unity of the church, Christ instituted as a necessary means to the unity of the church:

But the fathers affirm that episcopacy is a necessary means to the unity of the church: therefore,

Christ instituted episcopacy as a necessary means to the unity of the church.

In the first, or major proposition, Mr. Perceval begs the question; it is neither proved nor granted: it is false. The next step with this argument lands us in full-grown Popery. The authorities of that church say, that a universal bishop is necessary for the unity of the church; ergo, Christ instituted a universal bishop-the pope. The second, or minor proposition, is false also, in Mr. Perceval's sense: the fathers never expressed an opinion, nor affirmed either, that the kind of episcopacy for which Mr. Perceval, Dr. Hook, and their party, contend, was necessary for the unity of the church. This is sufficiently shown in the Essay. The premises failing, the conclusion falls to the ground.

Mr. Perceval concludes his Apology for Apostolical Succession with a long Appendix, employed in proving many things which nobody disputes. This no doubt was much the pleasantest part of the work to Mr. Perceval.

Here we conclude this Critique on Mr. Perceval's task, enjoined by his friend Dr. Hook. He has "yielded" up the cause of historical evidence; "utterly fails" to prove a divine origin of their system; and ineffectually attempts an answer to the proofs that ecclesiastical episcopacy is a mere human arrangement. Such is this complete answer to the Essay on Apostolical Succession, by this chosen champion of Dr. Hook! The reader is left to form his own judgment upon its completeness.

AN APPENDIX,

CONTAINING

A REVIEW OF DR. HOOK'S SERMON

ON "HEAR THE CHURCH."

PREACHED BEFORE THE QUEEN, AT THE CHAPEL ROYAL, IN ST. JAMES'S PALACE, JUNE 17, 1838.

DR. HOOK is the apostle and high priest of the high Church scheme of the present times. If assertions were proofs, his writings would contain convincing evidence of the authority of his mission. I doubt his assertions; and I controvert his scheme. His doctrine of the SUCCESSION has been sufficiently refuted in the preceding Essay; deed, the arguments in the Essay do, in their consequence, demolish his whole high Church building.

sermon.

in

But there is one topic upon which he evidently delights to dwell; for he speaks and preaches it everywhere; it is this-That the present Church of England was founded by the apostles, and has come down to the present day, with no greater difference, at any time, from that apostolic church, than the difference caused in the same man by having his face washed or unwashed; see page 13 of his This is his favourite illustration. Speaking of the Church of this country before the Reformation, when sworn to Popery, the pope acknowledged as its head by all its authorities, when governed by bishops who preached the doctrines, and were sworn to the government of Popery, when the Church itself was filled with idols and abominations; with perfect and full-grown Popery,—and comparing that Church with the Church after the Reformation, he says, "THE CHURCH REMAINED THE SAME AFTER IT WAS REFORMED AS IT WAS BEFORE, just as a man remains the same man after he has washed his face as he was before," page 12. The conclusions he draws from this argument, are, that the CHURCH OF ENGLAND "maintains

those peculiar doctrines and that peculiar discipline, which have ALWAYS MARKED, and do still continue to mark, the distinction between the church of Christ, administered under the superintendence of chief pastors or bishops who have regularly succeeded to the apostles, from those sects of Christianity which exist under self-appointed teachers;-that this Church is the ONLY church of Christ in this kingdom :-that it possesses its original endowments, which were never, as ignorant persons foolishly suppose, taken from one church and given to another," page 12;that her bishops have regularly succeeded to the apostles; and that her ministers are the ONLY divinely commissioned ministers in this kingdom: all other denominations are SECTARIANS, SCHISMATICS, and left to the UNCOVENANTED mercies of God. On this ground he has the intolerable arrogance thus to insult the Christian churches in general in America: "When the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA were English colonies, the ENGLISH CHURCH was there established at the revolution, the state was destroyed.* Monarchy has there ceased to exist; but the Church, though depressed for a time, remained uninjured so that there among the American republicans-under the superintendence of no fewer than sixteen bishops, you will find her sacraments and ordinances administered, and all her ritual and liturgical services celebrated, with no less of piety, zeal, and solemnity, than here in England; there you may see THE CHURCH, LIKE AN OASIS IN THE DESERT, blessed by the dews of heaven, and shedding heavenly blessings around her, in a land where, because no religion is esta

*This attack upon the religious bodies of the United States he mixes up with a political philippic. The writer is no advocate for a republic: indeed, he leaves politics in general to others. Yet there is a sentiment, on the page adjoining the last quotation, which deserves remark. The doctor says, "Were all connection between Church and state to cease, we may be sure the monarchy would be destroyed." This was telling the queen that none are loyal to her, as the queen, except she pays them for it; and the same to kings in general. Dr. Hook, and such as he, may speak from their own feelings, as to what they would do for the queen IF NOT PAID BY HER: but to affirm it of Christians in general, IS A VILE SLANDER, and is calculated to disaffect the mind of the queen toward all her Christian subjects who are not of the Establishment. All real Christians receive the Bible as the rule of their faith and practice. From the Bible they learn to "submit to the powers that be," equally as much under a monarchy as under a republic. The

blished, IF IT WERE NOT FOr her, nothing but the ExTREMES OF INFIDELITY OF FANATICISM would prevail,” pp.7, 8.

The reader sees at once that this is the succession scheme a little modified. That scheme has been sufficiently refuted in the Essay. We intend in this review of the sermon, to expose the sophistry of this modification. Here, "THE CHURCH" is the topic :-"BISHOPS" were the former topic.

If Dr. Hook be the man he is said to be, it is hard to suppose that he is not conscious of the sophistry of his own argument in which case he would be a public deceiver: if his reasoning powers be weak, he may possibly be entangled in his own net. Be these things as they may, his argument is a TISSUE of sophistry:-we shall endeavour to untwist it, and break its force of deceiving.

The GREAT FALLACY or delusion of the whole argument lies in using the expression "the Church," in DIFFERENT SENSES, in different parts of the argument; that is, as logicians would say, in CHANGING the terms.

The way in which he manages this, is, by giving only A GENERAL and imperfect definition of the terms in the BEGINNING of his sermon; and then, introducing particulars into it in the progress, as is the most convenient for deception. So, at pages 5 and 8, he says, "Now at the very OUTSET, I must state that I refer to the Church, NOT as a mere national establishment of religion, but as the Church, a religious community, intrinsically independent of the state; that is to say, I am about to treat the Church, not

Wesleyan Methodists, for instance, yield not to the members of the Establishment in loyalty to the queen. But further-Was the Christian church connected with the state for the FIRST THREE HUNDRED YEARS! Did not the state then persecute the church everywhere? The Roman republic had ceased to be when the Christian church began to exist. The emperor was more absolute than the king of England. Now, DID THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS RISE TO DESTROY THE THRONE? Hear Tertullian: "In ALL OUR PRAYERS, we are ever mindful of all our emperors and kings wheresoever we live, beseeching God for every one of them without distinction, that he would bless them with length of days, and a quiet reign, a well-established family, a stout army, a faithful senate, an honest people, a peaceful world, and whatsoever else either prince or people can wish for." For Dr. Hook to go before the queen to propagate his libel upon all her Christian subjects, and upon Christianity in general, deserves the severest rebuke. Such a man can cast "firebrands, arrows, and death, and say, Am I not in sport?"

A

in its political, but simply and solely in its religious character. And so you may perceive what is meant, when we say, that we wish to speak of the Church, not as an establishment, but as the Church, A RELIGIOUS SOCIETY, PARTICULAR SOCIETY OF CHRISTIANS." Then, this " particular society of Christians" becomes " OUR Church"_ "the Church of ENGLAND"- 66 THE Church;" and, at the last, on the LAST page, this "particular society of Christians," becomes DISTINGUISHED from all other " "religious societies" BY THESE SPECIFIC PROPERTIES, as "maintaining those PECULIAR DOCTRINES, and that PECULIAR DISCIPLINE, which have ALWAYS MARKED, and do still continue to mark, the DISTINCTION between the church of Christ, administered under the superintendence of chief pastors or BISHOPS who REGULARLY SUCCEEDED to the apostles, from THOSE SECTS of Christianity under self-appointed teachers." Well, thanks be to the doctor for giving us, at last, a complete definition of the Church of England. This definition, as perfected by himself, is, "That the Church of England is a particular society of Christians distinguished from all other particular religious societies, by its peculiar doctrines, and its peculiar discipline." By discipline, he tells us, he means its church government, as administered by its bishops: their succession is another question, and has been fully treated in the Essay.

Now let us try his main position: "the present Church of England is the old Catholic Church of England, reformed, in the reigns of Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth, of certain superstitious errors; it is the same Church which came down from our British and Saxon ancestors. The Church remained the same after it was reformed as it was before, just as a man remains the same man after he has washed his face as he was before," pp. 11, 12. Here, then, let us examine the matter. The Church before the Reformation was "a particular religious society;" and the Church after the Reformation was a particular religious society." There is, then, this general agreement, that each was 66 a religious society." So a harlot* is a wo

66

* Some respectable persons have made a little objection to this illustration. The writer has duly weighed their observations, and thinks them groundless, for the following reasons: 1st. The authority of the word of God, and of all the great reformers, justifies and authorizes the