unmade; bishops were consecrated; and, which is inexpressibly horrible to be mentioned, FALSE POPESTHEIR PARAMOURS—were thrust into the chair of Peter, who, in being numbered as popes, serve no purpose, except to fill up the catalogue of the popes of Rome. For who can say that persons thrust into the popedom without any law, by harlots of this sort, were legitimate popes of Rome? In these elections, no mention is made of the acts of the clergy, either of their choosing the pope at the time of his election, or of their consent afterward. All the canons were suppressed into silence; the voice of the decrees of former pontiffs was not allowed to be heard. Ancient traditions were proscribed; the customs formerly practised in electing the pope, with the sacred rights and pristine usages, were all extinguished. In this manner, LUST, supported by secular power, excited to frenzy in the rage for dominion, ruled in all things." Here we perceive that harlots ruled at the Court of ST. PETER; HARLOTS MADE AND UNMADE DIOCESES; HARLOTS THRUST FALSE POPES, THEIR PARAMOurs, INTO THE VERY CHAIR OF ST. PETER. AND these false POPES, THUS CREATED, GO TO FILL UP THE CATALOGUES OF the popes of ROME. TRULY, this is ApostOLICAL, WITH A VENGEANCE! Through such a source Episcopal prelates must have received the “VIRUS OFf Ordination" entirely untainted, possessing all its living energies.

2d. The schisms which so frequently obtained concerning the popedom, is another evidence of the very great uncertainty attending the succession. There were frequently two, three, and sometimes four claimants to the popedom, at the same time. When this was the case, the church became divided into parties, which were arrayed against each other; and the one which was most cunning and powerful, by intrigue, bribery, and bloodshed, succeeded against the others. Onuphirus Pauvinius, and other papal historians, admit that there were more than twenty such schisms pre

vious to the fourteenth century. Some of them continued for forty years. Says our author upon this point, "We sometimes, indeed, hear it urged as an objection to tracing the succession through Rome, that there were, at one time, two or more claimants to the papacy; each of whom denounced the other as a usurper. Now, this objection, at first sight, is plausible; but a moment's reflection is sufficient to put it to flight. For, let us suppose that there were at the same time several individuals claiming to be pope. Does this prove they were not all bishops? It proves nothing on this point. For, in the first place, they may have been bishops prior to their election to the papacy. If so, the matter is at once put to rest; and if they were presbyters, they must have been made bishops when they were consecrated to the papacy." Our author has a wonderful short-metre way of putting things" to rest." We think the following facts will somewhat disturb the "rest" of this point, which he has so easily disposed of.

1. The councils of Nice, of Antioch, of Chalcedon, and other councils, prohibited the transfer of bishops from one bishoprick to another, and these canons would be likely to prevent those who were before bishops from being elected to the bishoprick of Rome.

2. For about one thousand years we have no evidence that any individual, already a bishop, was elected to the bishoprick of Rome. During that period there had been a hundred bishops of Rome, and thirteen schisms in the popedom.

3. Will our author maintain that a pretender to a bishoprick, who should be sustained in his pretensions, and consecrated to that bishoprick by a party, but who afterwards should be put down as a usurper, is, nevertheless, by virtue of his disorderly consecration, a bishop, and his acts as such valid? Certainly, our author is not prepared to take such ground; and yet he must assume it before he can

prove that these pretenders were consecrated bishops, and that their official acts are valid.

4. It is according to the principles of the church of Rome, and, we believe, of the American Episcopal church, that, to qualify a man for the bishoprick, he must previously have been ordained priest; but several of the bishops of Rome were previously nothing but laymen; they never were ordained to the priesthood. Now it is a question which we should like to see answered-Could one of these LAY BISHOPS, who never was ordained to the priestly office, lawfully ordain others to that office?

5. Several of those who, for a time, filled the papal chair were afterward deposed as usurpers. Yet, these usurpers consecrated many archbishops and bishops, some of whom (as we shall presently see) belonged to the English church. With these facts staring them in the face, how can high churchmen affirm that their apostolic succession is every way invulnerable; and how dare our author make the bold assertion-" that the succession in the church of Rome has never, in a single instance, been contested?" There is no truth in such assertions. So far from it, that eminent Episcopalians have given it up as untenable and absurd. Prideaux, an eminent Episcopalian, declares, that upon "this subject no certainty is to be had." Howell, a very learned churchman, says, "Here it is evident how very doubtful and uncertain is the personal succession of the Roman bishops." The before cited Episcopal Dr. Comber, declares," There is NEITHER TRUTH nor certainty in the pretended personal succession of the first popes." Other testimony might be added, but these are abundantly sufficient.

We come now to the English succession, and propose to notice a few facts which go to show the very great uncertainty that attaches to the question of its validity.

1. Plegmund, archbishop of Canterbury, A. D. 891, was ordained to his bishoprick by Pope Formosus. Pope

Stephen VI. at the head of his council, and afterwards Pope Sergius III., declared the ordinations which Formosus had administered to be void, and ordered those who had received them to be reordained. Plegmund never was reordained; and yet he ordained most of the bishops of England for twenty-six years. Will high churchmen inform us what becomes of the succession in this instance?

2. Henry Chickley, archbishop of Canterbury, A. D. 1414, was ordained by Pope Gregory XII. This Gregory XII. was only a pretender to the popedom. He was declared by a church council, held at Constance A. D. 1415, to be " no pope of Rome"-"No bishop at all." He was displaced from the papal chair, and John XXIII. or XXIV. declared to be the lawful pope. Yet this usurper ordained Chickley, and he continued to ordain English bishops and archbishops for twenty"What an unbroken line of valid ordinations!"

nine years.

3. The see of Armagh was, for eight generations, occupied by individuals who had never received any ordination whatever. It is admitted by Hooker, who is a standard author among Episcopalians, that ordination had frequently been effected without a bishop to ordain; therefore, says he, we are not simply without exception to urge a lineal descent of power from the Apostles by continued successions of bishops, in every effectual ordination."

66

4. There is no record which can be relied upon, of the succession in the English church, either in Britain or at Rome, for nearly six hundred years,-up to the time when Augustine was sent to establish Christianity in Britain. The Episcopal Stillingfleet affirms, "that by the loss of records of the British churches, we cannot draw down the succession of bishops from the Apostles' time;" and adds, "if we come to Rome, here the succession is as muddy as the Tiber itself." "What shall we say," he asks, " to extricate ourselves out of this labyrinth?"

5. At the Reformation the English churches were not

only excommunicated and anathematized by the pope, but they entirely repudiated his authority, and placed their king in his stead. They acknowledged their king to be the fountain of ecclesiastical power; the Supreme Head in earth of the English church. Bishops took out their commissions from him, and submitted to be deprived of their orders by him. How is it possible, after this ExCOMMUNICATION, REPUDIATION, and SUBSTITUTION, for the English church, with any confidence or propriety, to go back to Rome for their Apostolic succession?

6. The validity of the ordination of Archbishop Parker, upon which Episcopalians admit the validity of their succession very much depends, has ever been considered exceedingly doubtful, both as to the form of ordination used at the time, and the persons who ordained him. We have not time to go at length into this matter. It will be sufficient for our present purpose to state, that the validity of this ordination became an affair of so much dispute, that Parliament deemed it necessary to pass an act declaring it VALID. Perhaps the British Parliament had the power, by declaring it to be so, to render this ordination truly Apostolical! The very lame defence of Parker's ordination by our author shows that its validity is extremely doubtful. But," says he,

even upon the supposition that Parker's consecration was not valid, it would not vitiate the ordinations performed by him, for he was always assisted by other bishops whose consecration was undisputed, and the succesion would descend through them." We will reply to this remark in the language of the learned Powell. He says, "In the ordination of a bishop, there is always one bishop who alone consecrates. This is the universal language of the rituals on the subject. The other bishops who take part in the ceremony are rather there as witnesses, than as consecrators. The ancient rituals never speak of more than one consecrator. In all the ancient Greek forms of ordination, as exhibited by Morinus,