A PRINCIPAL part of the foundation on which the immense edifice of popish superstition rests, is the doctrine of apostolical succession. Romanists maintain that their priests hold office, in a line of direct succession from the Apostles; that, in consequence of being in this line, they possess authority to dispense the most important blessings; and that their administrations have a wonderful virtue, which they could not else possibly possess. They are said to be "a priesthood instituted by the Lord, with power to consecrate and minister his body and blood, and also to remit and retain sins." Of course papists further maintain that none can be christian ministers but those who have the advantage of apostolical succesion. This dogma, which flatters the pride of priests, is maintained with some little variations by a popish party in the English Establishment, with as much tenacity as by the avowed votaries of Rome. When examined, however, by reason, or by Scripture, it appears one of the most contemptible pieces of imposition that ever was palmed on the world. It is full of absurdity, and directly opposed to the spirit and letter of the Scriptures. VOL. 6.-N.S.

A vulgar word describes it more correctly than any other in the language, it is perfect humbug.

According to the notions of those who maintain apostolical succession, none are true ministers of Christ, none can communicate saving benefits by their ministrations, but those who have been ordained by an Episcopalian bishop, who was lawfully ordained by some other bishop, who derived his authority in a direct line of such bishops from one or other of the apostles. This notion, connected with the grossest absurdities, would destroy the validity of the christian ministry altogether, because no person on the earth could be found that could prove himself thus a successor of the apostles. Mr. Burnet remarks, "I defy the most learned man in Christendom to prove, on plain historical evidence, who were the first seven bishops of Rome; and from the bishops of Rome, let it be remembered, apostolical authority is professedly derived. If therefore there are seven uncertainties at the fountain head, what are we to do with the remainder?

We begin

with seven doubts to come down to a fixed certainty. Nay, more than

this; ecclesiastical Councils have frequently decreed that certain qualifications are necessary to constitute valid ordination. For instance, several general Councils have declared that if any person, who had been inducted into office, has employed bribes for the purpose of securing his office, his ordination is not valid; that is, he is not in the succession. But bribery and corruption for the offices of popes and bishops, and every other office, were quite common in the dark ages-matters of every day notoriety. The Councils declare that the parties who had used bribes in this way were not ordained. Now if this was the case in the dark ages, will any one say that bribery was not common? And if so, the nullification of ordination was just as common-as common as bribery. What a breach does this make in apostolical succession!"

Archbishop Whateley, in an article inserted in a former number of this periodical, refers to the love of darkness which distinguishes the advocates of apostolical succession, and to the impossibility of their tracing a sure line of descent. This impossibility may be illustrated by a few facts. In 1044 Sylvester, Gregory, and Benedict, "called themselves popes, severally assuming the rights and honours of the see of Rome." "A three headed beast rising from the gates of hell," remarks a Romanist writer. From 1159 to 1181, Alexander III. was pope, and four rivals who successively divided with him the obedience of the Church. From 1378 to 1429, or for fifty-one years, was the great schism in the рарасу. Two, and at one time, three popes were reigning at once. Germany, Bohemia, Hungary, and England acknowledged, during part of this time, Urban VI., while Clement VII. was acknowledged by France, Spain, Scotland, &c. Curses in abundance were poured forth by each pope against his rival, and each

In

annulled the acts of the other. Refering to these facts an able writer asks, "But where was the apostolical succession? Who among these popes and anti-popes were the lawful occupants of the see of Rome? what line was the holy unction preserved? Fix it where you will, the acts of the other party were null and void from the beginning. The bishops made by a false pope were no bishops. The priests ordained by a false bishop were no priests. The sacraments administered by a false priest were no sacraments. Where will the mischief end? Can any Roman Catholic be assured of the validity of his own baptism? For any thing he can tell, the ordination of the priest who baptized him was conferred by one whose succession is traceable to an anti-pope, and is therefore corrupted at the very source. Here is perpetual cause for doubt and despair. Such questions as these are sorely perplexing to Romish divines. Many artful solutions of the difficulty have been proposed, but it is easier to cut the knot than to untie it; ingenuity and sophistry cannot overturn plain facts." Notwithstanding these and many similar facts, apostolical succession is with many a favourite dogma, nor need this excite surprize, as it is eminently adapted to gratify the selfimportance of the proud, and the cupidity of the covetous, by making what is deemed religion, the grand instrument for self-advancement, and the acquisition of filthy lucre. Being zealously advocated, and being mischievous in the extreme, it may receive attention, of which, from its gross absurdity, it is in itself unworthy.

The Lord Jesus having taught that a part of his disciples should be separated from worldly avocations, be wholly devoted to the diffusion of the Gospel, and while thus employed "live of the Gospel," (1 Cor. ix. 14.) ungodly men have abused his wise appointment as a means of advancing

their selfish ends. They have endeavoured too successfully to make the Gospel an instrument for worldly advancement and gain. In the popish church they have succeeded to an immense extent. Among protestants too many have been influenced by the same spirit, and some, that were not themselves bad men, have been deluded to adopt the principles of those that were. A principal obstacle to the success of such men, lies in the zeal and faithfulness of true christian ministers. Hence they have always been exposed to the antipathy of those whose object was gain, or self-exaltation. The doctrine of apostolical succession ministers to both these objects, and hence has been boldly put forth and strenuously maintained. If a man be greedy of gain what a power does he possess of acquiring it, if he can persuade others that he possesses in a line from the apostles, authority to forgive sins, and to communicate salvation, making those he baptizes the children of God and heirs of heaven. If he be not covetous, still the doctrine flatters that pride which exists in every heart, unless subdued by the grace of God. How exalted a being is he who can bestow such benefits! How much superior to his fellow-mortals! Hence the doctrine is not only so profitable, but so flattering to human pride that there is nothing surprising in its prevalence. If a stripling with a smattering of Greek, Latin, and Mathematics, with little knowledge of the Bible, and perhaps no genuine godliness, thinks himself advanced, by ordination into a spiritual instructor, far above all wise and experienced ministers, that have not had the same ordination, the poor fellow is blown up like a bubble though as empty as that. The zeal and faithfulness of true christian ministers have always formed a principal obstacle to the success of worldlyminded priests, and hence the anti

39

pathy manifested to them by those whose object is gain or self-exaltation. Under these circumstances without surprise, though with pity we may hear the vaunts of the advocates of apostolical succession that they are the only true christian ministers, and that all besides are unauthorized intruders; men who like Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, tempt the wrath of God by their presumption. Truly many of these gentlemen have much reason for their strong attachment to their favourite dogma, for if they cannot show on the ground of apostolical succession, that they are christian ministers, they have no other claim to present. Their insane ravings may be excused, when it is seen that they have neither knowledge nor piety to qualify them for their office, and that all they can trust to is apostolical succession.

Such vaunting succeeds however, only on subjects connected with religion. If a smatterer of a physician, locating himself in a city, were to publish that all the physicians of long standing there were unauthorized intruders; or a tradesman to denounce all his fellow-tradesmen, and proclaim himself the only one deserving confidence, his motives would at once be obvious, and however such professions might deceive the weak, the boaster's reward for his selfish vauntings would be the contempt of the intelligent. And this is the reward that they deserve, who vaunt their apostolical succession; and were men as clear-sighted on the great subjects of religion, as on those of professions or trade, this is the reward they would more generally obtain.

The Scriptures furnish many conclusive arguments proving the absurdity and wickedness of this popish doctrine.

The dogma of apostolical succession as connected with the notion that saving benefits are received from the official authority of ministers in

that succession, is opposed to the whole tenor of the Scriptures, on the subject of real religion. Religion is there uniformly represented as a personal thing. The person who enjoys its blessings enjoys them in consequence of the grace that has brought him to believe on the Saviour. Having received Christ, he has become a child of God. His enjoyment of this heavenly good is in no way connected with virtue communicated through any other human being. Were there not another christian upon earth, he would be a christian. Had he never seen a christian minister, did not one exist, his state would be unaffected. He is a child of God by faith in Christ Jesus. He is directed to give a reason of the hope that is in him, (1 Peter iii. 15,) and that reason he who is taught of God can readily give. "I know that I have been led to repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts xx. 21). "I know in whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day," 2 Tim. i. 12. Here religion is personal: it is connected with individual experience; here is a hope that has a reason, resting upon the truth of God, who promises salvation to all who flee to Christ. How opposite to all this, and how supremely absurd is the hope that rests upon the validity and virtue of apostolical succession. "I hope for heaven because I was made a christian in baptism, by a minister who is a successor of the apostles. He tells me so, and I believe him, though it is true I cannot trace through eighteen hundred years his line of descent in this succession, nor can he himself; and if, from any misfortune or informality he is not truly in the line, he is deceived, and I am too. He is no minister, and I am no christian. My baptism was no baptism; no saving benefits were

66

communicated to me, and I am without any part in the covenant of grace.' This is what apostolical succession brings us to in reference to those who fancy they are benefited by it. How opposite to the whole tenor and spirit of the christian system! Surely we may apply to it the admonitions of the Holy Ghost by the apostle. "Refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness." “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings."

The doctrine that saving benefits accrue to the people, through official authority connected with the ministrations of a particular line of men, said to have descended from the apostles, thus appears unscriptural and absurd. Nor does it appear less unscriptural or absurd, if the inquiry be, who according to the Scriptures are true ministers of Christ?

Christian ministers are uniformly represented in the Scriptures as raised up by God. Jer. iii. 15, most probably refers to Gospel times; if so, this truth is taught there. "I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding." In the New Testament christian ministers are sometimes represented as raised up by the Father, sometimes by the Son, sometimes by the Holy Ghost, but uniformly by the blessed God. The gift of ministers is ascribed to the Father. God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers." (1 Cor. xii. 28.) "God-hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us." (2 Cor. v. 19, 20.) It is ascribed to the Son. "He that