FRESH DIFFICULTIES. 99 sion. A few shall just, with the greatest possible brevity, be mentioned. It is incumbent, first, That the successionists should show more clearly than they have ever yet shown-the scriptural design (if any) of maintaining the apostolic office, as at first instituted. Secondly: We ask them to shew us in the New Testament the texts where the assertion of the actual or supposed necessity for this succession is stated, as a concomitant, in the scriptural requisites which are there so often and so plainly exhibited, as needful to constitute valid ministerial character.* Thirdly: We are yet in doubt, and wish to be informed, through what particular line of church polity this "unbroken spiritual descent of ordination" was to run. Was it to be through "catalogues of bishops," or through plain copresbyters? The two orders are viewed as distinct now; but they were certainly co-ordinate, completely equal, in the apostolic age. Ancient ecclesiastical history knows nothing of diocesan and lord-bishops; they are of more recent date! Yet we know, (according to the venerable histo * Amidst all the particularity with which the Apostle, in his epistles to Timothy and Titus, exhibits the various qualifications essential to true ministerial character, he never hints that pastors must trace their spiritual descent in an unbroken connection, from the Apostles. 100 ARE THERE TWO LINES OF DESCENT? rian Bede, who wrote this account in the year 731) that Columba was the first preacher of Christ's faith to the Picts,* through whom the British line is traced by some; and yet Bede every where describes him as a mere presbyter, and never owns him as a bishop, but as "a monke." However, waving all this, we want to know more clearly, fourthly, Even if the descent is episcopal, through WHAT line it has really run? Is it to come through Rome? But why not through Antioch, of which it is universally granted that Peter was bishop; whilst there are very grave doubts with many whether he ever saw, or was in all his lifetime at Rome. Dr. Hook uses an unfortunate word; he says, "There is not a bishop, priest, or deacon among us, who cannot, if he please, trace his own spiritual descent from St. Peter OR St. Paul." Or St. Paul! Are there two lines then; or is the party doubtful to which they shall look for their legitimacy, as true ministers? That unfortu * This took place about the year 666. Theodore was made Archbishop of Canterbury about 668. And the British bishops, [co-equal pastors and ministers] who had received, not episcopal but presbyterian ordination, laboured with great success for the period of twenty years, before even the monk Austin (the apostle of Kent) set foot in Britain. HISTORY VERSUS THE SUCCESSIONISTS. 101 nate word or St. Paul, tells out their uncertainty. But fifthly: When they have settled all these difficult preliminaries, it will be incumbent on them (though they tell us "the fact is too notorious to require proof") to prove that their ordinations descend in a direct, unbroken line. Waving entirely all the other particulars, to this point, the historic proof, we wish now to address ourselves; and as to this avowed succession scheme, we say, 2. Historic records quite overturn it. To bear out the bold and confident language of the Oxford party, every link of the evidence ought to be strong and inseparably united. With Dr. Hook, and his coadjutors, it is a matter self " evident to every one who chooses to investigate it." It is only to read and-believe! No doubts, no qualms, no misgivings, have they at all about the matter! "There are the catalogues of the bishops, read and be convinced," is Dr. Hook's language. Now, all this positiveness is certainly not a little confounding. Yet some are ready to whisper-" Is all this boast, and sacerdotal confidence, the result of calm and sober investigation, or the offspring of a strange and reckless infatuation?" Well, they make their claim on historic grounds; therefore let us go into court, and face these positive priests. History is subponed, and she is now 102 THE FIRST LINK-UNCERTAIN. to be heard, as chief evidence in the matter of the claim to "unbroken apostolical succession.” This is the claim.-" Our ordinations (say the high church writers) descend in a direct UNBROKEN line from Peter and Paul. These great apostles successively ordained Linus, Cletus, and Clement, bishops of Rome; and the apostolic succession was regularly continued from them to Celestine, Gregory, and Vitalianus, who ordered Patrick bishop for the Irish, and Augustine and Theodore for the English. And from those times an UNINTERRUPTED series of valid ordinations has carried down the APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION in our churches [the English Episcopalian only] to the present day."* To this claim the respondent answers, that he verily believes that the whole statement is utterly false, and the assumption groundless and untenable. Unquestionably from Peter or Paul, is supposed to proceed this mystic power, this ministerial authority. But instead of certainty, the very first links in the chain are confused, and most indistinctly defined; yet Dr. Hook confidently tells us, that it is "EVIDENT to any one who wishes to investigate the subject." Well, is it evident that Peter ever was at Rome? Hear Dr. Cave on the "Government of the Ancient Church;" he * Dr. Hook's Sermons at Leeds, 1837. PETER'S SUCCESSOR-WHO? 103 says, "There is a falsehood at the very commencement in this case, it being generally taken for granted that St. Peter was in a proper sense bishop of Rome, which yet I believe can never be made good." Archbishop Cranmer says, "It is not even certain that Peter ever was at Rome." How then could he ordain successors such as Linus or Clement? But let us go further back than English and modern authorities. Some ancient writers, who lived near the times of the apostles, will surely be able to make it all so "evident," that he that runs may read. But our confidence from even this quarter is weakened, if we at all heed what Bishop Taylor says; for he flatly affirms "the Fathers were INFINITELY deceived in their accounts and enumerations of traditions." Or if we credit Dr. Dwight, our faith in ancient accounts will be shaken; for he says that "the Fathers both believed and recorded much of what took place before their time, without truth or evidence." Notwithstanding all this, let us ask one of the earliest ecclesiastical writers to come forward and give impartial evidence. We select Eusebius. He wrote about the year 320. He had the best means of making "evident" the line of succession, of any man of that age. One great object at which he aimed was (according to the statement given in his Ecclesiastical History, |