successive generation of christian Ministers, till we come up to the time when the institution was confessedly new,—that is, to the time when christian Ministers were appointed by the Apostles, who professed themselves eye-witnesses of the Resurrection,-we have, in the christian Ministry (as Leslie has remarked) a standing Monument of the fact of that event's having been proclaimed immediately after the time when it was said to have occurred. This therefore is fairly brought forward as an evidence of its truth. But the "Apostolic succession" which the Tractites insist upon-and with which they often artfully confound that just explained-is really a very different thing.* What they require for the lawful administration of the sacraments is, that each priest should be ordained by some bishop, who was himself consecrated by some other bishop that derives his Episcopal orders transmitted in unbroken succession by a line of bishops like himself, the first of whom was ordained by an Apostle.

Now that there were always from the Apostles' times men acting in the capacity of Christian Bishops in particular places -as Antioch, for example, or Rome-is a thing not very difficult of proof; because such matters are things of public notoriety, and naturally find a place in history: But that each one of these prelates, during the eighteen centuries that have since elapsed, had been regularly baptized, and then ordained first Deacon, then Priest, and then Bishop, it is by no means so easy to make out; since it is vain to look after records of such things in very ancient times; while yet any one flaw in the succession would (on the Tractite theory) be enough to break the whole chain.

There is not a Minister in all Christendom who is able to trace up with any approach to certainty his own spiritual pedigree. The sacramental virtue (for such it is that is impliedwhether the term be used or not-in the principle we have been

men.

*It is really quite wonderful to what a degree these two very different things are confounded together in the minds of some well-meaning, and (otherwise) sensible We have known, for instance, a clergyman who was not himself (consciously at least) one of the Tract-party, express the greatest alarm and indignation at our denial, in this very Number, of the "doctrine of apostolical succession;" which, he said, he considered to be " as well-established as any historical fact can be." Now it is quite evident he must have been confounding together the very things which we are here distinguishing, and which one would think are so easily to be distinguished. For he could not possibly have meant that his own individual succession from the Apostles was an established historical fact. And the apostolical succession of a christian Ministry, generally, we are expressly maintaining.

speaking of) dependent on the imposition of hands, with a due observance of apostolical usages, by a Bishop, himself duly consecrated, after having been in like manner baptized into the Church, and ordained Deacon and Priest, this sacramental virtue, if a single link of the chain be faulty, must, on the above principles, be utterly nullified ever after, in respect of all the links that hang on that one. For if a bishop has not been duly consecrated, or had not been, previously, rightly ordained, his ordinations are null; and so are the ministrations of those ordained by him; and their ordination of others; (supposing any of the persons ordained by him to attain to the episcopal office); and so on, without end. The poisonous taint of informality, if it once creep in undetected, will spread the infection of nullity to an indefinite and irremediable extent.

.

And who can undertake to pronounce that during that long period usually designated as the dark Ages, no such taint ever was introduced? Irregularities could not have been wholly excluded without a perpetual miracle; and that no such miraculous interference existed, we have even historical proof. Amidst the numerous corruptions of doctrine and of practice, and gross superstitions, that crept in, during those ages, we find recorded descriptions not only of the profound ignorance, and profligacy of life, of many of the clergy, but also of the grossest irregularities in respect of discipline and form. We read of bishops consecrated when mere children;-of men officiating who barely knew their letters ;-of prelates expelled, and others put into their places, by violence;-of illiterate and profligate laymen, and habitual drunkards, admitted to Holy Orders; and in short, of the prevalence of every kind of disorder, and reckless disregard of the decency which the Apostle enjoins. It is inconceivable that any one even moderately acquainted with history, can feel a certainty, or any approach to certainty, that, amidst all this confusion and corruption, every requisite form was, in every instance, strictly adhered to, by men, many of them openly profane and secular, and unrestrained by public opinion, through the gross ignorance of the population among which they lived; and that no one not duly consecrated or ordained was admitted to sacred offices.

Even in later and more civilized and enlightened times, the

probability of an irregularity, though very greatly diminished, is yet diminished only, and not absolutely destroyed. Even in the memory of persons living, there existed a bishop concerning whom there was so much mystery and uncertainty prevailing as to when, where, and by whom, he had been ordained, that doubts existed in the mind of some persons, whether he had ever been ordained at all. We do not say that there was good ground for the suspicion :-but the existence, actual, or even possible, of such a suspicion,-the actual, or even conceivable concurrence of circumstances such as to manifest the possibility of such an irregularity-is sufficient with a view to the present argument.

Now, let any one proceed on the hypothesis that there are, suppose, a hundred links connecting any particular minister with the Apostles; and let him even suppose that not above half of this number pass through such periods as admit of any possible irregularity; and then, placing at the lowest estimate the probability of defectiveness in respect of each of the remaining fifty, taken separately, let him consider what amount of probability will result from the multiplying of the whole together. The ultimate consequence must be, that any one who sincerely believes that his claim to the benefits of the Gospel-covenant depends on his own minister's claim to the supposed sacramental virtue of true ordination, and this again, on perfect Apostolical Succession as above described, must be involved, in proportion as he reads and inquires, and reflects, and reasons on the subject, in the most distressing doubt and perplexity.

It is no wonder, therefore, that so many of the advocates of this theory studiously disparage reasoning, deprecate all exercise of the mind in reflection, decry appeals to evidence, and lament that even the power of reading, should be imparted to the people. It is not without cause that they dread and lament " an age of too much light," and wish to involve religion in "a solemn and awful gloom." It is not without cause that, having removed the Christian's confidence from a rock, to base it on sand, they forbid all prying curiosity to examine their foundation.

And, if it be said that, notwithstanding all the risks which the Apostolical succession must have run, in passing through so many generations, its purity was nevertheless maintained by a

perpetual miracle, such a reply will not ultimately much mend the matter; since those who believe, and those who disbelieve that plea, will both eventually be apt to come to, practically, the same conclusion, that Christianity—if this be a true representation of it-is MAINLY A SYSTEM OF OUTWARD ORDINANCES; and that what some regard as its essentials, a christian faith, and a christian heart, are comparatively a small part of it. On this we shall enlarge somewhat further in the next Caution.

X

No. XVI.

W

E adverted in the last Caution to the mistake of confounding together two, in reality quite different, things: the Apostolical succession of a christian Ministry generally, and the Apostolical descent in an unbroken line of this or that individual Minister. But we must recal your attention to this point, because this important distinction is likely to escape the notice of those who are hasty and careless in reflection, and is skilfully kept out of sight by artful sophists.

The case, you will observe, stands thus. We are told that the divine Grace of the christian Sacraments, and the efficacy of all a Clergyman's ministrations, depend on his having been ordained by a Bishop, who was himself ordained and consecrated by a person, who, in turn, derived his Orders from one who had again derived his, through a vast number of intermediate links, from the Apostles; and that if this unbroken chain be defective (as it must be, if any one link of it be wanting), all the supposed Sacraments ministered, and all the acts of spiritual authority done by such a supposed Minister, are null and void.

Now, when a man is taught this, he will naturally reflect that he cannot have any reasonable assurance of being even a baptized Christian, unless he can have proof that the Ministers under whom he has been placed really do possess this Apostolical succession. And, when he asks for such proofs, he is answered by being told that the "Apostles ordained elders in every city;" and that there is every reason to believe (which is quite true) that these ordained others, and those again others, and so on down to the present day; and that there always have been christian Ministers in every Church from the Apostles' times, downwards.

This would be very satisfactory if proof could be added that no instance of irregularity in this transmission of Orders could ever have taken place in any individual instance; or that the