further quotations from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and from Peter, he proceeds: Our intention in these remarks is to show, that, among the ancients, presbyters and bishops were the very same. But that, by little and little, that the plants of dissensions might be plucked up, the whole concern devolved upon an individual. As the presbyters therefore know that they are subjected by the custom of the church, to him who is set over them; so let the bishops know, that they are greater than presbyters more by custom than by any real appointment of Christ."*

3.) Antiquity affords other proofs that the apostles had no real successors. Attempts were made to prove the possession of apostolic powers, long after John's death; but every one may see that it was a failure, like the pretence of the church of Rome in the present day to the power of working miracles. But when did the miraculous powers cease?

Just

at the time, and, in the way, that proves the falsehood of the popish pretences to apostolic succession. Miraculous powers gradually died away as the apostles died, and that generation of men died who had received the gift by the laying on of the apostles' hands. The apostles, having no successors, when the persons on whom they had laid their hands were gone, there were none left to continue these powers.

Other

4.) The pretence to apostolic succession, was the effect and the proof of a corrupt departure from the highest antiquity. This, at length, elevated the pope, as a monstrous image, to crown the pillar of apostolic succession. bishops, it is pretended, were successors of the apostles, but the bishop of Rome, as successor of Peter, was prince of bishops, or universal bishop, and head of the Christian world. When a patriarch of Constantinople claimed to be universal bishop, the bishop of Rome denounced it as the mark of antichrist; though as soon as she could, Rome took this mark herself. But from Scripture we cannot find that Peter ever was at Rome. He probably, however, was brought there to be put to death, and till then, to live a prisoner and not a bishop. He was the apostle of the circumcision, among whom he spent his days; and Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles, in which capacity he wrote to

Claims of Episcopacy Refuted, by J. M. Mason, D.D., pp. 175-7.

the Romans, as the head of the Christian world. If Peter ever had been bishop of Rome, he had first been bishop of Jerusalem, which was the first church, and mother of us all. But the whole doctrine of the apostles as bishops, succeeded by other bishops, from the most humble commencement of it, to the pride of the papacy, is a falsehood and an imposition-the very apostacy foretold. Tried by antiquity, the boasted apostolic succession is a building on the sand, with some appearance of a basis, but utterly unsound.

5.) The postscripts to 2 Timothy and Titus are no genuine Scripture, and are false and futile attempts to make bishops out of evangelists, extraordinary helpers to the apostles.

III. Tested by its moral character and tendency, this apostolical succession is wicked and destructive, an idol temple on the burning lake.

I appeal to moral character and tendency; for this is not only the glory of our religion, but its strength. It is the glory of Christ, that he is the perfection of holiness, and of our religion, that it makes us like him. Yet this is not all; for the moral character of God lies at the foundation of our religion; on which the very miracles themselves repose secure, as proofs of the truth of Christ's mission. For suppose it be admitted, that Christ wrought miracles; a man might say, "How does that prove that what he taught was true ?" We answer, "The God of might is the God of truth, and would never employ his omnipotent control over nature to set his seal to a lie." Thus you see, that even miracles themselves derive their power to prove the Gospel true, from the moral character of God. Now this boasted apostolical succession proves itself false by being wicked and destructive of holiness; by being wretched and destructive of peace; and by being exclusive and destructive of charity and unity.

1. It is wicked and destructive of holiness. As contrast shows qualities; let us place the false beside the true succession-the only one of which the Scriptures know any thing, that of doctrine and spirit. All Christians are successors to the primitive Christians. How? By succeeding to their faith, and piety, and charity, and holiness of life. I am a successor to the first preachers of the Gospel, and pastor of the Christian church, just in proportion

as I have the same sentiments, hold them on the same ground, the testimony of the apostles, with the same faith, which proves itself by its works; preach them in the same spirit, with the same motives, and under the same influence, producing the same effect for the conversion of sinners and the edification of saints. Now this doctrine is essentially holy. You cannot separate its holiness from itself.

Look next at the modern popish doctrine of apostolic succession. I will not trust myself to describe it; you shall hear it from its own advocates:

"He (that is, Christ) has provided, by keeping up a succession of men, who derive authority in unbroken series from the first teachers of the faith, for the continued preaching of his word, and administration of sacraments.

And though there be a great deal preached in which you cannot recognise the voice of the Saviour; and though the sacraments be administered by hands which seem impure; yet shall we venture to assert, that no man who keeps Christ stedfastly in view, as the 'minister of the true tabernacle,' will ever fail to derive profit from a sermon, or strength from a communion. The grand evil is, that men ordinarily lose the chief minister in the inferior, and determine beforehand, that they cannot be advantaged, unless the inferior is modelled exactly to their own pattern. They regard the speaker simply as a man, and not at all as a messenger. Yet the ordained preacher is a messenger, a messenger from the God of the whole earth. His mental capacity may be weak-that is nothing. His speech may be contemptible-that is nothing. His knowledge may be circumscribed-we say not, that is nothing, but we say, whatever the man's qualifications, he should rest upon his office. Whoever

preaches, a congregation would be benefited, if they sat down in the temper of Cornelius and his friends, 'Now, therefore, are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.'

“But if a sermon differ from what a Gospel sermon should be, men will determine, that Christ will have nothing to do with its delivery. Now this, we assert, is nothing less than the deposing Christ from the ministry assigned him by our text. We are far enough from declaring, that the chief minister puts

the false words into the mouth of the inferior. But we are certain, as upon a truth, which to deny, is to assault the foundation of Christianity, that the chief minister is so mindful of his office, that every man who listens in faith, expecting a message from above, shall be addressed through the mouth, ay, even through the mistakes and errors of the inferior. If, wheresoever the minister is himself deficient and untaught so that his sermons exhibit a wrong system of doctrine, you will not allow that Christ's church may be profited by the ordinance of preaching; you clearly argue that the Redeemer has given up his office, and that he can no longer be styled, the minister of the true tabernacle.' There is no middle course between denying that Christ is the minister, and allowing that whatever the faulty statements of his ordained servant, no soul, which is hearkening in faith for a word of counsel or comfort, shall find the ordinances worthless, and be sent away empty. But when

every thing seems against them, (that is, the true followers of Christ,) so that, on a carnal calculation, you would suppose the services of the church stripped of all efficacy, then by acting faith on the Head of the ministry, they are instructed and nourished; though in the main, the given lesson be falsehood, and the proferred sustenance little better than poison."

Now this doctrine is utterly wicked. This apostolic succession and authority may be possessed where there is no holiness of character; it may be held as a substitute for holiness of character. The minister that adopts this, is encouraged to disregard his own character and preaching, because he fancies he has a higher claim for the estimation due to a valid and a useful ministry, in his apostolic orders. The people are encouraged to disregard holiness, and trifle with sin in their ministers, by fancying that the mystic succession secures a blessing without any holiness or truth, and in spite of all error and sin. Then, they will think less of the necessity of holiness in themselves; less of the holiness of the Gospel; ay, and less of the holiness of Christ, its author too. This "doctrine of devils" bears its condemnation on its front, as clearly has any harlot that walk Sermons by Henry Melville, A.M., pp. 44-48. Rivington.

the streets. Like popery, to which it belongs, it is so essentially wicked, that miracles could not prove it true. For miracles themselves, employed in such a cause, would lose their convincing force.

This doctrine has blasted the fair fame of Christianity, by all the infamous character of popery. For never would the purest religion that ever came from heaven, have been supposed to own as its ministers the vilest men that ever disgraced the human shape, had it not been for the doctrine of apostolical suc

cession.

2. The doctrine of apostolical succession is wretched, destructive of all peace of conscience.

See a dying man under trouble of conscience.

One who comes to administer the sacrament to him, tells him, that it conveys saving grace, because he that administers it is a true priest in the line of the apostolic succession. The man says to him, Then, sir, I ought to be quite sure that what you say of yourself is true, for I must soon stand at the bar of God." The priest replies, "You may be quite sure of that." The dying man replies, "I cannot feel quite sure of it; for I have nothing but your word for it, and that will not do for a dying man. The minister replies, "But I received ordination from the bishop, who is successor to the apostles." "Let me have proof that you are thus ordained," says the sick man; "for I remember that there was much talk about the mock parson, who officiated in our church, performed many services, and married many persons, and when it was afterwards found out that he was not ordained, some whom he had married deemed it necessary to be married over again." Half indignant, the other replies, "But I have the letters of ordination, with the bishop's own signature, to prove that I am in the line of succession." "Then," exclaims the sick man, "if this is the proof of so important a fact, I ought to see this signature that proves you a true minister."

It may not be easy to procure this signature, which may be locked up in a desk a hundred miles distant; but suppose the letters of ordination sent for, arrived, and seen, as there is only one half of the bishop's name, and for the other is a Latin word that the man cannot understand, he is perplexed, and asks, in a plaintive tone, "Is this the bishop's

"Yes, certainly,"

66

the

signature? priest exclaims. "But I am not certain," says the anxious man, "for I do not know the bishop's hand, and it is necessary to have it attested, before a magistrate, by credible witnesses, who know the bishop's hand-writing, and who will swear to the best of their knowledge and belief, the signature is genuine.' When this has been done; the sick man says, "I have been thinking, in my anxiety about my safety, that I have had it attested, that the bishop ordained John Smith; but I am not sure, sir, that you are the person intended; for there are so many John Smiths; and, to be candid with you, I must say, that I have another embarrassment; for I am not sure that the bishop is one of those whom you call successors to the apostles." "Oh you may be quite sure of that," the priest replies; for he was ordained by other successors to the apostles, and he has letters signed by the bishops who consecrated him." The dying man exclaims, "I should like to see those letters! but then, again, I reflect that I should not know the bishop's hand-writing, and if I did, I should require the signatures of those that ordained them; and I can see no end to my difficulties. But, perhaps, you will show me the whole list of the bishops and archbishops, that I may trace them up to the apostles." By a rare and happy accident, such a list is produced; the sick man bends his pallid countenance over it," Why, some of these went to Rome, to be ordained by the pope," he exclaims, "and our church says, 'the church of Rome is antichrist.' "Oh no!" exclaims the priest, "it is a part of the true apostolic church, of which ours is a branch." The sick man quotes largely from the Homilies, to confute the doctrine of his spiritual adviser, who, unable to satisfy his parishioner, calls in the aid of the incumbent of the next parish.

He meets the doctrine of the church of Rome with a different answer, pronouncing her antichrist; by which the sick man is still more embarrassed, perceiving that the clergy are not agreed among themselves what is and what is not a true apostolic church. But the minister assures the sick person, that we had bishops in England long before Pope Gregory sent Austin and his monks into Kent. The pale countenance now brightens up, and the faltering voice as

sumes animation, when it asks, "Pray, sir, can you show me the very first man that preached the Gospel in this isle, and tell me whether he was a bishop, and what apostle ordained him; for then, perhaps, we may come down from that man to his successors in the present day."

What answer could an intelligent and honest man give to this question? He must say, "We know nothing at all about it.' No mortal can tell who brought the Gospel to Britain; by whom he was ordained, or whether he ever was ordained at all; whether he was what is called clergyman or layman, or whether he were one of the merchants who came to fetch tin from Cornwall, or a Roman soldier, who had just heard Paul preach, and was hurried away to join his legion in Britain. To bid men rest their hopes on the apostolical succession, is the old story of the world resting on the tortoise, the tortoise on an elephant, and the elephant on nothing. No man can have peace on this ground. But, "being justified by faith, we have peace with God."

3. This apostolic succession is exclusive, and destructive of charity and unity.

It utters the proud language, "Stand by, I am (not more holy, but) more apostolical than thou." But after confining the covenanted mercies to themselves, how many do they make them

selves? They are so miserable a fraction even of the Christian world, that if they can take pleasure in saying, "We are all," where is that charity that is greater than faith or hope? But some of the Oxford Tracts seem to relent on this point, and to admit that dissenters may be saved, as by a kind of back door, while the apostolicals alone have the front gate open to them. What is this but creating a Brahmin caste among Christians; and forming a schism in the church? The charity and unity of the Christian church, depend on the true succession, that of truth, and faith, and holiness. On this principle, we say, "Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ. As many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them and mercy, and on the Israel of God." "Hereby shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another."

So far, then, is it from being true, as one of the soi-disant apostolicals has lately declared from the Pulpit, that dissenters, being out of the succession, ought to work miracles to prove their ministry true, while they who are in the succession need no miracles; that these men, pretending to apostolic claims, are bound to repeat the miracles by which apostles proved their claims, while the doctrine of the succession is so wicked, that even miracles could not prove it true.

On a par

THE proudest heart that ever beat
Hath been subdued, in me;
The wildest will that ever rose,
To scorn thy cause, and aid thy foes,
Is quell'd, my God, by Thee.

Thy will, and not my will, be done;
My heart be ever thine;
Confessing Thee, the mighty Word,
I hail Thee Christ, my God, my Lord,
And make thy Name my sign.

W. HONE.

ANALECTA HEBRAICA: with Critical Notes and Tables of Paradigms of the Conjugations of the Regular and Irregular Verbs. By C. W. H. PAULI. 8vo. pp. 304.

Oxford: J. W. Parker. London: J. G. and F.
Rivington.

A KEY to the HEBREW SCRIPTURES, being an Explanation of every Word in the Sacred Text arranged in the order in which it occurs: to which is prefixed, a Short but Compendious Hebrew Grammar with out Points; with some Remarks on Chaldee prefixed to the Book of Daniel. By the Rev. JAMES PROSSER, A.M., Perpetual Curate of Loudwater, Bucks. 8vo. pp. 333.

London: J. Duncan, Paternoster-row and Orger and Meryon, Fenchurch-street.

We have long seen the need of a work similar to the "Analecta Hebraica," of Mr. Pauli. The treasures of the Hebrew language would amply repay the labours of the scholar, and an accurate acquaintance with its genius and idiom is demanded of the Christian minister, who is by his office an interpreter of the Scriptures. But the requisite assistance is not furnished by the grammars in common use; most of which are nothing more than meager outlines. Those of a higher order presuppose a very considerable acquaintance with the language, such as Ewald's, and, though to a less extent, that of Dr. Lee. They take the student by the hand, but only after he has by his unaided efforts entered the building, and they talk to him of numberless things, not one of which came under his observation in the path of his approach.

The grammar of Moses Stuart is an exception; but it is only a grammar presenting the dry bones of a dead language. The number of rules with their corresponding exceptions, the minutiæ æconnected with the vowel points and the changes of vowels and consonants, and, above all, the paucity of examples which cannot there be remedied, will, in the words of Mr. Pauli, "impede the progress of the student, if not cause him to abandon the study altogether." The study of it, or of a similar work, is indeed indispensable to the learner, but his progress would be much facilitated, and his toil relieved, by a work which should present to him a series of appropriate examples.

Now the present work seems to supply this desideratum. Illustrating by nume

rous and well-selected instances one rule at a time, the author leads the student gradually into an acquaintance with all the peculiarities of the grammar and idiom; thus avoiding the error of the Chrestomathics, where it may be requisite in the outset to apply many rules of grammar to a single verse.

But let us not convey the impression that Mr. Pauli is merely an illustrator of the rules delivered by others. The book is enriched with original critical notes, displaying an intimate familiarity with Rabbinical literature, and, what is too rare an accomplishment in this country, a perfect knowledge of the improvements which have been made in this branch of philological science in Germany.

Some of his theoretical views, indeed, appear to us untenable; for instance, the entire confidence, which he says, in the preface, he reposes in the Masoretic text, as unvitiated by transcribers; for we do not see how an acquaintance with Rabbinical literature and the Chaldee can determine a question depending on the authority of manuscripts: but this does not affect the value of the work. In his classification of nouns he differs from other grammarians, and with good reason, for in the Hebrew, there is nothing so involved as the labyrinth of "thirteen declensions." The author's own system is sufficiently simple, though we doubt its comprehensiveness.

We cordially recommend the work to theological students. Using it in connexion with any of the grammars to which constant reference is made, they will be much assisted to a mastery of the Hebrew language-an acquirement always desirable for their own confidence and satisfaction in explaining the Scriptures, and now rendered imperative by the circumstances of the times.

Mr. Prosser's work is of a very different order. The author belongs to the school of Parkhurst, and holds that "the Hebrew is the parent of all other languages, was the language of the garden of Eden, is as accurate in philosophical things as in divine." He traces the phenomenon, that a profound Hebraist is in these lands rara avis to the difficulty of the points, and we believe he is correct, though it is not the less true, that there cannot be a profound Hebraist without the previous labour of mastering these troublesome diacutics; for whenever the text is divested of them it