As then the Church of Rome, in the primitive ages, was equally pure with the Churches of Jerusalem or Antioch, and as the Church in Britain was complete in its Orders, while the Church of Rome existed in Apostolical purity, it follows, that the British Church was equally pure and Apostolical,, with the primitive Churches founded by the Apostles, although its Orders may have been derived from the Church at Rome: which, however, remains yet to be proved.

We have the authority of an amiable and learned Presbyterian divine of Massachusetts, in favour of the necessity of an uninterrupted succession of the Ministry from the Apostles, although it may have been derived through the Church of Rome. "They will tell us," says he, that "Ordinations came down to us through the Church of Rome, and there was a time when that Church was so essentially corrupt, that she ceased to be a Church of Christ, and her Officers ceased to be ministers of Christ; and therefore they, who withdrew from her, at the time of the Reformation, having among them no valid ordinations, must have begun them anew. But will history support this conclusion? Did the first reformers, distrusting their past ordinations, receive one from their lay-brethren ? The contrary is most evident. The protestant reformers in England early drew up a confession of their faith, in which, as Dr. Burnet says, 'they censure any who sould take upon them to preach, or adminis ter the Sacraments, without having lawfully received the power from the ministers, to whom alone the right of conferring that power doth appertain.' Cer tainly they had no apprehension, that the ministerial succession was at an end.* The Roman Church, though at that time exceedingly corrupt, appears not to have materially corrupted her ordinations.

*The Reformation in England was effected by the Bishops, to whom the power of Ordaining had been lawfully committed.

In this matter, we do not find that the reformers alleged any complaint." And again; "It will perhaps be asked, 'How do we know, but the first reformers. had been ordained by some of the vilest men of the Roman church'? But let me ask, how do we know, or is it probable, that this was the case? The reformers themselves; appear to have entertained no scruples on this head. Let it still be remembered, that irregularity in ordinations was not made matter of complaint against her.* Her corruptions had not so early risen to their height; and that she had not yet established, by a general council, her grossest errors, nor expunged her purest members.

"But admitting that a man of corrupt principles and morals acts in an ordination; will his character nullify the transaction? As long as the Scribes sat in Moses' seat, Christ acknowledged them as Officers of the Jewish Church: nor did he deny the authority of the high priest, though his personal character was far from recommending him. The person Ordained, derives his authority to preach from Jesus Christ; not from the men who Ordain him. They indigitate the person to be invested with this authority, and officially instate him in the regular exercise of it; but it is Christ's Gospel, not their will which must direct him in the execution of his Office. If they are corrupt in principles or manners, it will not thence follow, that he must preach heresy or immorality. He is Ordained to preach the Gospel, and whoever may Ordain him, the charge which he receives, and the vows which he makes, bind him to teach, not the commandments of men, but all things whatsoever Christ has commanded. To break the chain of succession at the link in question, it must be proved, that the persons, from

*This expression is worthy of remark. Her Ordinations were Episcopal, and always had been Episcopal; Bishop, Priest and Deacon But this, Dr. Lathrop informs us, was not objected to her by the Reformers. The reformation then was produced, not by the invalidity of her Orders, or defect in her government, but by the corruptions of her doctrine.

whom the first reformers received Ordination, not only were in errors, but had actually ceased to be officers of Christ."*

It is generally believed by ecclesiastical Historians, that the religion of the Redeemer was first carried into Great Britain during the Apostolic age.t. Some ascribe it to St. Peter, others to St. Paul, or to other apostles and disciples of our Lord. The Monks of Glastonbury give this honor to Joseph of Arimathea. The Romanists have selected St. Peter as first preacher of christianity in England, to strengthen the claim of the Pope's Supremacy: And even some Protestants are of the same opinion. An ancient Greek writer of the travels of Peter and Paul, brought to England in 1627, by William Petty, the skilful and indefatigable collector of the Arundel Marbles, observes that," Peter spent some days in Britain, and enlightened many by the word of Grace; and having established Churches, in the West, and elected Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, came again to Rome, in the 12th of Nero, A. D. 65; when having found Linus dead, he elected Clemens, Bishop in his room; who, with great reluctance, accepted the station, and was afterwards spared in the ensuing persecution, because he was a kinsman of Nero." This ancient account, says Dr. Hales, is highly probable: it fills up a chasm in Peter's history, showing how he was employed during Paul's imprisonments at Cæsarea and Rome; in fulfilling his "beloved brother's" intentions when he was unable to execute them himself.1 Lucius is said to have been the first Christian King in

* Lathrop's Christs' Warning to Churches, 106. 107. 108. 114. 115.

+ Stillingfleet's Orig. Britan. 35-Collier's Eccles. Hist. 1. 4.

Godwin's Catalogue of Bishops of England. 3.

Orig. Brit. 39. Godwin's Cat. 6-Collier's Eccles. His. I. 6.-Grant's History of the Church, i. 2.

Orig. Brit. 6. Godwin's Cat. 8,-Collier's Ecc. His. I. 8.

T Hale's Anal. of Chronol, vol. 2. B. 2. p. 1253.

Britain, and to have embraced Christianity A. D. 150. This story, however, is very doubtful.*

Eusebius, the Ecclesiastical Historian, who died A. D. 338, was intimate with Constantine the Great, the first monarch who embraced the Christian Religion. Constantine had lived long in Britain, and was there proclaimed Emperor by the Roman Army. There can be little doubt, but that the historian embraced the opportunity which this intimacy gave him, of obtaining information respecting the British Churches. This Historian states† that, the Apostles preached in the remotest cities and countries; and after having mentioned the Romans, Persians, Armenians, Parthians, Indians, and Scythians, he adds, that some of them went to the British Islands. Theodoret and Jerome are of the same opinion; and it appears from the testimonies produced by that learned Antiquary Bishop Stillingfleet, in his Origines Britannica, that St. Paul may have been in Britain for any thing that has been proved to the contrary. Tertullian, who died A. D. 216, declares, that Christ was solemnly worshipped by the Britons. Origen, who died A. D. 254, bears the same testimony. Nine persecutions had been endured by the suffering Christians on the continent, while those of Britain enjoyed religious peace. At length, at the end of the reign of Dioclesian, the tenth general persecution commenced, Feb. 23, A. D. 303, and reached the British Christians. Many suffered martyrdom, and many Churches were destroyed. St. Alban was the British Protomartyr, and the place of his execution bears his name to this day. But when Constantine was proclaimed Emperor by the Army in Britain, the Christians were restored to their liberty and religion.

* Bede, Eccles. His. Monastic. Ang. iii. 188. Apud. Grant's Hist. of Church,

i. 4

In 314 a council was convened at Arles, by Constantine the Great, at which 200 Bishops were present. Among these, there were three British Bishops: Eborius, Bishop of York; Restitutus, Bishop of London, and Adelfius, de Civitate Colonia Londinensium.* In this Council, 22 Canons were enacted. The 20th decides that, no Bishop ought to presume to consecrate another to that character, without having seven, or, at least, three Bishops to assist him. While thus endeavouring to guard against the intrusion of unworthy characters into the Episcopate, and to preserve the purity of the Episcopal Office by a valid consecration, they would not have hesitated to reject the British Bishops from the Council, if their Consecration had not been conformable with the usage of the Church. We find, however, that they subscribed their names to these proceedings with the rest of the Bishops who were present. It is evident, therefore, that their Consecration had not been received from the hands of Laymen, Deacons or Presbyters, but from those to whom the power was committed in the Church of Christ. These Canons were sent to the Bishop of Rome for his information, and promulgation in his Diocess, but not for his sanction or approbation.

Eleven years after the Council of Arles, the Council of Nice was held by Order of the Emperor Constantine. There is much circumstantial evidence to prove that, some of the British Prelates were present. But however this may be, no doubt remains that they were present at the Council of Sardica, A. D. 347, held by order of the Emperors Constantinus and Constans, sons of Constantine the Great, as it is explicitly declared by Athanasius, who was tried and acquitted by that Council. The Fathers in this Council never dreamed of the Pope's Supremacy. In their Letter to Julius, Bishop of Rome, they call him familiarly, Dear

* Collier's Eccles. His. i. 25, 26, 27.-Grant's Hist. of the Church, i. 7. + Ibid, i. 28.