In the first place, whoever puts forth any statement concerning any subject, as the _truth_, necessarily implies that a different statement would be false; and therefore liable to all the consequences of the falsehood. Whatever is put forth as TRUTH, is necessarily _exclusive_. And is the Catholic doctrine more chargeable with “exclusiveness,” on this ground, than the doctrine of any party, or even individual?—When any man says that he thinks himself _right_ in any matter, he virtually says that those who differ from him are _wrong_. And as to the future consequences of being wrong; it will scarcely be denied, that the Sectarians are generally far more reckless in pronouncing judgments on that matter than _we_. The popular shape in which this objection is most successfully brought forward is, That the doctrine of the Succession “unchurches” all the Protestant communities of Christendom, which are not Episcopal. This is exaggerated and represented as the very acme of intolerance, and equivalent to a judgment on our part that they must all necessarily perish everlastingly. It is melancholy to see the art with which this misrepresentation is brought forward to check any half-formed conviction of the truth, such as arises from a candid review of the unanswerable Evidence. It only shows us that there are some minds which it is hopeless to attempt to convince. Let us, however, look at the objection rapidly, first, in an historical, and then in a theoretical light. Doubtless, if the Apostolic Succession be admitted, it follows that there can be no certainty of valid Sacraments apart from it. And those communities cannot be pronounced to be true Churches, which have no Succession. Now, upon this it is argued, that there is an inconsistency between us and our early Reformers: for, that _they_ did not pronounce the Continental Protestants to be “unchurched,” which our principles oblige us to do; and that therefore we are more “Popish” and bigoted than they.—How far this is the real state of the case, they best can judge who are best acquainted with the writings of our Reformers. As to _their_ principles, they are certainly not so doubtful as to be only arrived at by a silent deduction from their actions. Take, for instance, Archbishop Cranmer. His opinions, even in his later years, after he had well looked into the matter, and had passed through some change of sentiments, are left on record in his Sermons. {98} In speaking of the necessary and exclusive Succession of the Ministry, he goes to the utmost extent of the Catholic Doctrine. But it may be said, generally, that the necessity of Apostolic Ordination was not a debated point at the Reformation. And those, abroad, who eventually departed from the Succession, did it with so much reluctance, and with such ample admission of their regret, {99a} that it could only be regarded as a temporary affliction of the Church. When Rome was