CONCLUSION.

We have now brought this examination of the prelatic doctrine of apostolical succession to a close. We have endeavored fairly, fully, frequently, and in the language of many of its most received advocates, to state the doctrine in question, with the several claims and consequences inseparable from it. To many we may have appeared needlessly circumstantial and prolix. But the developments which are daily made of the prevalence of these views, even among the laity, and of their open avowal and defence by a numerous and increasing body of the clergy, will, we believe, fully justify the extended investigation which has been made of this important subject. As it is, we have left many points unnoticed, to which our attention has been directed, and many materials untouched, with which our argument might have been greatly enlarged in its dimensions.

For all the reasons which have been brought forward in the course of this discussion, the conclusion of the whole matter is, that the assumed exclusive prerogatives, to which the prelacy lays claim, upon the strength of its apostolical succession, are baseless, without any honest credentials whatever, and altogether unworthy of our regard.1

1) "We have seen," says the Hon. and Rev. Baptist Noel, in his First Five Centuries of the Church, (or, the Early Fathers no Safe Guides, Lond. 1839, p. 31,) "that the unscriptural exaltation of the clergy laid the foundation for all the other abuses which crept into the church; almost all the false doctrines and senseless ceremonies, which then disfigured it, being introduced by them."

"We have read and heard a great deal," says Dr. Rice, (Evang. and Lit. Mag. vol. ix. p. 534,) "about

the virtue of what is called apostolical succession. For the life of us, we never could get down to the meaning of this thing; but we are perfectly sure, that it has no efficacy in this most important part of a minister's office. Undeniable facts afford most decisive evidence, that there is no stream of wisdom or knowledge running through the succession, and pouring out its rills. through episcopal fingers, into those on whom bishops lay their hands;" nor is this denied to any because he was not episcopally ordained.

This doctrine, upon which, as a foundation, the whole system of the prelacy rests, has been found utterly wanting, when weighed in any one of the balances provided. The tests laid down by the authority of its advocates, can be met in reference to no one link in the entire chain of this boasted succession, from St. Peter to the present time. Its historic evidences are found to be in no better preservation, nor of any greater strength, than the relics of its mouldering abbeys, whose name, date, and origin, have sunk beneath their accumulated ruins. This doctrine, which, like a proud, triumphal arch, was to span the earth and climb the heavens, depends for its support upon the undoubted certainty of myriad millions of probabilities, any one of which might fail, and by the failure of which, its instantaneous demolition was inevitable.

These prelatical successors sue in the court of law, for the entire and exclusive possession of a divine inheritance, by a grant of primogeniture, and in defeasance of all other claims. But when we demand the exhibition of their patent and charter, that we may there see the exact boundaries of their grant;the charter itself is wanting; the boundaries cannot possibly be traced in any extant record; nor can it be even shown that the estate itself has been in perpetual possession of this boasted ancestry.

We ask for the signs of an apostle, the title, the offices, the gifts, the duties; but these successors have them not. There is in fact, nothing characteristic of an apostle, as such, to be found about either them, or their office, except the assumption of an authority which is supported only by empty claims. They are apostles, and apostolical, by virtue of a descent in which all apostolic qualifications are utterly lost; and "they are canonically appointed to govern," while in the appointment of many of them, every canon, human and divine, has been notoriously broken. And this succession secures the power of transmitting divine virtues, and the plenitude of grace, though the giver may have been an atheist, a murderer, and every thing that was selfish, carnal, and devilish; and although the receiver may have waxed worse and worse, in imitation of his apostolic predecesMore palpable, and therefore less preposterous, is the system of the Calmuck Tartars, whose successive priests drink,

sors.

Where, in the New Testament, is any thing to warrant such opinions as these? In the rule given us by our blessed Saviour, form is nothing, truth is every thing; it is by

the truth we are sanctified; by the truth we are made free; by the word of God we are begotten to a lively hope.'

each in turn, a cup wherein are mingled the ashes of his predecessor."

Trace this doctrine in its course through history, and that course is readily distinguished by the unwashed marks of blood, and the unburied bones which lie bleaching in the sunshine and the storm, and which still cry aloud for vengeance. The full ascendancy of this system can only be gained by the prostration of civil and religious liberty. The tiger may be chained, starved, subdued, and made to obey his keeper, but he is a tiger still, and only waits the taste of blood to whet his appetite for

more.

But this doctrine is as useless, as it is unreasonable and intolerant. It is a good way to try the validity of any general principle, to push it to its extremest length, and thus prove whether or not it is of universal application. Now here is an axiom, that out of that church, which possesses this apostolical succession, there is no covenanted salvation; no saving efficacy, or divine authority. It follows, therefore, that there is not now, in all christendom besides, any genuine piety, or any efficacious ministry, or any sanctifying ordinances. It follows, also, that there never has been any such, in the ages that are past; and that there never will be any in the ages that are to come. Now a doctrine which is at once reducible to such an infinite and palpable absurdity, MUST BE FALSE, even should we not be able to detect the fallacy. Just as the doctrine of the infinite divisibility of matter, however seemingly it may be demonstrated on paper, is repudiated by an appeal to actual experiment and fact, and by thus bringing it to an application to the concrete substance. So is it here. Let us bring out this doctrine, from its obscurity, as it is concealed in ecclesiastical canons, and apply it to the actual manifestations of divine grace; and it receives an instantaneous condemnation, as a bold denial of the work and grace, and free mercy of God.2

But this anathematizing condemnation of the christianity of millions, flows necessarily from this doctrine, of which it is the essence that he, who disbelieves it, is an infidel, as to the "substance of the faith." God, therefore, in the working of his grace, sets to his seal, that this doctrine is utterly untrue. Nor will it do to reply, that even among those who deny other doctrines which are held to be fundamental, there are yet many who are, apparently, christian and devoted. For, even granting this to be the case, we know not but that in such cases, the truth

1) See Ely's Call to Hear the Church Examined, p. 12.

2) See Spiritual Despotism, p. 405.

may have been conveyed to the mind, while such individuals were, nevertheless, blinded to its actual perception in its distinct and explicit form. Neither do we dare to set limits to the stream of God's saving mercy, or arrogantly say, thus far shalt thou go and no further. But here we have a very different case. Here we have a defined boundary, a walled city, an embanked channel; within which, alone, the promised blessings of heaven can be found, whatever a man may believe. And yet beyond them all, and in most copious abundance, the dew of divine mercy distils upon the rejoicing hearts of God's regenerated children. Thus are we assured, by God himself, that this doctrine, "whosoever he be that giveth this counsel, shall, before God, be able to do us no more profit than the fig leaves did unto Adam."1

That this appeal to the fruits of our ministrations, as the test of the quality of the tree itself, is a fair one, we learn not only from our opponents themselves, but also from the sure word of God, where a false ministry is threatened with barrenness; (Jer. xxiii. 32;) and where we hear even an apostle, by this very evidence, attesting the lawfulness of his ministry. (1 Cor. ix. 1, 2.) Even in the days of former generations, our non-conformist fathers could exhibit the proofs of their heavenly calling in many thousands of souls converted by a heavenly agency, and could retort on those who bitterly maligned them, what we may apply to many who have, in like manner, gone out from us, and turned upon us with tongues of bitterness and malice.

"There are many that cry down our ministry, and separate from us as no ministers, THAT CANNOT DENY BUT THAT THEY HAD THEIR CONVERSION FROM US. And if our ministry be antichristian, how is their conversion christian ?""

But there is one argument by which we are assailed, and which is believed to be of itself sufficient to overwhelm and confound us. This is the acknowledged antiquity, and the very early prevalance, of the system of prelacy. Now that this system is ancient, we believe; but that it is apostolical, we deny; and from this very plea of hoary age, do we deduce an argument by which to blunt the edge of this keen weapon, if it will not rather turn it in resistless power against the arm that wields it. By this very antiquity of prelacy, would we prove that it is apocryphal, and not canonical-apostatical, and not apostolical -ecclesiastical, and not divine.

The apostles themselves admonish us, that there would arise

1) Hooper in Letters of the Martyrs, p. 95.

2) Div. Right of the Ministry, pt. 2d, p. 30. See also Calamy's Def. of Nonconf. vol. i. pp. 216, 217.

those who would lay claim to a supernatural investment with apostolic power-who would sit in the temple of God, which is the church, and there exalt themselves to the throne of supremacy-who would claim for their decrees, canons, and burdensome impositions, that reverence which is due only to the laws of God-who would thus legislate as if above all law, and as the makers of law for others--who would in this way shut the kingdom of heaven against all who should resist or opposeand who, arrogating to themselves divine authority, would trace up their pedigree to the apostles themselves. This mysterious (or then concealed) wickedness, is, says the apostle Paul, already at work, and only waits till the restraining power be withdrawn, fully to develop itself.

Now that these predictive warnings of the apostles, insisted upon with frequent solemnity, apply to the system of the papacy, all are agreed. They refer not, however, to that system, as accidentally associated with the church of Rome; nor to that church exclusively; but they refer to those principles which have been more or less developed in the Greek and other churches; and which we therefore distinguish by the term prelacy, as applicable equally to them all. The papacy, however, did not originate-it only carried out these principles to their extreme, though legitimate consequences. The principles themselves were clearly, and to a great extent practically, developed in the Nicene age; which is, as prelatists teach us, the very embodiment of their views and principles, and the standard of their imitation. The forewarning of the apostle must, therefore, be applicable to this age, since the system had commenced its operation even in the apostles' days, and stealthily advanced until it was finally consummated in the superstitions and corruptions of a later period.

That the prelacy, as now developed by the Oxford divines, and attributed by them to the English church, comes strictly under the denunciations of the apostles, is fully argued by the author of "Ancient Christianity," and "Spiritual Despotism," who is himself a member of that church, and a friend to what he believes to be the primitive episcopacy.1 "If Jerome and others," says the learned Musculus, "had seen as much as they that came after, they would have concluded that" this office of prelate "was never brought in by God's spirit, to take away schisms, as was pretended; but was brought in by Satan to waste and destroy the former ministry that fed the flock.' So

1) See Spirit. Despot. p. 337; Ancient Christianity, passim.

2) See in Div. Right of the Min. pt. ii. p. 118.