PREFACE. WE have of late years witnessed one of those paroxysms of controversy, which have at different periods arisen, respecting the right constitution of a christian church, and the ordination of its ministers; and it has been aggravated by the strenuous assertion on the one part (especially in the Tracts for the Times) of what is called "Apostolical Succession," and by the denial on the other part of the lawfulness of any connection between church and state. Under these circumstances, I was led to enter upon a careful examination of scripture, with a view to ascertain, whether any and what model was laid down. by our Lord or his apostles, as essential to the constitution of a Christian church; what can be learnt from scripture respecting the then existing churches of Christ, their relation to each other or to the Universal Church, their government, their ministers, their dis cipline; and whether any and which of the practices recorded respecting them in Scripture were institutions to be adopted and perpetuated in all countries and in all ages. The result at which I arrived was, that no model of a christian church is exhibited in scripture as necessary to be adopted in all countries and in all ages and that the doctrine of Apostolical Succession, as taught in the Tracts for the Times, has no foundation in scripture. I further examined, whether scripture furnished any principle, from which could be deduced the duty of a Christian government respecting a national church : and I came to the conclusion, that scripture did furnish such a principle, and that the objections raised against the establishment of a National Church were founded in error. This investigation, with its result, is the subject of the first Part of this work and it is strictly confined to scripture, which is, I conceive, the only decisive authority on such matters. But we are told in the Tracts, that if Episcopacy were "not at all mentioned in Scripture, even then it would be our duty to receive it. . . . . because the first Christians received it" that the Scriptures are "not a rule of practice," "not a rule of conduct or discipline: "that" as to the fact of the Apostolical Succession, i. e. that our present Bishops are the heirs and representatives of the Apostles by successive 1 Tract XLV. p. 5. transmission of the prerogative of being so, this is too notorious to require proof: " that "it is only the Bishops who have ever been called by the title of Successors" [to the apostles]; "and that there has been actually a perpetual succession of these Bishops in the Church, who alone were always esteemed to have the power of sending other ministers to preach and administer the sacraments." 2 These statements, boldly made and enforced by much skill of argument, produced the intended effect with many; and I have thought it might be useful to examine these positions, and more particularly the historical evidence relating to the alleged "fact of the Apostolical Succession." The result was decidedly adverse to the Tracts for the Times: and this examination forms the subject of the second part. If the conclusions, at which I have arrived--that no model of a Christian Church is exhibited in Scripture as necessary to be adopted in all countries and in all ages that the doctrine of Apostolical Succession, as taught in the Tracts for the Times, has no foundation in Scripture; nor can the alleged fact be proved from ecclesiastical history-that the duty of a Christian government to support a National Church rests on Scriptural principle-if these conclusions are (as I conceive them to be) correctly deduced, something may have been contributed towards allaying dissentions between those who ought to love each other as brethren 1 Tract VII. p. 2. 2 Tract XV. p. 2. |