way of Christ's appointment, and these bishops must be such as receive their mission from the first commissioned apostles. Wherever such bishops are found dispensing the faith and sacrament of Christ, there is a true church; UNSOUND IT MAY BE, like the church of Rome, but still a true or real church,—as a sick or diseased man, though unsound, is still a real or true man."

4. "By being duly admitted members of the church of Christ, men are placed in a covenant relation to God, in which he gives them, on certain conditions, a title to the benefits of Christ's mediation. The means and pledges of this title's being made effectual, are the sacraments, services, and ordinances of this church."

Now, as prelatists have "suspended the validity of their own ministry and ordinances, and the whole christianity of all their people," and their claim to be regarded as a church of Christ at all, upon this doctrine of an unbroken line of valid and successive prelatical ordinations, from the existing incumbents up to the apostles themselves, into whom, as into a fountain of episcopal grace, they all empty themselves—we will proceed to expose the utter groundlessness and absurdity of this vaunted prerogative. Res est ridicula et nimis jocosa.1

Having disposed of this subject, we shall then proceed to show what is the true doctrine of apostolic succession; and that presbyterianism, both as it regards its doctrines and its order, is accordant to the apostolic platform.

This exclusive claim to be THE CHURCH, and the only true church, and the only conveyancer of heavenly grace, we may consider as a fact to be proved, and as a right to be established. Now, in making good these pretensions, there are certain acknowledged principles or canons which have been ratified by prelatical adoption, and by which they may be tested.

The succession which is thus claimed by prelates, is not a succession of christians, nor of ministers, but of prelates; for episcopal ordination does not, we are told, confer any right or power whatever to transmit the sacred gift and grace, except in the one order of prelates. It is, therefore, a personal and exclusive succession of prelates which is to be made manifest. It must then be shown not only that the church has ever existednot only that officiating ministers have ever been found in that church-not only that there have ever been an order of men calling themselves prelates-but it must be shown, that there has been an unbroken succession of true prelates-from the

1) Catullus.

apostles' days down to the present time. For, if there is any reasonable doubt, as to any one link in this lengthened chain, then is their proud boast made in vain.

But, should prelatists even succeed in carrying their chain, in its unbroken continuity, up to the apostles, and thus bridge over the dark chaos of intervening time-they will be required to fasten it surely and strongly to the rock of ages. They must point out and make steadfast where and how, it has entered, as an anchor sure and stedfast, and is infixed in the good foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.

It will not do for prelatists to deal with this doctrine of apostolical succession, as the Romanists do with that of infallibility. This they assume, as the basis of their system, and as in itself necessary, as the ground and security of the entire building. But, as Mr. Newman in reasoning with the Romanists remarks, this "cannot be taken for granted as a first principle in the controversy, for if so, nothing remains to be proved, and the controversy is at an end." In like manner do we say, in arguing with prelatists: That principle, on which the excommunication of all the protestant churches in the world is to be based, must be shown to rest upon no dubious interpretationupon no questionable meanings,-no interpolated opinions of uninspired and unauthoritative men-no figment of the universal consent of the early church, founded upon the doubtful remains of comparatively a few, self-contradictory fathers.

But, as Mr. Newman says of the Romish doctrine referred to, that Romanists are obliged to maintain it by their very pretensions to be considered the one, true, catholic, and apostolic church,1-so also do we affirm of prelatists, that they also are obliged to maintain this unauthenticated and equally preposterous dogma, by their very pretensions to be considered the one, true, catholic, and apostolic, church. The absurdity, however, with which such a course is chargeable, is in both cases, equally apparent; and the reasonableness of our rejection of both, until proved by a divine warrant, and fully established in all their parts, equally obvious.

Nor is this all. For, even could we suppose that it had been discovered in the apostolic writings, that such an order of ministers as prelates had been ordained in the churches established by the apostles,-as, for instance, Timothy and Titus; -it would be still further necessary to prove, that this order was instituted by the apostles as a perpetual and unalterable

1) See Lectures on Romanism, p. 68, &c.

order of the church. Reason would demand, that "we should hesitate awhile, before we regard the institutors of a NEW RELIGION, in appointing its ministers, or even their method of proceeding in naming their successors, as absolutely conclusive in favor of the same method in after times; inasmuch as no other plan may be supposable as proper or practicable at the commencement of a new order of things; and yet, some other plan be both possible and more eligible, when this same economy has run on through a tract of time." Apostolic precedent is only binding where it is of the nature of an apostolic precept, where it is given in the exercise of apostolic inspiration, and with the forethought of apostolic prescience. The apostles themselves distinguish between what is essential as a necessary principle, and what is expedient for the present necessity; between what, in certain circumstances, may be a duty while, in other circumstances, it may be a matter of perfect liberty and indifference. That this rule is necessary, appears from the admission made by these divines, that "ordination, episcopacy, &c. come under the category of rites and discipline," and yet, that "rites are found in scripture, which every one admits to be changeable."

But, what is still more to the point, in order to establish the designed perpetuity of such an institution, it must be shown, as Mr. Palmer testifies, that it was "enacted by the authority," not of "some of the apostles" merely; but "by all the apostles, under the express direction of the Holy Ghost."4 "It may be affirmed," to apply the conclusion of this writer, "that unless there is evidence that this system was instituted for a permanent object, or was to be transmitted to others, it cannot by any means be proved a matter of faith; and therefore, even if we were to concede, that "this system was, in fact, followed by

x.

1) Spiritual Despotism, p. 149. 2) See Calvin's Instit. B. iv. ch. xx. and ch. xix. § xxx. "We do not," says Dr. Howe, (Vind. p. 354,) "rest the obligation of episcopacy on the ground of its existence in the primitive church, but on the ground that the apostles, acting under the commission, and in conformity to the will of Christ, established it as the regular and permanent method of conferring the sacerdotal power." This principle is also admitted by Dr. Bowden, in arguing on the subject of the synagogues. (Works on Episcop. vol. 1. p. 145.) "Ezra's being an inspired man, is no proof that he established them; but if he did, it is no proof that he was directed to do so, for

inspired men did many things merely on the ground of human expediency."

"What if baptism was administered to heathen converts? It was not done, so far as we know, by divine appointment." See also Dr. Mitchell's Letters to Bishop Skinner, p. 69.

3) See illustrated by examples, Palmer, vol. ii. p. 70. "It universally acknowledged," says Dr. Bowden, "that several apostolic usages are not binding, because the apostles, in such cases, did not act on the ground of divine authority." (Letters, 2d series, iii. p. 21.)

4) See illustrated by examples, Palmer, vol. ii. p. 71.

the apostles, as is pretended," "its divine right would not be established." For, unless it can be thus "proved from scripture, it is no article of faith, notwithstanding the rash assertions of some modern theologians to the contrary."

"2

But again, that we may advance to another point. Were we required by proof, plain and sufficient, to admit that the system of diocesan prelacy was instituted by apostolic authority, as a permanent ordinance in the church; a further requisition must be met, before its exclusive title to the prerogatives of the church of Christ can be admitted. Many of the most important and learned writers,—and among them not a few who have adhered most conscientiously to the prelatic form of church government, have been of the opinion, that, on scripture evidence alone, an assent could never be demanded for this, or any existing and completed form of church polity; but that, with the approbation or permission of the apostles, the particular nature and order of the ecclesiastical constitution of any particular church, was made to accord with the national sentiments and civil usages of christians, in the different countries and provinces where christianity was established. Many variations and anomalies in the distribution of offices, the order of procedure, and the mode of government, were, it is by these parties believed, actually found in the apostolic churches; and that it was only in the course of centuries, the churches became so fused and melted, as to form but one homogeneous mass. In the affirmation, that prelacy, as now modelled, was matured in the first age of the church, it is believed by such writers, that "common sense is insulted and historic evidence outraged, by affirming it to have been a fact."

But, in order to authenticate the divine right of prelacy to the monopoly of grace, it is obviously necessary, that it should be made manifest by the clear declarations of the lawgiver, that such was his predetermined purpose and decree. This, then, is a fourth condition in the argument for the exclusive assumption of prelacy. It would not suffice, for this end, to show from undoubted scripture authority, that prelatic orders are valid and allowable, but that they are necessary, and, therefore, binding. It must be "proved," that these prelatic dogmas are "articles of faith," and that they are so taught in the Bible.* And this proof must be perfectly sufficient, for it is enough to destroy the claim of any such rites or discipline to be considered

1) Palmer, vol. ii. 496, in arguing against the supremacy of Peter. See also pp. 494 and 493.

2) Ibid, p. 505 on do.

3) See Spiritual Despotism, pp. 160, 163, 166, and pp. 118 and 119. 4) Palmer, ii. p. 465.

as articles of faith, that their definite and exclusive appointment as the only allowable forms of christian polity, is doubtful.1 Facts obscurely revealed, and practices inferentially deduced from incidental allusions, can never be made authoritative and binding on the conscience. "It is not in any such form, that law has ever been promulgated. No legislator has so tortured the ingenuity of any people." And since christianity is distinguished from Judaism by being a system of principles, instead of forms; a code of doctrines, rather than a ritual; a digest of essential elements, and not a huge collection of minute circumstantials; we require nothing more to disprove the asserted obligatory character of any imposition which is forced upon us, than that "the primitive practice in such a matter is clearly not clear." The only council which assembled under the guidance of inspired men, has emblazoned, in the forefront of christianity, its distinctive character, when they left on record this decree— "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these NECESSARY THINGS." "Nevertheless, and with this very proclamation before our eyes, we may make the apostles despots, if we will thrust them into the iron chair of tyranny, and extort law from their lips, where in fact they have uttered no decree." We acknowledge, therefore, no right of legislation where Christ has left us at liberty, nor will we be bound by the commandments or traditions of any men, however loudly they may trumpet their own praises, and herald their empty denunciations.

These four canons being observed, in discovering to us the undoubted commencement of this chain of the apostolical succession of prelatical bishops; we shall be canonically equipped for an entrance upon the investigation of its more lengthened continuance. Here also, however, there are certain rules by which, in this all-important inquiry, we must be most cautionsly guided. For, as we have already shown, prelates themselves, both Romanists and protestants, have staked their present claims to the character of THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, upon the FACT, as they state it, that "the succession of prelates (bishops) from the apostles has preserved and transmitted from one generation to another, THE IDENTITY of the church."4 This is "shown," say they "to be the unanswerable argument for the truth of christianity"-"was maintained as the great pillar of

1) See Palmer, vol. ii. pp. 458, 467, 472, 473, 474.

2) Acts, xv. 28.

3) Spiritual Despotism, p. 121. See also p. 163.

4) British Critic, 1839, No. 52, p. 257.

5) Leslie's Short and Easy Method, vol. iii. p. 2.