sion is the same. For it is undeniable, that cases have occurred in which presbyters have assisted prelates even in the consecration of prelates. This practice has been notoriously followed under the infallible sanction of Rome herself, and upon its validity depends that of both the Romish and the Anglican successions. Presbyters, therefore, are capable of conferring all the ordination which is necessary to constitute prelates, just as kings, magistrates, and civil functionaries are appointed to office by their subjects or inferiors. But if presbyters have the power of conferring official standing on prelates when they enter on their higher office, how much more certainly have they the power of appointing presbyters to their office with like powers as themselves, and thus of perpetuating the ministerial order, to the end of time, without regard to prelates. It is thus made absolutely certain, that the order of presbyters is a divinely instituted order of christian ministers, and that their succession from the apostles' times until the present hour, has never been interrupted nor at any time. entirely wanting, and also that these presbyters are competent to perpetuate their own order. On the other hand there is no such evidence for an uninterrupted succession of prelates. The very existence of any such order, by divine appointment, as essential to the perpetuation of the ministry, is denied by the whole of protestant christendom, with almost entire unanimity. Neither can it ever be proved that such an order was instituted by the apostles, or that it existed in their day, or that prelates succeeded to their office and authority. The allegation, that there has been in fact an unbroken lineal succession of validly ordained and qualified prelates, is contradicted by the discordant lists that are made out, by history, by facts, and by reason; and never can be sustained by any possible proof. All this we have already established, and all this is now admitted by many.1

And what, then, is the conclusion? The conclusion is, that if the power of continuing the ministerial succession by presbyters is denied, then no ministerial succession whatever can be substantiated. And as it is now granted by Mr. Palmer, and has been shown by bishop Taylor, and others,

1) See the case fully argued in Faber's Albigenses, Appendix.

2) See Palmer's Vind. of Episc. against Dr. Wiseman.

3) See Whateley's Kingdom of Christ, Essay ii. § 38, pp. 222, 223.

4) This has been fully admitted by archbishop Whateley in his King

dom of Christ. The same impossibility has also been admitted by Dr. Hawkins on the Apost. Succ. published by command of the archbishop of Canterbury. Lond. 1842, pp. 9, 10, also by Dr. Nolan in his Catholic Char. of Christianity. Lond. 1839, Letter ii. &c.

that there is but one original and essential order of the ministry, it follows, also, either that presbyters are no order of the christian ministry, nor of divine appointment; or that prelates are neither. But that presbyters are such an order, and by divine institution, we have shown; and, therefore, prelates cannot be a divinely appointed order. On prelatical grounds, then, there can be no succession whatever, while, on presbyterian principles, a ministerial succession is undoubted. Again, on the prelatical theory, no unbroken or regular succession can be made out. This theory asserts, that there has been a lineal, personal succession of validly consecrated prelates, without which there can be now no valid or proper ministerial succession at all. Now, in order to establish this theory, a lineal and unbroken personal succession of validly consecrated prelates must be made out, as it regards every link in the whole chain, for, as the validity of any present orders, ordinances, and ministry, can only be ascertained by thus tracing them back to the apostles, the existence of this chain cannot be taken for granted, but must be proved. But this never can be done. The invalidity of any one consecration, which formed a link in continuing the chain, (and there must have been some such_connecting link,) would render all that followed insecure. But we have proved, that this invalidity commences with the very first link in this pretended chain, and that it must have occurred also at later periods.1 The presumption against this succession, consequently, is almost infinite.2

On this theory, therefore, the existence of any christian ministry, or ordinances, or church, is utterly destroyed. But that all these do exist no christian will deny. And hence are we driven to the conclusion, that the presbyterial succession's being the only sure one, and the only one consistent with the truth, is the true succession, and that the prelatical succession is a mere delusive hypothesis the baseless fabrie of a vision.3 For even were it allowed to be continuous, it can only, as has been seen, be sustained by acknowledging the original equality of presbyters and bishops, and their equal capability of transmitting a valid ordination.

Even allowing, that in the ministerial succession of presbyters many cases of invalidity occurred, they do not affect

1) See Lect. on Apost. Succ. Lect. v. &c.

2) See do. Lect. v. and Whateley's Kingdom of Christ. Essay ii. § 30 and 31, pp. 86 and 191.

3) Hence, Milton calls it 'a long

usurpation and convicted pseudo-episcopacy of prelates, (Prose Wks. vol. i. p. 152,) and calls them 'false prophets taken in the greatest, dearest, and most dangerous cheat, the cheat of souls.' p. 154.

the ordination of presbyters, generally, nor render the continuance of such ministers at all doubtful. An inheritance, that descends lineally only, may very soon pass away from the original family, and be forfeited by invalidity or failure in the lineal succession, but an inheritance, that descends both lineally and collaterally, and is thus entailed to any individual in any way connected with the family, can hardly fail to find lawful successors. And thus it appears, how, on our principles, the church and all its ordinances are safe, while, on prelatical principles, they cannot be regarded as certainly existing at all, or as capable or restoration. Indeed, this argument has been fully admitted by these men themselves. 'Doubtless,' say they, the more clear and simple principle is, that of a ministerial succession, (as distinct from the prelatical,) which is undeniable as a fact, while it is most reasonable as a doctrine, and sufficiently countenanced in scripture for its practical reception." By this doctrine the permanency of the institution of the ministry depends, not on any exact succession of individuals, but upon the divine charter and commission. And thus, however many may have been unduly appointed or have usurped their functions - however many may have been the modifications introduced by human presumption-still the institution is preserved in its original commission, which is as efficacious and authoritative now as when it was first issued.?

A succession of presbyters, therefore, reconciles at once all the difficulties of the case; provides against all possible contingences; is proof against all cavil and objection; is implied in every other theory, and essential to its support; and is fully adequate to perpetuate the ministry through every period of the church, to the end of time. And the presbyterian church being founded on the doctrines of the apostles, and on the same ministerial order which was conferred by the apostles on those 'presbyters whom they ordained in every city,' most rightfully claims, and most undeniably possesses, the true apostolical succession, and is built on that rock against which the gates of hell shall not prevail.3

1) Oxford Tracts, No. 7, and Whateley's Kingdom of Christ, as above. Mr. Goode, in his Divine Rule of Faith, ch. viii. vol. ii. p. 76, argues, that there is no scripture proof for any other succession.

2) See Dr. Hawkins on the Apost. Succ. p. 8.

3) See this fully admitted by archbishop Whateley, in his Kingdom of Christ, passim, and § 32, Essay ii. and § 33, § 34, p. 205, &c. § 35, § 36.

CHAPTER II.

THE CLAIMS OF PRESBYTERY TO THE MINISTERIAL SUCCESSION SUSTAINED BY THE CONDITION OF THE CHURCH

DURING OUR LORD'S MINISTRY.

§ 1.

The truth of the opposing theories of prelacy and presbytery must be decided by scripture.

THERE is, as we have seen, a clear issue between the adherents of presbytery and prelacy, these affirming what the others deny, and these claiming what the others appropriate exclusively to themselves. It is evident unto all men,' say prelatists, diligently reading holy scripture, and ancient authors, that from the apostles' time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ's church, bishops, priests, and deacons.'1 It is also alleged to be equally evident, that the order of prelates alone have power derived from divine institu tion, to set apart men to preach the word, and to dispense the ordinances of God.'2 Others,' it is added, within the last three centuries, have embraced the opinion, never before sanctioned, that presbyters have that power.' It is thus affirmed, that there never was a time when these different orders of the christian ministry were not put forward as apostolical; and that they are to be for ever preserved, unaltered, under the most solemn obligations.3 Such are the bold and fearless assertions of prelacy. But such claims are, we contend, as baseless as they are arrogant. No such orders are to be recognised in the divine institutes, or in the polity of the apostolical churches. Such assertions are unsupported by the testimony of the apostolical and primitive fathers, and are

1) Pref. to the Form and Manner of making, ordering, and consecrating Bishops, &c,

2) Charleston Gospel Messenger, Feb. 1840, p. 371.

3) Lond. Quart. Rev. Dec. 1839, pp. 57, 65; and Oxf. Tr. vol. i. p. 160.

contradicted by many later authors; by the great mass of protestant christendom; and by the most candid and learned writers in the bosom of the prelacy itself. These positions we shall now attempt to substantiate, and thus confirm and establish the claims of presbyters to be the true and rightful ministerial successors to the apostolic college.

It has already been shown, that, in order to the decision of this and all other questions relating to the doctrines, forms, and order of the church of Christ, we must appeal to the tribunal of the scriptures.1 We assume, therefore, this position as now determined. Our inquiry simply is as to the asserted fact, that this prelatic system has been conveyed from the apostles and our Lord Jesus Christ. It is on this point we are at issue with prelatists. We reject the prelatic theory of three orders, not merely because it is unwritten, and traditionally handed down, but because it is not proved to have been revealed at all; and because no single article, not capable of proof from the scriptures, has ever yet been traced to the supreme authority of a divine revelation. The only question before us, then, is, the jus divinum of prelacy; and how this can be proved when men leave the scriptures, ('which they do, in effect, when they call on the help of succeeding ages to make the scriptures speak plain for them,') is to our minds a most profound mystery.3 Could the united testimony of the fathers be produced in favor of any opinion, what would it avail against the evidence of scripture? What,' asks the apostle, though some or all have not believed; shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid. Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar.' 'He abideth faithful, and cannot deny himself.' Nay, so highly does God esteem his word, 'that he willeth us, in it, to judge both angels and the whole world;' and will, by it, himself judge us at the last great day.

§ 2.

Some determinate scheme of church government contained in scripture.

But there is a very prevalent opinion, long current in the English Church, that, however distinct and determinate scripture may be in laying down the doctrines of christianity,

1) Lect. on Apost. Succ. Lect. ii. iii. and iv. p. 208.

2) See Hawkins's Bampt. Lect.

3) Stillingfleet's Divine Right,

&c. p. 339, in Plea for Presb. p. 244. See also Sherlock on do. p. 267.

4) See Lect. on Apost. Succ. and in archbishop Whateley's Kingdom of Christ, Sect. iii. and xvi.