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 develop 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. bishop Laud is supposed to be the father of them. Among 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.

Arch

The reader may be surprised to find the celebrated Bishop Taylor represented as a semi-papist; let him read his "Clerus Domini," and his "Episcopacy Asserted," and he will see the evidence of the statement. Bishop Taylor's splendid talents have imposed upon many, and have gained him more credit than he deserved. Like many pious Papists, he could write well upon devotional sub

jects; 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 succession. 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 among 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 succession 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 understand 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 Archbishop Laud, and his disciples the Oxford Tract-men, Dr. Hook, &c., then he does controvert them; because he believes them to be unscriptural, antiprotestant, exclusive, intolerant, and Popish. The author, indeed, writes not to attack, but to defend

These men make the attack. The consequence 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 statements of this doctrine of apostolical succession from the advocates 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, showing the whole to be contrary to the principles of the Reformation, and leading to persecution and Popery. Lastly, the nature of the only genuine and absolutely essential apostolical succession will be briefly unfolded. whole will be concluded with some practical inferences, and counsels of peace to the Protestant churches at large.

The

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.

SECTION I.

STATEMENTS OF THIS DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCES SION 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 establishment 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 among 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 Summe of all is this, that Christ did institute Apostles and Presbyters, or 72 Disciples. To the Apostles he gave a plenitude of power, for

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 contend. We ask what was the fact, and the fact was this: that the officer whom we now call a bishop, was at first called an apostle, although afterward 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 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 unbroken spiritual 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 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 Vitalianus, who ordained Patrick bishop for the Irish, and Augustine and Theodore 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 descent 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 dedicated 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,

* Two Sermons on the Church and the Establishment.