the principles of his own Church than he ought to be. If indeed the whole subject of Succession or ecclesiastical government is put before him, he will declare and defend the doctrine of his Church, but beyond the statement of general principles he will not go. If told that even those principles condemn all dissenters, he says, "Nay; I make no special applications, I draw no inferences."*

We object to this course on the ground that it is neither candid nor consistent. To avoid the conclusions that necessarily follow from his own reasonings, or to disclaim them when pointed out by others, is not the part of a sensible and honest man. If the premises are true and the reasoning correct, we must accept the inferences. We cannot escape them. So long as we try to do it, going just so far and no further, we are like him who keeps zealously saying all through his life, "Two and two are," "two and two are," yet never has the courage to bring out the inevitable "four!" +

But whether we say it or not it will be said, and if it should happen that any who hear it are aggrieved, they will not think the more highly of us for our attempt at concealment. For instance, when the NonEpiscopal minister who has been treated as a brother, and has had every reason to suppose that we looked upon him as our equal in office, finds that this is not really so, when he sees clearly that, after all, our principles do invalidate his authority, he will cease to respect us-not for the sake of the principles, but

* Examination of Mr. Barnes's "Reply," by one of the Editors of the Episcopal Recorder. Philadelphia, 1844, page 116.

This illustration is borrowed from a sermon by the Rev. Dr. Butler, of Philadelphia, who applies it to those who are on the "Road to Rome."

of the concealment. An open, manly avowal of the belief we conscientiously hold would not prove half so offensive as this apparent double-dealing. And thus in place of earning favor we provoke indignation, instead of friendly regard we meet contempt. Surely then "Honesty is the best policy!"

But we object to the course referred to for another very important reason. It is unfaithfulness and tends to greater unfaithfulness. "The fear of man bringeth a snare" -one from which it is not easy to get free. The more we yield the more we are required to yield until nothing is left. He who for the sake of what is so erroneously styled "charity" suppresses truth, will by and by surrender it. He that is either afraid or ashamed to acknowledge the results of his own reasoning will soon repudiate them, and then when farther pressed, rather than retrace his steps he will deny the premises also.* In this way he who was a true Episcopalian becomes one of an ultra party whose proper place is elsewhere, and in his new zeal he condemns all who are not as ready as himself to slight sacred obligations and abandon the distinctive principles of his Church.

To such a person a book like Mr. Goode's is thrice welcome. To him its "arguments" appear all that can be desired, and its "facts" indisputable. Why should he not rejoice over it and extol it when it so thoroughly meets his wants? It asserts that Apostolical Succession is a "monstrous" doctrine opposed to evangelical truth, and to the facts of God's providence-it asserts that Episcopacy is only an inven

*Fortasse non redeunt quia suum progressum non intelligunt."

tion of man- that Bishops and Presbyters are really the same, and therefore that he is at liberty (especially in the case of a "moral emergency") to ignore the common distinctions between various churches—yea, even to look upon his Bishop as simply, by God's appointment, a presbyter like himself, and consequently one to whom he need not "give place by way of subjection. No! not for an hour!"

It requires no great sagacity to foresee the results of such teaching. It necessarily leads to practical evils, to infringements of established law and usage, to contempt for order and authority, to the rejection of pastoral admonition, probably to obstinacy and defiance, and then certainly to STERN DISCIPLINE or

DESERTION.

WE

CHAPTER IV.

MR. GOODE'S INTRODUCTION.

E do not think that it would be possible without giving up all pretence of honesty to put into six or seven pages a larger number of misstatements, or a greater quantity of objectionable matter than the "Introduction" contains. There is hardly a sentence in it that is not open to censure. But as we have already referred to it, we shall not now go over it piece by piece. Much of what it sets forth as facts or truths will be disposed of in the answer to the more formal part of the book, and this (in connection with what has already been said of its purpose and character) prevents our having to treat it in detail.

But there are two or three paragraphs which cannot be passed by. To these then we will devote a few pages.

On page vii, the writer says of the theory or docrine of "Apostolical Succession," "No trace of it is to be found in the Church of England until the time of Archbishop Laud, who was the first to introduce it."

The boldness of such an assertion is amazing. The writer must have counted strongly upon the ignorance of his readers when he ventured to print a state

ment which any elementary text-book, or any history of the time would disprove. He is not willing even to confess as much as the opponents of "Succession" who have preceded him. They all indeed make it appear of much later origin than it was nearly sixteen hundred years later! but still they do not attempt to show that it originated with Archbishop Laud. Most of them suppose they see the beginning of it in the reign of Elizabeth, at least from the time their ancestors, the Puritans, left the Church. Most of them accuse Bancroft,* some Montague, some Bridges, and some Whitgift; but they do not venture to assign to the doctrine a date so recent as our author has done. Even Hallam, the historian, who is specially unwilling to favor anything like Highchurchism, speaks of "Bancroft and his imitators, Bishop Neile and Laud," as "pursuing" a system which had originated long before. Writing of them [Sub. temp. A. D. 1625-29]; he says:

"They began by preaching the divine right, as it is called, or absolute indispensibility of Episcopacy; a doctrine of which the first traces, as I apprehend, are found about the end of Elizabeth's reign. They insisted on the necessity of Episcopal succession regularly derived from the Apostles. They drew an inference from this tenet that ordinations by presbyters were in all cases null."(Constitutional History, Vol. i., pp. 387, 388.)

Such doctrines were publicly maintained, while Whitgift was Archbishop of Canterbury, if not before. He was succeeded by Bancroft, and he in

"Archbishop Bancroft in 1588 was the first Protestant in England that dared to publish the unscriptural dogma of Apostolical Succession as limited to those Episcopally ordained, thus denying the validity of the ordination in other Protestant churches."(The [Dissenters'] Library of Ecclesiastical Knowledge, Vol. iv., p. 34, London, 1834.) See also Appendix, A.