An

much on the other, is the lot of the Evangelical clergy. At present, however, the glaring popery of the Oxford divines has scared them rather too near the Puritans, as we may judge by extracts from Letters signed Episcopalian Presbyter," which appeared in the Record, November 29, and December 3, and to which the attention of the reader was requested, by editorial remarks. "Apostolical succession," says the writer, "is held by the Oxford school to be simply this Christ appointed and sent his apostles; the apostles appointed and ordained others; and these their successors; and none but those who thus derive their ordination are entitled to the promise,-Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.' A part of this is true, supported by the express declaration of Scripture. Christ did expressly send forth his apostles, and did promise to be with them unto the end of the world; but he said nothing about the ordination of their successors, or the transmission of any commission to them. This is only an inference drawn from the promise, and by no means a necessary It is the work of the ministry that our Saviour speaks of, and not the appointment to the work. They were to go forth and preach the gospel, baptise, and teach men to observe whatever he had commanded them; and to them, as doing the work, the promise was made, and made to all that would engage in it to the end of the world. This is the only legitimate inference, and the only one that can be supported by facts, or the succeeding history of the church, as detailed in the acts of the Apostles. The only commission given to the Apostles, in the passage above alluded to, was to preach, baptise, and to teach, without a single allusion to any authority given to them to commission others for the same work. There is not to be found an instance in which our Saviour has given his apostles any commission to appoint successors,

one.

6

and there is no precept or order on the subject. To interpret the promise of Christ, Lo, I am with you alway,' &c. as confined to his apostles, and those ordained by them, is not only without evidence, but contrary to evidence. Let it be thus limited, and Paul is completely shut out, for he was not appointed nor ordained by any of the first apostles, to whom the promise was made. But let the promise be viewed as made to them as preachers of the gospel, and to all such in that character, and Paul, as well as others unconnected with the first apostles, will be included....... What was the first act of the apostles after our Saviour's ascension? It was to fill up their own number. Did they proceed in this matter as if the Saviour had given them the power to appoint and ordain another apostle? By no means. The whole, or nearly the whole church then existing, were assembled together, and Peter proposed the matter to them. Two were chosen, not exclusively by the apostles, but by the whole company, and the selection was decided by lot; and that constituted him an apostle without ordination. There was no commission given him by those who were already apostles; and yet he was, no doubt, entitled to the promise made by our Saviour. After the lot fell on him, the only thing said is, that he was numbered with the eleven apostles.' Here is a different mode of appointment from what some would have us believe was fixed and settled by our Saviour."

After referring to Stephen, Philip, &c., the letter proceeds :"But it may be replied, that there is reason to conclude that these men were ordained to preach and baptise; though there is no particular mention of this. That this is any thing more than conjecture or fancy, cannot be proved: and a conjecture is a very feeble thing on which to build the enormous structure, as it is now made, of apostolical succession! But we have an instance in the Acts

6

in which even a conjecture cannot be harboured. There is mention made of a person, who taught diligently the things of the Lord,' being an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures,' without any apostolic commission nay, even when he had not received Christian baptism, knowing only the baptism of John' (Acts xviii. 24-28). This was Apollos; and his work is spoken of with approbation; and the Lord was evidently with him. If the power of authorising men to preach was exclusively given to the apostles, this was an evident encroachment and a violation of order: a conclusion wholly inconsistent with the whole tenor of the narrative. And who were those who 'expounded unto Apollos the way of God more perfectly'? Two disciples; a lay-man, and a lay-woman,-'Aquila and Priscilla.' And they did this without any commission: a thing in the present day that would be deemed by some as highly presumptuous.

"What was the case of those dispersed, when persecution raged at Jerusalem? See Acts viii. 1, 4. There is no mention of their ordination; nor can we well suppose that so many were ordained. They are referred to afterwards in the eleventh chapter, 19—21. 'And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene; which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.' Here is the Saviour's promise verified, and verified to those who preached him: but of the succession of orders we have no account. Were it so important as now made by some, it would doubtless have been mentioned. It would have been quite as necessary to mention the commission as their preaching; for the one without the other, as it is now taught, would have been quite useless!

"We come next to the case of Paul, which presents an instance which singularly contravenes the sentiments of

the successionists.

He was miraculously converted. And to whom was he sent for instruction and for baptism? To Ananias, who was no more than a disciple; that is, a baptised believer; or, in other words, a layman. It was Ananias that told him the purpose of Christ in converting him; that is, to make him an apostle: and it was Ananias that baptised him. And, after this, Paul began instantly to preach; without any human commission, without any laying on of hands. All this, it is said, was extraordinary and miraculous. It was so, no doubt: but this does not remove the difficulty. There were apostles; and God, in his providence, might have easily arranged things so as to send Paul to one of them, and not to Ananias, if he thought proper; as he directed Cornelius to send for Peter. But he did not do so; and doubtless he had a wise purpose to answer. If this had been done, what a strong hold it would have been for the successionists? Some conjecture or other would have probably been hazarded on this case, had we no farther information on the subject than that given in the Acts. But the apostle himself, in his Epistles, has put his own case beyond the limits of conjecture, and fixed it beyond their reach for ever.

"But we have not done with the case of Paul. He had the laying on of hands; and it is the only instance we have in the Acts of such a thing being dene for a ministerial purpose. We have, in fact, no account, throughout the whole New Testament, of any one of the twelve apostles ordaining any to the ministry: so that, whatever power they had for this purpose, we have no recorded instance in which they exercised it; and we have recorded instances in which they did lay on hands for other purposes. But Paul, and also Barnabas, had hands laid on them; and they went forth, in consequence of this, to the work whereunto' the Holy Ghost had called them.' But who laid hands on them? Not any one of

the apostles; to whom, we are told, this power was exclusively given: but 'certain prophets and teachers' at Antioch. This is the only ministerial ordination recorded in the Acts; and not one of the apostles had any hand in it. This is singular, and has a very unfavourable bearing on the system of the successionists. There is nothing more throughout the Acts that refers to this subject, except an expression respecting Paul and Barnabas; that they ' ordained elders in every church (Acts xiv. 23). The word rendered ordained,' xεpoтоvησavτes, might with more propriety be rendered appointed, selected, or chosen, as it is rendered in 2 Cor. viii. 19, who was also chosen of the churches,' &c. In what way they did ordain them, we are not told. They themselves were appointed to their work, according to the direction of the Spirit, by prophets and teachers;' and that by laying on of hands and they afterwards appointed elders; whether by laying on of hands or not, we are not informed.

:

This is

surely no apostolic succession. If, therefore, we go by the recorded examples of Scripture, we must trace the laying on of hands for ministerial purposes to these prophets and teachers,' and not to the twelve apostles; of whose laying on of hands for this purpose there is no mention made: no, neither in the Acts, nor in any of the epistles which they have written. And strange it is, if this power was exclusively delegated to them, we have, with only one exception (that of St. Paul), no account of it,that we have no account either of the bestowal of the power, or of its exercise! But such is the fact. We have no such account: and let those who plead for such an account produce it if they can.

"Our Saviour appointed his apostles to the work of the ministry; but did not expressly invest them with power to appoint others. That power he reserved for himself: and we see, by the history of the church in the Acts, that he exercised it on several

He

occasions, as he thought proper, without the instrumentality of his first apostles. And does he not reserve it still? Where has he delegated it? Let the document be produced. has not, as it were, tied himself down to any specific mode. He adopted, in the primitive church, various plans. He himself sent forth his eleven apostles by word of mouth. Their number was completed by lot. He endued Stephen and Philip with a large effusion of his Spirit; and they preached and baptised. The disciples at Jerusalem, when dispersed by persecution, went forth and preached his Gospel ; and he blessed their ministry. He appeared to Paul, and directed him to go to a disciple at Antioch, for instruction and baptism. He sent forth Paul and Barnabas to the work of the ministry; having first directed some 'prophets and teachers' to lay hands on them. And they afterwards appointed or chose elders for the churches which they had formed. We read of all this, and not a word of any thing like apostolical succession or apostolical commission.

"But in Paul's Epistles to Timothy, an express mention is made of laying on of hands by Paul and the Presbytery. What this was I shall hereafter describe. Timothy was left at Ephesus, to finish there what Paul had left undone ; and Titus was sent to Crete for a similar purpose. And they were to ordain or appoint elders; and these elders were also called bishops. (See Titus i. 5-9.) This was a course different from what we have before noticed. That Timothy and Titus were not then fixed in those places, appears clear, from the Epistles sent to them. They were presiding or ruling elders; and the churches were left to their care. This appears evident from Paul's charge to the elders of Ephesus, as recorded in Acts xx. 17-38. He devolved on them the whole care of the Ephesian Church. Though he was doubtful whether he should ever see them again, he constituted no bishop over them, nor selected any of them

for that purpose. Had he deemed that indispensable, he doubtless would have done so. The distinct office of a bishop, as confessed by some of the most learned in antiquity, did not exist at first, but came into use by degrees; and was adopted for the sake of order and regularity; and this in some places sooner than in others. Even in the time of Clement of Rome, who sent an epistle to the Church of Corinth, there does not appear to have been any bishop then constituted in that church."

Again in the second letter we find— “In my former letter a brief account was given of what the New Testament contains on the subject of ordination : and nothing is to be found in it of an opposite character, that substantiates the notions of the successionists. There is no document in which the delegated power, alleged to be given, is contained; and, as far as the twelve apostles are concerned, there is no instance on record, in which they exercised it. Their mission was this:— 'As my Father hath sent me, so send I you' (John xx. 21). The successionists add, and so you are to send others.' All their arguments are constructed on this basis; as if this addition was a part of the word of God. The calling and sending of ministers, the Saviour has reserved for himself, and has never as yet delegated this power. The way and manner in which they are to be introduced into their work in the church may be various, and different under varying circumstances; and such was the case in the earliest age of the church, according to the instances adduced in my former letter. But the practice of episcopal ordination finally prevailed; how soon after the apostolic age cannot easily be ascertained.

"That persons. unordained, preached and baptised in the first age of the church, can admit of no reasonable doubt; and they continued to do so partially, (at least to preach,) till the beginning of the third century; as the

case of Origen clearly proves. As to the administration of the Lord's Supper, there is much to lead us to conclude, that it was at first celebrated by the brethren, sometimes unassisted by a minister. It is said in Acts xx. 7, that the disciples came together to break bread.' And in the reproofs and directions given by Paul in 1 Cor. ii. 17-34, there is nothing to be found, which may lead us to suppose that it was administered by one that was ordained, but by the brethren, when they came together. If there was a regularly ordained minister at Corinth at that time, how came the apostle not to mention him, and not to give him some directions on the subject? But this is not done. And there is nothing said any where in the New Testament which shews that a minister is necessary for the celebration of the Lord's Supper. What introduced the practice of having these things done generally by persons constituted and recognised as ministers, was the necessity and expediency of order, and of preventing abuses. This practice, which was not exclusive at first, that is, in the apostolic age, nor for a considerable time after, became gradually almost universal and exclusive: and it became so, for the most part, through superstitious and extravagant notions respecting the ministry; and not merely for order's sake. Powers and privileges were ascribed to the office, similar to those claimed by heathen priests: and this is the light in which it is now regarded by the successionists. The characteristics of their priests are very much those of a heathen priest, and not of a humble, faithful, and spiritual minister of Christ.

"A very extraordinary importance is attached by these men to the two sacraments; and apostolical succession is especially necessary on account of these ordinances. One thing is made what Scripture does not make it; and then another thing must necessarily be extended beyond the limits

of revelation. Thus one error introduces another. Baptism regenerates, and the Eucharist gives life: and then to administer them, there must be a commission of a singular nature from the successors of the apostles! Baptism was at first administered without this commission, and has been allowed partially to be administered in the church in every age, in case of necessity, by laymen. And as to the Lord's Supper, there is no explicit evidence on the subject; and the most probable supposition is, that it was at times. celebrated without a minister. But it is necessary to make much of these ordinances, in order to find some plausible reason for the succession. Now, if these ordinances (and in the case of baptism there can be no doubt) were formerly administered by those not ordained, how came ordination to be necessary in order to make them efficacious, or to answer the ends designed by them? Where is the evidence for this-where is the proof to be found? It is a most extraordinary thing, that amidst the most abundant materials contained in the New Testament on every subject connected with the salvation of men, no mention should be made on a point which is now represented to be so vitally important. It is strange, and passing strange, that men should deem that essentally necessary which God has not made so in his word.

"Of all the things mentioned in the New Testament, with regard to ministers, preaching the gospel occupies, pre-eminently, the first place. What is the sum and substance of those extraordinary addresses of our Saviour, contained in the fourteenth and the three following chapters of St. John's Gospel? They include the main doctrines of Divine truth, which were to be made known by the apostles, assisted by the Holy Spirit, and not a word is mentioned about either of the two sacraments. What are the things dwelt on by St. Paul in his two Epistles to Timothy-Epistles of unrivalled

excellency, and, though short, yet wonderfully comprehensive? The qualifications for rightly dividing the word of truth;' and the conduct becoming the gospel, are by far the chief and most prominent points; and there is not even a mention made either of baptism or of the Lord's Supper. We read nothing there of the awful office of the ministry, because ministers have to celebrate the Eucharistic ordinance. But other things are there represented as rendering the office awfully responsible and important. Even Chrysostom in his day, though very excellent in many things, was yet deeply tainted with the superstitions of his age. In his treatise on the priesthood, what he represents as the most awful part of the ministerial office, was the celebration of the Lord's Supper. If it be so, it is very singular that Paul never mentions this, nor any of the apostles, while they state other things which do render the ministry awfully important. To view that as the most momentous, which the Divine word does not represent as such, nor introduce at all among the things that are momentous in the ministerial office, is a sure proof of error and delusion. Following this rule of judging, we shall be necessitated to cast aside, as extravagant and erroneous, the greatest portion of what is said by the successionists. It is not the administration of the Eucharist that Paul sets forth as a matter that is momentous and awful, but its reception. As to the mode of celebrating it, that is, with respect to the officiator, he says nothing; but the manner of receiving it is all that he speaks of. On the contrary, our modern successionists dwell almost exclusively on the former point, making that, and not the other, as the apostle does, the great matter, without which the sacrament can be no sacrament. But where learn they this? Not from Scripture, but from Romish legends and traditions.

"A great deal is made of the words,