vol. EEs. no. ese.

know is thoroughly appreciated by the great mass
{"character_count": 6281, "word_count": 1088, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9524000287055969], "ccnet_perplexity": [1378.699951171875], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
alton by an appeal to the Federal Constitution
the burden Of proof certainly lies upon him t
show hor and ,rhere that instrument counte
nances any such assertion. My denial that thu
Federal Constitution teaches such doctrine j:
not to be met by another assertion, that the denia
IS mere unsupported allegation, q begging Of thc
question, &c. Alas for logic One can hardly
imagine how any one, even though he were pro
iessofo moral philosophy Or logic, could have
constructed such happy piece Of argument as
that which occupies my opponents last article
1t is p novel mode of playing the part of res
pondent, the title in which be reioices, and which
(resPondens non respondendo) he seems to consi-
der as ,nvestlng him with the privilege of not res
pondlng at all. Instead Of the hard work of an
swerlng questions or arguments, he prefers to
throw out-lke tubs to whale-the Confession OF
Faith, predestination, sixty thousand excommuni-
Gated Presbyterians, &c, IN hope that he NAV
distract attention from the main issue. The read
er understood all these things. and considers them
as signals Of dirtress from vessel on lee shore.
Enough of them. sha! notice hereafter nothing
but argument.


In support of the position advanced in my fifth
letter pursued briefly, in my last, an analogy
between the State and the Church, and showed
conclusively $50 conclusively as to have placed it
beyond my opponents power of reply, for he does
not notice II all,) that even admitting, for the
sake of argument, that Prelacy is recognized in
Scripture as the then existing model of Church
order, it is not more distinctly recognized than
monarchy. And yetthat no one IN this land will
affirm that our rejection Of the latter was against
the viii of God, IN such sense as to destroy the
State In other words, that even supposing we
may have erred (as | am told few highly con-





do) in casting off the kingly polity, we are, ney-
ertheless J0nn fdc state. If this be so, (as all
will admit | asked whether similar error in re-
spact to Prelacy (supposing it to have been even
half as explicitly recognized In Scri pture mon
archy is) must necessarily be a fundamental error,
which puts the mistal1ing persons completely be-
yond the pale of the Christian Church. The
force of this illustration of the gross absurdity of
the High Church exclusivencss consists in this,
that such exclusiveness makes an error TO form,
as fatslas an error in regard to Sajstance that it
puts upon par, the accidents and the essence;
that it conrounds government with the function
aries of government. No Church without Pre-
late can be maintained only by course of rca.
soning which will establish the corresponding
doctrine No State without a King.


But the main thought is, that this analogy dcs-
trovs the doctrine ofa necessary succession CT IN
diri9uQZs. For, as that succession IN the state
was broken up entirely by our revolution, and yet
the country was left with better government
than when it was ruled by a hereditary monarch.
81 may a succession in the Church be broken up,
with advantage to the Church. But this my op-
ronent denies He affirms that an unbroken series
Of ordinations to the ministry is the very basis of
the Church. 1t is, therefore, the turning point Of
-, Ia ,,-,rnopi 7 bar aCr,in and NJ
milted that there have been crises, and may be
again in which theregular method dofhansmitting
the ministerial character might be interrupted,
and vet true Church be preserved and a true
ministry raised up and subsequently transmitted
by the laying on Of the hands of the Presbytery.
The reader VINO wishes to see this subject fully
discussed. may turn to Claude's well-known de-
fence of the Reformation. AS therefore, any
sach interurtion in the series OF ordinations would
according to the doctrine OF my opponent-ut-
terlv vitiale all subsequent acts, have considered
the Questions of an unhroken series OF ordinations
and an unbroken succession. as really identical,
although strangely enough, considering his claims
To "moral fairness and logical accuracy], lie
denies this identity. He gives no reason. however,
and | shall therefore consider them rs virtually
one, and proceed now with the tram of remark
suyuestcd by the above parallel between the
Church and the State.


NV object now will be to investigate the proofs
which are advanced in support of the absurd
fancy Of an Apostol,cal succession, as necessary
to the existence of the Church. ltwI DC found
to he a new version of an old fab!e-thc world
resting upon the back of the elephant, the ele-
nhant upon tortoise, the tortoise upon-nothlng.
The Church resting upon Prelates, the Prelates
uoon an unbrokcn descent from the Apostles, their
nredecessors and this unbroken descent resting
upon-nothlng.


The theory is this: our modern Prclatcs arc the
lneal successors of the twelve Apostles; to them
tho Anostolic power has descended Chow much
thcv can show of this power we shall see present
lvI thew only can appoint aminlStry, which nm
istry alonc has the promise of blessing, and can
rightflly take care of the fold Of Christ, as pas
tors: they only can confer regeneration IN oaP-
,ism, and they only (as one of them SAID have
the BODY and blood of Christ to give TO his Peo-
n,e. See these claims as taught by Palmer, VOL
IT,, part g. These are astonishing powers, as
every reader can see, aud wonder that they
have q strong attraction for certain classes OF
minds, both among priests and people NO Won
der that many of the former arc ANXIOUS 10 per.
suade the latter that they are invested win soIt o
viceoerency from Heaven, which really places the
Church and the world pretty much al t'ief mercy
But upon this point we shall have more to say at
another time Such substantially is the clallil'
and such the ground VIZ: a succession 10 the IN
Apostolic Office upon which the claim is built.
There is not a Bishop, priest or deacon among
u.s. says DR.. Hook, who cannot, # he please,
trace his own spiritual descent from St Peter OF


Now, as my opponent seems quite unwilling
to Give US arguments (perhaps because they arc
not as plenty as blackberries,) must resort to
other advocates of this doctrine of the necessity
Of pnbroken descent from the Apostles, to disco
ver the basis of this futile theory, out OF when