And as to the fear of Popery; that seems a still more strange Objection. Surely the very reverse is the more correct reasoning. If it be a fact capable of proof, and which was believed by all Christians for 1500 years, That there was a true Succession of Ministers from the Apostles—are we not taking the very surest ground against Romanists, when we show, that we possess just such a descended Ministry, in no degree dependent on communion with _their_ Church, or any other single Church? If we could _not_ show such a Ministry, then the man, who from examination found out the truth of the necessity of an Apostolic Church, might be obliged indeed to resort to the communion of Rome. So that by asserting our true Apostolical claims, we are so far from giving place to Rome, that we are striking the only effectual blow at her supremacy—we are so far from forcing a man to join the Papacy, that we are offering him his only refuge from its spiritual tyranny. And as to all such half-infidel objections as, ‘that there would be nothing to check the onward advance of corruption and error,’ and the like, if it were thus taken to be unlawful to sin against, or set aside, the Apostolical Succession, in any case; it would be quite enough to reply, that we ought to be content to trust GOD for the success of His own appointed institutions. But there are facts, sufficiently strong to enable us to speak much more explicitly on this head. Among those who threw off the Roman yoke in the sixteenth century, we see, that the Non-episcopal communities of the Continent have gone down into worse than Roman Corruption, “even denying THE LORD that bought them;” from which depth of doctrinal corruption our Episcopal Church has been graciously preserved. Not, indeed, that it is right to depend too much on this kind of evidence, popular as it may be. It is better for the Christian to exercise a habit of unenquiring confidence in his Heavenly Father, trusting Him for the “consequences” of His Own appointments, disregarding the sophistries, and fears, and oppositions of the world. Passing, now, from this class of Practical Objections, let us consider some of those which are supposed to lie against the DOCTRINE of the Succession. They are, indeed, so peculiarly unchristian, so faithless in their principles, and so indefinite in their shape, that it will not be so easy a task to deal with them; but we must briefly attempt it.