what we now consider dioceses, being not above ten or twelve miles in extent, and their sees not above ten or twelve miles from each other. Even now (or at least in Bingham's time) the kingdom of Naples contains 147 sees, of which twenty are archbishopricks." It should be recollected that the kingdom of Naples is scarcely as large as the state of Maine; and yet it contains 147 sees! Surely this looks very much like parochial bishopricks. We suspect that if the state of Maine were divided among 147 Episcopal bishops, the difference between her dioceses and parishes would be considered of little consequence. We are inclined to believe that her dioceses would then far outnumber her present number of parishes.

The existence of the above named facts are so notorious thatt hey will not be denied by any intelligent Episcopalian; and they certainly go to establish the position that, for full 300 years, nothing more than parochial episcopacy was known in the church. Diocesan Episcopacy took its rise mainly from the influence of metropolitan or city bishops over the bishops of the surrounding villages and country parishes. The influence of those numerous councils which were held upon various subjects, by the early church, was greatly to increase the authority of the metropolitan bishops over their brethren. We find that, in the year 347, a law was passed by the council of Sardis, against placing bishops in small cities or villages. The object and effect of this law was undoubtedly to increase the influence and authority of those bishops who resided in large cities. It was not very strictly adhered to for some time; but villiage bishops went into disuse by degrees, and their parishes were added to the charges of the several metropolitans. Thus it was that diocesan episcopacy originated in the church of God. It was not Apostolical in its origin, but grew out of the pride and ambition of an unsanctified priesthood. Even in the last half of the third century, the bishops began to usurp

to themselves great authority, and to trample upon the rights of the presbyters and churches. Constantine, who came to the imperial throne in the fourth century, greatly aided these usurpations, and conferred upon the whole ecclesiastical system a degree of splendor, to which until then it had been an entire stranger. "He assumed unto himself the right of calling general councils, of presiding in them, of determining controversies, and of fixing the bounds of ecclesiastical provinces. He formed the prelatical government, after the imperial model, into great prefectures; in which arrangement, a certain pre-eminence was conferred on the bishops of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople; the first rank being always reserved for the bishop of Rome, who succeeded in gradually extending his usurpations, until he was finally confirmed in it by an imperial decree." We are sustained in this brief outline of the rise of Episcopacy and its papal result by Mosheim, Gibbon, the Episcopal Haweis, and other eminent historians. In view of these indisputable facts, that eminent Episcopal divine, professor Whittaker, remarks, upon the subject of the introduction of prelacy into the church, as a remedy against schism, that "the remedy was almost worse than the disease; for, as at first, one presbyter was set over the rest and made bishop, so, afterwards, one bishop was set over the other bishops. Thus that custom begot the pope and his monarchy, and brought them, by little and little, into the church." How exactly the history of the church, in the rise and progress of prelacy, unfolds the fulfilment of the prediction of St. Paul which is contained in our text: "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work only he who now letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." When Constantine came to the throne, the Roman government, instead of impeding the progress of prelatical power,

soon

"the

became its most powerful auxiliary; and very man of sin, the son of perdition, was revealed," who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." We perceive, from these statements, that the prelacy has once produced the papacy. And we should ever recollect that human nature is the same

66

in every age, and in every clime; that, as face answereth to face in water, so the heart of man to man;" that like causes, under like circumstances, produce like effects. What Christian or patriot, with his mind enlightened as to the past, would be willing to nourish such a system in the heart of Republicanism and of the American church? "Who is wise? he shall understand these things; prudent? and he shall know them."

LECTURE IX.

THE CLAIMS TO APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION EXAMINED.

JOHN viii. 41.—“ They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham."

THE Jews in the time of Christ had lost the spirit and power of their religion, the form only remained. The Saviour endeavored to convince them that their confidence in ceremonial observances, without piety of heart and life, would prove a fatal delusion. But they effectually repelled his benevolent instructions and faithful reproofs, by answering, with characteristic complacency, "Abraham is our father;" i. e., We belong to the only true church, are descendants in a direct line from father Abraham; and this fact is alone sufficient to entitle us to the sole benefit of those 'covenanted mercies' which God has made over to that patriarch."

There is such a marked resemblance between this method of reasoning and that adopted by high churchmen, in regard to their "true succession," as they term it, that we are almost inclined to believe it is borrowed from the ancient Jews.

The subject which claims our attention in the present lecture is this so called "Apostolical succession;" that is, the pretended succession of bishops in a direct and unbroken line from the college of Apostles. This the Episcopal church profess to possess; and to possess it to the exclusion of all other Protestant denominations. They pretend to give

us a list of bishops which run directly through that church which is called "the mother of harlots," up to the Apostles Peter and Paul. We intend at the present time to examine somewhat this wonderful line of succession, so entire and unbroken in all its parts, and see upon what "indisputable evidence it is founded." In entering upon this examination, the hearer must keep in mind the importance which the "only true church" attaches to this part of the subject. Unless a clergyman can trace his ordination through a line of prelates directly to the Apostles, he has no right to preach, and the ordinances he administers are null and void. Those who call themselves churches, yet are without such a line of prelates, are, in fact, no churches; and even to call their places of public worship churches is a misnomer. They are nothing but "houses." It is worthy of remark, that Bishop Delancy, the present bishop of the diocese of Western New York, in his report to the recent Episcopal convention held at Auburn, of his yearly tour through the diocese, invariably calls Episcopal meeting-houses "churches;" and those of other denominations, where, out of politeness, he was admitted to preach, simply "houses." Thus he preached in the Episcopal churches of Lockport, but at Niagara Falls he preached in the Presbyterian house. And why all this arrogance? Simply because Episcopacy pretends to possess the ministerial succession, to the exclusion of other denominations. Prelatical succession is considered by them of such overshadowing importance, that, to be without it, unchurches even the brick and mortar and timber of a meeting-house. The very beams from the walls of our sanctuaries must cry out for a prelate, and be consecrated by an Episcopal bishop, or they have no right to be called churches. Certainly, then, a succession which is of such importance as to reach to the very materials of a church edifice, should be founded upon very clear and indisputable historic testimony. It should likewise be