66

66

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 consecration ?" 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 WICKEDNESS, (quamvis enim viri essent omnium sceleratissimi, p. 178,) nor ANY THING ELSE, can deprive a person once made a bishop of the power of giving TRUE ORDERS." "Orthodoxus. Quod candide largiris, cupidè arripimus." The Church of England divine says, "what you," the PAPISTS, candidly grant, WE JOYFULLY EMBRACE !!"* Every pious reader must be grieved to the heart to see the defenders of an important section of the Protestant church joyfully embrace the impious position, that a bishop 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 monsters of Rome. Hence these impious positions are joyfully embraced to defend it.

Lastly, these authors say, that no ordinations but such 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 sacrament, 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 whoever 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 catholic Church on earth; and not only so, but from the invisible communion of the holy angels and saints in heaven, and, which is yet more, from Christ and God himself. . . . It is one of the most dreadful aggravations of the condition of the DAMNED that * Vindicæ Eccles. Anglicanæ, edit. sec. fol. Lond., 1638. + Episcopacy Asserted, p. 197.

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," (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."

"I know the outcry which is raised against this-the doctrine of the Christian Church for eighteen hundred years I know the outcry that is raised against it by those sects 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.Ӡ

A passage or two from the Oxford "Tracts for the Times" may suffice, though all their volumes are impregnated with the same principles.

"The hold," say they, "which the propagandists of the 'Holy Discipline' obtained on the fancies and affections of the people, of whatever rank, age, and sex, depended very much on their incessant appeals to their fancied apostolical succession. They found persons willing and eager to suffer or rebel, as the case might be, for their system; because they had possessed them with the notion, that it was the system handed down from the apostles, a divine episcopate;' so Beza called it. Why should we despair of obtaining, in time, an influence, far more legitimate and less dangerously exciting, but equally searching and extensive, by the diligent inculcation of our true and Scriptural claim ?"

* One Altar and One Priesthood, 1683, pp. 387 and 397.

Two Sermons on the Church and the Establishment; and see

Hickes on the Christian Priesthood, Pref. 194.

+ No. 4, p. 7.

"I fear we have neglected the real ground on which our authority is built,- -OUR APOSTOLICAL DESCENT.

"A person NOT COMMISSIONED from the bishop, may use the words of baptism, and sprinkle or bathe with the water, on earth, but there is no promise from Christ, that such a man shall admit souls to the kingdom of heaven. A person not commissioned may break bread, and pour out wine, and PRETEND to give the Lord's supper, but it can afford no comfort to any to receive it at his hands, because there is no warrant from Christ to lead communicants to suppose that while he does so here on earth, they will be partakers in the Saviour's heavenly body and blood. And as for the person himself, who takes upon himself without warrant to minister in holy things, he is all the while treading in the footsteps of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, whose AWFUL PUNISHMENT you read of in the book of Numbers. (Compare Numbers xvi with Jude 2.”)†

Here the reader sees the main features of this system; -a system supported by a large number of learned and influential divines in the Church of England since the time of Archbishop Laud. It has lately been revived by the authors of the Oxford "Tracts for the Times," Dr. Hook, vicar of Leeds, &c. This doctrine is the ROOT of all their errors and Popish proceedings. By such a scheme as this they FORGE A CHAIN TO BIND HEAVEN AND EARTH, GOD AND MAN, TO THE ACTS OF PRIESTLY ARROGANCE. Allow the above doctrine, and though Satan and his host incarnate should become ordained by succession bishops, yet no ordinances but such as they administer have the promise of Christ, but are all vain! This scheme of AnglicanPopery will be seen to have a little variation in its machinery from Roman-Popery; but they are both animated by the same genius, and both terminate in the same consequences.

The reader will not regret to see, in the commencement of this Essay, the opinions of two celebrated foreign Protestant divines on this subject: the one, of the Lutheran church, and the other, of the reformed French church. Chemnitius, a greatly admired Lutheran divine, in his admirable Examination or Confutation of the Council of Trent, says, "By this measure, they (the Papists) endea* No. 1, p. 2. † No. 35, pp. 2, 3.

vour not so much to reproach our (the Protestant) churches, as, at one stroke, to give a mortal stab, and to destroy them from the foundation. In their clamours by which they labour to establish this point, they contend, that in our churches is no true and legitimate administering of the sacraments; that God by our labours will give no blessing, no pardon, no remission of sins; that we can have no true sacrament of the body and blood of Christ; that all our ministers are thieves and robbers, not having entered by the true door" (of apostolical succession) "into the sheepfold. An atrocious denunciation indeed! And they give no reason for it but this, that the ministers of our (Protestant) churches are not called, sent forth, ordained, shaven, and anointed by Popish bishops."*

Now it is clear that there is a perfect identity in the matter urged against the reformers by the Papists, and that urged by high Church of England clergymen against all Protestants who have not episcopal ordination. If the latter have not ventured to be so bold in their denunciations, we can easily see the reason. They know the full consequences, boldly declared, would, with many Protestants, even in the Church of England, work as an argumentum ad absurdum: the absurdity would produce reaction. They, therefore, generally throw it out to work upon weak, credulous, unsuspecting, or bigoted minds.

Claude, in his able Defence of the Reformation, says, "And to speak my own thoughts freely, it seems to me, that that firm opinion of the absolute necessity of episcopacy, that goes so high as to own no church, or call, or ministry, or sacraments, or salvation in the world, where there are no episcopal ordinations, although there should be the true faith, the true doctrine, and piety there; and which would that ALL RELIGION should depend on a FORMALITY, and even on a formality that we have shown to be of no other than humane institution; that opinion, I say, cannot be lookt on otherwise then as the very worst character and mark of the highest hypocricy, a piece of Pharisaism throughout, that strains at a gnat when it swallows a camel, and I cannot avoid having at least a contempt of those kind of thoughts, and a compassion for those who fill their heads with them."t

*Pt. ii, p. 421, fol. Genev., 1634. † Pt. iv, p. 97, 4to. Lond., 1683.

SECTION II.

THE STATE OF THE GENERAL QUESTION.

HAVING exhibited a general view of the doctrine of succession as taught by these high Churchmen, it may now be proper to clear our way by giving the true state of the question.

The succession divines maintain,—

1. That bishops are, by DIVINE RIGHT, an order superior to, distinct from, and having powers, authority, and rights incompatible with presbyters, simply as presbyters:

2. That the bishops of this order are the SOLE SUCCESSORS of the apostles as ORDAINERS of other ministers, and GOVERNORS both of pastors and people :

3. That this succession is a PERSONAL SUCCESSION, viz. -that it is to be traced through an historical series of persons, validly ordained as bishops, transmitting, in an unbroken line, this episcopal order and power to the latest generations :

4. That no ministry is VALID, except it have THIS episcopal ordination; and that ALL ordinances and sacraments are VAIN, except they be administered by such episcopally ordained ministers.

Now we deny every one of these positions. And we shall show,

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 ORDINA TION by presbyters is equally valid with that of bishops; and, consequently, 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:

3. That a succession of the truth of DOCTRINE, of faith and holiness, of the pure word of God, and of the sacraments duly administered, is the ONLY ESSENTIAL SUCcession necessary to a Christian church: