tions of whom, by preaching, praying, and administering the sacrament of the LORD's Supper, Priests were appointed, with Deacons under them; while over the whole body the Apostle who had formed the Church acted as chief pastor, or as we should now style him, Bishop; either holding an occasional visitation, or sending for the Clergy to meet him at a certain place, as when St. Paul summoned the Clergy of Ephesus to meet him at Miletus, or else sending to them those pastoral addresses which, in the Epistles, now form so important a part of the Bible. At length it became necessary for the Apostles to admit to their own superior order certain of their converts, that the chief pastors of the Church, those empowered to commission men to act as Ministers of GOD, might not become extinct at their own death. Of this we have an instance in Titus. He was placed in Crete by St. Paul to govern the clergy there, to ordain Priests in every city, to administer discipline; to act, in short, as chief pastor, or as we should now style him, Bishop. In like manner Timothy was set over the Church of Ephesus, to ordain Priests and Deacons, to judge and censure offenders'; to act, in short, as chief pastor, or as we should now style him, Bishop. Here we see the three orders of the Ministry distinctly mentioned. First, Paul and Timothy of the highest order; Secondly, Bishops, or overseers, or Priests of the second order; Thirdly, Deacons of the third order. And so stood the matter in the Apostles' times. There was the order of chief pastors called sometimes Apostles, sometimes Angels or Messengers sent from GOD, sometimes Bishops; there was the second order, called Presbyters (contracted Priests) or Elders, and sometimes also, as we have just seen, Bishops,

Titus, i. 5; iii. 10.

1 Tim. i. 3; v. 19; 2 Tim. ii. 2.

from their taking oversight of their own congregations as the chief pastor did of all the congregations in his diocese or district; there was, thirdly, the order of Deacons, and under these the laity, consisting of all baptized converts "who continued in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers."

In the next age, the three orders being carefully preserved, the higher order of ministers dropped the designation of Apostles, appropriating that title to the twelve only, and took the name of Bishop to themselves, as it is to this very day. The Presbyters at the same time ceased to be called by the title of Bishop. But though the name of the highest order was gradually changed, the office remained,-the office of chief pastor. As Christ was sent by the Father, so Christ sent the Apostles, as the Apostles were sent by Christ, so they sent the first Bishops; as the first Bishops were sent by the Apostles, so the first Bishops sent the second race of Bishops; the second, the third; and so down to our present Bishops, who can all of them thus trace back their spiritual descent from the Apostles. And as the Apostles, acting under the guidance of the Spirit of truth, delegated a portion of their powers to inferior ministers, so the Bishops commissioned the Priests and Deacons to act under them. It is thus that the Episcopal Clergy prove that they are sent by Christ, the first sender;-that they have authority to minister in Christ's name; and that they belong to that body of men to whom in their ministrations, Christ promised "Lo! I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Thus, St. Cyprian in the primitive age concluded: "Unde scire debes episcopum in ecclesia, et ecclesiam in episcopo, et si qui cum episcopo non sit in ecclesia non esse;" or, to adopt the words of Mr. Law, the pious author of the Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life, "If there be no uninterrupted succession, then

there are no authorized ministers of Christ, if no such ministers, then no Christian Sacraments; if no Christian Sacraments, then no Christian Covenant, whereof the Sacraments are the stated and visible Seals."

These are some of the reasons which in the opinion of the episcopalian, render the apostolical succession necessary. Of all the silly objections brought against this doctrine, that which is popular with the Erastian heretic of the present day is the most absurd, when he objects to assert the apostolical succession, lest by so doing, he should "unchurch" other Protestant societies. To be consistent he ought also to refuse to assert the Doctrine of the Trinity, lest he should "unchristianize" Socinians. But who is the Erastian heretic, that he should have power "to church," or "to unchurch," Christian societies? Without his sanction, it is a plain matter of fact, and to be ascertained as such, whether antiepiscopal societies of professing Christians be Catholic Churches or not. By perversely rejecting Episcopacy, or pertinaciously opposing episcopal Communions, they either have, or have not, unchurched themselves. The declaration of this fact, to warn men of their error, may be an act of charity, but it can alter the fact neither one way nor the other. It is a fact to be proved, or disproved. The opponent of Episcopacy may dispute the fact, but the Episcopalian must hold it, or he ceases to be an Episcopalian. Nor can he be accused of want of charity for so doing, any more than the Erastian himself, if he asserts, which probably he may, that some doctrines are essential to salvation. The Trinitarian is equally uncharitable, on this principle, since he condemns the Socinian; the Socinian because he condemns the Deist; the Deist because he condemns the Atheist. The true Christian feels that it is his duty to maintain the whole truth as it is in Jesus, to declare the whole counsel of

God. If, in so doing, consequences may seem to result from his doctrine which he may shrink from maintaining, his answer is," Such is the truth, and I assert it; such the rule, to which exceptions may be made though I am not authorized to declare them; such the counsel of God, as to the rest I condemn no man, though I may believe him to be dangerously in error,-because I am commanded not to judge."

Now, whether Episcopalians are right or wrong, liberal or illiberal, such being their doctrine, our American brethren were compelled to reject all offers to create a spurious Episcopacy. But while the negotiations between the American Episcopalians and the English Bishops were pending, a very kind offer was made to Mr. Adams the minister of the United States at the court of St. James's, by M. de St Saphorin, the minister of the crown of Denmark, with the consent of his court, to have the American Clergy consecrated by the Bishops of the Danish Church. It has of late years been ascertained, that while the Episcopal succession has certainly been preserved in the Church of Sweden, it has been lost in the Church of Denmark where the Episcopacy is only nominal. This fact probably was unknown at the time. to the Americans, and it was not therefore on those grounds that they declined the offer. Their reasons may be discovered in the first address of the American Convention to the English Prelates, in which they stated

"That the Episcopal Church in the United States had been severed by a civil revolution from the jurisdiction of the parent Church in England; that they acknowledged the favours formerly received from the Bishops of London in particular, and from the Archbishops and Bishops generally though the medium of the Society for Propagating the Gospel; that they desired to perpetuate among them the principles of the Catholic Church in doctrine,

discipline, and worship; and that they prayed their Lordships to consecrate to the Episcopacy those persons who should be sent with that view from the Churches in any of the states respectively ".

They were naturally attached to the Church from which they had already derived so much advantage, and sought their succession from her. Besides, had they accepted the Danish offer, they must first have instituted an inquiry as to the apostolicity of that Church. With respect to the Church of England there could be no doubt on this point. Resolutely opposing Popish abuses and Protestant errors, she, they knew, was Catholic both in doctrine and discipline. The succession and perpetuity of the English Church are easily shown. At the time of the Reformation, when Cranmer and Ridley flourished, there was a Church existing and established in England, and as Archbishop of that Church the celebrated Dr. Cranmer was consecrated. That Church, of which he was canonically consecrated Archbishop, had existed, as all parties admit, from the first planting of Christianity in England. But, at the time of Cranmer's consecration, it was asserted that certain errors existed in the Church of England, concerning which he was bound to make inquiry. He discovered that the authority assumed over the English Church by the Popes of Rome was an usurpation; that many practices prevailed which were contrary both to Scripture and to the Tradition of the Church, such as the worshipping of saints and images, the use of public prayers in a language not understood by the people: that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was generally received and led to many superstitions. When these errors were pointed out and proved to be contrary to Scripture and the Tradition of the Church,