HOLY ORDERS is an expression altogether unknown to the Sacred Scriptures, and the thing it represents would have been not less a novelty to the Apostles themselves and their disciples. Popery has assigned to it a very significant import, and clothed it with the honour of a sacrament; consequently claiming for it divine institution, a visible sign and promised grace. Like everything else in the perversions of Popery, the object here was clearly to exalt the priesthood, and to cut off all sorts of lay agency in matters appertaining to religion. The terms in which they speak of the matter are quite extraordinary. According to the Council of Trent "As the ministry of so exalted a priesthood is a divine thing, it was meet, in order to surround it with the greater dignity and veneration, that there should be several distinct Orders of ministers, intended by their office to serve the priesthood, and so disposed, as that beginning with the clerical treasure, they may ascend gradually through the lesser to the greater Orders." The gradation runs thus: "porter, reader, exorcist, acolite, sub-deacon, deacon, and priest "distinctions utterly unknown to the Scriptures. As to the outward sign claimed for a sacrament, there was such in the imposition of hands, but as to the inward grace, the thing is without foundation in Scripture, and wholly inconsistent with fact; since neither amongst Papists nor Protestants, has there ever been any ascertained connection between such imposition and the bestowment of grace, or the Holy Ghost. The Council of Trent, however, nothing daunted, declares that by " Holy Ordination, bestowed by words and external signs, grace is conferred, and that none ought to doubt that Orders constitute one of the Seven Sacraments of the Holy Church." These conclusions are, as usual, fortified by anathema. The Christian Ministry is an institution, but not a sacrament. Examination of the Holy Scriptures shows, that it consisted of bishops or pastors, or elders, or ministers-varied names for the same class -whose functions consisted in teaching and in rule; and of the deacons, whose special business it was to superintend the affairs of the Church with reference to the poor, and who appear also to have been men of eminent spirituality, and who gave themselves to promote the salvation of men through the preaching of the Gospel. This point stands intimately related to a subject of which we have in recent years heard so much Apostolic Succession. Although some branches of the Protestant Church make much of this succession, it is in vain that we look to the Holy Scriptures for anything to support the assumption. There is a broad line of distinction drawn between the Apostles and all other ministers of the Gospel, so that to allege Succession is simply to practice imposition. The Apostles were men who had seen the Lord, and received a commission from his own mouth to go and publish salvation to the ends of the earth, with the promise of His presence till their work was done. We maintain that there was no succession, and nothing bearing the remotest relation to it. We call upon those that claim to be the Successors of the Apostles to produce their authority. We beg to remind them, that the Commission of the Apostles died with them, and so did the special powers, which constituted their credentials. On the subject of Holy Orders, as on every other, our watchword must be to the law and to the testimony. What is written? How readest thou? This is the short and the sure way to put an end to all Popish pretension on the subject of Holy Orders and Apostolic succession, whether found in Rome or in regions where better things might be expected. Among the votaries of Rome, Apostolical succession means this-all the Popish Priests now on the earth, have been ordained by bishops; all the bishops now on the earth, have been chosen by the Pope, and episcopally ordained by his authority. The present Pope is held to be the last of a series ending in Peter the Apostle; while it is affirmed that Peter received his chair and his powers direct from Christ, and bequeathed them to his immediate successor, and he to his, and that thus they have been transmitted to our times. Such is the theory; and hence it is said that a Popish priest, on entering his fold, may thus address his flock: -- The Word of God which I announce to you, and the holy sacraments which I dispense to you, I am QUALIFIED to announce and dispense by such a Catholic bishop, who was consecrated by such another Catholic bishop, and so on, in a series which reaches to the Apostles themselves; and I am AUTHORIZED to preach and minister to you by such a prelate, who received authority for this purpose from the successors of St. Peter in the Apostolic See of Rome." (Milner, Letter xxix.) This at once exemplifies Apostolical Succession and Papal Unity. The Puseyites adopt the same principles, and apply it to the ministry of the Church of England. The whole of the inferior clergy have been ordained by the laying on of the hands of bishops, and all the bishops have been ordained by those who were bishops before them; and thus the line, it is contended, may be traced back to the times which preceded the Reformation, when the Church of England was a portion of the Catholic Church, in subjection to the Pope, and in communion with Rome. All this might be suffered to pass without fear or notice, did it not involve practical principles of the highest moment and the most fearful consequences. With a view to the illustration of these, we shall now adduce a series of testimonies demonstrative of identity of Popery and Puseyism, and the essentially wicked and persecuting character of both systems. 1. The only ministration to which the Lord has promised his presence, is to that of the bishops, who are successors of the first commissioned Apostles, and the other clergy acting under their sanction and by their authority. '(Hook's Sermon on the Established Church) The sacrament of the Lord's Supper can only be administered by ministers duly ordained, and, therefore, it is needful to continue in a Church possessing an Apostolical Succession. (Hook's Sermon on Training) 2. The gift of the Holy Ghost has been preserved in the world solely by means of the Episcopal succession; and to seek communion with Christ by any other channel, is to attempt an impossibility. (Preface to Fronde's Remains) 3. No congregation, not being under this form of government, can be a true branch of Christ's holy Catholic Church. The clergy of the Church, and they alone, are entitled to the respect and obedience of the people, as their lawful guides and governors in spiritual things; that they alone are duly commissioned to preach the Word of God, and to administer the holy sacrament. (Bishop of London's Charges) 4. It is only this (Apostolical Succession) that can give any security that the ministration of the word and sacraments shall be effectual to the saving of souls. The Dissenters have it not. (Tract xxxv) 5. I should like to know why you flinch from saying, that the power of making the body aid blood of Christ is vested in the successors of the Apostles. (Fronde, vol. 1. p. 326) 6. The day may come when each of us, inferior ministers, may have to give up our churches, and be among you in no better temporal circumstances than yourselves; then you will honour us with a purer honour than you do now-namely, as those who are entrusted with the keys of heaven and hell, as entrusted with the awful and mysterious gift of making the bread. and wine, Christ's body and blood.' (Tract x. p. 4) 7. The power claimed by the Church is a vast power, which places it almost upon a level with God himself the power of forgiving sins by wiping them out in baptism-of transferring souls from hell to heaven-the power of bringing down the Spirit of God, and of incorporating it in the persons of frail and fleshly man. (Sewell, p. 247) Now we affirm, without fear of Scriptural contradiction, that the doctrine here set forth is wholly unsupported by the Word of God, and opposed to the whole current of inspiration. It assumes as truth what has no foundation whatever in fact. It assumes as fact a palpable absurdity. Granting that Peter was the first Roman bishop and pope, and that the succession really commenced, enough has occurred a thousand times over to invalidate its orders, and extinguish the fire of heaven supposed to run through the Apostolic line. In order to the continuance of the Divine authority, the spiritual power, and the sacramental efficacy, it is required that every line of the mystic chain shall be pure gold, and that not a link shall be wanting; for a single mistake, like an error in an arithmetical computation, will run through all that follows, rendering it null and void. A single error will vitiate the entire line. The Puseyites feel the force of this; and hence Dr. Hook sends forth, with our last citation, another of Dr. Pusey's "courageous avowals:' "Our ordinations," says he, "descend, in an unbroken line, from Peter and Paul, the Apostles of the Circumcision and the Gentiles." To deal effectually with this point, it is needful to inquire whether the " line " can be broken; and if so, by what forces? If it cannot be broken, there is an end of argument. If, according to Archdeacon Mason, (Defence of the Church of England Ministry) neither " degradation," nor " heresy," nor " schism," nor " the most extreme wickedness," nor " anything else," can divest a bishop of the power of giving trite orders, then of course the chain is strong, and all the powers of darkness cannot break it. If, according to the Puseyites, "the sacraments, not preaching, are the source of Divine grace," and if the efficacy of these is wholly "independent of the personal character of the administrator," (Tracts, Preface, 1834, No. xi.) and if it is enough that he has been episcopally ordained, then the matter is much simplified, but not strengthened; for while the utmost depravity of character, and the most impious heresy of doctrine, may, in Popish esteem, be trifling matters, yet, if a single link of the Papal chain shall be snapped, it falls asunder, and it cannot be again united. But nothing in history is more certain than that this chain has been constantly broken, in all possible ways, at one time through the electors, at another through the elected. For centuries the popes were created by the authority of the emperors, and the objects of their choice were generally anti-popes or schismatics; and popes were often made by means still more questionable. But the dreadful tale must not be told by Protestant lips, lest they should be charged with colouring. Let Baronius, therefore, speak, himself a cardinal, and one of the greatest of men. Referring to the ninth century, he exclaims, " Oh! what was then the face of the holy Roman Church? How filthy, when the vilest and most powerful harlots ruled in the court of Rome! -By whose arbitrary sway dioceses were made and unmade, bishops were consecrated, and, horrible to be mentioned, false popes, their paramours, were thrust into the Chair of Peter, who in being numbered as popes, serve no purpose except to fill up the catalogue of the Popes of Rome! For who can say, that persons thrust into the Popedom, without any law, by harlots of this sort, were legitimate Popes of Rome? In the elections no mention is made of the acts of the clergy, either by their choosing the Pope, at the time of his election, or their consent afterwards. All the canons were suppressed into silence-the voice of the decrees of former pontiffs was not allowed to be heard-ancient traditions were proscribed-the customs formerly practised in electing the Pope, with the sacred rites and pristine usages, were all extinguished. In this manner, lust, supported by secular power, excited to frenzy in the rage for domination, ruled in all things: (Baronius) Time would fail to tell of Pope Sergius and his crimes; of Theodora and Marozia, and the Papal profligates by whose iniquitous attentions they were signalized; of thirteen schisms in the Popedom during a century and a half, when rival popes, each pretending to represent Peter, contended for his chair, when popes excommunicated popes, when popes with popes waged mortal war, and when both have been removed and expelled;-of Pope Joan, the most abandoned of womankind, whom vengeance overtook, and whose turpitude was proclaimed in the streets of Rome at noonday; of Pope John XIII., transfixed with a dagger in the perpetration of an atrocious crime; of Alexander VI., who would have carried away the crown of sin from the men of Sodom! Teachers, Englishmen, Protestants! -Behold the UNBROKEN CHAIN OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION! O! Sacred Truth! Is it needful to waste another word on a system so revolting, so monstrous? Let Sewell and Seager, Hook and Pusey, and all who boast in it, enjoy all their honours, without envy and without molestation; but let them learn to do at least a slender homage to the majesty of truth, and pay some regard to the common sense of mankind! Let them cease to heap the collected filth of the universe on the pure vineyard of the Lord, and to insult the God of Heaven with impieties, by which even Hell itself is filled with astonishment! Is this the channel through which the Church of England has received her orders, and the special gift of the Holy Spirit? Is it thence she derives her "right to be sure that her clergy have the real body and blood of Christ to give to the people?" Is this the ground of the proud contempt with which many of her sons look down upon the ministry of all Christians of all countries that have not drunk of this dark Tartarean stream? Is this the " sole means by which the Holy Ghost has been preserved in the world?" Oh! matchless impiety! Compared with this blasphemy, all other blasphemy is devotion! Is this the ground of " the security " given by the Puseyites, that their "ministrations of the word and sacraments shall be effectual to the saving of souls, while the Dissenting teachers have it not?" So sure as there is truth in God, grace in Christ, and purity in the Eternal Spirit, the author of this doctrine is the " Father of Lies," Abaddon, Apollyon, the Destroyer of Men! The true doctrine of the Apostolic Succession may briefly and yet conclusively be stated: -While we reject with indignation the Popish and Puseyite doctrine of Apostolical Succession, and denounce at once its origin and character, we have charges of the gravest kind to urge against it, as an instrument of boundless mischief to the kingdom of Christ. Before these are announced, however, it is proper to state the true doctrine of the New Testament on the subject. The Apostles then, as such, had, and they could have had, no successors! but the bishops ordained over the Churches, which the Apostles and their coadjutors formed, had successors. This is the true Apostolic Succession; -the succession of the bishops whom the Apostles themselves appointed. Everything added to this is a needless supplement; everything subversive of this is arrogant impiety. As this is a matter on which great explicitness was necessary, so the Apostle, as might be expected, has been more full and more precise upon this point than upon any other connected with the New Testament Kingdom. About ordination as an act, he says but three words; of character, doctrine, and aptness to teach, he speaks with emphatic and solemn iteration. Paul, indeed, knew nothing of the things called " Deacon's Orders " and " Priest's Orders," as such things exist in the Church of England. With these things, and many others of which Rome and her daughters boast, Paul had no acquaintance. Archbishops, diocesan bishops, and a clergy, as contradistinguished from bishops, a clergy comprising priests, deacons, archdeacons, deans, rural deans, prebends, canons, curates, vicars, rectors, some " working,'' others idle, the latter laden with wealth, the former pining with poverty, in all cases the recompense being in the inverse proportion of the toil -these were perfections to which the rude ecclesiastical polity of the Apostolical Age had not attained. The Apostles appointed only one class of spiritual officers, designated pastors, presbyters, elders, bishops. These terms were convertible; it mattered not which were used. All were bishops, none less, none more. 1. Character was the first point of inquiry in the appointment of bishops. The foundation of that character was the knowledge and love of God, displayed in moral excellence. "A bishop must be blameless, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality: not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; patient, not a brawler, not covetous; not a novice; one that rules well his own house; a lover of good men; just, holy, temperate, bearing a good report of them that are without." (1 Tim, III. 1-7; Titus 1. 5-8) In the absence of this high personal character, no knowledge, no gifts sufficed to fit a man for the episcopal office. The bishop was to be, in all points, a striking pattern of the doctrines he was to teach. He was not to speak from hearsay, but from experience. There were in those "barbarous tunes " for the cripple no crutches; there was no Liturgy for bishops who could not pray-no homilies for bishops who could not preach; they required both to pray and preach from the abundance of the heart. They believed, and therefore they spake, that which they had seen with their eyes, which their hands had handled, of the Word of Life; that which they had seen and heard, they declared to men. (1 John I 1-3.) Here then we call upon the Puseyite teachers of our times to come forth, and stand their trial before the bar of inspiration! How comes it, that while the very heavens echo and re-echo the cry of succession, the silence of death prevails upon the subject of conversion? Is it because, to a person baptized by one of the succession, the party is already regenerate? The assumption we deny, and demand proof. The Puseyites tell us their mind with much freedom; and it is, therefore, only proper that we exercise the like frankness. The whole fabric is of the earth, and earthy. Beginning with the extremities, the probabilities of corruption and carnality increase at every remove till we reach the head. The bill which annexed the supremacy of the Church to the crown of Elizabeth, determined for ever the character of the bulk of the bishops and the clergy. By this act, the Sovereign of England was vested with the whole spiritual power: it was thenceforward competent for the Crown to make, or to unmake; to repress whatever it might deem heresy, or uphold whatever it might deem orthodoxy; to repeal or enact canons; to alter or annihilate discipline; to institute or abolish rites and ceremonies. This act, even Hume himself being judge, " at once gave the Crown alone all the power which had formerly been claimed by the popes; but which even these usurping prelates have never been able fully to exercise, without some concurrence."(Hume, chap. XXVIII) Here is a weighty truth, worthy of Puseyite meditation. The head of the nation is the head of their Church. This arrangement is, no doubt, very Apostolic! But let them ponder the facts that flow from it. We ask them, is not this your Church's head, the fountain of its life? Are not the chances of intelligent, consistent piety, in that head, as one against millions? There, then, is your head! And should that head be a Borgias, or a Cataline, a negation of all virtues, an impersonation of all vices, diffusing poison and death through the whole body ecclesiastical, there is no remedy! Has not the head the appointment of all the bishops? Does not the character of the Crown modified perhaps, by the minister of the day, determine the character of such elections? Does any consideration; can any consideration, other than that of political interest, as a rule, regulate such appointments? In your consciences, do you believe that the New Testament rule of qualification is that by which their fitness is determined? In your consciences, do you believe that Timothy, acting under Paul's instructions, would have ordained, over a primitive church, one in a number of those who have been made bishops of the English Church since the times of Elizabeth? The first step of the gentlemen, in their ascent to the episcopal throne, is their choice and appointment by the Crown. There can be no doubt, of course, that thus it was with the Apostles, with the bishops of Ephesus, and all the other bishops of the Apostolic Age! There can be no question, also, that the immediate successor of Peter at Rome was chosen and appointed by the Emperor previous to his ordination to the Bishopric of the World! Here all is congruity, order, and beauty! All is perfect harmony with the New Testament example! The consecration, too, is to be in full keeping with the other parts. The dean and chapter have twelve days given them to inquiry into the character of the person nominated; and if they fail to elect within this time, election becomes unnecessary, and the Crown presents without it. The dean and chapter have eight days, and the archbishop twenty; and if the former fails to perform the farce of election, and the latter to consecrate, a praemunire follows, all their goods, ecclesiastical and personal, are liable to confiscation, and themselves to imprisonment till such time as they submit! (See Tracts for the Times, No. lix) surely nothing more can be necessary to stamp the truly Apostolic character of the bishops of the Church of England Now for the numberless little links suspended from the Apostolic chain. Of the twelve thousand parishes of England and Wales, by far the greater number are in the gift of men wholly irresponsible to man, and who may feel no responsibility to God. The Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor, likewise, have both a large amount of patronage. Now, these patrons may all be, and a very great majority of them, from age to age, have always been, mere men of the world-men who have no fear of God before their eyes. Well, in making the auxiliary links of the Apostolic chain, the first step in the process belongs to that motley multitude. With them, as a body, it lies to say who shall, and who shall not, be the spiritual guides of thousands and thousands of parishes, and millions of people! Can it be doubted, that they proceed in making parsons just as the Crown does in making prelates. In making their choice of men to enjoy their respective livings, do you believe they go about the work in the fear of God, with a constant view to the qualifications set forth by Paul in his letters to Timothy and Titus? Would not the clear possession of such qualifications be an insuperable objection to the appointment, with an immense majority of such patrons? In cases innumerable, have not the gifts of such livings been the wages of iniquity? Have not thousands and tens of thousands been thus thrust into the ministry, who possessed not one of the qualifications demanded by the Word of God? All this, to be sure, is very Apostolic! But that these gentlemen may enjoy the comfort of their lot, they must be formed into the regular line of succession, by the imposition of episcopal hands. Now comes the mystery. The day arrives; the services and ceremonies connected therewith are performed; hands are laid on the presentee, and from that moment he becomes another man. He now sustains another character, and is investe with supernatural powers! Special authority has descended on him; special virtue has entered into him. Considered as a moral being, he is not more pure! as an intellectual being he is not more knowing; he is as much a man of the world, and the slave of his passions, as ever; but he is now a successor-of the Apostle! He may sport care away, dance, hunt, play, swear, and revel; still he is in orders-he is a link of the chain, and all his deeds ministerial are valid! He can regenerate children, absolve adults, make the bread and wine into the body and blood of the Lord, and other deeds peculiar to the succession! Personal piety is, for official purposes, quite unnecessary. Matters go on quite as well without it. But suppose a bishop to have some scruples of conscience; of course, he can withhold ordination. He can; but it is at his peril that he does so. Unless he can prove to the satisfaction of a jury, in a court of common law, that the person presented to him for institution has been guilty of some particular immoral act, or maintains some heretical opinion, he loses his cause, and must ordain; and if he persist, he is liable to an action for damages. All this to be sure is very Apostolic! Our Apostolic successors, both bishops and clergy, are and ever have been chosen, to an awful extent, out of the ranks of ungodly men, by the good pleasure of ungodly men; and they have lived a life agreeably to the course of an ungodly world! From such a succession may God, in mercy, speedily deliver this and all other countries! 2. Doctrine was the second point of inquiry in the appointment of bishops. The Apostles said nothing of succession, but much of character; they rarely mentioned sacraments, but they discoursed continually of doctrine. Doctrine was the grand instrument with which they reformed the world. Paul thus counsels Timothy:- The things that thou hast heard of me, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." He tells Titus to ordain only such men as "held fast the faithful Word as they had been taught," that they might "be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." Hear John:-" Whosoever abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, bath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he bath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God-speed; for he that biddeth him God-speed, is partaker of his evil deeds:' No matter whence men came, or to what class they belonged, if they did not bring the true Gospel in their mouths, they were at once to be rejected. This rule applied to all such, whether men or angels. "Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed! " In the Apostles' own days, doctrine was not everything; nor did its intrinsic importance ever after become diminished. The doctrine of Christ crucified was the power of God to the salvation of man. This doctrine was the great restorative to life, health, and happiness for a diseased world. These are facts; and here, again, we call on Papist and Puseyite teachers to stand forth and defend their systems! To such teachers, we say, How came you to lay down the principle, that " the sacraments, not preaching, are the sources of Divine grace?" How came you to say, "That in Scripture, all the words denoting a minister of the Gospel, designate him as one ministering or serving at God's altar, not as one whose first object is to be useful to men?" How came you to say, "Usefulness to men is only a secondary object?" Was it that you might console the impotent portion of your number by the declaration-" We need not feel either guilt or shame, though we should be like those whom the Prophet calls, ` dumb dogs that cannot bark?"(Tract lxxxvii) What! successors of the Apostles, who can neither preach nor pray without book! Even if there were no guilt, should there not be some shame, in such a case? Was it thus with the Apostles? What! you endowed with gifts so precious, invested with powers, which, in your own phrase, " place you almost upon a level with God himself,"-and yet cannot pray and preach! Oh, it cannot be! Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. Your case, however, is not new; your predecessors in proscription, your prototypes in presumption, the Prophets of the Jewish succession, when they had uttered much folly, not a little falsehood, and committed a great deal of iniquity, retained an inexhaustible stock of both confidence and complacency. Hear Jeremiah's account of them: -" Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? Nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they fall among them that fall; in the time of their visitation, they shall be cast down, with the Lord." Again: we ask. How came you so to trifle with the truth of God as to utter the following words?" We would not be thought entirely to depreciate preaching, as a mode of doing good; it maybe necessary in a weak and languishing state; but it is an instrument which Scripture, to say the least, has never much recommended."(Tract lxxxix) Is it, indeed, thus? England can supply a million of Sabbath school children able to confute you! With Christ and with his Apostles, after his ascension, was not preaching the one great business of life? Hear Paul: -" Christ sent me, not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." Listen to him as he addresses Timothy: " I charge thee, before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and kingdom, Preach the Word, be instant in season, out of season." And again" How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" And again: " It pleased God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe." You successors of the Apostles, while you gainsay their testimony, and refuse to imitate their example! That which they did only, did always, did everywhere, and gloried in doing, you do very sparingly, and deem an act at once of doubtful duty and slender benefit! Is it thus you prove your succession? In this way you will never establish your claim. Rest assured that they who most abound in the Gospel, have the best pretensions to Apostolic character. The value and supreme importance of preaching arise from the subject of it. It proclaims the Divine love; it employs moral suasion; it is the vehicle of the Gospel testimony. Preaching, without truth, the truth as it is in Jesus, would serve no end; and hence our grief over you is double. You not only set light by the ordinance of preaching, but you have despised Gospel doctrine. Have you not declared, that "the prevailing notion, of bringing forward the doctrine of the ATONEMENT, explicitly and prominently, on all occasions, is evidently quite opposed to the teaching of Scripture?" (Tracts for the Times, No. 1xxx. p. 73) And is it come to this? Is this the doctrine of men who claim to be the successors of the Apostles? Was it not Paul's purpose, his solemn and irrevocable determination, to know nothing among men but Christ, and Him crucified? Was not every apostolic sermon, is not every apostolic epistle, full of the doctrine of the Atonement? Has not experience shown, through all ages, and through all countries, that it is the most pungent arrow in the quiver of the Spirit of God? It was Paul's object to set forth Christ crucified among all people; it is yours to conceal it from the gaze of mortals. This is another irrefragable proof of your Apostolic Succession Again: How is it that you deny that the doctrine of Justification by Faith is an integral part of the doctrine necessary to salvation? (Fronde's Remains, p. 332) On what ground have you asserted, "that baptism, and not faith, is the primary instrument of Justification "? (Newman, p. 260) You trample the Atonement in the dust; you deride the doctrine of Justification by Faith! Setting it down as " the essence of sectarian doctrine, to consider faith, and not the sacraments, as the proper instrument of Justification and other Gospel gifts,"(Tracts, vol. 1. p. 6 Advertisement) you make this bold avowal: -" Our chief strength must be the altar; it must be in sacraments, and prayers, and a good life to give efficacy to them."(Tract lxxx, p. 125) Such are your views on these most momentous subjects; and without going further into the statement of others; we would beseech you, by the tender mercies of our God, to consider well your position. Of the Apostles you cannot be the successors, and of the Apostolic bishops you are not. In point of doctrine, the heavens and the earth are not more widely asunder than you and they. If there is mind in man, and meaning in language, you are most fearfully perverting the truths of God!