, by the Holy Ghost, call a wicked and unholy man :
He who requires, by his written word, a man to be " blameless"
would never call a man by the Holy Ghost who had nothing but
what was full of blame: He who requires by his written word
that a man be " sober and temperate," would never call a man
by the Holy Ghost who was a drunkard: He who by his writ-
ten word requires a man not to be given to ''^filthy lucre, would
never by the Holy Ghost call a simonist, a trader in holy things:
He who by his written word requires a man "/o hold fast the
faithful word" would never by the Holy Ghost call a heretic to
this ministry. No wicked men, therefore, no drunkards, no
simonists, no heretics, as such, ever had the call of God. But the
greatest part of the ordainers and the ordained, before the
Reformation, were wicked, drunkards, simonists, heretics, &c. :
see section 11 and 12. God never sent them. " The blind led
the blind, and both fell into the ditch." For any human au-
thority, knowingly to put such men into the ministry, is to break
God's ordinances, to introduce wolves instead of shepherds into
the fold of Christ, and to increase the condemnation of the men
so obtruded upon the church. He who ordains a wicked man to
the ministry, is a traitor to God and the church. Such is the view
we derive from this supreme authority. If men speak according
to these oracles, let us hear them ; but, if otherwise, they are of
no authority. Let God be true, though every man be a liar.
Our English Reformers have some fine remarks on this sub-
ject. In the Declaration made of the Functions and Divine Insti-
tution of bishops and priests by the convocation, as noticed above,
they say, " This office, &c. is subject, determined, and restrained
unto those certain limits and ends for the which the same was
appointed by God's ordinance; which, as was said before,
is only to administer and distribute unto the members of Christ's
mystical body, spiritual and everlasting things ; that is to say,
the pure and heavenly doctrine of Christ's gospel, and the graces
conferred in his sacraments. And therefore this said power and
administration is called, in some places of Scripture, donum et
gratia, a gift and grace ; in some places it is called claves sive
potestas Clavium, that is to say, the keys, or the power of the
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 245
keys ; whereby is signified a certain limited office, restrained
unto the execution of a special function or ministration, according
to the saying of St. Paul in his first chapter of his Epistle to
the Romans, and in the fourth chapter of his first Epistle to
Timothy, and also in the fourth chapter of his Epistle to the
Ephesians." After a lengthened comment on the last reference,
they conclude thus : " By which words it appeareth evidently,
not only that St. Paul accounted and numbered this said power
and office of the pastors and doctors among the proper and special
gifts of the Hoh/ Ghost, but also it appeareth that the same was
a LIMITED power and office, ordained es^eciQWy and ONLY for the
causes and purposes before rehearsed." These are golden sen-
tences. The office, power, and authority of Bishops and Presby-
ters ** is subject, determined, and restrained unto those certain
limits and ends for the which the same was appointed by God^s
ordinance.''' From these premises it follows, —
First, that it is limited to spiritual matters ; ministers of the
gospel have no authority over the body and substance of the
people, either directly or indirectly :
Secondly, that it is limited to the edification of the church to
the building up of God's people in their most holy faith ; as soon,
then, as ever any one begins to subvert the faith of the church,
his office loses its authority :
Thirdly, that all Bishops and Presbyters are limited in their
ordinations, not only to such qualifications of the candidates as
" God's ordinance'' requires, but also they are limited by God's
ordinance in the power and authority they give to those whom
they ordain ; i. e. they cannot give either more or less than is
" determined by God's ordinance."
From overlooking this last point, a silly argument has been
attempted by many writers on Episcopacy, in order to prove that,
though Presbyters in the Apostles' time might have the power of
ordination, yet if, when modern Bishops ordained any Presbyters,
they did not choose to give these Presbyters authority to ordain,
that then these Presbyters have no divine authority to ordain.
This is saying not that " God's ordinance," but that the Bishops
DICTA determine the limits of the gospel ministry. A delightful
doctrine to high churchmen ! but a doctrine which is the very
essence of Popery itself That any particular church may make
prudential arrangements on the subject of ordination as a rule
246 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
for its own ministers, is readily granted ; but tliis is a mere
human affair^ and never can in the least affect in the sight
of God the authority of any true minister of Christ in the church
of God. Presbyters, in the Apostles' time, were the same as
Bishops : Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands
of the Presbytery. Presbyters, then, had divine authority to
ordain in the Apostles' times — God never took it away — no
power on earth can take it away. Presbyters, therefore, always
had, and always will have, a divine right to ordain. Such are the
divine limitations of the ministry — to spiritual things only ; to
edification and not to subversion of the faith ; to the qualifications
of the persons, and to the restraining and fixing of the ministerial
power and authority. Let these rules be observed, and a uni-
versal reformation must be the consequence ; but if the traditions
of men are preferred to the commandments of God, men so sent
will preach in vain : God never sent them. He will not forsake
his faithful people ; but such men shall not profit them. This
is substantially the meaning of the twenty-sixth Article in the
church of England. It gives too much authority to such men;
but its principal design is to shew that the effect of Christ's
ordinance is not taken away by their wickedness — " from such
as hj faith and rightly do receive the sacraments ;" i. e. that the
true Shepherd will not forsake his flock because wolves happen to
be over them. Very true : but this will not prove that a wolf is
either a sheep or a shepherd. Woe to the men, who on such a
principle place wolves over the flock of Christ !
The desire to maintain an external unity led to an early
corruption in this matter. For the supposed honor of the church,
and to prevent divisions, as tlie Fathers state, ordination was
very generally given up into the hands of the Bishops. Many
of them became tyrannical, proud, wicked, and worldly. And
what made the case worse still, was this, that during the fourth
century the greatest part of them became Arians, denying the
true Godhead of Christ, and the personality and divinity of the
Holy Ghost. Now what was to be done, when those who
maintained the orthodox faith began again to prevail ? They
must either deny that heretics, as the Arians were, could give
true orders, and consequently altogether reject the Arian Bishops,
and their ordinations ; or they must receive their orders as valid
and Christian. Well, to patch up the matter, and save the honor
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 247
of the Bishops, they generally received the ordinations of the
Arians. And it is probable that nearly all the episcopal ordina-
tions in the world have come from Arians. A glorious succession I
Then followed the attempt to find reasons, and make decrees, to
jiislify such unscriptural and absurd proceedings. For what
can be more unscriptural and absurd than to pretend that a man,
who refuses to receive Jesus Christ, by refusing to " honoi- the
So7i even as he honors the Father?'^ (John v. 23.) — that such
a man, I say, can have a cominission from Christ, to ORDAIN
others TO DENY IIIM also ? — To pretend to salve this by saying,
that if he uses the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
and does this by the authority of the church, his acts are valid,
is a sophism. The authority of the church is limited by the
Scriptures — by the authority of God: the church, therefore, can
give no authority contrary to the Scriptures ; but the Scriptures
^^ reject all heretics:'' — all that "deny the Lord that bought
them ;" 2 Pet. ii. 1, — therefore the church can give such heretics
no authority: see Section 4th. The words. Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost, are either used according to Scripture truth, or they
are not. If an Arian should use them, according to Scripture,
(an impossible supposition) he comes to God with A LIE in his
mouth ; i. e. he pronounces as true, what HE BELIEVES TO BE
FALSE, and this he does with the intention of deceiving both God
and man. To suppose Christ would set his seal to this lie, would
be blasphemy. An Arian, therefore, cannot use them in a true
sense. Suppose, then, that he uses them in 2i perverted sense, —
did Christ ever give him a comtnission to jjervert his truth, and to
appoint others to pervert it? This again is blasphemous and
absurd. An Arian, therefore, has no corninission : HE CAN GIVE
NONE. All he does is null and void to all intents and purposes.
A righteous division is better than a sinful unity. The orthodox
should have acted on this principle. However, too much wicked-
ness in life had at that time spread over those parts which held
the orthodox view of the Trinity, so that there was not moral
courage enough to resist and counteract these abominations.
Heresy is destructive ; a7id faith, without works, is dead. No-
thing but a living fruitful faith can conquer the world.
Simony is a point to be well considered here. Though this
was an early evil, yet as it never could be embraced by any part
of the church as a mark of a sect or division in the church, so no
248 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
evil schemes to defend it were laboured out by perverted
ingenuity. It has alvrays been condemned by decisions of coun-
cils, as the foulest of siiis ; as the following extracts will shew :
"If any bishop, priest, or deacon, obtain his dignity by MONEY,
let him, and him who ordained him, be deposed, and wholly CUT
OFF FROM communion, as Simon Magus was by Peter." — Apos-
tolical Canons, No. 22. I am aware of the dispute about the
authority of these canons. I believe them to be of no Apostolical
authority. However, it is generally acknowledged that they
give us the views and practice of the church, in fact, at a very
early age. They were, in the fourth and following centuries,
referred to as ecclesiastical authority. They are in great estima-
tion with high churchmen. Mr. Johnson, the learned translator
of the canons, a strong succession advocate, remarks in his notes
on this canon — " Indeed, in the case of simoni/, it may be said,
that he who obtained orders by this means, /lis orders were null
ah initio^'' — from the beginning. He never had any really.
" If any Bishop ordain for money, and make a market of the
unvendible grace, and perform the ordination of a Bishop, village-
bishop, priest, deacon, or of any one listed in the clergy, ior gain^
&c., let him that is ordained, be never the better for his ordina-
tion." — Council of Chalcedo7i, A. D. 451, Can.2. There were
present 600 Bishops.
" That they who are ordained for MONEY, be deposed, and
the bishop who ordained them." — Council of Constantinople, or
TruUus, A. D. 683, Canon 22.
"Whosoever either SELL or BUY holy orders cannot he priests;
hence it is written, 'cursed he he that gives and he that receives.'
How, therefore, if they be accursed, and are not holy, can they
consecrate others ? How can he bless, who is accursed himself?
There is no power in ordination, where buying and selling
prevail." — Canon Law, by Gratian, in the 12th Century.
" If any one should be enthroned in Peter's chair by MONEY,
by human favor, by popular or military tumult, without the
united and canonical election of the cardinals, such an one is
NOT apostolical, but is an APOSTATE ; and the cardinals, clergy,
and people of God, may anathematize him as A THIEF and
A ROBBER, and may, by all human means, drive him from the
apostolical seat.''' — Second Council of Lateran, Vid. Platin. in
Vita. Nicolai tertii.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 249
" Whatever holy orders are obtained by MONEY, either given
or promised to be given, we declare that they w^ere NULL from
the beginning, and NEVER had any validity.'' Council of Pla-
centina, A.D. 1095, Can. 2.
In the 40th canon of the church of England, simony, the
buying and selling of orders, &c., is declared to be " a detestable
sin, and execrable before God." And every bishop, priest, &c.
before he is admitted to any spiritual office, is obliged to take
the following oath : — " I, N. N., do swear that I have made no
simoniacal payment, contract or promise, directly or indirectly,
by myself or by any other, to my knowledge or with my consent,
to any person or persons whatsoever, for or concerning the
procuring and obtaining of this ecclesiastical office, &c. So help
me God, through Jesus Christ."
Here, then, we have seen what qualifies a person for ordina-
tion ; and what disqualifies him. Heaven has laid down the LAW.
The authority of the church is limited by the authority of GoD.
Every person tridy ordained, must be ordained according to the
word of God; and must be ordained specially and only for the
causes and purposes therein contained. Every ordination which
is plainly and knowingly contrary to this rule, is null and void
from beginning to end. But the ordination of every man who
is plainly not a " faithful man ;" i. e. a true Christian, the ordi-
nation of every wicked man, of every heretic, and of every
SIMONIST, is flatly contrary to the word of God ; therefore the
ordination of every wicked man, of every heretic, of every
simonist, is null and void from the beginning, — it is NO ORDI-
NATION AT ALL.
Let us apply this divine rule to the pojmh ordinations of
Eiiglish Bishops, before and at the Reformation. The church
of Rome, by the united judgment of the Reformers, was the
" great whore" mentioned in the Revelations. Can this " great
whore" have legitimate children ? Common sense, as well as
the Scriptures, would declare — No ! The church of Rome is an
idolatrous church ; can she, as such, have a heavenly com7nissio?i'
ed priesthood.^ — impossible ! The Popes, Bishops of Rome, who
ordained the English Bishops, were MONSTERS in crime, heretics
and simonists of the darkest dye. They could have no commis-
sion from a holy God: they were "sons of Belial," "antichrist ;"
they, therefore, could give no cmnmission.
h2
250 - ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
The English Bishops, generally, before the Reformation,
were true sons of the " great whore." They bought and sold,
and trafficked in spiritual things ; they were wicked men, idola-
ters and simonists. Any ordination of such men would be null
from the beginning ; would be nothing : — more, if possible, when
they were ordained by those monsters of iniquity, tlie Popes of
Rome. The conclusion, then, is irresistible — Popish ordi-
nations of the English Bishops before and at the Reform-
ation were NULL and VOID to all intents and purposes ! ! '
8 Two objections arfe sometimes urged against this conclusion j first,— that though one Bishop
who ordains might be vitious, a simonist, a heretic, &c. yet the others concerned in the ordination
might not be so : and, secondly, it is urged that Judas continued to possess full apostolical authority
notwithstanding his being a thief, a devil, and a traitor ; and that, therefore, a Bishop, retains full
episcopal authority, however wicked he may be. Let us examine these objections.
Objection 1st.— That though one Bishop who ordains might be vitious, a simonist, a heretic, &c.
yet the others concerned in the ordination might not be so. This, I believe, is as the matter is usually
jtated. But the true state of the question is different. We will state it on their own principles ;
viz. on ecclesiastical authority— scriptural authority it has none. In the ordination of a Bishop
there is always one Bishop who alone consecrates ; this is the universal language of the rituals on the
subject: the other Bishops who take part in the ceremony are rather there as witnesses than as
consecrators. The ancient rituals never speak of more than one consecrator. In all the ancient _
Greek forms of ordination, as exhibited by Morinus, one Bishop only lays his hand on the head of
the person to be ordained, the other Bishops touching the gospels placed upon the head of the
person to be ordained. In the Roman church the other Bishops touched his head, but did not lay
their hands on his head. One Bishop only pronounced the consecration prayer. This was, in
ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, either the Pope or the Archbishop : see Morinus, Part 2, pages
234 and 250. The consecration of Bishops, therefore, always depended upon the capability of the
one Bishop who consecrated j and whenever he was found to be really incompetent, the general rule
was to quash all his ordinationu. The monsters of iniquity, the Popes, as exhibited in the pre-
ceding pages, were the sole consecrators of the English Bishops, as stated in Section 12. By
scriptural rule they were utterly incompetent : their ordinations were consequently null. The
rule just stated makes it difficult to prove the validity of Archbishop Parker's consecration j
upon which all the present ordinations and consecrations of the English church since the Reforma-
tion depend. Barlow^ was his only consecrator j but there is not full proof that Barlow himself was
consecrated. The acts of the consecration of Bishops are generally registered in the archives of
the Archbishop, but no registration of Barlow's consecration can be found. ,-
Objection 2nd.— It is urged that Judas continued to possess full apostolical authority, notwith-
standing his being a thief, a devil, and a traitor ; and that, therefore, a Bishop retains full episcopal ]
authority, however wicked he may be. We answer,
First, there is no proof that Judas was a wicked man vihen first put into his office.
Secondly, it is acknowledged by churchmen of considerable note, (v. Archbishop Potter on Church
Government, pp. 35, 38, 51 and 52, ed. Bagster, 1838) that the office of the Apostles, before our Lord's
resurrection, was a very limited one. They performed no ordiTmtions, exercised no superintend,
ence over any societies, had no authority whatever over a single hmrmn being. When their
commission was more fully given, they were to wait in Jerusalem until they received power from
on high. This was given on the day of Pentecost.
Thirdly, limited as this commission was in Judas's time, there is no proof that he performed a
single act, as an apostle, or had any countenance from our Lord to do so, after he had become a
thief a devil, and a traitor. It was only six days before that Passover at which our Lord suffered,
that Judus is first charged with any of these crimes. It was certainly after even this time that the
devil is said to have entered into Judas : his treason followed this. There is no proof, therefore,
that he was continued in the authority of an Apostle for a single day after any of these crimes.
Fourthly, it is said expressly that " Judas bv transgression fell from his Apostleship ;" Acts
i. 25. " And none of them is lost but the son of perdition :" John xvii. 12. Judas is here spoken
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 251
This was the general ophiion of the Protestant churches at
the Reformation ; and even before that time the same opiin'on
was maintained by the Waldenses. In the Treatise of Anti-
christ, by the old Waldenses, written A.D. 1200, having de-
scribed antichrist, they go on — " that iniquity that is after this
manner, with all Ihe minislers thereof, great and small, with all
those that follow tliem with a wicked heart, and hoodwinked
eyes ; this congregation, thus taken all together, is called AfHi-
ckrist, or Babylon, or the fourth beast, or the Whore, or the man
of sin, or the son of perdition. His MINISTERS are called false
prophets, lying teachers, the ministers of darkness, &c. Anti*-
Christ covers his iniquity by the length or succession of time, —
by the spiritual aMhority of the Apostles, — by the writings of
the antientsj and by councils. These and many other things are,
as it were, a cloak and a garment, wherewith antichrist doth
cover his lying wickedness, that he may not be rejected as a
Pagan, (or infidel,) and under which he can go on to act his
villanies like a whore. Now it is evident, as well in the Old as
in the New Testament, that a Christian stands bound, by express
command given, to SEPARATE HIMSELF from antichrist.^'' Then
a great many passages of Scripture are quoted to prove this duty
of separating from antichrist. On this ground it was also that
they re-baptized those who had been baptized by the Popish
bishops and priests, accounting them sacrilegious and anti-
christian ministers, and INCAPABLE of administering any sacra-
ments. See Schlossers' note to his Latin version of Wall on
Infant Baptism.*
of as already "lost," and as being the "son of perdition." He w»s lost from Jesus, and ponse-
quently lost from his Apostleshlp, before he hanged himself.
The conclusion is, that there is no proof that Judas was continued a single day in his Apostleship,
or that he was allowed to perform a single act, as an apostle, after his transgression ; but, on the
contrary, it is positively asserted in the word of God, that "by transgression he fell from it." No
Bishop, then, has an iota of authority from this case after he becomes a wicked man ; but it distinctly
and positively proves that, as a wicked man, " hy transgression he falls from his office." So fall for
ever all such sclieines, in which bigoted, infatuated men, would hide their intolerance and abomi7uitions !
Some readers may wonder why I have taken the pains to expose this last monstrous effort to
make Judas, as the Rev. Charles Radcliffe humorously said, " a Hook on which to hang the Apos-
tolical Succession." I can tell them. In my simplicity, I supposed such a thing too monstrous to
be attempted : but I find I have been mistaken. Even Evangelical clergymen, I have been told on
good authority, have had the hardihood and infatuation to use it in the pulpit. But what crowns
all, is, that the Hon. and Rev. A. P. Perceval, B. C. L. chaplain in ordinary to the Queen, in an
Answer which he has written to this Essay, by the request of Dr. Hook, &c. and dedicated, by
permission, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, has placed this case of Judas amongst his argu-
DKnts !! s^ p. 85 of his "Apology for the Apostolical Succession."
t Vol. II. p. 166, 4to. Hamburgi, 1753.
252 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
Calvin was consulted to know what should be done when any
bishop, curate, &c. from amongst the Papists should desire to
join himself to the reformed church? He remarks, "first, that
if he should be found not to have sufficient ability and qualifica-
tion for the office of a minister, he should shew the sincerity of
his conversion by retiring into the station of a private member of
the church. But if he should be found able to continue in tlie
ministry, he was to give in a confessio?i of his faith, and of his
sincere and sacred adherence to the reformed religion. Then he
was to acknowledge that his VOCATION or call to the ministry
had been A MERE ABUSE : he was to request a new approbation ;
he was expressly and by name to professi\\?ii his FORMER insti-
tution by the authority of the Pope had been of no validity ;
and at the same time he was to renounce it as being conferred by
means EVERY WAY unlawful and opposed to the ORDER which
the Lord Jesus Christ established in the church. After this,
be was to join himself to the company of the other reformed
ministers, and be subject to the discipline and government
established in that place where they are. It is certain and clear
that none can be accounted Christian ministers, except they first
RENOUNCE the PRIESTHOOD of PoPERY, to wliich they had
been promoted to make and offer Christ as a sacrifice in the mass ;
which is a kind of blasphemy to be detested by all possible means.
These things being done, it will be the duty of such bishops to
give diligence that all the churches that pertain to their diocese
be purged from errors, idolatry, &c." "
Here this great reformer, whose views were generally received
almost like laws in a large portion of the reformed church, throws
Popish ordinations to the winds. How abundantly this 1 etter proves
the misrepresentations of such men as Dr. Hook, who would fain
persuade us that where Episcopacy was not retained, "the Re-
formers pleaded not principle, BUT NECESSITY." Even Bishop
Taylor grants the contrary. " M. Du Plessis," says he, " a man
of honor and great learning, does attest, that at the first Reform-
ation there were many archbishops and cardinals in Germany,
England, France, and Italy, that joined in the Reformation,
whom they," the reformed churches, " might, but did not, employ
in their ordinations. And what necessity can be pretended in
this case, I would fain learn that I might make their defence.
^ Calvini Epistol. p. 339, fol. edit. Genev. 1575.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 253
But, which is of more and deeper consideration, for this might
have been done by inconsideration and irresolution, as often hap-
pens in the beginning of great clianges ; but it is their constant
and resolved practice^ at least in France, tliat if any returns to
them, they will re-ordain him by their Presbytery, though
he had before EPISCOPAL ORDINATION, as both their friends and
their enemies bear witness." ' Here then is evidence from that
illustrious champion of Protestantism, Du Plessis, and from the
French church in general, that it was the constant and resolved
practice to reject popish ordinations as NULL and void.
The English Reformers viewed the matter in the same light.
They continued to ordain as christian ministers^ but not on the
ground of their PAPAL ORDINATIONS ; else why so solemn a dis-
cussion by the bishops and divines in that day on such questions
as this ? —
*' Question 13. Whether (if it fortuned a Christian prince
learned, to conquer certain dominions of infidels, having none but
temporal learned men with him,) if it be defended by God's law,
that he and they should preach and teach the word of God there,
or no ? And also make and constitute priests, or no ?
" Agreement. In the thirteenth ; concerning the first part,
whether laymen may preach and teach God's word ? They DO
ALL AGREE, in such a case, ' that not o?ily they may, but they
ought to teach.' But in the second part, touching the constituting
of priests of (by) LAYMEN, my Lord of York, and Doctor Edg-
worth, doth not agree with the other : they say that laymen in
no wise can make priests, or have such authority ; the bishops
of Duresme, St. David's, Westminster, Drs. Tresham, Cox,
Leightou, Crawford, Symmons, Redmayn, and Robertson, say
that laymen, in such case, have authority to minister the sacra-
ments, and to MAKE priests. My Lords of London, Carlisle,
and Hereford, and Dr. Coxen, think that God, in such a case,
would give the prince authority, call him inwardly, and illumi-
nate him or some of his, as he did St. Paul."''
So the great Protestant champions against popery, Whitaker
and Fulke, in the time of Queen Elizabeth : speaking to the
papists, " I would not have you think," says Whitaker, " that
we make such reckoning of your orders, as to hold our own
» He refers to Danaeus, Isagog. Part II. Lib. 2, c. 22, Perron Repli. foL 92, impress. 1605.
w Burnet's Coll. of Records, Part I. Book 3, No. 21.
254 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
vocation u?ilawful without them." "And," says Fulke, "you
are highly deceived if you think we esteem your offices of bishops,
priests, and deacons, better than LAYMEN." (And in his Reten-
tive:) ''■With all our hearts we defy, abhor, detest, — your anti-
christian orders . " ""
Bishop Burnet, in his Exposition of the tv^enty-third Article,
says, " I come, in the next place, to consider the second part of
this Article, 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 matter. The Article does not resolve
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 several
churches before their eyes that had been differently 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. If a company of Christians find the public
worship where they live to be so defiled, that they cannot with a
good conscience join in it ; and if they do not know of any place
to which they can conveniently go, where they may worship
God purely and in a regular way : if, I say, such a body find
some that have been ordained, though to the lower functions,
should submit itself entirely to their conduct ; or find none of
those, should by a common consent, desire some of their own
number to minister to them in holy things, and should, upon that
beginning, grow up to a reg^ilated constitution, though we are very
sure that this is quite out of all rule, and could not be done with-
out a very great sin, unless the necessity were great and apparent;
yet if the necessity is real and not feigned, this is NOT con-
demned nor ayinulled by the Article ; for when this grows to a
constitution, and when it was begun by the CONSENT OF A BODY,
who ate supposed to have an authority in such an extraordi-
nary case, whatever some hotter spirits have thought of this
since that time ; yet we are very sure that not only those who
penned the Articles, but the BODY of this church for above half
X See Ward's England's Reformation, Vol. II, p. 121, where lie refers to Wliitaker Contra
Dureum, p. 221, and Fulke's Answer to a Counterfeit Catholick.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 255
an age after, did, notwithstanding those irregularities, acknow-
ledge the FOREIGN CHURCHES SO constituted, to be TRUE churches,
as to all the essentials of a chnrch, though they had been at FIRST
irregularUj formed, and contiiuie to be in an imperfect state.
And therefore the general words in which this part of the
Article is framed, seem to have been designed on purpose not
to exclude them.^'' ^ This is worthy of the great Reformers!
I need not say what a figure Dr. Hook and the Oxford Tract-
men cut in the presence of such a statement.
The great Reformers and champions of the Reformation knew
how to distinguish between what was ESSENTIAL to the FORM-
ATION of a church in times of difficulty, persecution or confusion,
and what was prudent, proper, and orderly in a settled and
peaceable state of the church. The following passage from the
Epistles of that great Reformer, John Calvin, second to none in
his day in talents, zeal, and influence in the Reformation, will
shew this: " Consider this matter fully now, — suppose a person,
in a foreign region, desires the opportunity and ability of gather-
ing together a flock for Christ ; will not those who are in that
place, and who AGREE to receive his MINISTRY, by that very act
of receiving him, ELECT him as their MINISTER, even though no
rite be used in the matter ? I confess, indeed, that where a due
order of doing such things HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED in any
y Burnet's account of his work is interesting : " I had been first moved to undertake this work
by that Great Prelate," (Tillotson ) " who then sat at the helm : and after that, (was) determined in it
by a command that was sacred to me by respect, as well as by duty. Our late Primate lived long
enough to see the design finished. Ho read it over with an exactness that was peculiar to him. He
employed some weeks wholly in persuing it, and he corrected it with a care that descended even to the
smallest matters ; and was such as he thought became the importance of the work. And when that
was done, he returned it to me with a letter, that as it was the last I ever received from him, so gave
the whole such a character, that how much soever that might raise its value with true judges, yet in
decency it must be suppressed by me, as going far beyond what any performance of mine could de-
serve. He gave so favorable an account of it to our late blessed Queen, that she was pleased to tell
me she would find leisure to read it ; and the last time I was admitted to the honor of waiting on her,
she commanded me to bring it to her. But she was soon after that carried to the Source, to the
Fountain of Life in whose Light she now sees both light and truth. So great a breach as was then
made upon all our hopes, put a stop upon this, as well as upon much greater designs."
" This Work has lien by me ever since : but has been often not only reviewed by myself, but by
much better judges. The late most learned Bishop of Worcester," Stillingfleet, " read it very care-
fully. He marked every thing in it that he thought needed a review : and his censure was in all
points Submitted to. He expressed himself so well pleased with it, to myself and to some others,
tliat I do not think it becomes me to repeat what he said of it. Both the Most Reverend Arch-
bishops, with several of the Bishops, and a great many Learned Divines have also read it I must,
indeed, on many accounts own that they may be inclined to favor me too much, and to be too partial
to me ; yet they looked upon this work as a thing of that importance, that I have reason to believe
they read it over severely : and if some small corrections may be taken for an indication that they
saw no occasion for greater ones, I had this likewise from several of them." Preface, pp. 1,2,
fol. Lond. 1699. These things are important.
256 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
church, it ought to be maintained, fixed, and immoveable ; but
the case is widely differerit, where the very foundations have to
be laid anew. For what shall we say as to most of the churches
raised up by the Lord through Germany ? Shall we deny that
those who first laboured (there in preaching the gospel, were
received as true pastors, though no rite accompanied their ad-
mission to that office ? I do not wish to bind you to the autliority
of men ; but I produce this example as confirming the position I
laid down, viz. that the election or appointment of a minister is
not necessarily the same in an unsettled state of a church, as it is
where a certain form and order have been already established." "^
This is the view of the Scriptures, of the earliest Fathers, and of
the greatest Reformers. The contrary opinion is indeed belong-
ing to the very essence of Popery. It is an attempt to make
that necessary which God never made so ; and then to bind the
church to human ordinations, personal succession, episcopal
consecrations, priestly absolutions : even whilst, by undeniable
history, many of these men have been wicked, heretics, murder-
ers, simonists, traffickers in the souls and bodies of mankind,
shedding the blood of the saints, and leading mankind to
destruction !
The case of the English Reformers was a difficult one. They
saw the truth ; but a great part of the nation was still under
much popish ignorance. The case very much resembled that of
St. Paul with those Jews who were still zealous for the law of
Moses. Paul, as a mere prudential measure, took Timothy and
circumcised him, rejecting the obligation of circumcision as
essential to Christianity. The English Reformers, as a pru-
dential measure, because of the multitudes who were still zealous
for the ceremonies of popery, retained, in form, the ordination
and consecration of the popish bishops; not because of their
validity and necessity, by divine right, to the existence of the
Christian church and Christian ordinances ; for they maintained
the contrary. The Primitive Church lived down those Jewish
prejudices; and circumcision, even as a circumstance, was ut-
terly put away. The Anglican church should have done the
same. It should have gone on to declare boldly, that the ordi-
nation of its ministers was based on the spiritual and scriptural
qualifications of the men ; upon the call of God, moving them by
2 Epist. p, 349, edit. Gen, 1575.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 257
the Holy Ghost to take upon them the ministry ; and npon the
call of the church, solemnly receiving them as the ministers of
God, in the gospel of his Son. It has failed to do this ; and the
strenuous attempts made by many of its erring advocates to
maintain the ESSENTIAL importance of popish ordinations, epis-
copal consecration, pei^sonal succession, &c. — these efforts, I say,
have resulted in a coitstant leaning to popery, in many divines
and members of the church of England. Wherever and by
whomsoever these things are thus maintained, that church be-
comes a half-way house to popery.
Both the foreign and English Reformers had great fears about
what was left in the church of England of popish origin, lest it
should afterwards lead to the strengthening of popery. Cranmer
and his coadjutors did what they could, according to the times,
and hoped their successors would finish what they had begun.
Calvin, writing to Cranmer, A.D. 1551 , then Archbishop of Can-
terbury, says, "But to speak freely, I greatly fear, and the fear is
becoming general here, lest by so much delay, the autumn or
harvest should pass, and at length the coldness of a perpetual
winter should succeed. You will need to stimulate yourself, as
the burden of old age steals upon you; lest in leaving the world,
your conscience should distress you, because, through some
tardiness in proceeding, all things should be left in confusion.
I mention things as being in confusion, because outward super-
stitions are so corrected as to leave innumerable branches that
will be constantly sprouting out again. Indeed, I hear that
such a mass of POPISH CORRUPTIONS remain, as not only ob-
scure, but almost bury the pure and genuine worship of God."'*
That Cranmer was not offended with this plainness is evident,
for, in apparently a later letter, Calvin says the Archbishop of
Canterbury admonished him " that he could not do a more useful
thing than to write frequently to the king."** The popish, and
semipopish bishops and divines, conforming and nonconforming,
did their utmost to hinder the removal of these evils. There is a
letter to Calvin from a venerable, aged, sorrowing, and almost
dying person on this subject, dated Cambridge, 1550, pp. 96-97.
Zanchy wrote a bold letter to Queen Elizabeth on the Popish
Vestments, requesting her not to enforce them, 1571. The
meek and peaceful Peter Martyr, who spent a long time at
a Calvini Epist. p. 101. b p. 334.
i2
258 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
Oxford, endeavouring to promote and defend the Reformation,
was written to by the venerable Hooper, Bishop of Gloucester,
on the subject of the Popish Vestments. Hooper withstood their
use. Martyr, at that time, writing in answer to Hooper's letter,
declares he most entirely approves of their removal, but thinks
that as they were not fundamental matters, they might be
tolerated for a TIME : and then, afterwards, increasing piety in
the church would remove tbem : " for," says he, " if we first
allow the gospel time to be propagated, and strike deep its roots,
men will then perhaps be persuaded better and more easily to
remove these external trappings." This letter is dated 1550.
However, in a few years, he altogether changed his 7nmd.
Writing to the popish nobles, (professing to embrace the gospel,)
and to their ministers, after recommending them to take care
that " no splendor of names or titles, no Kings, no Fathers, no
Bishops, no Popes, no Councils, &c. should blind their eyes ; —
that the Scriptures alone should be the supreme and infallible
rule of their faith ;" he comes to say, " Use all your vigilance,
brethren, that the house of God, defiled, and almost destroyed
by antichrist, should be, with diligent care, rebuilt. Extirpate
utterly all superstitious and false notions. This I the rather
admonish, because / have seen some who have only crept the
leaves, and flowers, and buds of old superstition : but, having
spared the roots, they afterwards shot up again to the great
injury of the Lord's vineyard. Let all the seeds of evil, and the
rottenness of the roots be extirpated in the beginning. For if this
be neglected at the FIRST, (I know what I say,) afterwards it
will be much more difficult to pluck them up." — February 14th,
1556. And see Bishop Burnet's Letters ; the one from Zurich,
p. 56, London, 1727, where he shews that the Bishops Jewel,
Horn, Cranmer, Grindal, took the same views, but that the
Queen was obstinately opposed to the removal of these things.
SECTION XIV
GENUINE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
We have now searched this pseudo-apostolical succession
scheme to the bottom, and have found it a baseless fabric. Those
who have attempted its construction, whatever they might be
besides, have, in this, displayed a disposition to erect a system of
spii'itual tyranny over the whole church of God. Many have
been deceived by them. Multitudes of the holiest people upon
earth, have, in different ages, suffered bonds, imjprisonment, and
death, under the operation of this antichristian scheme. It will
be proper to exhibit, in a closing section, a view of GENUINE
APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION — the succession of truth and holiness.
God has always had a true church : and he always will have a
true church. The gates of hell never have prevailed against it ;
and we are assured by himself that they never shall. This
church has always stood, as to its foundation, on the truth and
faithfulness, and power of God; and never on any ceremonies or
circumstances of church government, or any order of men : thus
it will stand FOR EVER.
Let us review the past. — In the brief divine history
which we have of the antediluvian world, there is no intimation
that the church depended on any order of men, as ministers of
religion. That there were preachei^s of righteous?icss, is plainly
testified in the Scriptures. But from all that we can learn, they
were not confined to any uninterrupted succession, nor even
initiated by any rite of ordination. They appear to have been
good men, who, (blessed with the knowledge of God's favor to
themselves, and of his plan of saving sinners,) were moved by
the Holy Ghost to testify the judgments of God against sin, and
his mercy to those who returned to him by repentance, and by
trust in that mercy. This was the case for about 2000 years.
From the deluge to Moses matters continued in the same state.
260 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
The priesthood of Aaron was designed to typify the priesthood of
Christ: as much oneness, therefore, and continuity was given to
it as human things would allow. Hence a j}ersonal succession^
in one family, was the general principle of the high priesthood.
Yet this was sometimes changed by divine direction ; but what
Is more, it was broken and interrupted by 7ne7i ; and yet those
who ministered in that office, though not of the succession, were
not repudiated on this account even by our Lord himself, or his
Apostles. Dr. Hammond, a competent and unexceptionable au-
thority, gives the following account of this matter : " At this
time, the land being under the Roman emperor, the succession of
the high priests was now CHANGED, the one lineal descendant in
the family of Aaron, which was to coiitinue for life, being not
permitted to succeed, but some other, whotn he pleased, named to
that office by the Roman procurator every year, or renewed as
often as he pleased. To which purpose is that of Theophylact:
' They who were at that time high priests of the Jews, invaded
that dignity, bought it, and so destroyed the law, which prescribed
a succession in the family of Aaron.' It is manifest, that at this
time the Roman Praefect did, ad libitum, when he would, and
that sometimes once a year, put in whom he pleased into the
pontificate, to officiate i7i Aaron^s office, instead of the lineal de-
scendant from him. And that is it of which Josephus so fre-
queritly makes mention. After the race of the Assamonaei, it
seems Jesus, the son of Phoebes was put in ; then he being put
out, Simon is put in his stead ; this Simon put out, and Matthias
in his stead : Ant. L. 17, c. 6, — then Matthias put out by Herod
about the time of Christ's birth, and Joazar put in his stead :
Ant. L. 17, c. 8, — then Joazar put out by Archelaus, and Eleazar
put in: c. 15, and he again put out, and Jesus, the son of Sia,
put in. Then in the first of Quirinus, there is mention again of
Joazar, son of Boethius : L. 18, c. 1, who it seems was put in,
and so turned out again by Quirinus the same year, and Ananus,
the son of Seth, put in his stead, who was the Annas here men-
tioned by St. Luke. Then Gratus, at the beginning of Tiberius's
reign, put out Annas and put in Ismael ; and in his stead Eleazar,
Annas' s son ; then in his stead Simon ; and after his year, Caia-
phas here, who continued from that, all his and Pilate's time, till
Vitellius displaced him, and put Jonathan, another son of Annas,
in his stead ; and in his, a year or two after Theophilus, another
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 261
son of Annas, whom Agrippa again displaced, Ant. L. 19, c. 5,
and put in Simon ; and turning him out the same year, put in
Matthias, a fourth son of Annas, in the beginning of Claudius's
reign, some nine years after the death of Christ ; and soon re-
moving him, put in Elioneus, c. 7. Then it seems Canthares
was put in, for in his place Herod put in Joseph, L. 20, c. 1 ;
and in his stead, about fifteen years after the death of Christ,
Ananias, son of Nebedeus, c. 3. After him we find Jonathan,
then Ismael, then Joseph, then Annas, another son of Annas,
then Jesus, son of Damneus, then Jesus, son of Gamaliel, then
Matthias, in whose time the Jewish war began. " ^ Theophylact,
we find, says that the law of succession was destroyed by these
confusions. Had our succession divines been Doctors of the Law
at the time, they must have made it out that the church of God
then became extinguished : yet we never find a single intimation
of the kind by our Lord or his Apostles. From the creation^
therefore^ to the coining of Christy the church never was built on
any men, or order of men, hut was founded in the living God.
A GOSPEL MINISTRY is God's own positive institution.
Ministers are God's gifts to the church. When they are what
they ought to be, they are of very great importance and utility ;
but when any of them become LORDS over God's heritage, God
can lay them aside, and their personal succession too, and can
raise up others who shall walk more fully after his will, and
whose ministry he will confirm and bless by the conversion of
sinners and the increased holiness and edification of his people.
This the history of the church in all ages testifies. Without de-
signing to say one word against episcopacy, meaning by that
a prudential and well-guarded superintendeiicy ; or against the
simple fact of a succession of ministers, suppose it could be proved
to be true, — both of which, if not urged to accomplish purposes of
exclusion and persecution in the Christian church, may be great
blessings ; yet let the truth be spoken as to the fact of the
operation of episcopacy, as hitherto established, and of the scheme
of succession as it has existed hitherto in general in the Christian
church : both have been at the head of nearly all the oppression
and persecution that have been found in the church to the present
day. I say, as they have existed. But the abuse is no valid
argument against the use. I believe abuse very early got into
e Hammond's Note on Luke iii. r. 2.
262 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
the churcli in an unguarded and not sufficiently controlled form
of episcopacy. It generated into tyranny of the worst kind.
Popery is its genuine offspring. Gi'eat, however, as I acknow-
ledge the abuse to have been, I do still think, that, under just
regulations, it might have an important use. The names of
kings and tyrants were synonymous in ancient times ; and both
were alike hated. But what true Englishman will say that the
office of king, as supreme civil magistrate, under just regulations,
that is, a limited monarchy, is not a blessing ? Whoever would
say so, — the writer would not. Let episcopacy, then, be placed
under such regulations and restraints as shall not admit of any
claim of divine right on the part of Bishops for their superintend-
ency and government. Let those who value episcopacy, and
especially the Bishops themselves, correct all abuses in the
system. The English Reformers placed it generally on the right
basis : the detail wanted perfecting. Time has shewn the de-
fects of the detail : let experience teach wisdom. If these things
be not done, let no man trust an unguarded episcopacy ; it will
do what it has always done, viz. DEGENERARE INTO POPERY.
Whenever a true revival of vital godliness has taken place, it
has usually been done, NOT by the pretended succession Bishops,
but generally, in spite of them : it has been done — NOT by those
whom succession-men assume to have had the sole power amongst
mankind of continuing the church of God upon earth ; but by
those who, according to their absurd scheme, had no power to
continue it beyond a single generation, even if they had so much
as that. 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 in full proof o^ what I say. The English
Reformers themselves do not constitute an exception to this re-
mark. Who broke up the fallow ground? who sowed the seed
of the Reformation in England ? and who vjatered it with their
tears and with their BLOOD, before Henry VIII. quarrelled with
the Pope ? — the Bishops ? Oh, no ! no ! they imprisoned, and
shed the blood of the saints like water ; but, as an order of
ministers, they sided with antichrist till Henry quarrelled with
the Pope. For full proof of all this see Fox's Book of Martyrs.
Protestantism had its worst enemies amongst the apostolical
succession bishops. I rejoice to except, after that time, and record
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 263
with due praise, such hallowed names as Cranmer, Latimer,
Ridley, Hooper and Jewel ; but they are the exceptions and 7iot
the ride. And it must be confessed that, since that tiine, all the
persecution of the Puritans and Nonconformists originated gene-
rally with the Bishops. It is intolerable to see the public mind
abused by the grandiloquence often employed in speaking about
episcopacy as it has existed ; the blessing of Bishops ; of an
apostolical ministry coming through the hands of Bishops, &c.
Grotius has never been suspected of disaffection to episcopacy
or Bishops ; yet he speaks thus plainly — " Qui ecclesiasticam
historiani legit, quid legit nisi episcoporum vitia ? — He who reads
ecclesiastical history, what does he read but the vices of Bishops."*^
Let us distinguish between what things have been, and what
they ought to be. Every true minister is a Scriptural Bishop.
Every modern Bishop is a mere superintendent by the right of
human authority. Many excellent men have been found amongst
the Bishops. This office is important, and may be highly useful
under proper regulations. Hitherto it has been wanting in these
regulations in what are called Episcopal churches ; and it has
been, 07i the wholes the source of great evils to the church at large.
Let it be restored to its proper use. Then call that form of church
government by what name you please. No wise man will quar-
rel about names. Against a duly regulated episcopacy, as already
explained, we have nothing to say. Episcopacy by divine right
is a modern invention : it has been the source of much oppression.
The personal succession scheme, is a scheme adopted at present by
BIGOTS for the PURPOSE OF PERSECUTION. We have treated
both without ceremony. Both are false — both lead to Popery.
The succession of faith is the only succession essential to a
Christian church.
Accordingly, the Fathers took this as the only supreme and
essential rule of succession, viz. the preaching of the truth, of the
faith, of the doctrine taught by the Apostles. See the quotations
following ; also Sect. 6. Now who have been distinguished for
this apostolic preaching ?— the Bishops and the great succession-
men ? By no means ! Leave out the first 600 years ; they do not
belong to these men ; THEIR doctrine of succession was not then
held: the only essential succession then maintained was the succes-
sion of faith. Since that time — who have been distinguished for
d Grotii Epistolae, No. 22, p. 7, Amatel, 1 687.
/^ Of THK"*^^i„
ffTIHIVBRSITYl
264 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
apostolical preaching ? — the Bishops of Rome ? Nay, they have
generally not preached at all. Bishop Jewel in his day remark-
ed, " These 900 years, I say, since Gregory the first of that name,
(A.D. 604,) it can hardly he found that ever any Bishop of
Rome was seen in a pulpit.'' (Sermon on Matt. x. 9.) The
same thing is true, to a great extent, of all the Bishops of that
church, and of all the branches of it up to the Reformation.
Hear Bishop Jewel again, in his Sermon on 1 Cor. iv. 1,2, ''Christ
said unto Peter, Lovest thou me ? feed my sheep, feed my lambs,
feed my flock. But our great Clerkes, our Popes, our Cardinals,
our Bishops, would seldom or never make a sermon : they fed
not God's sheepe, they fed not God's lambs, they had no regard
to God's flocke : and how then would they say, they were the
ministers of Christ, and stewards of God's secrets ? I leave out
much of purpose, good brethren, I wittingly overpasse heere
many things else that I could say heerein : the time would faile
me, if I should rehearse unto you all those things wherein they
have 7nost shaynefully abused themselves.'' They were, as a
whole, the OPPOSERS and CORRUPTERS of the TRUTH. They
formed one continued heresy. The apostolical preachers were
the Waldenses, the Lollards, Wickliffe, Huss, aud their coad-
jutors ; none of them succession Bishops, nor their partizans,
but the very opposite, and generally out of this pretended suc-
cession. Since the Reformation, the Protestant churches in
general have been out of this pretended succession. Whether
the succession were true or false, the early Bishops of the church
of England claimed no exclusive rights and authority from it.
Luther, Calvin, Zuingle, P. Martyr, Melancthon, Sec. &c. were
not of it, as founders or reformers of churches. Since the time
of Bancroft and Laud, the Bishops and clergy of the church of
England have been greatly surpassed in apostolical preaching
by the Puritans, the Nonconformists, the Dissenters, and the
Methodists. The limits of this Essay allow not of an extended
comparison, but the thing speaks for itself. Laud's plan, but for
the Puritans, would have brought in Popery. The age of mere
rationalism in preaching was not a match for infidelity. It
wanted CHRIST CRUCIFIED, and the demonstration of the
Spirit. The reader may see some good observations and illus-
trations on the point of rational preaching by the leading divines
of the Establishment from about 1700, &c. in the Rev. Edward
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 265
Bickersteth's excellent work, " The Christian Student/' chap. 9,
sect. 6. The following passages from that work are strikingly
to the point. He quotes Dr. Vicesimus Knox, as saying, in his
" Christian Philosophy," that he who receives divine teaching
" will find that some of the most learned men, the most volumi-
nous writers on theological subjects, were totally ignorant of
Christianity. He will find that they were ingenious heathen
philosophers, assuming the name of Christians, and forcibly
paganizing Christianity for the sake of pleasing the world, of
extending their fame, and enjoying secular honors and lucrative
pre-eminence." Bishop Lavington, says Mr. Bickersteth, may
he introduced as another unexceptionable testimony on this sub-
ject. This Bishop says, addressing the clergy, (somewhere about
1 750) " My brethren, I beg you will rise up with me against moral
preaching. We have long been attempting the reformation of
the nation by discourses of this kind. With what success ? —
no7ie at all. On the contrary, WE HAVE DEXTEROUSLY PREACHED
THE PEOPLE INTO DOWNRIGHT INFIDELITY. We must change
our voice. We vnM^i preach Christ, and him crucified. Nothing
but the gospel is, nothing besides will be found to be, the power
of God unto salvation. Let me, therefore, again and again re-
quest, may I not add, let me charge you, to preach Jesus and
salvation through his name."
Mr. Bickersteth is an excellent man, and, on the whole, a
candid writer ; but it seems to have been too much for him, as it
has been for many other^ to do anything like justice to the
labours of the Wesleys and Whitfield, as instruments of Divine
Providence in the glorious revival of religion which has taken
place in this country since the beginning of the 18th century.
Any statement by the writer, as a Wesley an, might be thought
partial. It may not be amiss, therefore, to give the testimony of
the Rev. Dr. Haweis, himself a clergyman, from his History of
the Church in the Eighteenth Century. He says, " Through
the moralists in the pulpit, and the Deists in the press, Christianity
was reduced to a very emaciated figure. Even the Dissenters,
who affected greater purity of religion, had drank deep into the
general apostacy, and sunk into a worldly, careless spirit. The
Presbyterians, especially, diverged into the errors of Arianism.
The Independents were few, and but little attended to ; though
among them the sounder doctrines were maintained, but in
k2
266 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
general too cold and dead-hearted ; and the Baptists hardly had
a name. The Quakers, left to their silent meetings, were de-
clining and forgotten ; and the other sects sunk into insignifi-
cance. It was in this state of torpor and departure from truth
and godliness, (A.D. 1729,) that at Oxford, one of our Univer-
sities, a few, chiefly young men, began to feel the deplorable
spiritual ignorance and corruption around them. John and
Charles Wesley, the first and 7nost distinguished leaders in
this revival of evangelical truth, were brothers : the one Fellow
of Lincoln College, the other Student of Christ Church (College).
With these associated a number of other students, whose minds
were similarly affected. Mr. Ingham, Mr. Whitfield, and Mr.
Hervey, were afterwards peculiarly distinguished. The multi-
tudes which followed them were much affected : a great and
visible change was produced in the minds of many. The
attention paid to these ministers, and the blessing evident on
their labours, roused them to increasing vigorous exertions.
They were always at their work, preaching wherever they
could procure admittance into the churches.
" Though in age Mr, Whitfield was younger than the Wesley s,
yet in zeal and labours he had no superior : his amazing exerti-
ons are well known, and the effects of them were prodigious
through the whole land. He confined not his ministry to
England — Scotland enjoyed the benefit of his visits, and fur-
nished innumerable evidences of the power with which he
spoke: nor were his efforts restricted to Britain, but extended
to America, whither the Mr. Wesley s had first led the loay. —
Suffice it to observe, that by the labours of these indefatigable
men, a flood of gospel light broke upon the nation. At first they
were wholly confined to the Church of England, as their attach-
ment to it by education was strong : and had they been fixed in
any settled station, they had, not improbably, lived and died good
men, useful men, but unnoticed and unknown. A series of
Providences had designed them for greater and more extensive
usefulness. The churches growing unable to contain the crowds
which flocked after them, Mr. Whitfield first, at Bristol, (1739)
resolved to visit and preach to the wild colliers in the wood, who
had seldom attended any worship ; and his signal success among
them encouraged his persevering efforts. On his return to Lon-
don, he used the same means of field-preaching at Kennington
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 267
Common and Moorfields, being now generally excluded from the
churches, to which he had himself somewhat contributed, by
perhaps too severe animadversions on the clergy, as well as the
envy and disgust that his singular popularity had occasioned.
" Nor were Mr. John Wesley and his brother Charles less
zealously employed, but also took the field and preached every-
where. The congregations under the canopy of heaven were
prodigious : sometimes, indeed, riotous and insulting, but in
general solemn and attentive. By these labours multitudes were
daily added to the church of such as should be saved." Then,
after giving an account of the doctrines and discipline of the
Calvinistic and Wesleyan Methodists, he adds, " It is observa-
ble, that all these great bodies, though driven to worship in
places of their own erection, in order to secure the preaching of
such evangelical principles as they cannot find in the churches
in general, would be happy to have the cause removed, that hath
compelled tliem to these expedients : and were the bishops and
clergy zealous to inculcate the great fundamentals of gospel
truth, and to adorn the doctrine by a life of spiritual religion, the
greater part of these partial seced^rs would probably return to
the forms and worship of the Established Church. As it is,
their numbers every day increase ; and whilst carelessness and
lukewarmness cause the noblest edifices to be deserted, every
little meeting is crowded with hearers, whenever a minister
earnest and evangelical, labours from his heart for the salvation
of men's souls.
" Such has been the progress of what is called Methodism in
the greater bodies that more immediately bear that name : but it
has spread in a prodigious manner, both among those of the
Church, as well as the Dissenters from it, and has been the
means of rekindling the zeal of very many, so as to produce
ci vast alteration for the better in the conduct of thousands and
ten thousands. Predilection for the Establishment strongly at-
taches many to it, who have received their religious impressions
from, one or other of these Methodist societies, or from some of
their own clergy, who lie under the imputation of being metho-
distically inclined, that is, such as literally and with apparent
zeal inculcate the doctrinal articles they have subscribed, and
live in a state of greater piety and separation from the world,
than the generality of their brethren. The number of these i^
268 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
of late amazingly increased. Where before scarcely a man of
this stamp could be found, some hundreds, as rectors or curates
in the Established Church, inculcate the doctrines which are
branded with Methodism: and every where, throughout the
kingdom, one or more, and sometimes several, are to be found
within the compass of a few miles, who approve themselves
faithful labourers in the Lord's vineyard. They naturally as-
sociate among themselves, and separate from the corruption
which is in the world. Every where they carry the stamp of
peculiarity, and are marked by their brethren. Though care-
fully conforming to established rules, and strictly regular, they
are every where objects of reproach, because their conduct can-
not but reflect on those who choose not to follow such examples.
They pay conscientious attention to the souls of their parishion-
ers ; converse with them on spiritual subjects wherever they
visit ; encourage prayer and praise in the several families under
their care ; often meet them for these purposes ; and engage
them to meet and edify one another. Their exemplary conver-
sation procures them reverence from the poor of the flock, as their
faithful rebukes often bring upon them the displeasure of the
worldling, the dissipated, and the careless. They join in none
of the fashionable amusements of the age, frequent not the
theatres or scenes of dissipation, court no favour of the great, or
human respects ; their time and services are better employed in
the more important labours of the ministry, preaching the word
in season, out of season, and counting their work their best
wages. They labour, indeed, under many discouragements. All
the superior orders of the clergy shun their society. They have
been often treated by their diocesans with much insolence and
oppression. They can number 7io Bishop, nor scarcely a digni-
tary among tbem. Yet their number, strength, and respect-
ability, continue increasing. May they grow into a host, like
the host of God."
The whole view of these facts goes to shew, to demonstrate,
that God never confined his church to personal successions and
episcopal consecrations ; but the very reverse. The chief persons
in this pretended succession have been the principal corrupters
and opposers of the truth. Whenever gospel truth has been pre-
served against error, and a real revival of apostolic faith and
gospel holiness has been brought about, God has employed men
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 269
NOT in this scheme of succession. The gospel would have
PERISHED IF LEFT TO THIS SUCCESSION. Man comipts every-
thing. He is not to be trusted with so precious a treasure as
Christianity. God keeps his own work in his own hands. He^
and He only, holds the KEYS to the ministry of his word. He lets
no wolves, no wicked 7nen, into his fold. When a regular ministry-
is scriptural and pious, God greatly blesses it : it is an unspeaka-
ble blessing to the church. But when ministers forsake God,
God forsakes them. He then raises up others ; he sets his own
seal to their piety, doctrine, labours, and suflferings, by making
them abundantly successful in the conversion of sinners, and in
the edification and extension of his church. The residue of the
Spirit is with him. The hearts of all men are in his keeping.
He can raise up and qualify instruments for his work from any
quarter. The fishermen of Galilee — the poor men of Lyons —
the Hugonots in France — the Lollards in England — Luther, the
monk, in Germany — the Wesleys at Oxford — these, these have
been God's instruments ! Well ! let all human schemes perish
in their turn, when abused to prevent the progress of gospel truth
and holiness. The Lord liveth ! blessed be his holy name !
Blessed be his name, for his servants, for his martyrs, his con-
fessors, his holy ministers of every name : above all, blessed be
His holy name, for the unspeakable gift of his holy TRUTH
transmitted by the Sacred Scriptures, and a holy ministry
from generation to generation ! May it more than ever prevail !
and may the earth be filled with his glory! Amen ! Amen !
The only true succession essential to the existence of a
Christian church, then, is the succession of faith, of truth of
doctrine, and holiness of life. We shall insert some noble TESTI-
MONIES on this point, and then conclude the subject.
iRENiEUS : — " In the very book in which he employs the ar-
gument of succession, he says he brings his ^demonstrations,^ not
from persons, but * from the scriptures :' — which scriptures are
henceforward to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. In
Book 4, c. 43-45, he says, we are ' to obey those Presbyters who
have the divine gift of the Faith ;^ that we are ^\o forsake' all
wicked ministers ; and are to learn from such as have this divine
gift of the Truth:'
Tertullian : — " But if the heretics feign or fabricate such a
(personal) succession, this will not help them. For their DOC-
270 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
TRINE a"^8e^ compared with the doctrine of the Apostles, will,
by its own diversity aud contrariety, pronounce against them.
To THIS form of trial will appeal be made by those churches
henceforward daily establishing, which though they have neither
any of the Apostles, nor apostolical men for their founders, yet
all agreeing in the SAME FAITH, are, from this consanguinity of
doctrine, to be esteemed 7iot the less apostolicalthsin the former." ^
Cyprian : — Referring to Stephen, Bishop of Rome, pleading
tradition for what Cyprian believed to be a great error, answers,
" What does he mean by tradition ? Does he mean the authority
of Christ in the Gospels, and of the Apostles in their Epistles ? —
let this tradition be sacred : for if we return to this Head and
Original of divine tradition, human error will cease. If the
channel of the water of life, at first coming down in large and
copious flow, should suddenly fail, should we not return to the
Fountain? — If the channel becomes corrupted and leaky, so
that the water does not flow constantly and regularly, it must be
repaired in order to the supply of water to the citizens coming
down from the Fountain. This ought the ministers of God now
to do, observing as their RULE the divine precepts, that if any
thing has tottered and shaken from the truth, it should be
restored to the authority of Christ, the Evangelists, and the
Apostles ; and all our proceedings are to take their RISE there,
whence all order and divine authority rise — FOR CUSTOM WITH-
OUT TRUTH is ONLY ANTIQUATED ERROR. Therefore, forsaking
error^let us follow the truth, knowing that, as in Esdras's
opinion, truth is victorious, so it is written, ' truth remains and
prevails for ever,' it lives and reigns through endless ages.
Neither is there with truth any distinction or respect of persons,
but only that which is just it ratifies ; neither is there in the
jurisdiction of truth any iniquity; but the strength, and dominion,
and the majesty and power of all generations. Blessed be the
God of truth ! This truth Christ shews in the gospel, saying,
' I am the truth.' Therefore if we be in Christ and Christ in
us ; if we remain in the truth, and the truth abide in us, let us
hold those things which are of the truth." ^
Gregory Nazianzen :— In his Oration in praise of Athana-
sius, speaking of his election as Bishop of Alexandria to the chair
of St. Mark the Evangelist, who is supposed to have founded that
De Praescript, c. 32. « Epist. 74, edit. Pamel. 1589,
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 271
church, says that Athaiiasius was " not less the successor of
St. Mark's piety, than he was of his pre-eminence. For if,"
says he, " you consider Athanasius only as one in the number of
Bishops of Alexandria, he was the most remote from St. Mark :
but if you regard his piety, you find him the very next to him.
This succession of piefi/ ought to be esteemed the true succession.
For he who maintains the same doctrine of faith, is partner in
the same chair ; but he who defends a contrary doctrine, ought,
though in the chair of St. Mark, to be esteemed an adversary to
it. This man, indeed, may have a nominal succession, but the
other has the very thing itself the SUCCESSION IN deed and in
TRUTH. Neither is he who icsurps the chair by violent means
to be esteemed in the succession ; but he who is pressed into the
office : not he who violates all law in his election, but he who is
elected in a manner consistent with the laws of the case : not
he who holds doctrines opposed to what St. Mark taught, but he
who is indued with the same faith as St. Mark. Except,
indeed, you intend to maintain SUCH a succession as that of
sickness succeeding to health; light swcceedimg io darkness ; a
storm to a calm; and ?nadness succeeding to soundness of mind!
It was not with Athanasius as it is sometimes with tyrants,
who, being suddenly raised to the throne, break out into acts of
violence and excess : such conduct as this is the mark of adul-
terate and spurious Bishops, and who are unworthy of the dignity
to which they are raised. These having no previous qualifica-
tions for their office, never having borne the trials of virtue,
commence disciples and masters at the same time, and attempt to
consecrate others whilst unholy themselves. Yesterday they were
guilty of sacrilege — to-day they are made ministers of the sanc-
tuary ; yesterday they were ungodly — to-day they are made
Reverend Fathers in God : old in sin, ignorant of piety, and
having proceeded by violence in all the rest, (as not being in-
fluenced by divine but human motives,) they crown the whole by
exercising THEIR TYRANNY UPON PIETY ITSELF." ^
St. Ambrose : — " They have not the inheritance, are not the
successors of Peter, who have not Peter's faith." '
Calvin : — " We have pretty opponents to deal with, who, when
they are clearly convicted of corrupting the doctrines and wor-
ship of Christianity, then take shelter under the pretence that
b Athanasii 0pp. vol. 2. Appendix, edit Paris, 1627. ' De Poenitentia, Lib. 1, cap. 6.
272 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
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 maintained. To
this examination, confident of the goodness 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 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, main-
tain that he was the lawful heir. The Popedom, indeed, differs
more from that government which the Apostles established, than
the most cruel and bloody tyranny ever differed from the best con-
stituted government for the establishment of civil liberty. Who
would tolerate the tyrant, that, having murdered the rightful
sovereign, only gloried in the usurpation of his name ? No less
is their impudence, who, having ruined that government which
Christ commanded and the Apostles established, make a pretence
of succession for the support of their tyranny. For, suppose that
such a7i mibroken line, as they pretend, really existed, yet if their
apostleship had perished, (and it necessarily did by their cor-
ruption 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 ? Except, indeed, as an heir succeeds to the dead, so
they, true piety being extinct amongst them, succeed to domina-
tion. 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, / deny the suc-
cession scheme, as a thing utterly without foundation. ^^ ^
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." ^
Peter Martyr : — " It is a most trifling thing which they,"
(the Papists,) "object against us," (the Reformers,) "that we
want the right successio7i. It is quite enough for us that we
have succeeded to the faith which the Apostles taught, and
'' Calvini Vera Eccles. Ref. Ratio. i Loci Com. de Sigais monst. Eccles. ed. Erlang. 1838.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 273
which was maintained by the Holy Fathers in the best ages of
the church." '"
Zanchius : — " For we know that, as, on the one hand, where
true doctrine ALONE, without a continued succession of Bishops
from the beginning, can be shewn to exist, there is a true church,
and a true and legitimate ministry ; so, on the other hand, where
personal succession alone is boasted of, the purity of true christian
doctrine having departed, there is NO legitiinate ministry ; see-
ing that both the church, and the ministry of the church, are
bound NOT to persons, but to the word of God." "
Bradford the Martyr :— The Popish Archdeacon, Harps-
field, is examining him. ^^ Harpsjield : It (the Romish church)
hath also successio?i of Bishops. And here he made much ado
to prove that this was an essential point. Bradford: You say
as you would have it ; for if this point fail you, all the church
that you go about to set up will fall down. You WILL NOT
FIND IN ALL THE SCRIPTURE THIS YOUR ESSENTIAL POINT
OF THE SUCCESSION OF BiSHOPS. In Christ's church Anti-
christ will sit. — The ministry of God's word and ministers be
an essential point. But to translate this to the Bishops and
their succession, is a plain subtilty. And therefore that it may
be plain, I will ask you a question, — Tell me, whether that the
Scripture knew ani/ difference between Bishops and ministers,
which ye call Priests, (Presbyters) ? Harpsfield: No. Brad-
ford : Well, then go on forward and let us see what ye will
get now by the succession of Bishops ; that is, of ministers,
which can be understood of such Bishops as minister not, but
Lord if. Harpsfield: I perceive that ye are far out of the
way. ' Bradford: If Christ or his Apostles being here on
earth had been required by the Prelates of the church then, to
have made a demonstration of that church by succession of sicch
High Priests as had approved the doctrines which he taught, I
think that Christ would have done as I do, that is, (he would)
have alleged that which upholdeth the church, even the verity,
the WORD OF God taught and believed, not by the High Priests
which of long time had persecuted it, but by the Prophets and
other good simple men, which perchance were counted for here-^
tics of the church, which church was not tied to succession, but to
the word of God. '^ ""
m Loci Com. Class. 4, cap. 1.
" Zanchii (confessio) Fidei, cap. 25, § 19. <> Fox's Acts and Monuments, vol. S, p. 293, &c. fol. ed. 1641
L 2
274 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
Bishop Jewel : — " The grace of God is promised to pions
souls, and to those who fear God ; and is not affixed to Bishops'
chairs, and (personal) succession. ^^ — Apology. " For that ye tell
so many fair tales about Peter's Succession, we demand of you
wherein the Pope succeedeth Peter ? You answer. He succeed-
ed him in his chair ; as if Peter had been some time installed in
Rome, and had solemnly sat all day with his triple crown, in his
Pontificalibus, 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 antichrist
easily sit in Peter's chair." p
Whitaker : — After briefly noticing Bellarmine's reference
to the Fathers, Irenseus, Tertullian, &c., he replies, " In the
first place, I answer in general, that I might justly reject all
these human testimonies, and require some clear testimony out of
the Scriptures. For this is the constant determination of all the
catholic Fathers, that nothing is to be received or approved in
religion which does not rest on the testimony of Scripture, and
which cannot be proved and established by the Scriptures. But
the Fathers did not use this argument of personal succession as
a firm and solid argument of itself, but as a kind of illustration
of their main argument : they did not employ it to win the battle,
but by way of triumph after victory. For when they had, by
solid and powerful arguments out of the Scriptures, conquered
their enemies, and established their cause ; then, by way of
triumph, they brought forward the succession of Bishops in this
manner : the Bisliops hold this faith as they received it from the
Apostles ; therefore this is the catholic faith. This argument
proves not that the succession of 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 succession ;
which faith being wanting, the naked succession of persons is
like a dead carcase without the soul.^' '^
Field : — " Thus still we see that truth of doctrine is a
necessary note whereby the church must be known and dis-
p Defence of Apology, p. 634, ed. 1609. q Whitakeri Opp. Vol. I. p. 506, fol, ed. Getiev. 1610.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 275
cerned, and not ministry or succession, or any thing else,
without it.'"
White :— Tiie Jesuit objects that " The Protestant church
is not apostolic, because they cannot derive their pedigree lineally
•without interruption from the Apostles, as the Roman church
can from St. Peter, but are enforced to acknowledge some other,
as Calvin, or Luther, or some such," &c. Query — have not
Dr. Hook, Mr. Palmer, &c., stolen their objections to the
Cliurches of the Reformation from the Jesuits' school ? White
says, " Our answer is, that the succession required to make a
church apostolike, must be defined by the doctrine^ and not by
the place or persons. — Wheresoever the true faith containedin the
Scriptures is professed and embraced^ there is the whole and full
nature of an apostolike church, — For THE EXTERNAL SUCCESSION
WE CARE NOT." *
Francis White, Bishop of Ely:— "The true visible
church is named Apostolical, not because of local and personal
succession of Bishops, (only or principally), but because it re-
taineth the Faith and Doctrine of the Apostles. Personal or
local succession only, and in itself, maketh not the church apos-
tolical, because hirelings and wolves may lineally succeed lawful
and orthodox pastors : Acts xx. 29, 30. Eve7i as sickness sue-
ceedeth healthy and darkness light, and a tempest fair weather, as
Gregory Nazianzen affirm eth." *
Stillingfleet : — " Come we, therefore, to Rome ; and here
the succession is as muddy as the Tiber itself. Then let suc-
cession know its place, and learn to vaile bonnet to the Scriptures.
The succession so much pleaded by the writers of the primitive
church, was not a succession of persons in apostolical power, but
A succession in apostolical doctrine." "
Bishop Hall : — " First, we may not either have or expect
now in the church, that ministry which Christ set : where are
our apostles, prophets, evangelists ? If we must always look for
the very same administration of the church which our Saviour
left, why do we not acknowledge these extraordinary functions ?
Do we not rather think, since it pleased him to begin with those
offices which should NOT continue, that herein he purposely
» Field on the Church, Book 2, chap. 6. » White's Way to the True Church, 5 52, ed. 1612.
t Bishop White's Works, p. 64, fol. ed. 1624.
u Stillingfleet'8 Irenicum, pp. 297, 303, 322, edit. 1662.
276 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
intended to teach us, that if we have the same heavenly business
done, we should not be curious in the circumstances of the per-
sons ? But for those ordinary callings of Pastors and Doctors,
(intended to perpetuitie), with what forehead can he deny them
io be in our church ? How many have we that conscionably
teach and feed, or rather feed by teaching ? Call them what you
please. Superintendents, (that is) Bishops, Prelates, Priests,
Lecturers, Parsons, Vicars, &c. If they preach Christ
TRULY, upon true inward abilities, upon a sufficient (if not
perfect) outward vocation : such a one {all histories witness)
for the substance, as hath been ever in the church since the
Apostles' times, they are Pastors and Doctors allowed by Christ.
We stand not upon circumstances and appendances of the fashions
of ordination, manner of choice, attire, titles, maintenance : but
if for substance these be NOT true Pastors and Doctors, Christ had
NEVER any in his church since the Apostles left the earth.'^"" Again,
speaking of the Reformed churches and their government and
ministers, Calvin, Beza, &c., and of the church of England, he
says to his opponent, "Why, like a true make-bate, do you not
say, that our churches have so renounced their government.
These sisters" — the church of England and the Reformed
churches — " have learned to differ, and yet to love and reverence
each other : and in these cases to enjoy their own forms, without
prescription of necessity OR CENSURE." "^
The Rev. J. Wesley : — " I deny that the Romish bishops
came down by uninterrupted succession from the Apostles. I
never could see it proved ; and I am persuaded I never shall.
But unless this is proved, your own pastors, on your principles,
are no pastors at all." ^ " The figment of the uninterrupted
succession, he openly said ' he knew to be a fable.' " ^
Here is a glorious army of Martyrs and Confessors,
venerable Fathers and Reformers, bearing testimony to the
07ily essential succession, the succession oi Apostolical Doctrine !
Truth and holiness, then, are the only infallible, essential
properties or signs of the church of God ; and the Scriptures are
the ONLY infallible rule of this truth and holiness. God gives
ministers to his church, as the means of leading men to the
knowledge and belief of this truth, and to live accordingly; but
V Bishop Hall's Apology against Brownists, \ 27. ^ Ibid. \ 31.
X Wesley's Works, Vol. 3, p. 44, ed. 1829. y Watson's Life of Wesley, p. 286, 12mo. 1831.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 277
every man is required, at tlie peril of his soul, to believe, not in
man, but in God ; not in ministers, but in the Scriptures. So
saith St. Augustine : " Nunquarn aliquis Ajiostolorum dicere
auderei^ qui credit in me, Credimus Apostolo, sed non credimus
IN Apostolum — No Apostle ever dared to say * He who believes
in me.' We believe an Apostle, but v^e do not believe in an
Apostle." '
It follows, as a consequence, that as every man is to believe
for himself, every man is Xo judge for himself. The Papists say
that God has made the church the infallible guide in matters of
faith. God never said so. Let no man deceive himself. But
the position is a sophism from beginning to end : it takes for
granted what ought to be proved. It takes for granted that
ministers, bishops and priests, are the church. This is contrary
to the Scriptures. When our Lord said to Peter, " On this rock
will I build my church,'' the Papists say, that he meant he would
build his church upon Peter and his successors ; i. e. upon the
bishops of Rome, and the other bishops and priests under them.
Build what, upon Peter and his successors ? Why, if bishops
and priests are the church, that he would build bishops and
priests upon bishops and priests! Peter upon Peter! that he
would build a thing upon itself! This is hardly equalled by the
poor south sea islanders, building the world upon a turtle, and the
turtle upon nothing ! Our Lord's meaning was, that his church,
his faithful people, should be founded upon the truth of his being
the Messiah, the Son of the living God. When the Apostle
addresses the Presbyters or Bishops of Ephesus — " Take heed
therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which
the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of
God, which he hath purchased with his own blood," Acts xx. 28,
he clearly makes the '^ church of God" to mean "they^c^," as
distinguished FROM the shepherds ; i. e. the PEOPLE as distin-
guished FROM the MINISTERS. It is true, indeed, that ministers
are a part of the church generally ; but to say that they are the
church, and upon this partial statement to found a most awfully
important claim, the claim of infallibility and lordship over the
faith of all the people of God, is a daring, false, and impious
position ! — Such is the foundation of Popery. But they
say, the right of private judgment runs into sects and heresies,
z Aagiistini 0pp. v. 9, Tract 54, in Evang. Joan. p. 133, ed. Lug^d. 1664.
278 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
and they make a mighty parade about this. Perhaps many of
them do not understand what they say. This is their best
excuse. If they mean to say that the Protestant churches have,
as to the succession of faith, as taught by the Apostles, gone into
sects and heresies, let them shew a single true Protestant society
that does not hold and teach what the Apostles held and taught.
As they boast of the Fathers, let them produce a single creed
from any of the Fathers, for the first 300 years, that is not
believed by every true Protestant church. Now if they cannot
do this, where is the honesty of talking about sects and heresies
arising from private judgment ? But we turn the tables upon
the Papists : they have added many Articles to the Creed which
the Apostles never taught : they have corrupted the truth of God
and perverted the Gospel. They have brought heresies and
idolatry into the church by wholesale. No Popish priest under
heaven can prove the Popish Creed of Pope Pius IV. (the uni-
versal creed oii\\e Popish church) from the Scriptures, nor from
the Fathers of the first 300 years. They have lost the succession
of Faith. That church is in a state of heresy and idolatry : it
is an APOSTATE CHURCH !
The priesthood of papists and high churchmen may be an
imitation of Judaism or Paganism, or it may be a compound of
both ; but it is not, as a priesthood, the Christian ministry ; and
no man in it is a gospel minister at all, any further than he is
such according to the above principles of Protestantism. The
priesthood of Papists and high churchmen, professedly and
essentially depends upon an uninterrupted succession of Bishops,
to be traced in an unbroken series from Peter to the present day ;
and upon the authority of Episcopal consecrations, or ordinations
as Episcopal. Now no such uninterrupted succession exists.
Episcopal consecration or ordination, as such, that is, as distinct
from the power of their order as Presbyters, is a mere ceremony ;
it has no scriptural validity whatever. Both popery and high
churchism erect in the priesthood a system of spiritual tyranny
over the whole church of God. The succession here is, as
Gregory Nazianzen describes it, " the succession of sickness
to health ; light succeeding to darkness ; a storm to a calm ;
and spiritual derangement to the spirit of health, and of
love, and of a sound mind." Or, as Bishop Jewel states it, " it
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 279
is like Caiaphas succeeding to Aaron : Manasses succeeding to
David ; or Antichrist sitting in Peter's chair."
The Protestant churches are 07ie in their rule of faith. Chil-
lingworth's immortal words shall be here inserted: ** Know then,
Sir, that when I say the Religion of Protestants is in prudence
to be preferred before yours ; as, on the one side, I do not under-
stand by your religion the doctrine of Bellarmine or Baronius, or
any other private man amongst you, nor the doctrine of the
Sorbon, or of the Jesuits, or of the Dominicans, or of any other
particular company among you, but that wherein you all agree,
or profess to agree, the Doctrine of the COUNCIL OF TRENT : so
accordingly, on the other side, by the Religion of Protestants, T do
not understand the Doctrine of Luther, or Calvin, or Melanchthon ;
nor the confession of Augusta, or Geneva, nor the Catechism of
Heidelberg, nor the Articles of the Church of England, no nor
the Harmony of Protestant Confessions ; but that wherein they
all agree, and which they all subscribe with a greater harmony,
as a perfect rule of their faitJi and actions, that is, the Bible.
The Bible, 1 say, the Bible only^ is the religion of Protestants !
Whatsoever else they believe, besides it, and the plain, irrefraga-
ble, indubitable consequences of it, wellmay they hold it as a
matter of opinion : but as matter of faith and religion, neither
can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it them-
selves, nor require the belief of it of others, without most high
and most schismatical presumption. I, for my part, after a long
and (as 1 verily believe and hope) impartial search of the true
way to eternal happiness, do profess plainly, that I cannot find
any rest for the sole of my foot, but upon this Rock only. I
see plainly, and with mine own eyes, that there are Popes against
Popes, Councils against Councils, some Fathers against others,
the saine Fathers agai^ist themselves, a consent of Fathers of one
age against a consent of Fathers of another age, the church of
one age against the church of another age. Traditive interpre-
tations of Scripture are pretended, but there are few or none to
be found : no tradition but only of Scripture, can derive itself
from the Fountain, but may be plainly proved, either to have been
brought in, in such an age after Christ ; or that in such an age
it was not in. In a word, there is no sufficient certainty but of
Scripture ONLY, for any considering man to build upon. This,
therefore, and this only, I have reason to believe: this I will
280 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
profess, according to tliis I will live ; and for this, if there he
occasion, I will not only willingly, hut even gladly lose my life,
though I should he sorry that Christians should take it from me.
Propose me any thing out of this Book, and require whether I
believe it or no, and, seem it neveiLso incomprehensible to human
reason, I will subscribe it with Mnd and heart, as knowing no
demonstration can be stronger than this, — God hath said so,
therefore it is true. In other things, I will take no man's liberty
of judgment from him ; neither shall any man take mine from
me. I will think no man the worse man, nor the worse Chris-
tian : I will love no man the less for differing in opinion from
me. And what measure I mete to others I expect from them
again. I am fully assured that God does not, and therefore that
men ought not, to require any more of any man than this,
To believe the Scriptures to be God's word, to endeavour to find
the true sense of it, and to live according to it." *
The true Protestant churches, then, have the true succession,
the succession of the faith of the Apostles, the doctrine of truth
as taught by the Apostles. This is in the Bible, and in the
Bible alone. All held besides this, as articles of faith ^ or as
divinely binding in obedience^ is a CORRUPTION of CHRISTIANITY.
Let the Protestant churches remember their high privileges :
let them bless God for them,, and endeavour to the utmost to keep
their trust pure and undefiled. Let the people honor their
MINISTERS AS AMBASSADORS FOR Christ. The great aim
of Papists and Seini-papists is to lead the people to despise THEIR
MINISTERS. Why do they do this? Why? that they may
make a prey of the people. Do they offer io feed them as pastors ?
it will be with the husks of tradition. Do they claim to govern
them ? — it will be as lords over God's heritage. Do they offer
them liberty ? — it is that they may lead them into bondage. God
has made the Protestant churches free ; may they stand fast in
their liberty, and never be entangled again with the yoke
of bondage !
God has always had a church, a spiritual people ; he always
will have a spiritual people, a true church. This church is a holy
church : no body of people, as distinguished by human arrange-
ments, is so. Ungodly people are found among all denominations ;
most particularly amongst papists and high churchmen.
» The Religion of Protestants, c. 6, \ 56.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 281
The church of God is a Catholic church, consisting of all
the true worshippers of God every where : no denomination of
Christians ever was Catholic, i. e. universal. The expression,
Jioma?i Catholic, is a solecism — is nonsense — is absurd ! It is as
much as to say, A PARTICULA|r UNIVERSAL, that A PART IS THE
WHOLE, that A CITY IS THE ^^ORLD ! !
Tlie true Catholic church is the same in all ages, as well as
in all places. It is made up of Patriarchs and Prophets, Martyrs
and Confessors, and true believers : " I say unto you, that many
shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with
Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven:"
Matt. viii. 11. " After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude,
which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and
people, aud tongues, stood before the throne, and before the
Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands ; and
cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which
sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb :" Rev. vii. 9, 10.
M2
CONCLUSION.
The argument of this Essay is now finished ; and the high
church scheme of an order of Bishops, by divine rights distinct
from, and superior to Presbyters ; possessing prerogatives in-
compatible with Presbyters ; having the rights and authority of
Apostles ; which order of Bishops is to be traced by a PERSONAL
succession, through an unbroken line from Peter to the present
Bishops of England ; and whose ordinations are so essential to
the validity of a true gospel ministry, that without them all
preaching and ordinances are " vain," and without the '^promise
of Christ:'^ this scheme has been examined in its fundamental
positions, and has been shewn to be a BASELESS FABRIC,
calculated only to destroy the peace of the church, and to pro-
mote pride, bigotry, exclusiveness, intolerance and persecution ;
in one word, TO DESTROY PROTESTANTISM, AND
TO PROMOTE POPERY. It has been proved, on the other
hand, with all the evidence of a Catholic or universal doctrine
of the Christian church, that Bishops and Presbyters are, by
divine right, ONE and the SAME. Presbyters have been shewn
by the Scriptures, the only and sufficient authority in such mat-
ters, to have, by divine right, equal power and authority
with any Bishops to perform all the acts of the Christian
ministry ; instancing, especially, that of ordaining ministers.
Presbyters are equally as much successors of the Apostles as
Bishops are. The only essential succession is the succession
of Faith. All churches are apostolical or not, in proportion as
they approach to, or recede from, the doctrine of the Apostles.
An unbroken line oi personal descent oi spiritual power to ordain
in the English Bishops, is a fable. No man ever did, or ever
can prove it. In addition to all this, we have shewn, that when
examined by the Scriptures, and the doctrine of the Reformers,
the Popish ordinations of the English Bishops, before and at the
Reformation, were, from the monstrous wickedness, heresy, and
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 283
sitnony of the persons concerned, NULL and VOID to all intents
and purposes. The validity of the ordination of the ministers of
tlie church of England, as well as that of the ministers of all
other churches, must be judged, therefore, according to the Scrip-
tural rule of the succession of doctrine ; the qualifications of the
men in personal ^02^/"^, ahilitij to teach, ministerial grace ^ the call
of God, and their appointment to the work in a manner suitable
to the Scriptures.
A few brief observations, as COROLLARIES, may be added.
Ministers are God's gifts, and God's stewards in the church:
The Scriptures regularly speak in this style: — The Lord
se?ids the labourers into his vineyard. Matt. ix. 28. The Lord
appoints ministers as the stewards of his household, to give them
their portion of meat in due season. Matt. xii. 42. Jesus, as the
Chief Shepherd, brings in by himself, as the door, all true Shep-
herds, When he ascended up on high. He gave to the church
pastors, &c. Ephes. iv. 11, 12. They are to rule by His word
and will. Their office, we have shewn, is a limited office : they
are servants, not masters, nor lords over tlie heritage. None but
such as these can be true ministers of the gospel. GoD QUALI-
FIES THEM, moves them, AND SENDS THEM. Where no
church is formed, they gather one. Where churches are formed,
he moves and directs his church, if attentive to his will, to receive
all he sends.
Every minister of the gospel must be a real Christian, not a
wicked man ; a man of some natural ability, not a fool ; endowed
with knowledge of the gospel, not a novice ; able to teach and to
convince gainsayers. Besides all this, he must have a special
gift of the Holy Ghost for the work, Rom. xii. 6; 1 Cor. xii.
4-7 ; Ephes. iv. 7, &c. Every such man has a divme coinmission
in GENERAL to preach the gospel : but he has 7io AUTHORITY
in any particular church, as a pastor or governor over that
church. To constitute him a regular pastor in a particular
church, he must be solemnly received as such by the regular
authority of that church. The mode of constituting a minister
in a particular church may vary according to circumstances.
If it be in a state of persecution, or reformation, the full reception
of his ministry establishes him as the minister of that churcli :
if it be in a settled state, he must be constituted or instituted a
minister according to the usages of that church. Scripture, and
284 aN APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
all antiquity, and the generality of the reformed churches, shew
this should be done by the laying on of the hands of the presby-
tery, i. e. of those ministers appointed by their wisdom, gravity,
and experience to such office in the church. Only it should be
kept in mind, that this form, though authorized by such high
examples, is never commanded. It is becoming and proper, but
not essential. It is pretty clear that the early ordinations were
sometimes performed by the ^ lifting up of the liands of those
who ordained. So the word x"?®'^^"'^'^* used in the ordaining of
Elders or Presbyters in all the churches by Paul and Barnabas,
properly means. Acts xiv. 23. Any act, indeed, by the authority
of the church, setting men apart to this office, is ordination. This
public authorized act, is all that belongs to the essence of ordina-
tion ; all beside is accident or circumstance. All ministers
are EQUAL, by DIVINE RIGHT, in every thing that belongs to the
being or well being of the church. The chureh may arrange for
one or more to perform, for the sake of order, any particular
duty, so that no attempt is made to claim for such acts or
arrangements more than human authority. The moment this
is done, such a claim makes war on the rights of other ministers,
and on the peace of the church.
The EFFICACY of a gospel ministry depends, as to God, upon
the authority and power of the word of God, and upon the ope-
rations of the Spirit of God ; and, as to man, upon the fai^h and
obedience of the hearers. The mere preaching and administering
of sacraments, as the ACT of the minister, has in itself no saving
efficacy. The opus operatum, or the doctrine of papists and
high churchmen, that the mere outward performance of the
offices and ordinances of religion necessarily produces inward
religion, is priestcraft, and destroys many of the SOULS of
the people. The blind lead the blind, and both fall into the
ditch. This abuse of the ministry of the gospel is no argument
b I am aware that attempts have been made to refute this by saying that the word ystpoTOVEW
means to institute a person in some office. Very true. So balloting or voting frequently does the
same. But this is only part of the truth. Expressions of this kind frequently declare the manner
of doing this, as well as the thing itself ; so voting by a shew of hands, expresses the manner, as weU
as the thing. The Greeks, from whom the word is taken, frequently institued individuals in
office by a shew of hands. The text in Acts 14 and 23, uses the very word applied to the institution
of an individual in office among the Greeks, by a shew of hands. Among them therefore it signified
to ordain or appoint to office by a shew of hands. The sacred writer says that "Paul and Barnabas
thus instituted, i.e. ordaified Presbyters in every Church ; they ordained them, therefore, by lifting up
their hands in solemn attestation that they so instituted them as Ministers of the word. Such seems
to be the legitimate conclusion both from the language, and from the customs of the Greeks.
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 285
against its icse and importance. The gospel ministry is God's
ordinance. It is a highly important ordinance ; and, when
properly performed, is highly useful. Is it not vastly important
to know, that God has sent to us ambassadors of peace ; though
the authority, and power, and efficacy of this embassy, are really
all divine ? — Is it not highly useful to find, that, as to those who
believe and obey that efiibassi/, GOD WILL receive them by it into
pardon and peace ; to holiness and heaven? "Who then is
Paul, and who is ApoUos, but ministers by whom ye believe,
even as the Lord gave to every man ? I have planted, ApoUos
watered ; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he
that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth ; but God that
giveth the increase :" 1 Cor. iii. 5-7.
The CHURCH OF God is the Temple, the House of God:
This church is to be considered as universal or particular ;
the church universal includes all upon earth who are united to
Christ by living faith ; and all who are united to Christ by living
faith, belong to this church. It includes all particular churches
that hold the Faith of Christ.
Thus spake the English Reformers in their definition of the
holy catholic or universal church: — " It comprehends all assem-
blies of men over the whole world that receive the Faith of Christ;
who ought to hold an UNITY of LOVE and BROTHERLY AGREE-
MENT together, by which they become members of the CATHOLIC
church." •^ A particular church is a church distinguished out-
wardly by some peculiar views in doctrine or modes of worship,
government, or discipline, from other churches. Each particular
church has equal rights and privileges with any other church.
None have a right to interfere with the just liberties of other
churches. Civil or national establishments may have peculiar
emoluments, but they can have no divine authority to restrain the
peaceable exercise of spiritual duties in other churches. When
they do, they become ANTICHRISTIAN.
Church government :
By this is meant the system of ecclesiastical arrangement and
discipline of some particular church. This church government
must be distinguished into what is general, and what is particular;
the principle, and the application in detail of that principle. The
New Testament lays down general principles, but gives NO
c Burnet's History of th« Reformation, Book 3, Anno 1540.
286 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
PARTICULAR FORM of cliurcli government in detail. All church
government is scriptural that abides by the general principles of
the New Testament, however it may vary in detail. All church
government is unscriptural that violates any of the general prin-
ciples laid down in Scripture, no matter what may be their form
in detail. The following are general Scriptural principles : —
As to the relations between ministers and people : — ministers
are to feed and rule the people according to the word of God :
the people are to submit to such a ministry, to honor and support
such ministers. This is clear from the following passages : —
Matt. xxiv. 45 ; Luke x. 7 ; Acts xx. 28 ; 1 Cor. ix. 7-14 ; Gal.
vi. 6-8; 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5 ; Heb. xiii. 17. Any limitation of this
power in ministers, by the exercise of lay influence, is scriptural,
so long as it leaves the minister in possession of that authority
by which he can regularly, when needful^ exercise the power of
governing, as well as of feeding the flock. All beyond this is
unscriptural. The people RULING the minister^ is the sheep
RULING the shepiherdl It is absurd, as well as unscriptural.
It will always lead to the corruption of the truth in a man-
pleasing ministry. It is as inimical to holiness of life, as it is to
truth of doctrine : discipline will be relaxed, the hedge of the
Lord's vineyard will be broken down, and the wild boar of the
wilderness will spoil the vine. When ministers are, in them-
selves, or in their ministry and government, clearly contrary to
the Scriptures, they lose their authority, and the obligation of the
people to obey them ceases ; see Section 4th of this Essay.
As to ministers with ministers : they are all, by divine right,
equal. They are all to aim at edification, order, and efficiency.
Gifts differ. Some men have talents for government, some for
Evangelists, some for Pastors. It is consonant to the gifts of
the Holy Ghost that the church should arrange for each man to
occupy that place for which he is most qualified, and which will
most promote the order and edification of the church. Any such
arrangement is warranted by the gifts of the Holy Ghost, by
reasons of order and edification, and by the judgment of the
greatest and best men of all ages. AH these human arrange-
ments must be subordinate to, and in accordance with, the great
principle, that all ministers are, by divine right, equal. The
moment they violate this principle, they become unscriptural.
They set up human authority above the word of God — all other
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 287
ministers are degraded — war is made upon the peace of the
church — antichrist begins to reign.
As this is a point of so great importance, a little enlargement
will be in strict accordance with the design of this Essay :
Scriptural Episcopacy is, strictly, the feeding and govern-
ing of the flock ; and has nothing to do with governing ministers.
Every true minister is a Scriptural Bishop ; see Section 5th.
Scriptural church polity, as appears by the gifts of the
Holy Ghost, by the example of the Apostles, by the duty of doing
all to edification, allows of, and countenances, such prudential
arrangements amongst the ministers, as that some should have
7nore enninenthi the office of governing in the church, presiding
in the councils of ministers, &c. ; and that others should more
particularly labour as Evangelists, as Pastors, as Doctors or
Teachers ; others as Apostles or Missionaries. This arrange-
ment must never interfere with the principle that the act of every
TRUE minister in preaching, baptizing, administering the Lord's
Supper, and ordaining to the ministry, or governing the church,
is, by divine right, equal to that of any other minister. A super-
intendency thus restricted and guarded, is not antiscriptural :
it violates no law laid down there : it is recommended by the
distribution of the gifts of the Holy Ghost: no ecclesiastical ty-
ranny can be exercised by it : it promotes order, union, strength,
and the edification of the wliole. Call it Episcopacy, if you please :
the name is not very important, only define the thing. 1 think
the term Episcopacy is not to be commended, because by Episco-
pus or Bishop, the Scriptures never mean a Superintendent of
Ministers, but only oiiliejkx^k; and because the use of the word
in ecclesiastical writers has become ambiguous ; and will, there-
fore, always leave room for cavilling, and pretences to ecclesi-
astical tyranny. It is against the strictest rules of right reason
designedly to put an ambiguous word into a definition ; the man
that does it is a promoter of confusion, and not of peace.
Episcopacy in the Church of England, viewed as the Re-
formers viewed it, was, in other words, a Superintendency of
no more than human authority, designed for the order, edification,
and good government of the church, established on the principle
that all ministers, by divine right, are equal. All her ministers,
who are qualified by piety, talents, and divine knowledge ; by
the special gifts of the Holy Ghost moving them to the work of
288 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
the ministry ; and who are solemnly set apart to it according to
the usages of that church , are true ministers of Christ. But every
wicked man, in this or in any other church, every unconverted
man, however set apart, is a wolf, is a hireling, a thief and a robber
in the church. Let him repent, and give himself to God. Then,
if he finds himself qualified by piety, and gifts, and moved by
the Holy Ghost, and if the church be willing still to receive him,
he will be a true minister. But the attempts to claim authority
for Bishops, as an order by divine right, on the high church succes-
sion scheme, either in that church, or out of that church, is to
declare war against the divine right of all true ministers^ and
against the peace and security of every Christian church. The
advocates of these claims are the Schismatics, or causers of
Division. They should be marked and shunned by every friend
to the peace of the church. The man who aids them, or who
wishes them God's speed, becomes a partaker of their sin, and
an enemy to the peace of the church.
Antichrist came into the church by an UNGUARDED use of
ministerial superintendency. "The common appellation of
Bishops," says Beza, "was that of minister, until, for the sake of
government, one minister was placed ressiug a thought dubiously ? — or, by saying, (/"there
be any evidence, it is not ^^ very clear evidence?" "One might have
thought," says Mr. Perceval, "that the sentence concerning certain false
teachers * whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they might learn not to
blaspheme,' 1 Tim. i. 20, had been proof sufficient of such authority, and of
the exercise of it." What Mr. Perceval might have thought, and what is
^^ very clear evidence,'''' may be diflferent things. Now let us examine a
little the only parallel case mentioned in the New Testament, agreeing to
the statement made in the Essay, viz. in churches already planted, having
ministers already appointed over them — the case is found 1 Cor. v. 1 — 13.
In this case, though the church had neglected its duty, yet the Apostle does
not proceed to excommunicate, even this private member, on his own sole
authority. He directs a church court to be formed, or called together.
Pool, in his Synopsis, quotes Estius thus describing the composition of this
court : " The Apostle directs the calling of a public assembly, that all un-
derstanding the greatness of the crime, might acknowledge the justice of the
punishment. It does not follow, indeed, from this place, that the multitude
have the power of excommunication, yet the multitude in some sense ex-
communicate, namely, by their approbation and suffrage in favour of the
excommunication, and by avoiding the excommunicated person. The
minister performed the act of excommunication by the direction of
St. Paul." Thus, also, Calvin on the place: "It is to be observed that
St. Paul, though an Apostle, did not proceed alone to excommunicate ac-
cording to his own views and feelings, but he consulted with the church,
that the thing might be done by the authority of all." Bishop Fell on the
place, says, " The approbation and consent of the church was used in the
Apostles'' time in ecclesiastical censures." Erasmus, also, considers the
matter was to be done in " a public assembly." The language of the chap-
ter is decisive in proof of this. Here, then, we see it is not ^' very clear''''
that the Apostle did this by his sole authority; indeed, it is clear he did not.
And if he did it not in the case of a. private metnber, much less, we presume,
did he do it in the case of a minister. There is one more passage which I
leave for Mr. Perceval to make "very clear" as evidence that the Apostle
could at any time, on his sole authority, depose ministers : " I would they
were cut off that trouble you," Gal. v. 12. If the Apostle wished it, and
could by his sole power do this, why were they not cut off? See Dr. Bar-
row on the Supremacy of the Pope, Supp. 5, Sect. II. p. 187, 4to. edit. 1680.
Mr. Perceval's charitable supposition, that they "who carp at the
authority of Bishops, will probably not be deterred from carping at that of
our Lord himself," shall be illustrated by that of another Oxford Tract
advocate. In a work styled " The Oxford Tracts, the Public Press, and
the Evangelical Party," by G. P. (G. Perceval?) de Sancta Trinitate, the
author says, " The Evangelical party in the Church are only restrained from
the accident of their position from the destructive power of Rationalistic and
Socinian principles : the spirit is already there, only its full developement is
restrained." If such be their charity towards their brethren, what can a
heathenish dissenting teacher expect?
Having made these miscellaneous remarks on things for which it seemed
probable we should 6nd no more convenient place, we now proceed to a
more regular examination of Mr. Perceval's Apology.
• 300 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
He begins by laying it down as a fundamental position, that none are
to minister in holy things, "in the name of God, without express warrant
and commission from Him, or from those whom he has empowered to grant
such commission," p. 3. This we fully concede. But when he says
"nineteen-twentieths of the Christian world" hold this to be by '-'-Episcopal
Succession''' — that "none who have wo^ received Episcopal ordination are
lawful ministers of the church, or warranted to perform any acts in the
name and with the authority of God," p. 4 and 5, we deny it. Even Mr.
Perceval shall disprove it. At p. 7 and 8, he says, the power of Presbyters
to confer orders "equally with Bishops" is both the "doctrine and practice
of the Lutherans in Germany and Holland, the Presbyterians in England,
Scotland, and Ireland, and North America ; and the Wesleyan Methodists."
Mr. Perceval has the confidence to assert that the church of England
maintains his scheme, p. 9; but he that reads the 7th Section of the Essay
will require something more than assertion on this subject.
His first chapter he entitles "Congregationalism," and professes to
examine the Scriptural evidence alleged to support it.
He has amused himself with imputing to the Congregationalists certain
scriptural precedents as '■'■urged in behalf of Congregationalism," p. 11.
I believe Mr. Perceval is conscious that the Congregationalists have more
sense than to "urge" any such things as he mentions " in behalf" of their
scheme. He himself intends the introduction of several of these instances
as a caricature of Congregationalism. But what honesty is there in such a
misrepresentation of facts ? However the instance of Jeroboam will find its
best parallel in the conduct of Henry the VIII. The case of the seven sons
of Sceva, (Acts x. 14) would rather belong to Mr. Perceval, as they were
sons of " a chief of the priests." Probably, as being in the succession, they
were mortified to see the heretic and schismatic Paul cast out devils, and
supposed that surely they were the only divinely commissioned persons for
such a work. He makes little out in the matter of Apollos ; of Aquila and
Priscilla. They were, indeed, all lay persons ; Apollos was an eminent lay
preacher of the gospel ; and Aquila and Priscilla were lay " fellow helpers"
of the Apostles. Such proceedings now would shock our high priests. On
the case of the man mentioned Luke ix. 50, Mr. Perceval assumes that he
who opposes the succession scheme, opposes Christ. An easy way of answer-
ing difficulties, to beg the question ! But we have many gentlemen writers
now-a-days : " dig they cannot ; and to beg," or confess the poverty of their
information, "they are ashamed."
His second chapter is on " Ecclesiastical authority for Congregationlism."
It contains only three lines and a half. " From ecclesiastical antiquity,"
he says, " 1 am not aware that a single precedent is, or ever has been,
alleged in favour of the Independent or Congregational scheme." This only
proves how little Mr. Perceval knows about the subjects on which he writes.
There is abundant evidence that primitive churches consisted of only one
Congregation each. It was against the rule of all antiquity for one Bishop
to have the government of more than one church or congregation. And
that these Bishops and their churches were considered to be, by divine right,
each in their government independent of all other Bishops and churches, in
the earliest times, is too evident to need any proof. It is maintained by
Dr. Barrow, on the Supremacy of the Pope, that " the ancients did assert
to each Bishop a free, absolute, independent authority, subjected to none,
directed by none, accountable to none on earth, in the administration of
aflfairs properly concerning his church:" Suppos. 5, Sect. 5, p. 220, 4to.
edit. 1680. Cyprian maintains it, as Dr. Barrow there shews : and see
Vitringa de Syn. Vet. Lib. 3, cap. 17, p. 857, &c. : Mosheim de Reb. ante
Constant, p. 152, and Burnet's Reformation, vol. 2, anno. 1559.
Mr. Perceval entitles his third chapter " Presbyterianism." He first
very properly takes up the scriptural evidence, as this, and this alone, can
decide the question. The first passage he selects is from Numbers xvi. as
to " Korah and his company." This, indeed, is not original; most high
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 301
churchmen exult in this example as death to Presbyterianism. It is an old
saying, that a man may make " more haste than good speed.'''' The breath-
less haste with which such writers appear to run to this passage for weapons
against Presbyterianism, i. e. everything but high churcbism, may possibly
be the reason of their blindness when they arrive at it. The rebellion of
" Korah and his company" is analogous, say these gentlemen, " to the re-
bellion of Presbyters against Bishops." — Indeed I Now who were " Korah
and his company ?" Who ? — Who ? Yes, Mr. Perceval, were they priests
or laymen? What does this mean — "Seek ye the priesthood also?" If
they were /)r/ej^*, how could they jee^ the priesthood? Dathan and Abi-
ram were Reubenites, and could not be priests. They none of them
were priests at all! Fie! tie! ye Queen's Chaplains and Oxford Tract-
men, to tritle thus with the public mind! But your violation of truth
will return upon your own heads. The case is plain enough, it was the
Levites and the people rebelling against the priests ; and not the priests
against the high priest.
Mr. Perceval has the same sort of egregious trifling about the false
Apostles mentioned 2 Cor. xi. 12; and about Diotrephes, p. 23. He pro-
fesses to bring these as Scripture grounds for Presbyterianism. Of course
he would insinuate that Presbyterians urge them as such. However cen-
surable this conduct may be in itself, yet possibly it may be excused in Mr.
Perceval. He can believe things without evidence : why should he not go
a step further in his opinion of Presbyterians, as he calls them, and persuade
himself that they are foolish enough to suppose that an argument from /(x/^e
apostles and the ministers of Satan^ will be good grounds for Presbyterian
ministers being true apostles and ministers of God ! ! He just refers to the
Angels of the Apocalypse. He dees not, however, need to prove that
these angels were prototypes of high church Bishops: his authority imply-
ing this is enough, and therefore he wisely spares all proof — proofs to some
people are troublesome things.
At p. 26, the subject of the names of Bishops and Presbyters being used
in common, is introduced. He acknowledges they were so "at the ^r*^,
but have since been, by common usage, appropriated to distinct offices."
Very well. Are we then to correct our Lord and his Apostles by common
usage since those times ? " But," says Mr. Perceval, " our Lord himself
is sometimes designated as an Apostle, 1 Pet. ii. 25 ; sometimes as a Deacon,
Rom. XV. 8. The Apostles are not only designated by that title, Luke vi.
13, but their office is called a deaconship. Acts i. 18, 2.5, and a bishoprick,
Acts i. 20, and they themselves frequently styled Presbyters, 1 Peter v. 1 ;
2 John i. ; 3 John i. ; and Deacons, 1 Cor. iii. .5; 2 Cor. iii. 6 ; and vi. 7.
Again, the Pastor* at Ephesus whom St. Paul addresses, are called indis-
criminately Bishops and Presbyters, Acts xx. 17 and 28, and the same
indiscriminate use of terms is observable in St. Paul's First Epistle to
Timothy and in that to Titus." All this we grant is true : but then are
deacons as INDISCRIMINATELY called Christ? — are Deacons as indis-
criminately called Apostles' as Presbyters are indiscriminately called
Bishops, and as Bishops are indiscriminately called Presbyters? Mr. Per-
ceval knows they are not. Then what solemn trifling is all this ! The
reader will see the subject further treated at p. 80 — 82, of the Essay. The
names thus indiscriminately common between Bishops and Presbyters,
inevitably proves that their powers were common, that they were one and
the same office.
The following is the best piece of reasoning in the whole book, and
therefore we will give it respectful attention. " But, say the Presbyterians,
in St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, he sends salutation to the Bishops
and Deacons, Phil. i. 2, with no allusion to any other officer, therefore there
were only these two instituted by the Apostles, and any thing beyoud this is
of human origin. Answer 1st. So do the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah,
and Ezekiel, uniformly designate the Jewish ministry as Priests and Levites,
with no allusion to any other office ; and a man might as well argue, that
302 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
therefore, at that time, there was no superior oflSce, no high priesthood
among the Jews, as that there was no superior office, no chief episcopate,
among the Christians when St. Paul wrote," p. 27, 28. The reader is
requested first to turn to pages 49, 50, 66, 67 and 77 of the Essay. Besides
what is said in the above pages, especially the two points ; 1st. that in case
of the pollution of the high priest, a common priest was appointed to officiate
for him ; and, 2nd. that all the ordination he had was necessarily by com-
mon priests ; we further remark, that the above argument is really a fallacy.
The fallacy is found in putting a part for the v)hole. We do not build our
argument upon any one passage of the New Testament, but upon the whole :
we say that there is no proof in the whole of the New Testament, not that
there are no more than two orders of ministers of the gospel ; for, by the New
Testament, Deacons, as such, are not ministers of the gospel at all ; but we
say, there is no proof in the whole of the New Testament of more than
one standing order of ministers of the gospel. To make the argument about
the high priest, therefore, a just one, it must be assumed that there is no
allusion in the whole of the Scriptures to any other office than that of
priest in general. Let this be done, and we declare that, supposing the
premises just, the conclusion would inevitably follow, that, by divine right,
there was no really and essentially distinct office of the high priest above
that of the priests in general. There is, however, frequent mention of the
high priest in other parts of the Scriptures, though not by Isaiah, Jeremiah,
and Ezekiel.
What Mr. Perceval says about the prophets so uniformly neglecting,
with very few exceptions, to make any mention of the high priest, as distin-
guished from the other priests, is well worth attention. The writer has no
quarrel with episcopacy, simply as such, yet the following particulars are
remarkable. None of the prophets, excepting Zechariah, it seems, ever
mention the high priest distinctly. How striking the difference between the
sacred writers, and episcopalian writers I In the word of God, we have a
series of inspired writers, addressing both church and state by the authority
of God for centuries, and yet they never mention the high priest, but only as
included among the priests and Levites; whilst episcopalian writers, ad-
dressing the church and state, seldom mention presbyters and deacons at
all ; but Bishops — Bishops — Bishops I No episcopalian dare professedly
claim a higher authority for Bishops over Presbyters than what they suppose
the high priest had over the other priests; yet, in very deed, they claim ten
times a higher authority. Where the prophets mention the high priest once,
they mention bishops a thousand times. When the high priest was ceremo-
nially incapable of duty, a common priest was considered capable of
performing it for him : a thing impossible for a presbyter to do for a Bishop,
according to high churchmen. The consecration of the high priest was
always by ordinary priests, or by Moses, who was no priest according to
the law ; but the consecration of a bishop by presbyters, a thing which the
Reformers maintained to be lawful by the word of God, our high churchmen
consider as destroying Christianity itself ! Mr. Perceval says their system
is accused of Judaizing ; but the reader will see, that, on these points,
Judaism was mildness itself compared with such a system.
His observation about Timothy's being admitted by the Apostles to
their own order, p. 29, is completely refuted in sect. 3 sub-sect. 4 of the
Essay : we refer therefore to that place, and pass on.
Mr. Perceval tries to say something about the Apostle Paul's address
to the presbyters or bishops of the church of Ephesus, in Acts xx. 17, &c.
His opinion is, that Timothy was with Paul at the time; that Paul "had
already committed the superintendence of these very pastors to Timothy,"
and that having Timothy with him, Paul gave " this pastoral charge to the
pastors at (of) Ephesns, because their chief pastor Timothy" was with him
on his journey, p. 39. All this is mere conjecture, and evidently contrary
to the scope of the whole address. These presbyters are charged to take
heed to the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers or
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 303
bishops: but, according to Mr. Perceval, (his charge ought to have been
given to Timothy; and Paul should have taught these presbyters that
Timothy was the bishop to whom the Holy Ghost had committed the go-
vernment of the flock, and of themselves also; and that they should take
heed to be obedient to his lordship Timothy. But other absurdities follow
Mr. Perceval's interpretation. First, on this scheme, here are the Hishops
of Ephesus: this the sacred penman settles beyond dispute. Secondly, here
is Timothy, a bishop of bishops, a thing utterly repugnant to the first tiges
of the church : so Cyprian and eighty-six other Bishops in council declare,
** Neque eniiti quisquam nostrum episcopum se esse episcoporum constituat —
neither does any one among us constitute himself « bishop of bishops.'''*
They account it tyranny to attempt it. Thirdly, here is an Apostle making
another grade of ministers. Now high churchmen contend only for three
standing orders in the church, including Apostles as one, and Deacons as
another. However Mr. Perceval can multiply orders with a dash of his pen.
Here, according to Mr. Perceval, would be, 1st. Deacons ; 2nd. Presbyters,
except he fully grants, which he does not, that bishops and presbyters were
one and the same office in the Apostles' days ; 3rd. Bishops ; 4th. Timothy,
a Bishop of Bishops ; and 5th. Apostles. Five standing orders of ministers
of the gospel !
The Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy, as pleaded by presbyterians, next
come under Mr. Perceval's examination. His first argument makes Timo-
thy a bishop of bishops ; the absurdities of which scheme have just been
exhibited.
As to the presbyters who ordained Timothy, all he has to say is, that
commentators of the fourth and following centuries say they were bishops.
We say so too ; because presbyters and bishops were then one and the same.
But suppose they were bishops of a high church stamp, and that high church
Bishops are their successors ; then it follows, that they are successors of
scripture bishops only, and not of the twelve Apostles. But this conclusion
his more initiated brethren would tremble to hear mentioned. However
Chrysostom, the principal commentator on whom he depends, says, on the
very place, " the diflference between the Presbyter and the Bishop is almost
NOTHING. Admit the utmost, then, that they say, it will not do for Mr.
Perceval's Episcopacy. But we do not admit them as authority; we admit
nothing as such but the Scriptures; and the Scriptures clearly show
that they who ordained Timothy were Presbyters.
" Moreover," says Mr. Perceval, " in the second Epistle, St. Paul
ascribes Timothy's ordination to his own act, 2 Tim. i. 6. The Presby-
terians (the author of the Essay he means) would represent this last
passage to relate to miraculous gifts ; but as there is nothing in the context
to warrant such a supposition, but the contrary, it cannot be urged," p. 33,
34. The passage is, " Stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the laying
on of my hands." Now an English reader will perhaps be surprised to
hear it said, that there is nothing relating to miraculous gifts in a passage
the pith of v^'hich is " Stir up the gift of God that is in thee." His surprise
will be increased when he learns that the word " gift" in this passage is the
very word xa§iar/// is the
"catholic church." As to the authority of the Fathers, Bishop Taylor
himself says, — " It is not honest for either side to press the authority of the
Fathers, as a concluding argument in matters of dispute, unless themselves
will be content to submit in all things to the testimony of an equal number
of them, which I am certain neither side will do."* Bishop Jewel, an in-
comparably better authority, says, — "There is do way so easy to beguile
the simple, as the name and countenance of the Fathers."t " I see plainly,"
said the renowned Chillingworth, "and with mine own eyes, that there are
Popes against Popes, Councils against Councils, some Fathers against
others, the same Fathers against themselves, a consent of Fathers of one age
against the consent of Fathers of another age, the Church of one age
against the church of another age : Traditive interpretations of Scripture
are pretended, but there are few or none to be found : no tradition but only
of Scripture can derive itself from the fountain, but may be plainly proved
either to have been brought in in such an age after Christ, or thai in such
an age it was not in. In a word, there is no sufficiency but of Scripture only,
for any considering man to build upon."t But these high churchmen are
pretty good imitators of their popish brethren, who, above all things, love
"a packed juryy When any of the Fathers will speak for them, or any
thing like it, they parade them in the court as though the Fathers were in-
fallible : they will even bring acknowledged forgeries into court as true
witnesses ; as Bellarmine and others have done with the Decretal Epistles ;
but if the Fathers say a word against them, they kick them out of court as
individual testimonies, private opinions, not of faith, and the like. Mr.
Perceval and his party smart incurably under the correction of the great
English Reformers. Dr. Hook, indeed, has the boldness to assert, that by
the Reformers the " Episcopal succession was assumed as a necessary doc-
trine of the church of England ;" and that " one of the falsehoods propagated
in these modern days is, that the Reformers did not hold the divine right of
Episcopacy:" see that queer thing, " A call to Union on the Principles of
the Reformation, a Visitation Sermon, by the Rev. W. F. Hook, D.D. price
3s. 6d. Appendix, pp. 140, 141. " The principles of the church," says he,
**as"we have seen, form an insurmountable barrier between us and the
Dissenters, and render u7non with those parties impossible," p. 41. A
glorious call to union ! It is a call, indeed, to churchmen to unite io per-
secute dissenters ; i. e. all who presume to differ from these lordly priests.
Did the Reformers proclaim such sentiments to Calvin, to Peter Martyr,
Bucer, John Knox, (tc? Let the reader carefully examine section 7th of
the Essay, especially in the second edition, for a refutation of all such libels
on the Reformers.
Mr. Perceval comes to the objection that " there is no sufficient historic
evidence of a personal succession of valid episcopal ordinations:" we have
noticed his reply before — see the place. But after "yielding at once" that
this is the case, he thinl#s that " if it be a moral impossibility that any man,
who had not been duly consecrated, could be accounted a Bishop of the
* Lib. Prophesying, sec. 8. f Preface to his Reply to Harding.
X ChiliingWorth's Religion of Protestants, chap. 7, sec. 56.
310 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
church of England at the present time, then the onus rests upon the objec-
tors to say how that which is morally impossible now^ could have been
morally possible at any other period,'''' p. 89. That is, what is morally im-
possible now, in times of order, is, according to Mr. Perceval, by the same
rule, morally impossible in times of confusion : that, what is morally impos-
sible in the light, is, by the same rule, morally impossible in the dark !
Fine reasoning I But facts are stubborn things. And though it is a mere
subterfuge to pretend that the onus of proof lies upon us; yet, as these
boasters of the proof of their scheme being " evident to every one," were
chary of their production of that evidence, we have done what our argument
needed not, we have produced proofs from unexceptionable testimony against
the validity of the episcopal consecrations through which these men trace
their succession. Mr. Perceval has invalidated none of them ; see sections
10 and 13 of the Essay. Indeed Mr. Perceval himself furnishes us with
proofs of the same kind. He says, at p. 110 of the Appendix, that there are
" many instances to be found in Church history of persons consecrated
to the Episcopate from the laity,''"' Now we shall be glad to see Mr.
Perceval prove that these were " duly consecrated Bishops." On his prin-
ciples he never can. On scriptural principles, which admit that Bishops
and Presbyters are one and the same oflSce, there is no difficulty; but then
this cannot help Mr. Perceval, as he rejects these principles. Mr. Perceval's
''moral impossibility," therefore, is contradictedby plain/«c^*, and,ow his ovm
shewing, ^*many instances are to be found in church history of persons" NOT
^*duly consecrated to the episcopate." For " a Bishop ordained y^er saltum''''
(i. e.) " that never had the ordination of a presbyter, can neither consecrate
and administer the Sacrament of the Lord's body, nor ORDAINE a presby-
ter."* Historic evidence failing, and moral impossibility failing, we see
something of the " utter failure'''' for which Mr. Perceval om/woea/^ provided.
He thinks, p. 82, that the fact of the contradictions of history about the
succession of the first ministers of the church of Rome is of no importance ;
it is enough, he supposes, that the church was then governed by Bishops:
but what kind of Bishops ? Irenseus addresses them by the title of " Pres-
byters ;'''' Clement, who is supposed to have been one of them, writing to
the church of Corinth, knows nothing about any Bishop but what was iden-
tical with, and more distinguished by, the title of " Presbyter." That, in
the second century, the chief presbyter acted as a superintendent by the
' consent and authority of the other presbyters, may be granted : nothing
more can be proved. But what will this Episcopacy do for Mr. Perceval and
his party ? Nothing !
As a ^^ forlorn hope,^'' he takes to the case of Judas, the traitor : the
reader will find this case settled to Mr. Perceval's satisfaction at page 250
of the Essay, second edition.
Mr. Perceval, having cleared his system of the objections above noticed,
as exhibited in this review, now comes to display the full glory of evidence
for his scheme of Episcopacy. In noticing Congregationalism and presby-
terianism, his method was to place what he represents as their scriptural
QYi^encQ first; and then, in the *ecow. 00. Very well :
Mr. Perceval's kindness to his readers may pass, only he does not forget,
that he has not answered the question.
In the conclusion of this chapter, after quoting what are called the
Apostolical Canons — a number of canons or regulations collected nobody
knows when, nor by whom — he says " the Nicene Council universally treats
of Bishops, and Bishops only, as having power to ordain." That the canons
of the Nicene council speak only about Bishops ordaining Bishops, we
grant; but if Mr. Perceval intends his reader to understand that that coun-
cil gave any decision that presbyters had not power to ordain presbyters, or
even bishops, he misleads his reader : that council made no such decision.
Perhaps the reader may recollect that the Epistle of this council to the
church of Alexandria, was quoted section 6 of the Essay. In this Epistle,
the council speaks of certain clergymen who "should have power to ordain,"
(fee. Some reasoning is there employed against Valesius to prove that these
clergymen were presbyters — he supposing that they were bishops. That
reasoning is established as correct by the express statement of Athanasius,
0pp. vol. 1, p. 732, B. C, edit. Paris, 1627. Here, then, this point of the
power of Presbyters to ordain, is established by the Council of Nice. They
say that these presbyters were to have, that is, to continue to have, power
to ordain; which ordaining by presbyters, the Epistle states, was "accord-
ing to the ecclesiastical law and sanction." So much for the council of
Nice treating " of bishops only having power to ordain." The only ditficulty
in the passage is in the rendering of the word v^oxii^i^oix.oci. It sometimes
seems to mean to propose for ordination, or to elect : this I admit. But then
it also means to ordain ; and, what is important, it is indisputably used in
the sense of ordaining in this Epistle only a few lines before, as to the
Bishop of Alexandria. The two acts of ordaining and electing are several
times spoken of in this Epistle in varied phraseology — B^ova-iav tx^iv p^sijoQETHy,
TT^op^Ei^i^EO-Oa* — i^ova-iuv 7r^o;^Et^t^£o-9a», »j wo^xXXSiv ovo^ctra, — i^ovcrioiv t^ii*
^§oxE*§»fEcr0a(, Moti ovojLtaTa tTTiXzyierQai. Here it will be noticed that ordina-
tion is always spoken of first ; and invariably as the exercise of authority, —
E|oucria» ; the latter clause of the two referring to the proposing of names, or '
electing. This authority of ordaining, is, in two of these passages, accompa-
nied by the word we have rendered to ordain. The application of it to ordain-
ing by the Bishop of Alexandria is indisputable. These Presbyters, then, are
said to have i^ova-iocv TTfop^Ei^if fcrOa*, authority or power to ordain ; and this
"according to ecclesiastical law aud sanction." Such seems to me to be
the legitimate meaning of the place. However, I do not wish to be positive,
as there is some ambiguity in the language of the Epistle. But I am
positive that the council did not deny the power of presbyters to ordain : I
think the above are strong reasons to believe that their Epistle affirmed it.
We now come to the Scriptural testimony for Mr. Perceval's scheme of
Episcopacy. But, alas ! for Dr. Hook, Mr. Perceval, and their party I the
Scriptures have so little to help their case, that this champion of their cause
occupied very nearly as much of his work with Eutychius and Abraham
Echellensis, as he does with the whole of the testimony of the Scripture in
behalf of their system. But it is better to be silent when we have nothing
to say. The Scriptural testimonies which he produces, are, the Angels in
the Apocalypse; the case of Timothy and Titus; the Apostles superintend-
ence of the churches which they founded — which nobody ever denied; — the
commission of our Lord to his Apostles : — these are the principal, and almost
the only instances, which he notices ; but as he does not even attempt an
answer to that part of the Essay which treats on these passages, we have a
right to conclude that he felt it to be unanswerable. The highest, the
supreme evidence, the evidence of the Holy Scriptures, against this high
/
V cl
312 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
church Episcopacy, remains, therefore, in all its integrity and completeness.
This is the all deciding jtoint.
Speakings of the exhortations to unity to be found in our Lord's discourses,
Mr. Perceval says, p. 106, " our opponents are ever fond of citing those
passages in Tertullian, Jerome, and others, which affirm that Episcopacy
M^as necessarily instituted for the preservation of unity. But if unity be a
necessary end in the church, and Episcopacy the necessary means for at-
taining that end, then how can the inference be set aside, that the Lord of
glory, who ordained the end, must Himself likewise have ordained the
means necessary iov attaining that end?" This statement is incorrect:
those passages in the Essay which speak about the reasons assigned by thp
Fathers for the institution of Episcopacy, do not say that the Fathers
" affirmed that Episcopacy was necessarily instituted for the promotion of
unity;" but only that their opinion was that it was designed io promote this
unity. But suppose they had affirmed this necessity for Episcopacy as a
means for the promotion of unity, still ths argument is false : both the pre-
mises are false ; the conclusion, therefore, must be false also. The argu-
ment in full is as follows :
i What the Fathers affirm is necessary as a means to the unity of the
^hurch, Christ instituted as a necessary means to the unity of the church :
4 / But the Fathers affirm that Episcopacy is a necessary means to the unity
f the church : therefore,
Christ instituted Episcopacy as a necessary means to the unity of the
church.
In the first, or major proposition, Mr. Perceval begs the question ; it is
neither proved nor granted: it is false. The next step with this argument
lands us in full grown Popery. The authorities of that church say, that a
universal bishop is necessary for the unity of the church ; ergo, Christ insti-
tuted a universal bishop — the Pope. The second, or minor proposition, is
false also, in Mr. Perceval's sense : the Fathers never expressed an opinion,
nor affirmed either, that the kind of Episcopacy for which Mr. Perceval,
Dr. Hook, and their party, contend, was necessary for the unity of the
church. This is sufficiently shewn in the Essay. The premises failing, the
conclusion falls to the ground.
Mr. Perceval concludes his Apology for Apostolical Succession with a
long Appendix, employed in proving many things which nobody disputes.
This no doubt was much the pleasantest part of the work to Mr. Perceval.
Here we conclude this Critique on Mr. Perceval's task, enjoined by his
friend Dr. Hook. He has '■^yielded''' up the cause of historical evidence;
^''utterly fails'''' to prove a Divine origin of their system ; and ineffectually
attempts an answer to the proofs that Ecclesiastical Episcopacy is a mere
human arrangement. Such is this complete Answer to the Essay on Apos-
tolical Succession, by this chosen champion of Dr. Hook I The reader is
left to form his own judgment upon its completeness.
FINIS.
AN APPBNDI X,
COXTAINIIfO
A REVIEW OF DR. HOOKS SERMON
ON "HEAR THE CHUUCH,"
Preached before the Qtteen, at the Chapel Royal, in St. James'i Palace, June 17, 1838.
Dr. Hook is the Apostle and Higl\ Priest of the high church scheme of
the present times. If assertions were proofs, his writings would contain
convincing evidence of the authority of his Mission. I doubt his assertions ;
and I controvert his scheme. His doctrine of the succession has been
sufficiently refuted in the preceding Essay; indeed the arguments in the
Essay do, in their consequence, demolish his whole high church building.
But there is one topic upon which he evidently delights to dwell ; for he
speaks and preaches it every where ; it is this — That the present church of
England was founded by the Apostles, and has come down to the present
day, with no greater difference, at any time, from that Apostolic Church,
than the difference caused in the same man by having his/ace washed or
unleashed ; see page 13th of his sermon. — This is his favourite illustration.
Speaking of the church of this country before the Reformation, when
sworn to Popery, the Pope acknowledged as its head by all its authorities,
when governed by Bishops who preached the doctrines, and were sworn to
the government of Popery, when the church itself was filled with Idols and
abominations; with perfect and full grown Popery, — and comparing that
church with the church after the Reformation, he says, "The church
REMAINED THE SAME AFTER IT WAS REFORMED AS IT WAS BEFORE,
Just as a man remains the same man after he has washed his face as he was
before,'^'' p. 12. The conclusions he draws from this argument, are, — that
the Church of England " maintains those peculiar doctrines and that
peculiar diciplinCy which have ALWAYS MARKED, and do still continue to
mark, the distinction between the Church of Christ, administered under
the superintendence of Chief Pastors or Bishops who have regularly suc-
ceeded to the Apostles, from those sects of Christianity which exist under
self-appointed teachers ; — that this church is the only church of Christ in
this kingdom : — that it possesses its original endowments, which were never,
as ignorant persons foolishly suppose, taken from one church and given to
another." (p. 12.); — that her Bishops have regularly succeeded to the
Apostles ; and that her ministers are the only divinely commissioned Min-
isters in this kingdom : all other denominations are Sectarians, Schis-
matics, and left to the uncovenanted mercies of God. On this ground
he has the intolerable arrogance thus to insult the Christian Churches in
general in America: "When the United States of America were
English Colonies, the English Church was there established : at the re-
volution, the State was destroyed.* Monarchy has there ceased to exist;
» This attack upon the religious bodies of the United States, he mixes up with a political
Philippic. The writer is no advocate for a Republic : indeed he leaves politics in general to others.
Yet there is a sentiment, on the page adjoining the last quotation, which deserves remarlt. The Doctor
says, " were all connexion between Church and State to cease, we may he sure the monarchy would he
destroyed.^'' This was telling the Queen that none are loyal to her, as the Queen, except she pays them
for it; and the same to Kings in general. Dr. Hook, and such as he, may speak from their own
feelings, as to what they would do for the Queen if not paid by her : but to affirm it of Christians in
general, is a vile slander, and is calculated to disaflect the mind of the Queen towards all her
Christian subjects who are not of the Establishment. All real Christians receive the Bible as the
rule of their faith and practice. From the Bible they learn to " submit to the powers that he," equally
as much under a monarchy as under a Republic. The Wesleyan Methodists, for instance, yield
Hot to the members of the Establishment in loyalty to the Queen. But farther— ^f'a* tlie Christian
Q2
314 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
but the Church, though depressed for a time, remained unjnjured: so that
there — among the American republicans — under the superintendence of no
fewer than sixteen bishops, you will find her sacraments and ordinances
administered, and all her ritual and liturgical services celebrated, with no
less of piety, zeal, and solemnity, than here in England ; there you may see
THE CHURCH, LIKE AN OASIS IN THE DESERT, blessed by the dews of
heaven, and shedding heavenly blessings around her, in a land where, be-
cause no religion is established, IP it were not for her, nothing but
the EXTREMES of INFIDELITY or FANATICISM would prevail." p. 7, 8.
The reader sees at once that this is the Succession scheme a little modi-
fied. That scheme has been sufl^ciently refuted in the Essay. We intend,
in this Review of the Sermon, to expose the sophistry of this modification.
Here, "The Church" is the topic: — "Bishops" were the former
topic.
If Dr. Hook be the man he is said to be, it is hard to suppose that he is
not conscious of the sophistry of his own argument : in which case he
would be a public deceiver: if his reasoning powers be weak, he may possi-
bly be entangled in his own net. Be these things as they may, his argument
is a tissue of sophistry : — we shall endeavour to untwist it, and break its
force of deceiving.
The GREAT FALLACY or delusion of the whole argument lies in using
the expression " The Church^'''' in different senses, in different parts of
the argument; that is, as Logicians would say, in changing the Terms.
The way in which he manages this, is, by giving only A general and
imperfect definition of the terms in the beginning of his sermon; and
then, introducing particulars into it in the progress^ as is the most con-
venient for deception. So, at pages 5 and 8, he says, " Now at the very
outset, I must state that I refer to the Church, not as a mere National
E stablishtnent oi ^eWgioUyhxxi as the Church, a religious community^m-
trinsically independent of the state ; that is to say, I am about to treat the
Church, not in its political, but simply and solely in its religious character.
— And so you may perceive what is meant, when we say, that we wish to
speak of the Church, not as an establishment, but as the Church, A reli-
gious society, a particular society op Christians." Then, this
^''particular society of Christians'''' becomes "our Church'''' — "The
Church OF England " — " The Church ;" and, at the last, on the last
page, this ^^ particular society of Christians y''"' becomes distinguished
from all other " religious societies" BY these specific properties,
as "maintaining those peculiar doctrines, and that peculiar
discipline, which have always marked, and do still continue to mark,
the DISTINCTION between the Church of Christ, administered under the
superintendence of chief Pastors or Bishops who regularly suc-
ceeded to the Apostles, from those sects of Christianity under self-
appointed teachers.'''' Well, thanks be to the Doctor for giving us, at last,
a complete definition of the Church of England. This definition, as per-
fected by himself, is, " That the Church of England is a particular society
of Christians, distinguished from all other particular religious societies, by
its peculiar doctrines, and its peculiar discipline." By discipline, he tells
us, he means its Church Government, as administered by its Bishops : their
Succession is another question, and has been fully treated in the Essay.
Chtirch connected with the State for the first three hundred years ? Did not the State then perse-
cute the Church every where ? The Roman Republic had ceased to be when the Christian Church
began to exist. The Emperor was more absolute than the King of England. Now, did the
primitive Christians rise to destroy thb throne ? Hear TertuUian : "In all our Prayers, we
are ever mindful of all our Emperors and Kings wheresoever we liv«, beseeching God for every
one of them without distinction, that he would bless them withUength of days, and a quiet reign, a
well established family, a stout army, a faithful senate, an honest people, a peaceful world, and
whatsoever else either Prince or people can wish for." For Dr. Hook to go before the Queen to
prop^ate his libel upon all her Christian subjects, and upon Christianity in general, deserves the
severest rebuke. Such a man can cast " firebrands, arrows, and death, and say. Am I not in sport ?"
Ir,
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 315
Now let us try his main position : " the present Church of England is
the old Catholic Church of England, reformed in the reigns of Henry, Ed-
ward, and Elizabeth, of certain superstitious errors ; it is the same Church
which came down from our British and Saxon ancestors. The Church
remained the same after it was reformed as it uas before^just as a man re-
mains the same man after he has washed his face as he was before,''^
p. II, 12.
Here, then,letus examine the matter. The Church before the Reformation
was ** a particular religious society ; " and the Church, after the Reformation,
was "a particular religious society." There is, then, this general agree-
ment, that each was " « religious society." So a * harlot is a woman, and
a virgin is a woman. There is this general agreement between them, that
each is a woman. Now if we wish to know the difference thai, distinguishes
the harlot from the virgin, we should be told that it would be the peculiar
principles, manners, and conduct of each. If, then, we wish to know the
difference thai disfin guishes the Church before the Reformation, from the
Church after the Reformation, the answer would be, " The peculiar doc-
trines and the peculiar discipline of each Church." Each is a Church, i, e.
" a religious society ;" as each of the above persons is a woman: but were
those Churches the same ? This will be answered by another question
— are a harlot and a virgin the SAME ? Yes, according to Dr. Hook, if the
harlot washes her face I
Let us look at the face of the Church before the Reformation, and at the
face of the Church after the Reformation: — at their peculiar doctrines, and
their peculiar discipline. ^'^''''pU^'4^^^%^-^if^''H**''^f(^^ —
1. Peculiar Doctrines: ^^
Transubstantiation. — The Church, before the Reformation, main-
tained the doctrine of Transubtantiation, and committed hundreds to the ^
^«me* for disputing it: but
The Church, after the Reformation, declares it ^^ repugnant to the plain ^
words of Scripture, that it overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath '"*-" ^
given occasion to many superstitions." Art. 28th of the Church of England. 0^
Masses. — The Church, before the Reformation, maintained that the fj^^u
Priests did offer Christ for the quick and dead to have remission of pain
and guilt : — C°yN
The Church, after the Reformation, declares these positions to be " bias- /Jj
phemous fables and dangerous deceits.^'' Article 31st of the Church of j
England.
Images. — The Church, before the Reformation, maintained the worship
oi Images, and the churches were full of Images : —
The Church, after the Reformation, declares this to be Idolatry ; see
Homily on Idolatry. Thus also the 22nd Article: "The Romish doctrine
concerning purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration, as well of '
Images, as oi reliques, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly
invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant
to the word of God."
Justification. — The Church, before the Reformation, maintained that
a man "was justified through the grace of God by works, and NOT by faith
only:—
The Church, after the Reformation, maintained that the doctrine "that
we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full
of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the homily of Justification:"
Article 11.
These points of doctrine may suffice — many more might be added.
• Some respectable persons have made a little objection to this illustration. The writer has
duly weighed their observations, and thinks them groundless, for the following reasons : let The
authority of the word of God and of all the great Reformers, justifies and authorizes the application
of the t«rm Harlot aa the most appropriate designation of a corrupt Church ; so it is here applied to
the Church of Rome : 2ndly, The contrast of the purity of the Church of England by the term Virgin,
pays a respect to that Church, as constituted by the Reformers, and as a most important branch of
the Protestant Church, which, under this view, the writer has a pleasure in pfaying.
316 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
2. Peculiar DreciPLiNB:
Tbe Church, before the Reformation, acknowledged the Pope as su-
preme HEAD OP THE CHURCH, as Christ's VICAR, and that all were
heretics who rejected him. A few passages from the Canon Law, as col-
lected by Archbishop Cranmer, and given in the Collection of Records by-
Bishop Burnet, in his History of the Reformation, Book 3, No. 27, will
illustrate this point :
" He that acknowledgeth not himself to be under the Bishop of Rome,
and that the Bishop of Rome is ordained by God to have primacy over all
the IFoj'ldy is an Heretick, and cannot he saved, nor is not of the flock
of Christ.
" All the Decrees of the Bishop of Rome ought to be kept perpetually of
every man, without any repugnancy, as God''s JFord spoken by the mouth
of Peter: and whosoever doth not receive them, neither availeth them the
Catholick Faith, nor the Four Evangelists, but they blaspheme the Holy
Ghost, and shall have no forgiveness.
" The See of Rome hath neither spot nor wrinkle in it, nor cannot err.
" The Bishop of Rome may excommunicate Emperors and Princes, and
DEPOSE THEM from their States, and Assoil their subjects from their Oath
and Obedience to them, and so constrain them to rebellion.''''
All the Bishops in England, before the Reformation, swore obedi-
ence TO THE Pope op Rome : see Sect. 12 of the Essay : but
The Church, after the Reformation, declared the Pope to be Antichrist,
the Son of Perdition ; and the Church of Rome to be an Idolatrous Church :
See Essay, Section 11. And every Bishop of the Church of England is
bound to reject the authority of tbe Pope and the court of Rome,
nnder the penalty of praemunire.
Thus we see that the ''^peculiar doctrines and the peculiar discipline''''
of the Church before the Reformation, and those of the Church after iho.
Reformation, EXPRESSLY contradict each other : the Church, after
the Reformation, charging Idolatry and Blasphemy upon the Church
before the Reformation. Yet, says Dr. Hook, " They are the same."
And Dr. Hook can prove it — yea more — he can prove, by his principles, that
black is v)hite, and that two and two are Jive. Thus, two and two are num-
bers ; and^ye is a number ; ergo, two and two are the satne as five, i. e. they
are both numbers: — black is a colour; and white is a colour; ergo, black
and white are the same, i. e. they are both colours. Yes, replies the reader,
but it was supposed you meant that two and two were the same in amount
as five; and that black was the same colour as white. True, but this is
leaving the GENERAL nature of the things, and coming to the specific differ-
ences ; and I only spoke in generals. Dr. Hook only shews you the general
nature of the thing at first: the Church, before the Reformation is a religious
society, and the Church, after the Reformation, is a religious society ; ergo,
they are the same, i. e. they are both religious societies ; as black and white
are both colours. True, says the reader, but we supposed he meant that
they had the same distinguishing properties or qualities. Whether Dr.
Hook meant it himself or not, I cannot say; but he doubtless meant his
readers to think they had the same distinguishing properties, i. e. the same
peculiar doctrines, and the same j^eew/mr discipline : see p. 23 of his sermon
as quoted above. However, it was neither convenient for him to say so
"at the outset" of his sermon, nor was it agreeable to him to exhibit this
their identity afterwards : black would have been seen to be black, and
white would have been white still : the virgin would have appeared a virgin,
and the harlot would have appeared a harlot, after the Doctor's perspiration
in washing her face.
The Doctor's position, then, is a mere fallacy ,\nvo\v'mgi\ie real absurdity,
that two religious societies, distinguished as societies, by their ^^ peculiar
doctrines, and their peculiar discipline," and whose peculiar doctrines and
peculiar discipline flatly contradict each other, are yet one and the same
society, i. e. that contradictory propositions are identical \}vo\}o%\i\ox\% !
ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 317
— They are, — just as much so as black and white are the iame, and as two
and two are five.
The absurdity of the Doctor's position being thus manifest, all his con-
clusions fall to the ground; and the following opposite conclusions become
established :
Conclusion 1st. — The Church before the Reformation, and the
Church after the Reformation, are two different Churches, distinguished
by directly opposite peculiar doctrines, and peculiar discipline or Church
Government.
Conclusion 2nd. — The Church, after the Reformation, as distin-
guished by its peculiar doctrine and peculiar discipline, was founded at the
Reformation, as much so as the Scotch Church, the Lutheran Church, or
any of those other Sects towards which the Doctor manifests such scorn.
As to the succession of the Bishops of the Church of England, through
the Church of Rome, or through the Church before the Reformation, we
have shewn in the Essay, that they have no more claim, on that ground,
than bastards have to the inheritance of legitimate children.
Conclusion 3rd. — The Church of England, and the Bishops of the
Church of England, have no more just affinity to the British or Saxon
Churches, than any other Church that equally resembles them in peculiar
doctrine and discipline. The Doctor's assertion, at page 9, that *'the
Church, as at the period of the Reformation, had existed, as all parties admit,
from the first planting of Christianity in England," is one of his accustomed,
hardy, fallacious, and baseless statements. Had that Church, as distin-
guished at the period of the Reformation, by such " peculiar doctrines and
peculiar discipline" as we have seen above, existed as always marked
(p. 23.) by those " peculiar doctrines and that peculiar discipline" from the
first planting of Christianity in England? Yes! the Doctor says, "All
parties admit" this ! ! Then all parties admit that full grown popery
existed in England from the first planting of Christianity in this country ! !
The reader who believes this is worthy to be a disciple of Dr. Hook.
Conclusion 4th. — The right of the present Church of England to those
Church Endowments^ which existed before the Reformation, is merely
Statute Right. The Parliament has as much power to alienate as to ap-
propriate. If the Church of England has a righteous claim tn those endow-
mentSy any other Church might, by another Statute, have an equally
righteous claim to them.
The sum of the whole, is, then, that the Church of England, as a religious
society, must establish its claim to affinity with Apostolical Churches, with
the British and Saxon Churches, and the Church before the Reformation,
by the resemblance of its peculiar doctrines and its peculiar discipline to the
peculiar doctrines and the peculiar discipline of those Chnrches. Her Bishops,
and her other Ministers, must prove their claim to Apostolicity by their like-
ness to the Apostles in personal piety, a divine call to the ministry, and by
the preaching of the Faith as the Apostles preached it. Whatever they
possess besides, is but as the chaflFto the wheat. All other Churches must
do the same. Here is the Divine Rule. Here let all strive to excel: let all
covet the best gifts. Above all, let them keep in mind the more excellent
way. What is true individually, is true of Churches collectively : " Though
I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am
become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal," 188.
Froude, R. Hurrell, an Oxford Tract-man,
hates the Reformation, 138 — is disgust-
ed with Bishop Jewel's Defence, 149.
Fulke, Dr. on the nullity of Popish Ordi-
nation, 253, 254.
G.
" Gift of God," what ? 303, 304.
Gildas's account of the wickedness of the
Bishops in his days, 227.
Godwin, Bishop, on the Lives of the Eng-
lish Bishops, 232, &c.
Godwin, Dr. on the Jewish High Priest-
hood, 49, 50.
Gradin, Arvid, quoted, 173.
GreekChurch never maintained Episcopacy
jure divino, 162, — on Confirmation, 190.
Gregory Nazianzen, on genuine Succes-
sion, 270.
Grindal, Abp. of Canterbury, approves of
Presbyterian Ordination, 147.
Grosthead, Bishop of Lincoln, reproves
the Pope, 234.
Grotius, on the Identity of Bishops and
Presbyters, 195 — on Divine Right, 196.
H.
Hall, Bishop, on Presbyterian Ordination
and genuine Succession, condemns this
High Church scheme, 275.
Hammond, Dr. gives up direct Scripture
evidence for Episcopacy, 27 — on Scrip-
tural Presbyters as Governors of the
Church, 33 — on the Succession of the
Jewish High Priests, 260.
320
INDEX.
Hands, Iinpositiou of, 30, 132, 240.
Haweis's, (Dr.) Church History of, giving
an account of the rise of Methodism, 265.
Heber's, (Bishop) remarks on Bishop Tay-
lor's doctrine of Confirmation, 189, — on
his use of authorities, 189, 190.
Hickes, on the dignity of the Episcopal or-
der, 14.
High Churchism, semi-popery, exclusive-
ness aud intolerance of, passim.
High Priest, Jewish, 49, 50, 66, 77, 30 1 , 302.
Hilary, the Deacon, quoted, 121.
Hispala, Council of, quoted, 165.
Historic evidence for High Church Suc-
cession, none, 203, &c. 297, 298.
Hollund, Dr. the King's Professor of
Divinity at Oxford, on the Identity of
Bishops and Presbyters, 161.
Holmes's (Rev. J. of Fulneck) "History of
the United Brethren," quoted, 174, &c.
Hook, Dr. Vicar of Leeds, on High Church
Episcopacy and Succession, 15 — on Epis-
copal Ordination as essential to Salvation,
17 — arrogance of, 24 — on Bishops being
Apostles, 31 — his blundering and bigoted
Scorn of the Reformed Churches, 204
—his " Call to Union," 309— on Hear
the Church Reviewed, 310.
Hooker, on Presbyters, 60, 152, 164 — on
Divine Right, 62, 153, 154.
Ignatius's Epistles examined, 96, &c.
Imposition of hands, 30, 132, 240.
Irenseus, on the Identity of Bishops and
Presbyters, 101, &c. — on genuine Suc-
cession, 269.
James, (St.) made Bishop over the Apos-
tles ! ! 63.
Jerome, on the word Apostle, 45 — on the
Identity of Bishops and Presbyters, 90 —
92 — on Ordinationby Presbyters, 125,&c.
Jewel, Bishop, on the word Presbyter, 101
— on the Identity of Bishops and Presby-
ters, 90 — 92 — hatedby Froude, an Oxford
Tract-man, 149 — on non-preaching pre-
lates, 264 — on genuine Succession, 274.
Joan, Pope, History of, 219, &c.
Johnson, Rev. translator of the Code of
the Universal Church, quoted, 166 — on
the Monk Austin and the British Bish-
ops, 232— on the Bishop's Pall, 238.
Judas, his Apostleship, treated, 250, notes.
Jurisdiction of Bishops, what? 159 — 161,
307, 308.
Justin Martyr's testimony to Episcopacy,
examined, J 00, &c.
K.
Korah, and his company. High Church
blundersupon, 300, 301.
L.
Lapsed, the case of, in Cyprian, explained
117.
Laud, Abp., the Father of Semi-papist
Church of England Divines, and jure
divino men, 10, 11.
Lavington, on Moral Preaching, 265.
Leger, on the Waldenses, 181.
Leslie, Rev. C. on Episcopacy 169.
Lloyd, Bishop of Worcester, referred to, 23 1 .
Luther ordains the first Bishop of the
Lutheran Church, 168.
Lutheran Episcopacy, 93.
M.
Martyr, Peter, on Popish Vestments, 257,
258, — on the Succession of Faith, 272,
Mason, Archdeacon, on the Power of
Wicked Bishops to give true Orders,
16, — on St Austin's connexion with the
slaughter of 1200 Presbyters, 231.
Melanchthon, on Confirmation, 187, — on
the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters,
194, — on genuine Succession, 272.
Methodists, Wesleyan, rise of, 265, &c. —
Superintendency of, resembles primitive
Episcopacy, 60, 93, 100, 201, 289.
Ministers, Gospel, qualifications of, 69, &c.
241, &c. 283.
Ministers, Wicked, to be forsaken, 72 — 76,
103,116.
Moral impossibility, 309, 310.
Moravian Episcopacy, 172, &c.
Mornay, P. Lord du'Plessis, 252.
Mosheim, on Ignatius's Epistles, 97, — on
the Identity of Bishops aud Presbyters,
199.
N.
Names of Bishops and Presbyters so used
in common in the New Testament as to
prove that the things were substantially
the same, 80—82, 301.
Nice, Council of, its Epistle quoted, 128,
—130, 311.
O.
Order, degree, &c. explained, 88.
Orders, Book of, for ordaining Bishops and
Priests by the Reformers, explained,
144, &c.
Ordination, Popish, examined, 240 — 250.
Ordination of Presbyters, form of, in the
Church of England, 29, 145, 146.
Ordination by Presbyters — see Presbyter.
Origen, Writings of, on Episcopacy, exam-
ined, 111, &c.
Overall, Bishop, quoted, 99.
Oxford Tracts, quoted, 18,— Writers of,
English Jesuits, 167, — their sophistical
ambiguity exposed, 169.
P.
Pall, Bishops,' described, 237, &c.
Parker's, (Abp.) Ordination, 99, 250.
Pearson, Bp. on the Ancient Catalogues of
Bishops, 207.
Perceval, the Hon. and Rev. A. P. on the
case of Judas, 251.
Peter (St.) whether ever at Rome ? 207.
Popes, Catalogues of, 208, &c. — Election
of, 210 — Schisms amongst, 211, &c. —
wickedness of, 212, 217, 226— encou-
rage Rebellion, 219,316— Heretics, 222
Simoniacs, 224 — depose Sovereigns, 295
INDEX.
im
Pope Joan, History of, 219.
Popery, II, 64, 67, 76, 167, 207, &c.—
^7,294, 295, 315, &c.
Polycarp, Epistle of, quoted, 100.
Pontifical, a forgery, 208, 209.
Perrin, on the Waldenses, 181, 185.
Presbyters, commission of the Apostles,
applied to their Ordination bv the Eng-
lish Reformers, 28, 29, 146. '
Presbyter, meaning of the word, 101, 108,
note g.
Presbyters possess the power of ordaining,
53—65, 68, 120, 124, note y. 125—130,
134, 146—8, 159, 168, 169, 176, 229,
&c.
Presbyters, Successors of the Apostles, 97,
102, 134, 200,201.
Presbyters govern the Church, 33, 42,
see the next.
Presbyters preside over the Church, 97,
101, 102,108, 109, 112, 114, 119.
Presbytery, what? 56, 109—111.
President in the Primitive Church, what ?
181, 185.
Prideaux, Dr. on the baselessness of a
personal Succession, 209, &c. — on the
monstrous wickedness of the Popes,
225, &c.
Priest, High, none but Christ under the
New Covenant, 49, 77 — Jewish, 49, 50,
66, 77, 301,302— Prophets neglect the
title, ibid.
Priests, none on earth under the Gospel, 67-
Prophets neglect the distinction of High
Priest, 301, 302.
Protean character of the High Church
Succession scheme, 51.
R.
Rainold's, Dr. on the Identity of Bishops
and Presbyters, 50, note.
Ravanel on Confirmation, 187.
Redmayne, Dr. the Reformer, on the
Identity of Bishops and Presbyters, 144.
Reeves's Translation of Justin Martyr,
quoted, 101, 109.
Reformation, hated by Froude, an Oxford
Tract-man, 101 — scorned by Dr. Hook,
204, 205.
Reformed Churches maintain the Identity
of Bishops and Presbyters, 170
Reformers, English, maintaining that the
Commission of the Apostles belongs to
Presbyters, 28, 29, 146— opposed to
High Church Episcopacy, 138, 161,
254, 25.5,— on Ordination, 253.
Reiner's, (the Monk) Account of the Wal-
denses, 181.
Right, Divine, Nature of, 35, 36, 131, 263.
Robertson's, Dr. the Reformer, on the
Identity of Bi.shops and Presbyters, 144.
Rome, Church of, never maintained Epis-
copary jure divino, or by Divine Right,
163, 167, — Idolatry and Wickedness of,
214, &<: — Bishops of, see Popes.
S.
Salmasius on Ignatius's Epistles, 97.
Sanhedrim, the manner of Ordination in
(he Christian Church derived from the,
129.
Saxon Church, canons of, make Bishops and
Presbyters one order, 89, — Saxon Church
316, &c.
Schisms, many in the Popedom, 211, &c.
Schleusner, on the Identity of Bishops and
Presbyters, 199.
Scriptural Evidence for the High Church
Scheme, none, 27-
SeifFerth, Rev. B., Letter from, 174.
Semi-papists, High Churchmen such.
passim.
Simony, sin of, &c. 224, 333, 239, 247, 250.
Sinclair, Rev. J. corrected,in the notes at
pp. 55, 63, 81, 88, 122, 170, and p. 196.
Smith, on the Greek Church, quoted, 190.
Stillingfleet, on the Nature o{ Divine Right,
35, 36, — on Ignatius, 100, — on Apostol-
ical Succession, 275.
Succession, High Church Scheme, Popery
of, passim.
Succession, genuine Apostolical, 269, 280.
Succession of Jewish High Priests, 260.
Suicer, on the Identity of Bishops and
Presbyters, 199.
Superintendency of Bishops explained.
92, &c.
Superintendency, Wesleyan, 60, 93, 100,
201, 289.
Superintendents of the Lutheran Church,
60, 93.
Superintendents of the Scotch Kirk, 52.
Synagogue, Ordination Rites of, adopted
by the Christian Church, 62, 129.
T.
Taylor, Bishop, Extracts from his Episco-
pacy Asserted, 13, 17, 27, — perverts the
meaning of authors, 38, — on Tradition,
86, — on Epiphanius, 124,— on Confir-
mation, 189.
Tertullian, Extracts from, 105, — on genuine
Succession, 269, — quoted, 314, note.
Theodoret, quoted, 30, 43,
Titus not an Apostle, 38.
Timothy and Titus, case of, argued, 51, 57,
136, 302, .303.
2 Timothy, i. 6, explained, 53, 54, 303,
304.
Tradition, 86, 104, note.
Trent, Council of, on the Identity of
Bishops and Presbyters, 166.
U.
United States, Churches of, attacked by
Dr. Hook, 313, 314.
Usher, Abp. on the spuriousness of
Ignatius's Epistles, 97, — on the Identity
of Bishops and Presbyters, 199.
V.
Valesius's Note on the word Apostle, 44,
on the Miletian Clergy, 129.
322
INDEX.
Vestments, Popish, 257,258. .^
Vitringa, on the Identity of Bishops and
Presbyters, 198.
'* Voice of the Church," 169, 308, 309.
W.
Wake's (Abp.) Translation of Clemens
Romanus corrected, 94, — on the Epistles
of Ignatius, 96, 97-
Waldenses, an Account of the, 172, 186, —
their opinion of Confirmation, 187, —
on the Nullity of Popish Ordinations, 25 1,
Wells, Dr., corrected, 212.
Wesley, the Rev. J. & C, 266, &c.
Wesley, the Rev. J. on Apostolical Suc-
cession, 276.
Whitaker, Dr., on the Apostolical Office,
48, — on genuine Succession, 104,274, —
on the Identity of Bishops and Presby-
ters, 151, 152, 193,— on the NuUitv of
Popish Orders, 253.
Whitby, Dr. 136,— on the Simony of the
Church of Rome, 224, &c.
White, Dr. J. on genuine Succession, 275.
White, Francis, Bishop of Ely, on genuine
Succession, 275.
Whitfield, Rev. G., 266, &c.
Wickliffe, on the Identity of Bishops and
Presbvters, 139, 192, — on Confirmation,
187. '
Z.
Zanchius, on the identity of Bishops and
Presbyters, 196, — on Popish Vestments,
257, — on genuine Succession, 273.
%^ Of THB "^^
;Uiri7EIlSIT7]
•
MASON AND SCOTT, PRINTERS, BRIGGATE, LEEDS.
14 DAY USE
RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED
LOAN DEPT.
This book is due on the last date stamped below, or
on the date to which renewed.
Renewed books are subject to immediate recall.
■^Ocf'£-^
JBE^
QUO
QQt 10 1^
)'^:
u
^
^.
w
>:^f
:, W'
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA UBRARY