himself. Any man, who will deal fairly with facts, will be obliged to own that there have been greater confusions and Schisms {82b} in the see of Rome itself, than in the see of Canterbury.—But they who go the length of affirming a cessation of Apostolic grace in any particular Church or branch of a Church on the ground of total Schism, from the whole body of CHRIST, must excuse us if we ask them for proof of their assertion; and tell them, that until it is proved, we must treat it as a pure (though a very convenient) assumption. Those further historical and practical Objections which might be urged against the Apostolical Succession, either in the Church Universal, or in our own particular branch of it, would be such as attempt to throw some degree of doubt on the fact itself; {83} and they have already been answered by anticipation in the last Lecture, in which we mainly dwelt on the EVIDENCE of the fact. To notice them here in any greater detail, would therefore be only to repeat needlessly what has been already said. But closely connected with the Objections thus briefly considered to the facts of the Succession, there are generally supposed to be certain fatal CONSEQUENCES, which it may be well just to glance at. “Popery,” and its fearful train of practical evils, an infringement of liberty of conscience, and spiritual slavery, are apprehended as the sure result, if the Apostolical line be admitted to be preserved. But is it thus? Are any of us anxious for a “liberty” which is confessedly synonymous with a freedom from obedience to GOD’S own laws and appointments? Or can we not admit the right of any man to “liberty of conscience,” without insisting that such a liberty will suffice to guide him into all truth? Doubtless every man has a right to move on unshackled towards the “heavenly city,” but shall he therefore dispense with the only effectual guide? Granting him the fullest “freedom,” may he not yet miss his way?—Whoever will take the pains to think of it, will see that this Apostolical doctrine of the Succession, is no other kind of restraint upon liberty of conscience, than any other Apostolical doctrine. It may certainly be said that if a man be not blessed with the blessings of the Church Apostolical, he is in a perilous condition; but it is difficult to see how this affects liberty of conscience, any more than the assertion, “He that believeth not shall be condemned.” So that such an Objection is only that of the infidel, in a slightly modified shape, when he complains of the “hardship of not providing for the case of the conscientious unbeliever.”