to themselves great authority, and to trample upon the rights of the presbyters and churches. Constantine, who came to the imperial throne in the fourth century, greatly aided these usurpations, and conferred upon the whole ecclesiastical system a degree of splendor, to which until then it had been an entire stranger. "He assumed unto himself the right of calling general councils, of presiding in them, of determining controversies, and of fixing the bounds of ecclesiastical provinces. He formed the prelatical government, after the imperial model, into great prefectures; in which arrangement, a certain pre-eminence was conferred on the bishops of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople; the first rank being always reserved for the bishop of Rome, who succeeded in gradually extending his usurpations, until he was finally confirmed in it by an imperial decree." We are sustained in this brief outline of the rise of Episcopacy and its papal result by Mosheim, Gibbon, the Episcopal Haweis, and other eminent historians. In view of these indisputable facts, that eminent Episcopal divine, professor Whittaker, remarks, upon the subject of the introduction of prelacy into the church, as a remedy against schism, that "the remedy was almost worse than the disease; for, as at first, one presbyter was set over the rest and made bishop, so, afterwards, one bishop was set over the other bishops.. Thus that custom begot the pope and his monarchy, and brought them, by little and little, into the church." How exactly the history of the church, in the rise and progress of prelacy, unfolds the fulfilment of the prediction of St. Paul which is contained in our text: "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work only he who now letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." When Constantine came to the throne, the Roman government, instead of impeding the progress of prelatical power,

"the

became its most powerful auxiliary; and very soon man of sin, the son of perdition, was revealed," who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." We perceive, from these statements, that the prelacy has once produced the papacy. And we should ever recollect that human nature is the same

66

in every age, and in every clime; that, as face answereth to face in water, so the heart of man to man;" that like causes, under like circumstances, produce like effects. What Christian or patriot, with his mind enlightened as to the past, would be willing to nourish such a system in the heart of Republicanism and of the American church? "Who is wise? he shall understand these things; prudent? and he shall know them."

LECTURE IX.

THE CLAIMS TO APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION EXAMINED.

JOHN Viii. 41.-" They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham."

THE Jews in the time of Christ had lost the spirit and power of their religion, the form only remained. The Saviour endeavored to convince them that their confidence in ceremonial observances, without piety of heart and life, would prove a fatal delusion. But they effectually repelled his benevolent instructions and faithful reproofs, by answering, with characteristic complacency, "Abraham is our father;" i. e., "We belong to the only true church, are descendants in a direct line from father Abraham; and this fact is alone sufficient to entitle us to the sole benefit of those covenanted mercies' which God has made over to that patriarch."

6

There is such a marked resemblance between this method of reasoning and that adopted by high churchmen, in regard to their "true succession," as they term it, that we are almost inclined to believe it is borrowed from the ancient Jews.

The subject which claims our attention in the present lecture is this so called "Apostolical succession;" that is, the pretended succession of bishops in a direct and unbroken line from the college of Apostles. This the Episcopal church profess to possess; and to possess it to the exclusion of all other Protestant denominations. They pretend to give

us a list of bishops which run directly through that church which is called "the mother of harlots," up to the Apostles Peter and Paul. We intend at the present time to examine somewhat this wonderful line of succession, so entire and unbroken in all its parts, and see upon what "indisputable evidence it is founded." In entering upon this examination, the hearer must keep in mind the importance which the only true church" attaches to this part of the subject. Unless a clergyman can trace his ordination through a line of prelates directly to the Apostles, he has no right to preach, and the ordinances he administers are null and void. Those who call themselves churches, yet are without such a line of prelates, are, in fact, no churches; and even to call their places of public worship churches is a misnomer. They are nothing but "houses." It is worthy of remark, that Bishop Delancy, the present bishop of the diocese of Western New York, in his report to the recent Episcopal convention held at Auburn, of his yearly tour through the diocese, invariably calls Episcopal meeting-houses "churches ;" and those of other denominations, where, out of politeness, he was admitted to preach, simply "houses." Thus he preached in the Episcopal churches of Lockport, but at Niagara Falls he preached in the Presbyterian house. And why all this arrogance? Simply because Episcopacy pretends to possess the ministerial succession, to the exclusion of other denominations. Prelatical succession is considered by them of such overshadowing importance, that, to be without it, unchurches even the brick and mortar and timber of a meeting-house. The very beams from the walls of our sanctuaries must cry out for a prelate, and be consecrated by an Episcopal bishop, or they have no right to be called churches. Certainly, then, a succession which is of such importance as to reach to the very materials of a church edifice, should be founded upon very clear and indisputable historic testimony. It should likewise be

borne in mind, that the strength of this successive chain is only as the strength of its weakest link; for, if there be a single link deficient or wanting, it vitiates the whole succeeding part of this chain. By examining the appendix to the "Enquiry into the Ministerial Commission," the hearer will find a catalogue of successive bishops from Peter and Paul to Bishop White. In this catalogue, Peter is put down as the head of the Jewish, and Paul as the head of the Gentile Christian church at Rome. Linus and Cletus are said to be Paul's successors, and Clement the successor of Peter. We are likewise told that Clement survived Cletus, and united both churches in one. Where our author obtained so much information we are entirely uninformed; certain we are that there is no sufficient testimony from Scripture, or any other source, that Paul was ever bishop of the Gentile church at Rome. We are informed in the Acts of the Apostles that Paul was carried a prisoner to Rome, and that, after his arrival, he was suffered to preach to the inhabitants of that city in his own hired house, for the space of two years; but certainly there is no evidence that he was the settled bishop of that church; on the contrary, there is every thing to contradict it. All the testimony which is at all relied upon by the learned, goes to make Linus and Cletus Peter's successors in the same sense with Clement. I know that we are told by our author, that "the author of the Apostolic Constitutions makes Linus to have been ordained bishop of Rome by St. Paul." Will our author be kind enough to inform us who was the author of the Apostolic Constitutions, and when they were written? They are admitted to have been a forgery; and while, like any other work of fiction, they may be evidence of the customs of the times in which they were written, it would be the height of absurdity to rely upon them as authentic testimony of a historical fact. The opinion that Linus and

Cletus succeeded Paul to the exclusion of Peter in the