line from the 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 cleary shown 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 interests of both parties. The interests of the succession divines and their followers require such proofs. They venture to suspend the validity of their own ministry and ordinances, and the whole Christianity of all their people, upon this doctrine: what wretched apprehensions, then, must they have, except their proof be Scriptural, 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 show 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 unwarrantably arrogant and insolent upon the subject. He says, among 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 superiority, 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 common 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-rea

soning 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 gain" 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 show that a reasonable “doubt" lies upon any part of this scheme, that doubt will be fatal to it. If we show more; if we show every PROPOSITION to be DOUBTFUL;-yea, more still, every proposition to be BASELESS and FALSE; then the whole fabric falls to the ground.

SECTION III.

NO POSITIVE PROOF FROM THE SCRIPTURES OF 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 be tyranny. "Whatsoever," says he, 66 was the regiment of the Church in the apostles' times, that must be perpetuall, (not so as to have all that which was personall, and temporary, but so as to have no other,) for that, and that ONLY is of divine institution which Christ committed to the apostles, and if the Church be not now governed as then, we can show no divine authority for our government, which we must contend to doe, and doe it, too, or be call'd USURPERS."* So says Chillingworth, in his immortal declaration,-" The religion of the Protest* Episcopacy Asserted, p. 41.

ants-is the Bible. The Bible, I say, the Bible only is the religion of Protestants! Whatsoever else they believe besides it, and the plain, irrefragable, 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 themselves, 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 produce them. I promise him I will produce the best I have anywhere found urged by these advocates for their scheme. Perhaps, however, in justice to some eminent writers in favour of episcopacy, I should say, that they substantially give up direct Scripture proof, and rely chiefly upon an induction from the testimony of the early Christian fathers. Thus, Dr. Hammond asks, "Who were the apostles' successors in that power which concerned 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 learning, and he devoted it all to the establishment of this system of exclusiveness 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, 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

* Religion of Protestants, chap. vii, sec. 56.
† On the Power of the Keys, Preface.

66 no

for perpetual duration."* And the very learned Bishop Beveridge himself, another exclusionist, makes substantially 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.Ӡ

But let us proceed to the attempts made to find something in Scripture to support this scheme.

1.-The 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, baptizing 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 ordainers of all other ministers to the end of the world. The proof is wanting: though Archbishop Potter tells us, that the passage before us" contains a full declaration of our Lord's intention." 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, sec. 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 determining that they believed this commission to belong to all presbyters, 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

* De Nupero Schismate, sec. 14.

† Cod. Can. Ecc. Prim. Vind., p. 317. Lond., 1678, 4to.

‡ Matt. xxviii, 19, 20. § Church Govern., p. 121, ed. Bagster, 1838.

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 ministers, one to another. "But be not ye called rabbi: for one 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." 99* "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 important distinctions before God will be those of deeper piety, more devoted labours, and greater usefulness to the church of God. "Whosoever will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all."

Great dependance is placed by others upon our Saviour's words on John xx, 21-23, "Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 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: and 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 shown, that, in their views, this whole pas* Matt, xxiii, 8-12. † Mark x, 42-45.