and especially in the great doctrine by the promoting of which the Reformation was begun, and by the power of which it became successful; namely, "justification by living faith in Christ." Their great principle was that which is expressed in that brief, but most important and germinant, assertion: The FIRST COMING UNTO God is through faith, whereby we be justified before God." These were the men who would have echoed that solemn declaration of St. John, by which, in fact, the whole nature of personal religion is characterized: "He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath NOT the Son of God," (whatever else he hath,) HATH NOT LIFE." And as they thus viewed Christianity as essentially and primarily a spiritual system, and an external one dependently and subordinately, so did they view the ministry, whatever were their opinions as to its most fitting form, as a spiritual office, requiring a spiritual calling. Thus, in the very forefront of the Ordination Service which they constructed, and which, as solemnly ratified by law, authoritatively fixes the doctrine of the Church of England on the subject, they put this solemn and searching inquiry: "Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost, to take upon you this office and ministra tion, to serve God for the promot. ing of his glory, and the edifying of his people?" And what was meant by this inward call, and the importance which was attached to it, may be illustrated by two quotations one, (referred to by Mr. Powell,) from the martyr Thomas Bilney, in the reign of Henry VIII.; the other, from the venerable Bishop (for such we will venture to call him, notwithstanding the sneers of such unhappy men as the late Mr. Froude) John Jewel, in the time of Elizabeth. Bilney, in a letter to Bishop Tonstall, has these remark able expressions :-" Like thieves and robbers, they have climbed another way, not being called nor sent. And what marvel is it, if they do not preach, whereas they are not sent, but run for lucre, seeking

their own glory, and not the glory of God and the salvation of souls? And this is the root of all mischief in the Church, that they are not sent inwardly of God. For without this inward calling, it helpeth nothing before God to be a hundred times elect and consecrate by a thousand Bulls, either by Pope, King, or Emperor. God beholdeth the heart, whose judgments are according to truth, howsoever we deceive the judgment of men for a time: which also, at the last, shall see their abomination. This (I say) is the original of all mischief in the Church, that we thrust in ourselves into the charge of souls, whose salvation and the glory of God (which is to enter in by the door) we do not thirst nor seek for, but altogether our own lucre and profit. Hereupon it cometh, that we know not how to preach Christ purely; ' For how should they preach Christ,' saith the Apostle, except they be sent?"" And again:

Touching the true and learned Pastors given by God, it may be truly said, 'We speak that which we know, and that which we have seen' (even with the infallible eyes of our faith) we do witness;' and these are neither deceived, nor do they deceive." Bishop Jewel, writing on 1 Thess. ii. 4, says, "The Apostle saith, He was allowed of God.' They that enter into the ministry must be allowed, not of men only, but of God. Therefore whosoever taketh that charge over the people, must look narrowly into himself, and see whether his calling be of God.

If he have not a testimony that God hath called him inwardly, all other outward calling is to small purpose. God is a righteous Judge. He will say to the conscience and the heart of such a one, Friend, how camest thou in hither without thy wedding-garment? Who brought thee in? Give an account of thy stewardship. Thine account is great.'

This, then, is Church-of-England doctrine,-Church-of-England doctrine as established by law. He, therefore, who, as a Church-of-England Divine, goes about to establish the fact of an unbroken, per

sonal ministerial succession, must show a succession, not merely even of canonically-ordained men,--though this, we incline to think, would be not altogether an easy task,—but of inwardly-called men; men whose personal character, and whose behaviour in the ministry, gave evidence that they had been "moved by the Holy Ghost, to take upon them " this sacred office. But, no. We are to assume-shutting our eyes to all the facts furnished by history-that when there has been Episcopal ordination, there has been all else that may be supposed to be neces sary; or, perhaps, we are to take Episcopal ordination as being sufficient of itself to cure all defects. But where is this taught in Scripture? Till this is shown, even were the chain complete, and we fear that examination will show many places in which the links, instead of being properly interlocked, are only fastened together by twisted tow, but even were it otherwise, the chain that is not fastened into the wall supports nothing. Let this fastening be shown.

Mr. Powell is evidently a stanch Protestant; but a stanch Protestant on religious principles. Popery, therefore, he views as a great evil, and its revival he earnestly deprecates. For successful opposition to Popery he believes that Protestants ought to be united; and as in the doctrine of the apostolical succession, as held by what is frequently called the High-Church party, he sees the principal occasion of Protestant disunion, for this reason, as well as because he believes it to be as false as it is mischievous, he has devoted himself to a full examination of the subject. He very properly confines himself to this one question. All that it includes, indeed, he reviews; but he has been careful not to encumber himself, nor weaken the general impression of his volume, by the introduction of extraneous matter. He does not, for instance, deny the lawfulness of Episcopacy, as one form of ecclesiastical regimen: his object is to show that it is not exclusively lawful. Nor does he deny that "the State may

supply pecuniary means to the Church;" that is, he does not deny the principle of a religious Establish ment. He guards it very strongly, but not too strongly; except that it perhaps might be said that he puts his guards and limitations in the strongest forms, and his admissions in the weakest; that is, merely as admissions of what the State may do. He rightly views the State as a collection of persons." Now, upon Christian principles, every person is bound to honour God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and what every person, individually, is bound to do, surely he is not less bound to do when he goes into society, according to that social nature which God has given him. Man does not void any of his obligations by social union; according to all analogy, we should say that they were strengthened by it. If, then, as an individual, he is bound to serve God, and if he carries that obligation. into society, and if God enforces even social obligations with all the weight of his own authority, taking society under his own immediate protection, then surely there is an acknowledgment-a direct, unequivocal acknowledgment-of God, which that collection of individuals which is called a State owes to him. We quite agree with Mr. Powell in his limitations of the principle, provided he puts the principle not permissively merely, but as obligatory: not that the State may acknowledge God, but that as a State it ought to acknowledge him; and that, according to Isaiah 1x. 3, 10, 12, it can enjoy nothing like prosperity, unless it does acknowledge him. But, while careful not to mix up with his principal theme what would have presented vulnerable points of attack to a skilful adversary, he does not shrink from a full exposition of the subject itself. This will appear from a statement of the contents of the different sections of the volume. Such a statement will enable the reader to form some opinion of the nature of the work, and the scope and object of Mr. Powell's argumentation.

Mr. Powell's first section states the doctrine of apostolic succession

as it has been asserted by some of its" ablest advocates." His quotations refer to three points: the doctrine of apostolic succession;-the necessity of ordination by successive Bishops; and the nullity or worthlessness of all other ordinations, and the ministrations belonging to them. One of the citations made by Mr. Powell we give, as fairly presenting the characters of the system itself. The quotation is from Dodwell.

"None but the Bishop can unite us to the Father and the Son. Whence it will further follow, that whoever are disunited from the visible communion of the church on earth, and particularly from that visible communion of the Bishop, must, consequently, be disunited from the whole visible catholic church on earth; and not only so, but from the invisible communion of the holy angels and saints in heaven; and, which is yet more, from Christ and God himself. It is one of the most dreadful aggravations of the condition of the damned, that they are

banished from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. The

same is their condition who are disunited from Christ by being disunited from his visible representative." (Page 17.)

To this we add an extract which

Mr. Powell has made from one of

the Tracts for the Times," as their Oxford authors have termed them. In one of these it is said that

"A person not commissioned from the Bishop may use the words of baptism, and sprinkle or bathe with the water on earth, but there is no promise from Christ that such a man shall admit souls to the kingdom of heaven. A person not commissioned may break bread, and pour out wine, and pretend to give the Lord's supper, but it can afford no comfort to any to receive it at his hands, because there is no warrant from Christ to lead communicants to suppose, that while he does so here on earth, they will be par takers of the Saviour's heavenly body and blood. And as for the person himself, who takes upon himself without warrant to minister in holy things, he is all the while treading in the footsteps of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, whose awful punishment you read of in the book of Numbers." (Page 18.)

Now, the first and most obvious reflection suggested by these state

ments must be, that religion is essentially, and in the very first instance, a system of external ritualism. Το have communion with Christ there must be communion with the church, as constituted by this external succession of Episcopal ordinations, without any regard to religious principle or character. And this communion with the church is chiefly maintained through the sacraments, which, as administered by Divines in the succession, are the means of bringing the soul into the covenant of grace, and of nourishing it with the sacred body and blood of the Redeemer. All is as external as the merely secular portion of the Judaic covenant, which gave the Jews a right to the land in which they dwelt, and to the blessings of a temporal prosperity. Now the great question is,-Is this the religion of the New Testament? We do not like to meddle with questions of anathema; but these writers should look at the opening of the Epistles of the New Testament, a portion of sacred writ in which, very justly observes Mr. Townsend, "is recorded what Christ, on his throne of glory, spake through the Spirit from heaven. And this portion (the Epistle to the Galatians having been the earliest written) opens with the fearful announcement," If any man preach any other Gospel, let him be accursed." Let, then, this Epistle be read. What Gospel had Paul preached, and the Galatians received? Against what kind of errors was it found necessary to guard them? And in guarding them, by what descriptions is the religion of Christ

characterized? Does this successionscheme agree with the truth established by St. Paul, or with the errors which he so solemnly anathematized? Let the Epistle be read. Let all that it says about personal faith, and the reception of pardon, and the gift of the Spirit, by personal faith, be noticed. Let the full import of the declaration,-" In Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love." Then, let the Epistle to the Romans be opened, and let the reader mark well the

:

texts:-" For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh but he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." Is it possible to read the extracts we have given from Dodwell and the Oxford Tracts on the one hand, and the passages of Scripture we have quoted on the other, without feeling that the two systems are radically distinct; and without fearing that the human one is so completely "another Gospel," so awfully deleterious, so destructive, not of charity merely, but of true godliness, that if St Paul were alive, and it were brought before him, he would at once apply to it the anathema which he had pronounced in reference to the controversy agitating the Galatians ?

Mr. Powell, in the second section, thus states the general question :

"The succession-Divines maintain :

1. That Bishops are, by divine right, an order superior to, distinct from, and having powers, authority, and rights incompatible with, Presbyters, simply as Presbyters. 2. That the Bishops of this order are the sole successors of the Apostles as ordainers of other Ministers, and governors both of Pastors and people. 3. That this succession is a personal succession; namely, that it is to be traced through an historical series of persons, validly ordained as Bishops, transmitting, in an unbroken line, this Episcopal ordination; and that all ordinances and sacraments are vain, except they be administered by such Episcopally-ordained Ministers. Now, we deny every one of these positions. And we shall show,-1. That Bishops and Presbyters are, by divine right, the same order; and that Presbyters, by divine right, have the same power and authority as Bishops; that ordination by Presbyters is equally valid with that of Bishops; and consequently, that the ministry of all the Reformed Protestant Churches is equally valid with that of any Episcopal Church. 2. That Presbyters are as much the successors of the Apostles as Bishops are. 3. That a succession of the truth of doctrine, of faith and holiness, of the pure word

of God, and of the sacraments duly administered, is the only essential succession necessary to a Christian church. 4. That all are true Christian churches where such a ministry and such ordinances are found." (Page 22.)

These subjects Mr. Powell pursues through the remainder of the volume.

The third section is devoted to the examination of the scriptural texts or doctrines from which the Successionists infer the correctness of their scheme. In this part of his work he considers the commission of Christ to his Apostles,—the claim of Apostleship for Bishops,-the high-priesthood of Bishops,-the case of Timothy and Titus,-and the angels of the seven churches.

The fourth and fifth sections argue, that the general spirit and scope of the Gospel are opposed to the succession-scheme; they contain, likewise, some very sound remarks as to the ministerial office. This, Mr. Powell argues, requires, according to the Scripture, holiness of life,-the call of God, and soundness of doctrine. He adds, after having, as we think, successfully argued these points, that the New Testament positively requires, that those who pretend to be Ministers of the word, and who teach doctrines contrary to the truth as it is in Jesus, should be forsaken. He shows that false prophets are to be known by their fruits; whereas the Successionists refer entirely to the external commission. Where that is, there is a Christian ministry; and where a Christian ministry, a Christian church. The explicit language of Scripture is shown by Mr. Powell to be utterly at variance with these representations.

In the sixth section, he comes to "Christian antiquity;" and while he allows that he finds in some writers claims as high as any advanced in more modern times, yet he finds, likewise, what he thinks satisfactorily proves that the entire succession-scheme, in all that is necessary to its existence, if it is to exist at all, was not held by antiquity. And in the seventh section, he shows that "the Church of England, at the Reformation, was against these