"•*'•::. PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROYED; OR, tt^oUsm m)i t|e C^urclj of ^itgtoJr* ■ » • ■ t "■ •■■ ;"> £■.-' KEY. BY EDWARD HARTLEY DEWART. ■— T^ ;. :.^^^};- . < • - ^ , ; . .-■''^ There be some that trouble you, and would pervert tlie Gospel of Christ. —St. Paul. But In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. — Tbe Rkdebmer. To the law and to the testimony ; if they spealc not according to tliis word, it is because there is no light in them, . , . : .;. j —Isaiah. i ■^K '^■yfi/%r>rt./>^^f V - TORONTO: PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR, AT THE GUARDIAN OFFICE, 80 KING STREET EAST. 19573. PREFATORY NOTE. I hail with satisfaction the increasing good feehr.g between the Churches. Union in doing the work of the Master is doubtless better than hostile controversy. But, I liave no sympathy with those who are liberal, merely because they think there is nothing worth contending for. The desire Tor peace carries us too far, when it makes us shrink from frankly condemning what is false, and defeudiuT; what we believe to be true. We should " earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." The errors of the ritualists and sacramentarians I believe to be a serious departure froni the simplicity of the Gospel. They are misleading guides, who should be sharply rebuked, and their assumptions sternly repudiated. E. H. D. Toronto, December 16, 1873, FEB 14 1P51 PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED, I. Introductory Remarks. This little tract is not written in the spirit of contro- versy. It is no part of its design to assail a sister denomi- nation. It is written in aelf-defence, against the frequent attacks of Bpiscopaliaa ministers, who seek to unsettle Methodists on some of our rural circuits, by r'- ^ ■ renting Methodism as an unauthorized and schismatic o. .uization, without a valid ministry, genuine sacraments, or the charac- teristics of a true and scriptural branch of the Christian Church. Tiie main points dwelt upon by these clerical proselyters are, — that John Wesley lived and died "a clergyman of the Church of England ; " that the separation of Metliodism from the National Church and its becoming an independent Church were in open violation of Wesley's principles and injunctions ; that modern Methodists have abandoned Wesley's principles, so that if he were now living he would disown them; that as the Methodist Church has been constituted in an irregular and unscriptural man- ner, neither its ministry nor sacraments are valid ; that all Methodists who desire to be the true followers of John Wesley, should leave the Wesleyan communion, and join the Church of England. The numerous recent appeals to Methodists to allow themselves to be absorbed by " the Church " are well known to the public. The men who pursue these tactics are generally strongly tinged with serai-popish views of the efficacy of the sacra- ments, as the main channels of grace and salvation. They have great faith in the value of an unbroken succession of Episcopal ordinations from the apostles to the present time, as essential to a valid ministry. They are generally very .exclusive and supercilious in their attitude towards min- ft PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. • isters of other Churches, while cherishing a respectful regard for the Rouush Church, as a true, though erring branch of the Church of Chiist. Thoy do not generally apply to themselves the terms Presbyters or Ministers ; but love to call themselves " priests," — a name never applied to designate Christian pastors in the New Testament. Their sermons are rarely marked by either breadth of mental grasp, or deep thought, and are much more largely occupied with talk about the Church and the sacraments, than with Christ and his salvation from the guilt and power of sin. Many of them speak with contempt of conversion, the witness of the Spirit, and spiritual peace and joy, as taught and experienced among the Methodists, as if these things wore unscriptural delusions. They deem such outward things as the reception of the sacraments from priestly hands, and churchmanship in a Church with a ministry in "the succession," a better proof of Christian manhood, than " righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." Indeed, the Church is commonly spoken of as if it was the instrument of salvation — a sort of ship, in which all who take passage may rest satisfied that they shall be brought in safety to the desired haven. I give this brief description of these Anglican " priests," in order that they may be recognized by the people whom they seek to disturb ; and also, that it may be clearly understood, that I am not writing against the godly and liberal ministers and laymen of the Church of England, many of whom I cordially recognize as brethren and fellow- workers in Christ, who find better employment than proselyting from other Churches, or unchurching other denominations ; but against the teaching of a sect in that Church, which, however sincere in their convictions, I firmly believe cherish unscriptural views of the Church of Christ, and are sadly wanting in the charity and liberality of New Testament Christianity. In this brief essay, I undertake to show that those who charge modern Methodists with having abandoned John Wesley's principles, and being now scliinmatic and unscri])tural organizations, base these allegations on assump- tions respecting Methodism that are not historically correct; PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. . 5 and on theories resjipcting the Christian Church and the niinisterial office, thro are neither sustained by Scripture nor rea.son and common sense. / vnsh at the outset to re2nidiate as unwarranted the common as8um,ption of our Anglican assailants, that Mr. Wesle'j/s expressed sentiments respecting the relationship of Methodism to the Church of England, or against separation, should irrevocably settle the whole question for all tiine. Our Episcopalian friends may save themselves the trouble of multiplying proofs of John Wesley's attachment to the Church of England ; or of his having on several occasions declared that the Methodists ought not to separate from it. From time to time, quotations from old letters or other writings are published by " Churchmen," as if they were startling discoveries, that should till the whole Metho- dist world with dismay. They reveal the ignorance of those who make such ado ovc them, rather than of those whom they are intended to enlighten. All intelligent Methodists will freely admit that Mr. Wesley was at first a very high Churchman, that he at times expressed strong attachment to the Church of England, and his conviction that his people should not separate from it. But we should not isolate these expressions from his life. We must take into consideration, the modifying sentiments expressed at other times, his own deliberate acts, and the principles that guided his whole public life, and what he himself called "the violent prejudices of his education," in order to rightly estiuiate the import and value of these expressions of sentiment and opinion. We admit, without dispute, Wesley's expressions against separation from the Church of England. We cherish a high regard for his opinions and counsel, on any matter where all the facts were known to him. But it is a mistake to suppose that we regard him as an infallible pope, whose judgment on a matter of expediency, expressed a hundred years ago, we dai-e not criticibe or reject. We claim the same right to exercise our deliberate judgment, as to what is most for God's glory and for the good of our own branch of the Church, that Wesley claimed for himself in his day. The true followers of Wesley are not those who accept with PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. unquestioning faith everytliing that he believed and taught; but those who seek to know wliat is right and true, with the same earnostness with which he .sought ; and who adopt the metliods of usefulness, which they believe to be best, •with the same decision and independence that distinguished him. As Mr. S. D. Waddy recently said in the Methodist Recorder: "Wesley shaped our history during his own ] lifetime ; but not for all time. He had not the iiift of prophecy. If any man cotdd tell us exactly what Wesley would have ftaid or done under existing circumstances, it would be entitled to respectful consideration ; but after all, it would not be aathorative. But we ask not what he did say then, but what he would say now. The rest is idle." There can be no doubt, that if Mr. Wesley was living to-day, when gross popery and gross infidelity are openly taught by the paid clergy of the Established Church, which seenia helpless to remove the evil, he would not have the slightest sympathy with those, who think Methodism should dissolve her organization, arrest her operations, call home her niissionaiies, and forever disappear from sight among the heterogeneous elements of the Established Church. He could not sanction such a movement, without being recreant to the principles and motives that governed his course during his whole life. The Methodists of today claim to be in a far better posi- tion to judge of the expediency, or inexpediency, of separa- tion from the Established Church, than Mr. Wesley could be when he expressed these opinions against separation. It is true, that under the influence of the prejudices of his education he unguardedly said that if the Methodists for- sook the Church of England, God would forsake them. But the past history of Methodism proves, l)eyond all question, that he was wrong in saying this. The grandest successes of Methodism, both in England and A.merica, "were achieved since his death. The one year, in which the sacraments were not administered, was the first in which there was a decline in numbers. After the settlement of the sacramental question in England, the Wesleyan Church witnessed such ingatherings as had never been seen during the life of Wesley. There can now be no doubt, that the PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. T delay of Mr. Wcsloy, to allow his Societies to enjoy the full rights and privileges of an independent Church, operated \iiifavorably to the progress of Methodism. In view of th«'se facts, it is the weak resort of a weak cause, for High (ninrchmen to quote as an infallible prophecy an opinion, that time has amply proved to bo an error and a mistake. As Wesley selected some of his v/ritings to be a standard of doctrine far his Societies, all appeals to Wesley's views should be made to these otandard works, and not to what ho himself deliberately excluded from being a part of that .standard. Yet these Anglican priests pick outfiom Wesley's gt.'ueral writings certain expressions that seem to favor their views, as if his opinions were accepted by both parties as an infallible standard of appeal; but when he says anything that does not suit them, he is no authority with them. If the ; Anglican contemners of Methodism do not accept Mr. Wesley's actions as a reformer, and all his opinions on ques- tions of Church order, as a standard that cannot be repudi- ated, they have no right to hurl them, as unanswerable arguments, at those who claim the same right of indepen- dent judgment as themselves. If they do thi\p accept Wesley, it would be easy to show that his principles and teaching utterly condemn their unscriptural theories and pretensions. They should also remember, if the cause of I modern Methodism is clearly wrong, Wesley's favorable ' opinion could not make it right ; and if right, the want of ■ his endorsement cannot make it wrong. But, though we i claim for ourselves as Methodists, the liberty of judgment , and action, which every living Church must possess, we are far from being disposed to admit the correctness of Anglican allegations respecting Mr. Wesley's views, and the historic position of iVxethodism with relation to the Church of Eng- land, before and since his death. II. The Relationship of Wesley and op Methodism TO the Church of England. 1. In all these attacks on modern Methodism, it is strangely taken for granted, as something that scarcely re- quires [)roof, that during Mr. Wesley s life Methodism watt an organic part of the Church of England, and that after.- 8 PniESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPHOVED. h>s death, contrary to his wjnnctionft, there was a separation or secession, by w]ih;h the Methodist Connexion assumed a relationship to that Church, wholly different from what it had sustained durimfhis life. ""Neitlicr of these jwsiiinptions is correct. While High Chuichmen are eagerly catching at anything in Wesley's writings that seems capable of being tiirnetl against modern MetliodiHts, no Anglican priest has ever had the honesty and candor to state the whole case fully and fairly. They keep back everything that does not help their theory. But it must not 1x3 forgotten that many of the early preacliers, and during Mr. Wesley's life thou- sands of the members in the Societies, never belonged to the English Church. Dr. Etheridge says that only a minorivy had been members of the National Church ; "othei-s were accustomed to hear the gospel among the Non- conformists, but the greater mass of them belonged to no Church." How then could such people be said to secede from a Church to which they never belonged ? At a later period, in a similar manner, through the labors of Bourne and Clowes, the Primitive Methodist body began. It had its birth in revivals of religion, that had not the slightest resemblance to a secession from the National Church j it grew up wholly outside of it. And even of John Wesley's connection with the Estab- lished Church of England, a great deal more has been made, for proselyting; purposes, than the plain facts will justify. He did not " remain all his life a clergyman of that Church," in any sense that can help the cause of those* who desire to use his example for the condemnation of modern Methodists. He was disowned by the Church as a minister, and treated with contempt by the clergy for a generation, until some men found their way into her pulpits, whose religious life was a result of the great religious reformation, in which he was the chief instrument. He completely broke away from submission to the authority of the Church. He organized Societies, which had no organic connection with it ; and over which it had not the slightest control. He ordained preachers to administer th PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. 9 sacraments, where he thought this necessary or expedient ; and made legal provision for the incjependent organized existence of the M(!thodist Coiinexion after his death. He prepared a constitution for an independent Methodist Church in America ; ordained Coke a superintendent, and ap{)ointed him and Asbury to ordain ministers to meet the requirements of the American Chui'ch. He ordained Alex- ander Mather to be superintendent of the English Con- nexion. Except that lit had been ordained by Bishop Potter, and n«jver was expelled, he had little claim to be called '* a clergyman of the Church of England." He held no pastoral charge under the authorities of that Church ; and acted in all things independently of its ecclesiastical sanctions or authority. If any one of Wesley's preachers had taken up an inde- pendent position in relation to Methodism, such as he took in respect to the Church of England, would he have admitted his claim to be in good standing in the Methodist Society ? Certainly not. Wesley's relation to the Church cannot possibly sustain what it is cited to ])rove. Every Methodist minister in England to-day might hold the same kind of relationship to the English Church that Wesley held, without their doing so interfering with the separate and independent existence of the Wesleyan Church. In the face of these facts, how can it be maintained that up to Wesley's death the Methodist Societies remained con- nected with the National Church ? Some of its founders had been ordained by bishops of that Church ; and many of its members had been baptized in it, and continued to attend its services ; but the Methodist Societies, as an organization, never had any connection with the Church of England, and therefore could not secede from it. Though quoting the strong language sometimes used by Wesley against separation, without explaining what he meant by separation, or what he said at other times on the other side of the question, may mislead those who are ignorant of the whole factt', it is not a fair method to pursue. A full and impartial examination of all Mr. Wesley's utter- ances on this point will show, that while from educational 10 PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. prejuilices, and the strong pressure of his brotlier Charles and other High Church clerju;ymen. he held out against a forrnal Bej)aration in England, he nevertheless sympathized with those who urged the need of asssuming all the rights and privileges of a Christian Church, that he was deeply irapres.^ed by their arguments, and clearly foresaw that such a a development was inevitable, and yet, took no action to prevent it. I can only cite here a few of his deliverances on this question, to substantiate what I have here asserted. As early as 1755 the question of separation and indepen- dence was debated in the Conference for three days ; and the conclusion arrived at was, that whether it was lawful or not, it was not expedient to separate from the Church. Of those who argued in favor of independence, Wesley himself admitted that though he " did not fluctuate, yet he could not answer the arguments." He afterware primitive church convinced me, many years ago, that liishops and presbyters arc; the san)e order, and consecpiently liave the same right to ordain. For ir.any years I have been importuned, from time to time, to exercise this right by or- daining part of our travelling preachei-s. But I have still jc-fused ; not only for peace sake, but because I was deter- iiiined, as little as possible, to violate the order of the National Jhurch to which I belonged." But the j)osition of the Church in America removed these scruples, and made it his duty to )rovide for " these poor sheep in thp wilderness." So far from thinking it desirable, even if practicable, to have khese missionaries ordained by the bishops of tho National Church, in the same document he says, " if they would >rdain them now, they would expect to govern them, and low giievously would this entangle us ! " There is not inch desire for union with " the Church " in this senti- lent. From all this, we are forced to the conclusion, that when 'esley so earnestly warned the Methodists not to separate from the Church of England, he could not mean all that modern Episcopalians suppose him to mean. He could not in fact mean anything, that would serve the purposes of their argument against modern Methodists. He could not inean tuat the Methodist Societies were to be under the control and direction of the " Church ; " for this thev had never been, and he fully provided that they never should be. He could not mean that under no circumstances they should assume the functions of an independent Church ; for this had already been accomplished, with his full consent, in the case of American Methodism. He could not mean that all the Methodists should attend the services of the Church of England ; for for for^y years in London, and after- wards in other places, service was held at the same hour as in -the National Churches with his consent. He could not mean that in no case were they to celebrate the sacraments out of the National Churches, for by the employment of ordained ministers, (several of whom had for years acted 20 PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. indpppndpiitly of the Church and its authorities), and after-^ •wards by the ordination of preachers for Scotland, and in some cases for Enghmd, ho provided for the administration of tho sacraments, in Methodist chapels to Methodist con- gregations. He coukl not mean tliat none but episcopally ordained ministers had a right to administer the sacra- ments ; for he had long hehl that bishops and presbyters were the same order in the primitive Church, and had the same right to ordain. And in this respect he showed his faith by his deeds. He could not mean that the Conference J after his death were to be irrevocably bound by theories " in which tiiey had no faith, rather than by their convictions of wliut would be best for the prosperity of- the work of God ; for he himself had sacrificed his strongest prejudices, when he felt convinced that by so doing he could do more good. Though he desired that, if possible, his people should maintain the same kind of connection with the National Church as during his life ; yet surely the relationship of Methodism to that Church at Mr. Wesley's death was not satisfactory to either ancient or modern High Churchmen. Have they ever paused to ask themselves what that connec- tion was? As we have already said, it consisted solely in the fact that a part of the membership were communicants, and that some of the helpers of Wesley had formerly been or- dained in that Church. This was all. As societies, and as a denomination, it had no connection whatever with the National Church- And it was John Wesley himself 'who, ^ by legal provision, made it certain that it never should have. 3. Equally baseless is the allegation that modern Metho- dists have departed from Wesley's principles. This charge is rather general ; but from whatever point of view we regard it, it is equally unsupported by facts. It cannot mean that we have renounced the doctrinal system of Wesley. Amid ; defection and heresy, Methodism has nobly " kept the faith." Justification by faith alone, the New Birth, the Witness of the Spirit, Christian perfection, and all the ; great verities of the gospel are faithfully and fully pro- claimed from our pulpits. Wherever an agent of Metho-| dism stands up to address the people, they hear no uncertaiuj PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. 21 sound, and are perplexed liy no strange goRpel. It cannot mean that we have changed the General llules, or the Discipline ; as these are still roligionsly maintained. It cannot mean that the modes of worship are changed, or ;hat class and i)rayer-meetings, love -feasts and watch-nights, lave been abandoned ; tliis would be obviously incorrect. Neither can it be truthfully said, that the zeal and lire of early Methodism have declined. In spite of croakers and jcorners Methodism never wielded so great and wide-spread I spiritual influence as to-day. !N either in doctrine nordis- Bipline, in the form or spirit of our worship, or in our 'uiding principles, have we departe^^^od immediately succeeding the Apostolic age. Mosheim says : *' The rulers of the people were either presbyters or >ishops, — titles which in the New Testa- ment are undoubtedly applied to the same order of men." De Piessense says : " The bishopric in the primitive form 30 PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. was identical with the office of ehler ; " and again, " re- garded from the stand-point of Episcopal theories, it is impossible to harmonize the evidence of the Fathers as to Clement's (Romanus) entry upon his office." Lord Chancellor King shows, by unanswerable arguments, that in the primi- tive Church bishops and presbyters were of the same order ; and that presbyters took part in ordaining bishops and deacons, and performed all the official acts of bishops. Mosheim warns us against confounding the primitive bishops with those of later time, who were called by that name. He says, " A bishop, during the first and second century, was a person who had the care of one Christian assembly, which at that time was, generally speaking, small enough to be contained in a private house." Many similar testimonies might be quoted, but this will suffice to show, that the modern type of Episcopacy, and the theory of three distinct oi'ders of ministers were unknown in the early Christian Church. The theory, that it is the prerogative of a bishop alone to receive and ordain men to the office of the ministry, finds no support in the practice or belief of the Primi- tive Church. Lord King says : " When the bishop of a Church was dead, all the people of that Church met together in one place to choose a new bishop." He quotes several examples from the fathers, in prv)of of the preva- lence of this practice. After the bishop was chosen by the people, a number of pastors or bishops met and ordained him in the presence of the congregation. He quotes Bishop Cyprian, as writing from his exile respecting his own habit of consulting the people, " therein imitating the example of the Apostles and Apostolic men, who ordained none, but with ' the approbation of the whole Church.' " Mosheim says : " It was therefore the assembly of the people, which chose rulers and teachers, or received them by a free and authoritative consent, when recommended by others." Lord King also quotes Clement of Rome as stating that, in the planting of the Churches, the Apostles and the Apos- tolic men " ordained bishops and deacons, with the consent of tliB whole Church." So far from one prelate being invested with exclusive authority to ordain, King tella us, PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. 81 " the more bishops there were present at an instalment, the more did its validity and unquestionableness appear." He cites cases iu which three, five, sixteen, and even twenty- fivo bisliops (pastors) took part in the ordination of a bishop. Though these early fathers are anxious to trace their authority for doctrines to the Apostles and their com* pauions, I know of no case where any of them appeal to an unbroken lineal succession of ordinations, as tlie proof of their ministerial authority. Space will not allow me to pursue this argument. The difference in' this matter between the practice of the primitive Ciiurch, and that of modern Romanists and Episcopalians, is as great as it well can be. Yet these two sects would fain persuade us that they are the only Churches that pro[)erly regard the example of Christian antiquity ! But their tlieories are a much more modern invention. The Apostolic Church knew them not. 8. This theory of Apostolical Succession, and exclusively Episcopal ordination, is ttot the doctrine of the Church of England, as presented in her standards, or expounded by her noblest sons. In the recent controversy that has arisen, respecting the Dean of Canterbury and Bishop Cummins partaking of the Lord's Supper in a Presbyterian Church, it has been conclusively shown, that the Church of the Reformation in England did not, either in her practice or teaching, ma,intain that Episcopal orders alone were valid. Some of her greatest divines have held the validity of non- episcopal orders. For many years after the Reformation, Presbyterian divines were received in England and aduiitted to parishes without reordination, as Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer, who held seats as professors of theology in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Though the theory may have been held by some divines, it was not till the time of Charles I. that it was acted upon, as the law of the Church. As Professor Fjsher recently showed in an able article in the Independent, " the doctrine of apostolical succession, in the sense tliat churches without bishops are destitute of a lawful ministry, had no considerable number of adherents in the'English Chur.;h until, in the reigns of James I. and Charles I. the contest with Puritanism drove 32 PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. a portion of the Episcojial party to this extreme. " Tlie change in the practice of the Church was caused, mainly, by the bigotted and intolerant Archbishop Laud ; of whom Macaulay says, that "of all the prelates of the Anglican Chiu'ch, he had departed farthest from the })rinciples X)f the Reformation, and had drawn nearest to Rome." Cranmer, the martyr-Archbishop, though educated in Romish ideas, wholly repudiated this doctrine of succession. He maintained that ceremonies of induction, however appropriate, were not necessary. • His own words are : " In the New Testament, he that is apjwinted to be BLshoj) or Priest needeth no consecration, by the Scripture ; for elec- tion or a})pointing thereto is sufficient." And as Dr. Fisher says, even " Whitgift, the great opponent of Puritanism, never impeaches the validity of the ordination practiced in the foreign churches. He recognizes them, as Cranmer, Pcirker, and Grindal had done before him. Hooker, the representative and champion of Episcoj)acy, and Dean Field, his distinguished associate, explicitly allow Presbyterian ordination in the case of the reformed churches on the Con- tinent." In the list of great divines who denied the succes- sion theory in the seventeenth century stand the illustrious names of Bishop Stillingfleet and Archbishop Usher. As to our own times, it is only necessary to mention the names of Whately and Arnold. Stillingfleet, Bishop of Norwich, was one of the noblest men the English Church ever produced. He not only opposed the unscviptural dogma himself ; but in h's cele- brated Irenicum he classifies the views of eminent English and foreign divines respecting Episcopacy. He shows that most of the English divines, since the Reformation, had held that the form of Church government was mutable, depending on the wisdom of the magistrate and of the Church. He quotes Cranmer approvingly, as to ordination not being at all essential. Archbishop Whitgift, Bishops Bridges, Hooker, and others, it is shown, advocated the same general view.. Secondly, he refers to the divines who had believed in the original ]mrity of the clergy, yet con- sidered episcopacy lawful. Here are placed Calvin, Beza, Melancthon, and others. Thirdly, he enumerates those who PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. 88" judge episcopacy to be the primitive form, yet look not on it 118 necessary. Here come Bisliops Jewel, Fiilk, Field, and many more. All these men who are named under the three heads, whatever were their views respectinj^ the origin and antiquity of episcopacy, considered ic neither necessary on the one hand, nor wrong and intolerable on the other, ]t is no part of my design, to condemn those who prefer the Episcopal form of government. But these facts are suffi- cient to show l)eyond question, that the views of Episcopal ordination, now maintained by High Ciiurchmen, are a (1 'parture from the simpler and more scriptural faith of the Koformation — a long stride back towards Rome. 4. Tke alleged sarcession is noi historically true. I mean, that there has been no such unbroken succession of ordinations in the past. Such a succef,sion cannot be proved. And it is morally certain, that such an unbroken chain never existed. The world recently saw that the i l!am{)ions of popery in Rome could not even prove that St. ]*()ter was ever at Rome, to say nothing of his ordinations. The facts already mentioned, that in the primitive Church several pastors took part in each ordination, and that the modern popish view of ordination was unknown, would naturally render it impossible to trace each ordination to any one bishop or presbyter. The "Church" curate who comes with a printed list of his ecclesiastical pedigree, \\\) to the Apostles, must have wonderful confidence in the ignorance of those, whom he expects to ac«ept his list with unquestioning; faith. Many eminent ministers and laymen of the English Church, who have made this subject a special study, have confessed that the historical succession is utterly untenable. Chillingworth said, " I am fully per- suaded there hath been no such succession." Lord Macaulay says : " Even if it were possible, which it assuredly is not, to prove that the Church had the Apostolical orders in the third century, it would be impossible to prove that those orders were not in the twelfth century so far lost, that no ecclesiastic could be certain of the legitimate descent of his^ own spiritual character. . . . We see no satisfactory ' ])roof of the fact, that the Church of England possesses the Apostolical succession." _ _ 34 PRIESTLY phetensions disproved. Bishop Hoadly says : " It liiith not pleased God in lils providence to keep up any proo*" of the least probability, or moral possibility, of a regular unintorriipt(!d succession ; but their is a great ap{)earance, and humanly speaking a certainty, to the contrary, that the succession hath often been interrupted." Dr. Comber, as quoted by Mr Bleby, says, " There is neither truth nor certainty in the pretended succession of the first poj)Ps." Bishop Stilliugfloet says : " Come we therefore to Rome, and here the succession is as muddy as the Tiber itself. . . . The succession so much pleaded by the writers of the primitive Church, was not a succession of persons in Ajjostolic power, but a suc- cession in Apostolic doctrine." Archl)ishop Whately says : " There is not a minister in all Christendom, who is able to trace up, with approach to certainty, his spiritual pedigree." John Wesley, whom " Churchmen " are so fond of quoting for the benefit of Methodists, says: "The uninterrupted succession I know to be a fable, which no man ever did or can prove." Let it be remembered that all these testimonies are from "Churchmen," whom it would naturally gratify to find evidence of an unbroken succession, whatever might be their estimate of its value. Yet this is the dogma on the strength of which High Churchmen disfranchise all non-Episcopal Churches of their Christian birthright. 5. The dogma of a necessary succession and the sacra- mentarian theories that result from it, are unreasonable and absurd, and banvful in their infiuence on those churches that accept them. ■ . . , - I make this charge not impulsively, but advisedly, as my deliberate conviction. At a time when these heresies are misleading thousands, it would be recreancy to truth to speak of them with any mawkish leniency. We have too long acted merely on the defensive, against men deeply tainted with Romish heresies ; as if we had done our whole duty when we disproved their dispm-aging allegations against ourselves, and showed that our Cluirch rested on a scriptural foundation. Not so : we should unmask their nnscriptural pretensions, and show the people that to follow those blind leaders of the blind is to nmounce the essential principles of Protestaritism, and embrace irrational, uu- PftlESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. 35 scriptunil, and pernicious theories, invented by the Church of Rome, to minister to priestly pride and intolerance. What can be more absurd, than for men to pretend to be the direct succeKsors of the A[)0stle8, whoso special otlico and gifts show titat they could have no successors ] Is it not unreasonable to assume that God would appoint conditions of the genuineness of his Church in the world, that were alnKJSt certain to be broken and obscured ? It is most unreasonable to suppose that God, who desires to be wc>rship[)ed in s[)irit and in truth, would make an outward ceremony of greater importance than that personal holiness of character, which it is the object of all religion to pro- mote, and which God delights to honor. It is absurd, when the English Church at the lloforniation broke away from the authority of the Church of Rome and, its clergy for- feited the conditions on which they had been ordained, and Were excommunicated as heretics, to assume that still their ministerial authority rested on their previous ordination by the popish bishops. It is both revolting and absurd, to maintain that a God in whose sight the wicked are an abomination, would choose ungodly, profane, vicious and heretical men, such as many of the Romish bishops and popes notoriously were, as the only persons authorized to ai)[)oint his messengers to call men from sin to holiness and from the power of Satan unto God. Platina says the Popes " left no wickedness unpra'ticed." The description given of their character by Prideaux, Bishop of Worcester, is simply horrible. Many of the English bishops before the Reformation were unprinci[)led plotters, purchasing their offices in the most corrupt manner. St. Paul ex- plicitly declares, that no such ungodly and profane persons *'hath any inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and of God." Yet through this polluted stream, the modern Angli- can claims that he has received priestly authority. Weil may Mr. Bleby say, " No wonder that there aro so many infidels, when this is gravely proposed to be believed as a part of the Christian religion ! " It is absurd for High Churchmen to claim thut their sacraments are special and divinely appointed channels of grace, when those who use them have far less faith and charity, humility, forbearance S6 PRIESTLY PRETENSIOKS DISPROVED. and brotherly love, than many " Dissenters," who have only nncovenanted mercies. It is absurd to think that God would richly bless with spiritual prosperity, people whoso course wt\s in open violation of his will and law — - that he blesses and rewards what " Churchmen " regard as " the deadly sin of schism." They dure not deny that a man may get to heaven without being a n)ember of their church. Yet there is a strange contradiction in the idea of any one being a good and useful man in life, enjoying God's favor, and being received into heaven's eternal rest at last, ., without being a member of God's Church — or living in harmony with the divine arrangements and conditions for the salvation of men ! But the greatest absurdity of all is to believe that a dogma that brings forth si>ch bad fruit as uncharitableness, bigotry, pharasaic [)ride, formality and popish heresy is of God's planting. The blessed liedeemer says, " A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit ; neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." Unquestionably this dogma o^ priestly succesidon is the baneful root from which the main corruptions of Romanism have grown. It is not harmless. It is soul poison. " The whole history of the Romish Church proves this ; for from this usurpation of Apostolic power has pro- ceeded all that is corrupt, and despotic, and destructive in Romanism ; all the darkness, and superstition, and idolatry, and the cruelties and bloodshedding with which an antichristian system has overspread and cursed the world for ages. It is the fundamental principle of anti- christ. Examine, and you will find this to be the very corner-stone upon which the Papal throne is erected ; it is the band which binds the triple crown upon the head of " the Man of Sin," who has so long usurped a false authority in the Church, and plundered the world of its rights and liberties. And give it room to exert its baneful influence in the hands of its present claimants, — let it have full scope, — and it will work out similar results. It will banish all spiritual religion from the Church, overturn the liberties of nations, and fill the world, so far as it can reach, with spiritual darkness, and superstition, and moral death. Its tendency is always, and only, to produce mis- PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. 8f chief and ruin. Tlie arrogance, bigotry, and intolerance of modern High-Church ism, the superHtitious forms and Popish practices which tlie Ritualists have introduced into many Churches, and tlie gross corruption of sound doctrine and grievous heresies which arc so often making their appearance in the Anglican Episcopal Church, are only the early developments of this evil principle, — the fruits of the same poisonous root, which has already produced a dreadful harvest of evil to the Jiuman race." — [Rev. II. Bleby.) G. Anglican High Church ideas of the conditions that determine the validity of the Miniateriul office, and of the relation of the sacraments to salvation, are contrary to the spirit and teaching of the New Testament. I have already shown that there is no sanction given in the Holy Scriptures to the theories and pretensions of ritualistic Episcopalian priests, respecting ordination and Episcopalian succession. But I go further than this, and say that the idea of religion which these theories present, and the spirit which they generate in those who receive them, are neither Apostolic nor Christian. These priestly assailants of Methodism assume the existence of three divinely appointed ministerial orders ; but the New Testa- ment clearly shows us, that bishops and presbyters were names api)lied to designate the same order of preaching pastors ; besido whom there was no other order, but that of deacons, who were stewards appointed to manage the secular and financial afi'airs of the Church. (See Acts vi.) They assume, also, that it is the prerogative of a single bishop to select and ordain ministers ; but the New Testa- ment shows lis that Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, or company of pastors ; and the most authentic records of the primitive Church show that several pastors generally took part in -ordaining those who had been previously selected by the whole Church. The successionists declare that none but bishops, in the modern sense, have any right to ordain ; but we learn in the thirteenth chapter of the Acts, that it was " certain prophets and teachers,*' that ordained Barnabas and Paul ; and the best authorities show, as we have seen, that the S8 PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. practice of Christian antiquity gives no countenatice to tliis tlieory. Their theory also compel them to maintain the revolting doctrine that a man may be ungodly and profane in life, and heretical in his belief, and yet bo a true minister of Christ, with authority to aj)point and ordain others to the work of the ministry. But the Apostle Peter declares that Judas fell from his Apostleship " by trans.^ression ; " the Apostle John tells us " he that committeth sin is of the devil ; and the Apostle Paul declares, ** if any man hath^'^l not the Si)irit of Christ, he is none of his." The Psalmist says : " Bat vmto the wicked God saith, what hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou sl.iould^st take my covenant in thy mouth ; seeing thou hatest instruct ion,'' and castest my words behind thee." (Ps. 1. IC.) The tost of the successionists is nn-apostolic. They j make each minister's status and authority, depend upon the ©cclesiasLical standing of those who baptized and ordained him. The Apostles test all teachers by their gifts, the soundness of their doctrijies, the lioliness of their lives, the manner in which they fulfilled their ministry, and the suc- cess of their labors in bringing sinners to a saving know- ledge of Christ. To this " more sure word of prophecy " we appeal from the unauthorized and unjust judgment of priestly egotism. The Master himself, when warning his disciples against false teachers, said : " By their fruits shall ye know them." The authority and validity of the ministry of every Church must be tested by a scriptural and apostolic standard, and not by an unauthorized human test, that sets aside the divine standards. Paul, throughout his epistles, frequently vindicates the claims of himself and his fellow-workers, as ambassadors of Christ. And he always does this by proofs and evidences, not only different frotn those which are appealed to by ail who lean towards Romanism, but by such as are condemnatory of the Ronjish and Tractarian theories. My space will only allow me to give a few examples from the apostolic writings, o.it of numerous passages that might be quoted in proof of this assertion. In all the vindications of himself and fellow-ministera Paul gives special prominence to their being called of God, PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. ancl being therefor'' divinely appointed. " Faul an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, bnt by Jesus Christ and God the Father." (Gal. i. 1.) " Who also hath made us able ministers of tlie New Testament ; not of the letter, but of the spirit." " For necessity is laid upon me ; yea woe is me if I preach not the gosjjel." (1 Cor. ix. 16.) The doctrines they preached are also mentioned in proof of their claims, as messengers of Christ. " For I determined to know nothing among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified." (Cor. ii. 2.) "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. iiL 11.) *' For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of ouv Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Peter i. 16.) " He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." (2 John 9.) The manner, in which they performed the work which God gave them to do, is also cited in token that they were divinely called and qualified. '* For the love of Christ constraineth us." (2 Cor. v. 14.) " For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake." (2 Cor. iv. 4.) "Are they ministers of Christ] lam more; in labors more abundant," &c. (2 Cor. xi. 23.) The gi/ts with which God had endowed them were another evidence that their ministry was according to the will of ^God. " Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth ; but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." (2 Cor. ii. 13.) *' And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power." (1 Cor. ii. 3.) "Truly the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you, in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." (2 Cor. ii. 12.) This claim, to be ambassadors from God, was recognized and ratified by the Church. " By manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Cor. iv. 2.) " We have been thoroughly made manifest among you in all things," (2 Cor. xi. 6.) " As ye knnv what manner of men we were among you, for your sake." (I Thess. i. 5.) " Ye are wit- nesses, and God also, how holiiy, and ju.-itly, and unbiamo- 40 PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. ably we behaved ourselves among you that believe." (1 Tliess. iii. 10. "And they glorifted God in me." (Gal. i. 24.) " But received me a-s an angel of God." (Gal. iv. 14.) But that which is laost frequently referred to as the token of God's approbation, the seal of his a^.proval, by which the divine authority of their commission was ratified before the world, is the success of their labors^ in the conversion and salvation of sinners. Hear tiie great Apostle of the Gentiles : " Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge, by us in every place." (2 Cor. ii. 14.) "If I be not an Apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you : for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in tlie Lord." (1 Cor. ix. 2.) " Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts, known and read by all men." (2 Cor. iii. 2.) "For ye ai'e our glory and our jo}^." (1 Thess. ii. 20.) " For our gospel canie not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance." (1 Thess. i. 5.) From the defensive tone of these declarations, especially those in both epistles to the Corinthians, it is evident that Paul's apostleship, if not his ministei'ial " orders," was questioned by sticklers for regular order in that day. It is therefore highly instructive to study the arguments by which he vin- dicated his ministerial character and authoritv. We maintain, without any feeling of self-complacent denominational f)ride, but with gratitude to God, that the same argument and evidences, used by the Apostles, may be justly and successfully applied to demonstrate the Scrij)- tural validity of the ministry of the Methodist Church. All branches of Methodism have firmly maintained the inward call of the Holy Ghost, as an essential qualification for the ministry. And as far as human fidelity and wisdom could prevent, none have been introduced to this work among us, but those who have been so called. The evil custom of educating boys for the ministry, without regard to their religious or intellectual character, simply that they might get a living, has never prevailed among Methodists. Nor can it be denied, that the Methodist Church has faithfully guarded and maintained purity of doctrine. Amid opposition and reproach, we have held fast the PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. ^f faitli "once delivered unto the saints." Whatever any niioister's gifts may be, if he preach what our church deems unscriptural and dangerous doctrine, he cannot preach it from a Methodist pulpit. Hence, wherever a Methodist preacher stands up to instruct a congregation, the people hear an explicit exposition of the same doctrines the Apostles taught. A faithful testimony has been borne by the Methodist pulpit against both the ritualism and formalism of Puseyism and Popery, and the plausible speculations of popular intidelity. We have reason for grateful pride, in the gifts and piety of the men whom God has raised up among us, to be the messengers of life to dying sinners. In godly self-sacrifice, abundant labors, unfaltering faith, true Christian eloquence, and Christly sympathy for the unsaved, the ministry of no Church since the Apostles presents a brighter record. The success of this ministry has been wonderful, " even our enemies themselves being judges." Methodism has swept like waves of blessing and salvation over England and America. Hundreds of thousands, who were once ignorant and guilty rejectors of Christ and his salvation, through Methodist instrumentalities have been converted from the error of their ways, and lifted up to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. Not in Britain and America only have these results followed Methodist labor ; but in Asia, Africa, Australia, and the islands of the Pacific, have Methodist missionaries won such glorious victories for Christ, as forever vindicate, against all the petty cavils of sectarian bigotry, their claims as divinely appointed ambassadors from a Risen Saviour to a perishing world. It is not too much to say, that all the ends, for which Christ instituted ministers and pastors in his Church, have been successfully accomplished by the agency of the Methodist ministry. These scriptural evidences of Divine approval may be unworthy of the regard of High Church priests, who cherish a comfortable sense of their superiority, derived from being ordained by a bishop who is in this imaginery and un-Apostolic succession ; but they must have weight with all who do not discard the teachings of G-od'a word, and the conclusions of cDmraon sense. These Apos- 42 PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. tolic qualifications have been gratefully recognized and ratiried by the Church. We repudiate the theory of one man, by virtue of his ordination, having a right tc invest any one he pleases with ministerial authority, without the consent of the Church. No man is even taken on trial for the Methodist Ministry, till he is recommended by the representatives of the laity, in the Quarterly Meeting of the official members. Those who know him best must testify to the gifts, grace, and usefulness of each candidate. In the words of an eminent minister of the M. E. Church, " We do not claim that tlie judgment of the Church is infallible in this matter. But we do believe, that when a man professes to be called of God to this holy ministry, whose Christian character is a guarantee of his sincerity, and the Church finds in him the gifts, grace, and fruit, which a true minister must have, they can decide the ques- tion irore certainly and safely than any other persons or authorities. So that the ministry of the Methodist Church do not hail from John the Baptist, or from Peter, or from John Wesley. We seek no investitui*e from prelate or primate. We have succeeded to no dead men's places ; we derive authority from no dead men's credentials ; there ia no smell of the sepulchre about us ; our call is direct from our risen and living Lord, recognized and authenti- cated by a living Church, made valid and vital by the living God. We are the living ministers of to-day by Divine appointment." ....... ** If the Corinthian Cl\urch was a Christian Church, then is the Methodist Church a Christian Church. If the ministry by whose planting and watering the Corinthian Church was raised up and edified was a Christian ministry, then is the Methodist ministry a Christian ministry. We know this from the concurrent consciousness of the ministry and the Church. We know it from the sameness of their spiritual endowments and divine qualifications. We know it trom the similarity of the spirit and manner of executing their ministry. We know it from the equal devotedness of the ministry. We know it from the oneness of the doc- trines taught. We know it from the same legitimate results — the same soul-saving issues. We know it, because PRIESTLY PRETEICSIONS DISPROVED. 4 ve see everywliero our letters of commendation in the andwrifcing of Gol. We see everywliere tlie seals of our postleship on tlie hearts of tlie people. No ministry ever :new it more certainly, or rejoiced in it more divinely, or abored in it more scripturally. * Doubtless thou a»'t our ^^ather, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel cknowledge us not. Thou, O Lord, art our Father, our ledeemer ; thy name is from everlasting.'" — {Bishop lanest in Methodist Qimrterly for Jult/, 18G9). The frequent references, made in Anglican convocations md periodicals, to tne passible incorporation of English tVesleyan Methodism with the National Church, however ivell meant, betray a surprising ignorance of the feelings nd view3 of Wesleyan ministers and people. They gener- ,lly assume that the Wesleyans view the matter from tho piscopal standpoint — that they have some secret mis- ivings about the legitimacy of their present position, which piscopal ordination would remove. All this is the natural nistake of mem, who live so much in the narrow circle of iheir own thoughts and prejuiices, that they are unable to omprehend the views of those who differ from them. Jnless this be so, it is unaccountable that at the present ime, when Romanism and infidel rationalism are flour- shing in the high places of that Church, and mf>n of liberal views and catholic sympathies are being forced by the unscriptural intolerance of her assumptions, to withdraw from her communion, Methodists should be expected to amely renounce the liberty wherewith Christ has made them free, and become absorbed by the Episcopal Church. Even if such a union were practicable, what advantages has that Church to offer Methodists ? VVould they by such a change gain a more scriptural, godly, and successful ministry % Would they secure a Church whose doctrines are more scriptural, or whose administration of godly dis- cipline is more efficient 1 Would they gain more simple and spiritual forms of worship, or be better provided with metres, adapted to promote growth in grace 1 Would they secure greater unity of doctrine, or gi'eater harmony of Christian worship and work, than they now p ssessi Only one answer can be truthfully given to these questions. I 44 PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. know that those who believe that Christians, auihing to wofship God according to their consciences, are guilty of "the dreadful sin of schism," think great sacrifices should be made for " the unity of the Church." They should, however, remember that Lhe unity which the Scriptures commend, is not mere unity of name and organi /.ation ; but oneness of fa-ith and spirit. It can hardly be questioned, that the position of the different Protestant Churches,! which are standing side by side, doing' the work of the! Master in a spirit of true Christian brotherhood, comes| much nearer the scriptural idea of unity, than the nominal unity of one denomination, in which Popery and Protest- antism, Calvinism and Arminianism, infidelity and ortho- doxy, all surge in ceaseless collision. The Episcopal priests who sneer at the glorious Protestant Reformation, and craftily apply their energies to introduce ritualistic practices, which symbolize Popish doctrines, are the real schismatics, dis- turbing the peace of the Church with their papal novelties, and creating schisms and parties within her bosom. "Hav- ing a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof; from such turn away." The dogma of succession leads its adherents unchristianly to oppose, disparage, and denounce, as schismatics and enemies of the truth, all who repudiate those human inventions, which they teach as divine doctrines. Our Lord and his Apostles, on the contrary, display a liberal and catholic spirit towards all who were sincerely seeking after God. Christ rebuked the narrow zeal of the disciples, for forbidding the man that followed not with them, to cast out devils in his name. Peter declares " that in every nation, he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him." John declares, without any reference to baptismal regeneration, that " every one that loveth is born of God." Paul rejoiced in whatever way Christ was ^reached ; and prayed that grace might " be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity." The spirit that breathes in these divine declarations is utterly opposed to the sectarian intolerance of modern sacramentarians. It is bad enough when Christians fail to conform to the gospel, which they own as a standard of duty ; but these despisers PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. f better men than themselves make a virtuo of bigotry uicl intolerance ; and would have us believe that they are :loing God S'U'vice, when they pour their petty contempt 3n some of the holiest and most useful of his saints. But in nothing are the succession and sacramentarian theories of the ritualistic school more clearly contrary to the Holy Scriptures, than in their marks and tests of true ;?hristian discipleship. Soundness of faith, and inward and outward godliness are thrust out of sight ; and the main question is whether one has received the sacraments from a duly ordained " priest," of what is alleged to be the true Church. But in the New Testament such a test is never named. On the contrary, a personal experience of the saving power of God, producing the fruits of holiness in the life, is the invariable test of Christian character. Love to each other is the Master's own sign of true discipleship. The Apostle John says, " Ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him." The Apostle Paul says, "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." " For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision ; but faith which worketh by love." " For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." This popish theory of succession prompts those who accept it to disparage the preaching of God's word, as if this were altogether secondary to the administration of the sacraments, which are regarded as the main instruments of regeneration and sanctification. Not so thought Paul. He counts i'i his his highest honor and joy to be a preacher of the gospel. He says, " Unto me, who am less than the least of ail saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ." fSo far from believing the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, he thanks God that he had baptized none of them, but Crispus and Gains, and the household of Stephanas ; and then adds, " For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." To these same Corinthians, concerning whom he rejoices that he had not baptized them, he says in the same epistle, (1 Cor. iv. 46 PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. 15,) " For thongli ye have ten thousand instructors in Oluist, yet ye have not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you throiigh the gospel." This clearly implies that he claimed to be the spiritual father of many, by the preaching of the gospel, whom he had not b;iptiz<"d at all. Will the sacramentarians explain how, on their theory, he could be the instrumental cause of the regeneration of those he had not baptized? And Peter, some of whose words have been compelled to do service as proofs of baptismal regeneration, says : " Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, . by the word of God that liveth and abideth forever." So also the Apostle James : "Of his own will begat as with the word of truth." Not the sacraments, however scrip- tural and important, but the Gospel, Paul declares to be the " power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.'* For, " it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that beliove." ,. . In short, the New Testament constantly magnifies the internal and spiritual — the fruits of the Spirit ; the suoces- sionists strenuously magnify the outward and ceremonial, and obscure with their puerile inventions the great central truths of the Gospel. It is a perversion to connect the word " Apostolic " with this dogma of succession ; for nothing can be more it?i- Apostolic. There was, however, a class of men in the days of our Saviour, whose successors these priestly sacramentarians might, wiih much greater show of j ustice, claim to be. I mean the Pharisees, with whom they have certainly much more in common than with the Apostles, These ancient Pharisees were proud that they could trace their pedigree up t(f Abraham, and felt a self-complacent satisfaction that they belonged to the race to whom God had deigned to stand in covenant relation- ship — all very much after the manner of our modern Tractarians. They " trusted in themselves they they were righteous," and despised Gentiles, publicans and others, who had nothing but uncovenanted mercies to depend upon. In this also the modern exclusionists are clearly in the succes- sion. The Pharisees were distinguished by a love for a ahowy and ceremonial style of worship, that had very little 1^ PRIESTLY PRETEN3I0NS DISPROVED. 47 li 'art in it. Those who attend at the ritualistic Anglican Oliuiche.; of the present day know that many of tlie Epia- c.)j)id priests are faithfully copying this ancient model. Tlie Pharisees were specially distinguished by exalting and m;i and faith." This feature is also strikingly characteristic of their modern successors. They also make so much of the outward signs in the sacraments, and mere matters of ceremonial in worship, that there is grave reason to feav that the most essential things are for- gotten. It is deemed very important that a Christian should have the right man to baptize him ; but whether he ever really experience that renewal of the Holy Ghost, of which baptism is only the sign, is often wholly overlooked. It is deemed a vital matter, that a minister be ordained to the work of the ministry, by some one that he believes can induct him into a direct lineal succession from the Apostles ; but anxiety to possess the spirit, faith, zeal, holiness, and success in the conversion of sinners, that distinguished the Apostles, is sometimes "omitted" from consideration, as if it was by no means so important. " The traditions of the elders " and *' Fathers " are referred to, as if any departure from these were a fatal error ; but the doctrines of justifi- cation by faith, sanctification by the Spirit, the assurance of hope, and brotherly kindness towards all who love Christ, are obscured, or omitted as unworthy of special regard. Truly they make the word of God of none efiect with their traditions. I need not pursue the analogy further. It is certainly not merely fanciful. The family likeness is indis- putable. The contrast with the spiiit of New Testament Christianity is equally indisputable. Christianity is a spiri- tual religion, liitual services it has none, but the two sacraments. In this it is in bold contrast with the cere- monial religion it superseded. To the Jews it came as a deliverance from carnal ordinances, " im[)Osed upon them till the time of the Reformation." If then, according to the 48 PRIESTLY PRETENSIONS DISPROVED. succession theory, an outward physical act, like ordination by imposition of hands, is a vital and essential thing, there is nothing else like this in the whole Christian religion — a proof that it is false. No candid and unbiassed seeker after truth can study the precepts, doctrines, and examples of the New Testament, without being convinced that the pretensions and distinc- tive teaching of the sacramentarian school are antagonistic to the simplicity and spirituality that distinguish alike the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles. The external, priestly, and ritualistic type of religion, beyond all question, is not the religion of Jesus of Nazareth, as taught in his discourses, and expounded and exemplified by his holy Apostles. In view of all theso considerations the Methodist people can afford to calmly doapise the intolerant assumptions of their High Church assailants; remembering the words of the Apostle : " Let not then your good be evil spoken of j for the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink ; but righteousness, aud peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." — (Rom. xiv. 16, 17.) OTintfi |-»i lilir. I TORONTO: PRIMXED AT TUB QUAROIAN OFfXCB.