But, then, to claim a divine right for this system, and for this EXCLUSIVELY of all others; and that so as to declare that no ministry, except ordained by these modern apostles, is valid; that ALL the ordinances of all the Protestant churches in Europe besides the Church of England are VAIN, and without the promise of Christ: this, we say, is such a piece of blind and bigoted arrogance, as to deserve severe exposure and rebuke. It is designed to promote a spirit of exclusiveness and intolerance: may such designs perish for ever! and may all ministers learn that they are brethren; and that all who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, are ONE HOLY, CATHOLIC, AND APOSTOLICAL CHURCH, built, not upon the traditions of men, but upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.

SECTION IV.

THE GENERAL SPIRIT AND SCOPE OF THE GOSPEL OPPOSED TO THIS HIGH CHURCH SCHEME.

"TRUE it is," says the judicious Hooker, "concerning the word of God, whether it be by misconstruction of the sense, or by falsification of the words, wittingly to endevor that any thing may seem divine which is not, or any thing not seem which is, were plainly to abuse and even to falsifie divine evidence, which injurie offered but unto men is most worthily counted hainous. Which point I wish they did well observe, with whom nothing is more familiar than to plead in these causes, the law of God, the word of the Lord; who, notwithstanding when they come to alleage what word and what law they meant, their common ordinary practice is, to quote BY-SPEECHES in some historicall narration or other, and to urge them as if they were written in most exact forme of law. What is to add to the law of God if this bee not? When that which the word of God doth but deliver historically, we conster without any warrant as if it were legally meant, and so urge it further than wee can prove that it was intended, doe wee not adde to the lawes of God, and make

them in number seeme more than they are? It standeth us upon to be carefull in this case. For the sentence of God is heavy against them, that wittingly shall presume thus to use the Scripture.' These words of this celebrated defender of the Church of England exactly describe, and justly censure, the conduct of these high Church excommunicators. They pretend to plead "the law of God," or divine authority, for their scheme of excommunicating the other Protestant churches of Europe, while, "notwithstanding, when they come to alleage what word and what law they meant, their common ordinary practice is, to quote BY-SPEECHES in some historical narration or other, and to urge them as if they were written in most exact form of LAW." So, if the subject of the alms of the church be historically treated, and the Greek term for messengers be used, (a term which was also applied to those extraordinary ministers, by it denominated apostles,) this is immediately caught at in order to create a second order of apostles, to whom modern bishops are to be the exclusive successors. Again, if St. Paul wishes Timothy to abide at Ephesus for a special purpose, named in the request, this must make him bishop of Ephesus. St. Luke says, in historical narration, (Acts xxi, 17, 18,) "And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly, and the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present." Bishop Taylor makes this by-speech, or historical narration, formally the "second evidence of Scripture," that St. James was bishop of Jerusalem. "Why (went they in) unto James?" he asks, "why not rather into the presbytery, or college of elders, if James did not eminere, were not the yovuevos, the præpositus, or bishop of them all?"†

* Ecclesiastical Polity, b. iii, sec. 5.

+ Episcop. Ass., p. 71. And Mr. Sinclair, in his "Vindication of Episcopal or Apostolical Succession," makes a mighty parade of this nonsensical argument, pp. 24-27. But he destroys it utterly by betraying its foolishness in the two following particulars: 1. That by it an apostle is ELEVATED to be a BISHOP of a single city!! 2. That consistently with this, he actually has the hardihood and infatuation to make James, as bishop of Jerusalem, PRESIDE OVER THE APOSTLES themselves in the council at Jerusalem. Fine work! a bishop lording it over the apostles!! These absurdities are genuine results of the argument. He quotes, as historic evidence for it, an acknowledged

To be sure, the weary travellers must go in somewhere; but does the simple fact of their calling at a certain brother's house, prove that he was a bishop of the place? Besides, how absurd to degrade an apostle into a bishopa universal commission into a local one, to a single city! "As if the king should become mayor of London; as if the bishop of London should be vicar of Pancras !"* Well, let us read verses 7 and 8 of this very chapter : "And when we had finished our course from Tyre, we came to Ptolemais, and saluted the brethren, and abode with them one day. And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Cesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven, and abode with him." Here, then, we make Philip, the evangelist, who was one of the seven deacons, bishop of Cesarea. What solemn trifling is all this! Nothing is more calculated to destroy the authority of Scripture itself than this mode of interpretation. The champions of Popery excel in it. They may do it consistently, because they have supreme authority to make the Scriptures say what they please. They often labour to prove the uncertainty of the meaning of the Scriptures, in order to increase their priestly authority. Their people have bound themselves to believe them, by giving up the right of private judgment. Thus the monstrous errors of Popery are received, on what they call the authority of the church, (that is, the dicta of their priests,) as the truths of God's holy word. Such is the method of proof used by these high Church writers, quoting "by-speeches in some historical narration, and urging them as if they were written in most exact form of law," in order to prove the divine right of their scheme, and that to the exclusion of all from the pale of the Christian church who do not conform to it. "What is to add to the law of God, if this be not? When that which the word of God doth but deliver historically, we conster without any warrant as if it were legally meant, and so urge it further than we can prove that it was in

interpolation of Ignatius; and the work of Hegisippus, which Dupin, a competent authority, declares is little better than a fable. The rest of his authorities may be considered generally as retailers of this original fable and absurd statement.

* Barrow on the Pope's Supremacy, supp. 4.

tended, do we not adde to the laws of God, and make them in number seeme more than they are? It standeth us upor to be careful in this case. For the sentence of God is heavy against them, that wittingly shall presume thus to use the Scripture." Such a procedure can supply no proofs; it leads to much perversion of the public mind; and is dangerous in its consequences to the authors themselves, and to the cause of religion in the world.

It is a point which the reader cannot too carefully mark, that the proof-proof clear, plain, and strong, lies upon these advocates to produce. In strictness, there NEEDS NONE against this scheme: if their proofs fail to support it, it FALLS OF ITSELF. Their proofs are such as the judicious Hooker has above described. They are, in truth, no proofs. The system, therefore, falls by its own weight. This is enough to a serious, reflecting mind. Where there is no law there is no transgression. Nay, more, the very countenancing of individuals in an attempt to "make that seeme divine which is not, were plainly to abuse and even to FALSIFY DIVINE EVIDENCE, which injury offered but unto men is most worthily counted hainous." Let every person, therefore, take care how he becomes a partaker in the proceedings of these men.

We shall, however, expose these high pretensions from the SCRIPTURES themselves. In this section we intend to point out some of those simple and catholic principles laid down by our Lord and his apostles in the New Testament, in contrast to the narrow, bigoted, exclusive, and intolerant character of this pseudo-succession scheme.

One CHARACTERISTIC of the New Covenant is, the putting aside of "carnal ordinances," and "the TRADITIONS of men;" and the placing of our holy religion upon the simplest and broadest basis; requiring nothing as ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to it, but faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, working by love, purifying the heart, and fulfilling the law. Even baptism and the Lord's supper, though POSITIVELY OBLIGATORY Where they can be had, are not absolutely essential to the possession of the blessings of the gospel. Abraham was justified BEFORE he was circumcised. Hear the apostle, in Rom. iv, 9-12, "Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for

righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be NOT circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised." Cornelius was justified BEFORE he was baptized: Acts x, 44-47, " While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Every one that believes the gospel is bound by its positive authority to be baptized, and to receive the Lord's supper; but the Scriptures never declare that any man shall be damned for the lack of either; but "he that believeth not shall be damned.” A wilful, presumptuous neglect of these positive institutions, is inconsistent with Christian character; but if ignorance, the prejudices of education, or lack of opportunity, occasions any individual who believes in Christ, as above described, to be found without them, he may and will be saved. He that saith otherwise, let him learn what this meaneth, "I will have mercy," saith the Lord, “and not sacrifice," Matt. xii, 7. Even circumcision, the want of which was threatened from heaven with solemn excision, or cutting off from Israel, was relaxed when circumstances required it. See Joshua v, 2−9.

The same observation bears directly upon the ministers of the gospel. Under the Jewish dispensation, great ritual exactness was enjoined in setting them apart to the service of the altar. The priesthood was confined to one family. Denunciations of death were proclaimed against any who approached unto God contrary to his own positive injunctions. These things were all marvellously calculated to