bishops. It is very certain that the papal church considered their consecration entirely invalid; for Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, finding that Wini had suffered two of these Briton bishops to assist him in consecrating a bishop, by the name of Chadda, declared Chadda's consecration to be illegal and void, and himself reordained him. Now, the archbishop would never have taken this course, if there had not been, in his opinion, some fatal defect in the consecration of these bishops.

2. It is a fact, not disputed by any, that, a long time previous to the English reformation, the Briton bishops embraced the papal religion, and became incorporated into the papal church; so that it is impossible that the English church should claim any succession through them, separate from the papacy. Besides, it is notorious that the present English race are not descended from the ancient Britons, nor have they ever had any intimate connexion with them. They came down from the Saxons, who conquered the Britons, and drove their bishops into Wales. The truth is, that the English church have never attempted to trace their prelatical succession up to the Apostles, in any other line than that which runs directly through the church of Rome; and we flatter ourselves that we have succeeded in proving that to be defective enough.

We come now to consider the American succession. This has been held by some Episcopalians as defective in several points. By this we mean that sad defects have been said to inhere in their prelatical succession since its introduction into America.

1. Bishop Seabury received his consecration from the non-juring bishops of Scotland. Now it is well known to all who are at all informed upon this subject, that many eminent Episcopalians, both of this and the mother country, have considered the prelatical character of those Scottish bishops as exceedingly doubtful. Bishop White affirms that

it was the doubts which existed, as to the validity of Bishop Seabury's Episcopacy, which actuated some in directing the convention to England rather than to Scotland as the source of the American Episcopate.

2. Many Episcopalians have thought that the consecration of Bishops Hobart and Griswold was entirely defective and void, owing to the omission of an essential part of the form of consecration. There was, at the time, a warm controversy carried on in the Episcopal church upon that subject. From a pamphlet then published, entitled, "Serious thoughts on a late administration of Episcopal orders, submitted to the calm reflection of the bishops of the Protestant Episcopal church, with a postcript in answer to Dr. Bowden's essentials of ordination stated," we take the following extracts: "From the considerations which have been offered, serious doubts at least are entertained, by many of its pious and intelligent members, of the validity of the consecration supposed to be administered," &c. "Suppose these doubts to be well founded; suppose that, at some future period, when the heat of passion is allayed, when calm reflection is suffered to be called into exercise, that then it shall be found and acknowledged that the considerations here advanced have weight, and that the consecration is attended with one essential defect. What will then be the state of our church? Our priesthood invalid, our succession lost, numbers, under a show of ordination, administering without authority; the evil so extended as to be beyond the power of correction." "For myself I am seriously and conscientiously persuaded that the omission of the solemn words is material, that it is essential, that it renders the whole form, besides, an utter nullity." Thus you perceive that even the American succession has not existed without serious doubts and warm controversies concerning its validity. And yet we are told that unless we are prepared to admit this whole chain of succession, papacy and all, we are excluded the "covenanted

mercies of God," and have no right to the name and the ordinances of a Christian church. We, my brethren, should be exceedingly thankful that high churchmen are not our judges; and that we have the blessed assurance that, upon this subject, God's ways are not as their ways, nor his thoughts as their thoughts. In the language of another, "We cannot see how any man can attempt to sustain the validity and certainty of this personal succession during all previous ages. Who shall lift this ponderous chain, even at its connection with the Reformation, and carry it backwards until it is appended to Christ Jesus the rock of ages, the cause of causes— so that from him may proceed the influence which may propagate downwards to the very last point in the lengthening series? We again challenge the proof which has been so boldly offered. And in default of this-and assuredly it is wanting at every stage-we fearlessly scout the whole hypothesis as wild, chimerical, fictitious, and unsupported, either by history or Scripture." How much more rational, my hearers, is the view of this subject taken by Presbytery, as stated in a previous discourse, viz., that the ministerial commission was given to the disciples as Presbyters and not as Apostles; that it is handed down to the church in the line of presbyters or simple pastors, and not of diocesan bishops; that if, by any means, there should be a flaw in the succession, it would not invalidate the commission; and that every one who enters the ministry should be called immediately by Christ through the Spirit, which call is indicated to him by the state of his mind and the providences of God towards him. The question whether he has been so called to the ministry, is finally to be decided by the church. through her presbyters; and the act of ordination is the public announcement of that decision, and the consecration of the candidate, in the most solemn manner, to the work to which he has been called by his Lord and Master.

We leave it for the hearer to judge whether, in these

discussions, we have succeeded in showing this to be the Scripture view of the subject, sustained by the after history of the church. We have now finished the arduous laber which circumstances compelled us to undertake. It was commenced with great reluctance, and has been carried on in the midst of great excitement and opposition; and we conclude it, with joy and thanksgiving to Almighty God for his sustaining grace unto the end. We have never, for one moment, regretted the taking up of the subject, nor the manner in which we have discussed it; but we did seriously regret the course of another, which made it necessary for us to turn aside from the more pleasant duties of the ministry, and enter the arena of controversy with a denomination with whom we have lived for years in peace and amity. We are perfectly willing that others should build their castles as they please; but when they attack curs, and attempt to pull it down about our ears, the law of self-defence must be obeyed. The tendency of high church principles is fast developing itself in the rapid strides which Puseyism is making in the Episcopal church, both in the old world and in the new. They lead to popery; and if they do not bring those who embrace them to such a result, it is owing to the goodness of God in causing them to stop short of the goal to which they naturally conduct. We most sincerely wish that the Episcopal church may purge herself of that dreadful heresy, and adopt a form of government that will comport with the simplicity and beauty of that drapery which Christ has thrown over his church, and the continued wearing of which the gospel so distinctly recommends.

APPENDIX.

"En

THERE are a few things contained in the original quiry," and in certain anonymous pamphlets by the same author, which seem to call for a miscellaneous notice. That which first invites our attention is, an assertion made by our author, upon the first page of the pamphlet entitled, "Remarks on Mr. Wisner's first Lecture upon the subject of Episcopacy and Presbytery." It is as follows: "Again, it was stated that the Queen was the head of the church of England.' This is true only in part. The Queen, together with the government, is the head of the political and temporal affairs only of the church; just so far as its connection with the state makes it necessary, and no farther. Neither the Queen or the Parliament have any authority in spiritual matters, no control over the doctrines, the discipline, or the worship of the church." It is a matter of great surprise that the Rev. Author, in the face of an intelligent community like ours, should make such assertions as these. No wonder that he refused to append his name to the pamphlet in which they are contained. Can any one, at all acquainted with English law and English history, pretend, with our author, that "neither the Queen or the Parliament have any authority in spiritual matters— no control over the doctrines, the discipline, or the worship of the church?" Let us see what Sir Wm. Blackstone, in his commentary upon English law, says upon this subject: "The King," says he, Book I., chap. vii., "is lastly considered by the laws of England as the head and supreme