history. Confusion thickens upon him at every step, while his covetous guides become the more vainly confident and garrulous, just in proportion as the absence of all marks of truth leave room for imagination to weave its fictions, and superstition to enforce its dreams.

"The religious system professed in the christian church had, in the course of two hundred years, reckoning from the death of the last of the apostles, BECOME CAPITALLY DISTINGUISHED from the christianity of the apostles." Already had the prelacy erected itself into an established system, and triumphed over the lower orders, now reduced to comparative vassalage, and over the laity, now excluded from their rightful participation in the administration of the affairs of the church. Of course, every thing was made to conspire to the glorification of this first order of the ministry-the prelates-who were in the third century formally inducted into the office and undisputed title of successors of the apostles.2

Very little credence can, therefore, be given to the tales recorded of their own greatness and inherent dignity, by those who persecuted, even to banishment or death, such refractory sons of the church as dared to question their title deeds of official sanctity and supremacy.

Of all authorities drawn from the fathers in support of this system, we may say, many are to no purpose-many are ambiguous many refer simply to authority and office, without determining the meaning of the words, and are irrelevantmany are spurious and forged-and all are the declarations of men, taught to believe that the advantage of the church was to be sought as paramount to all other claims whatever."

The line of prelatic succession, therefore, which wants coherence at its very starting point, becomes more and more attenuated, until we find it broken by a thousand intersecting claims, decrees, anathemas, canons, and usurpations. By making diocesan prelates the only representatives and successors of the apostles, the standing of all the churches in the first and purest ages is for ever blasted; since there was no such official personage as a prelate, to be found in all their catalogues -no dioceses having been erected until the fourth century." The same conclusion may be drawn from innumerable other

1) Spirit. Desp., p. 326, and Anct. Christ., part 5th.

2) See Bingham, b. 2, ch. 2, and Cyprian in Schism, p. 124.

3) See Palmer on the Church, vol. ii., part 7, ch. 3.

4) Palmer, vol. ii., p. 544, and full

on in Clarkson's Primitive Episcop., p. 226 and 230; Baynes' Diocesan's Tryall, Lond., 1621, where this subject is fully argued. Baxter's Treatise on Episcopacy, Lond., 1681, part i.

LECT. IX.] THE ROMISH SUCCESSION HERETICAL AND VILE.

199

facts, having reference to the subject, the form, and the ministers, in the case of each separate consecration. But it is altogether unnecessary to go into this investigation at any length. Contested elections, the decrees of councils-the rivalry of opposing claimants-excommunications, anathemas, and depositions, which affected all the acts of the individuals to whom they applied the intrigue, violence, and bloodshed, with which such contests for office were carried on-the undenied, because undeniable atrocity, atheism, infidelity, licentiousness, heresy, and murder, which characterized many in this "unbroken succession," these facts, which even Baronius could not deny, who confesses that, in a succession of fifty popes, there was not a pious man that there were no popes at all for years together -at other times two or three at once-and between twenty and thirty schisms, one of which lasted for thirty years1-these plain and incontestable facts render all such investigations supererogatory to the clear decision of this question. It never yet has been determined what popes have been true popeswhich of the rival claimants are to be received-nor what councils are to be our guide in coming to a conclusion.2

But, again, we are taught, as by Bellarmine, that heresy, when held by any church, and persisted in by that church, is sufficient to destroy its claim to be a true church. Now, that which is of sufficient potency to overthrow the pretensions of any body to the character of a church, must necessarily be destructive, also, of the claims of such a body to an apostolical succession, since this is itself one of the assigned marks of a true church. And will any man venture to deny, that among those whose names are necessary to make up the line of this prelatical succession, there have been many who have been avowed heretics, and who have employed all their influence for the promotion of heresy? Was not this the case with Zepherynus, Marcellinus, Liberius, Felix, Anastasius, Honorius, and, not to enlarge, with John the XXIII., who denied a future life?*

1) See in Neal's Puritans, vol. iv., 211, and Edgar's Variations of Popery, and Newman on Romanism, lect. xiv.

2) See this strongly urged against Romanists, (though the author was committing suicide,) by Mr. Newman_on Romanism, pp. 151, 152, and see Palmer, vol. ii., part 6, ch. vi., p. 432, &c. And against prelatists generally, in Plea for Presb., 1840, p. 84, &c.

3) De Not. lib. iv. cap. 8. Palmer on the Church.

4) See Bishop Williams in Notes of the Ch., p. 102. Also, Dr. Thorpe in ibid, pp. 131, 132, § 7.

"Infallible Heads of the Infallible Church."-"John XXII. was a heretic, and denied the immortality of the soul. John XXIII., Gregory XII., and Benedict XIII., were all popes and infallible heads of the church at the same time, and the council of Constance cashiered the whole of them as illegitimate. The council of Basil convicted Pope Eugenius of schism and heresy. Pope

Without attempting to go into any consecutive or elaborate examination of the history of this succession, some general remarks may be satisfactory to those who have not access to other sources of information. Not to speak further of the asserted unchristian character of the Romish prelatical succession, it can, we think, be clearly shown, that many links are defective and invalid, even in the chain of the Anglican succession, and that it can be made to rest upon no tenable or sufficient ground. It can be clearly shown, we say, that many links are defective and invalid, even in the chain of the Anglican succession.

At a certain period, the see of Armagh was occupied for eight generations by individuals who had never received any ordination whatever. Hooker admits that ordinations had oftentimes been effected without a bishop to ordain, "and therefore," he says, "we are not simply, without exception, to urge a lineal descent of power from the apostles, by continued succession of bishops in every effectual ordination." Stillingfleet declares, that "by the loss of records of the British churches, we cannot draw down the succession of bishops from the apostles' times." There is, in fact, no reckoning for the first five hundred and ninety-six years, until the time when Augustine was sent from Rome to re-establish christianity in Britain. Nor is the re

Marcellinus actually sacrificed to idols. Pope Liberius was an Arian, and subscribed to that creed. Anastatius was excommunicated as a heretic by his own clergy. Silvester

II. sacrificed to the devil. Formosus was promoted to the chair through perjury. Sergius III. caused his predecessor's body to be dug out of the grave, its head cut off, and then flung into the Tiber. Boniface deposed, imprisoned, and then plucked out the eyes of his predecessor. In a word, many of the popes have been atheists, rebels, murderers, conjurors, adulterers and sodomites. Papal Rome has far exceeded in crime her pagan predecessor. It is not, therefore, to be wondered at that the popes, though always assuming a new name, yet never take the name of Peter. It is a curious fact that they always shun it. Those who have received that name at the font have always changed it when they reached the chair. Petrus de Parantasis changed his name to Innocent IV. Petrus Caraf became Paul V. Sergius III.'s christian name was Peter. This practice looks like conscious guilt. They fear the name of Peter would but too plainly

show their apostacy from the apostle Peter's virtues; and men would be apt to exclaim, "how unlike is Peter the pope to Peter the apostle." Stevens' Spirit of the Church of Rome. See Note A.

1) Eccl. Polity, b. 111.

2) Origines Britannica, Lond., 1685, pp. 81, 83.

3) "Thus far, indeed, we have no mention of bishops in the British church, nor do we find ANY FURTHER information on the subject AT ALL, until the year 314." Rev. Henry Cary on "the Apostolical succession in the Church of England," p. 8.

According to Mr. Jones, of Oswestree, in his Historical Treatise "of the Heart and its True Sovereign," there was left in England in 668 but one remaining successor of Augustine and his monks, and that was Winet, a Simonist. All the rest of the bishops were of British ordination, who, as this same divine of the English church testifies, all denied their ordination from Scotch presbyters. See Baxter's True and Only Way of Concord, Lond. 1680. Premonition, II.

"A long interval of heathen darkness now followed, (i. e. the death of

LECT. IX.] THE ANGLICAN SUCCESSION DEFECTIVE.

201

cord of these five hundred and ninety-six years any better kept at Rome than in Britain; for if we come to Rome, says Stillingfleet, "here the succession is as muddy as the Tiber itself," and "what shall we say to extricate ourselves out of this labyrinth?" Who can tell the date of the consecration of Augustine, about which a late prelatic advocate differs from himself in the small amount of fifty-four years, and in reference to which we find Baronius contradicting Bede, and Dr. Inett making confusion worse confounded? The archbishopric of Canterbury, says Dr. Inett, in his Origines Anglicanæ, had been void from the year 1089, in all, about four years, and the bishopric of Lincoln about a year. Towards the end of the eighth century, this same see was divided into two parts for several years. Dr. Inett himself affirms, that "the difficulties in that see betwixt the year 768 and the year 800, were invincible." Speaking of the death of Dunstan, this writer further states, that Elthelgar "succeeded to the chair of Canterbury the year following, but dying the same year, our historians are not agreed who succeeded, some confidently pronouncing in favor of Siricius, and others of Elfricus."

It is also known that in the dark ages, there were many Scotchmen calling themselves bishops, who travelled over England, and of whom it is believed that some at least were settled in bishoprics, who ordained many; and yet they are represented in the public acts made against them, to be of very "uncertain ordination."5

It must be further stated that, as the whole virtue of Augustine's ministrations depends on the pre-established validity of the Romish succession, so also, as Fox relates, the first seven of the prelates of Canterbury "were Italians or foreigners." The pope has also frequently consecrated archbishops of Canterbury, as appears from Godwin's lives of the English bishops.'

But it has been already made to appear, that no dependence whatever can be placed upon the Romish succession, either as to

the

Germanus in 448,) to wit, until the arrival of Augustin from Rome, A. D. 596," that is, "a century and a half." Rev. Henry Cary on Apostolical Succ. in the Brit. Ch. p. 12. "When, however, the re-introduction of christianity was resolved on by Oswald, who recovered his kingdom of Northumberland, that prince, who had lived many years among the Scots, obtained a bishop from that country who brought with him the usages of the Scottish church," that is, presbyterianism. Ibid in ibid, p. 17.

1) Irenicum, part 2, ch. vi.

2) See Plea for Presbytery, Glasgow, 1820, p. 77.

3) See quoted in Plea for Presbytery, p. 78, from the original. 4) Ibid, p. 79.

5) See specimens in Selden, as quoted in ibid, p. 79.

6) Book of Martyrs quoted in ibid, p. 80.

7) See in Plea for Presbytery p. 80, and in Powell on Ap. Succession. "Is it not true, (Archer's Six Lect. on Puseyism, lect. v.) that twentynine archbishops of the Church of

its christianity, or its continuity, or its validity, and hence all claims deriving their authority from it, must be rejected.

The same remarks are applicable to the Irish sees, in some of which, even the names of many of the incumbents are unknown. From Patricius upwards, for a space of four hundred years, there is no record or certainty. That he had no connexion whatever with Rome, is affirmed by many of the ablest antiquarians. According to the very best authorities, eight prelates in succession from Patrick were without orders.3

Notwithstanding the undeniable certainty of many such facts as these now produced, we are actually challenged to exhibit