Should it be contended, that extraordinary calls may still be given, they cannot, agreeably to this precedent, be received, unless attended by miracles, such as are unequivocal and open to others as well as to the person called. If the pretensions of every visionary enthusiast are to be received as calls to the ministry of the gospel, there is an end to all order: and the christian world would soon become a Babel of confusion.

But it has been said, that to render this succession undeniable, we should produce a list of Bishops, from the time of the Apostles down to the present day. When a person, seriously investigating the subject of church polity, finds a visible church constituted on a certain plan, and that that plan is the same that Christ and his Apostles originally formed: when he becomes so far acquainted with the nature of the christian church, as to know that it is a spiritual community, originating from Christ and depending upon him; nay, when he is farther instructed, that Christ promised to be with his church to the end of the world, all this will amount to so strong a presumption in favor of the succession, as fairly to entitle him to call upon his adversaries to shew when it was broken. And if they cannot produce a single instance of its being broken, I am unable to conceive upon what principle they can dissent from him in opinion. And still when it is proved, which it can easily be, that ever since the days of the Apostles it has been the doctrine of Episcopalians, with regard to the ministry, that none but Bishops had a right to ordain, will not this go far to establish the point in question? For surely while this doctrine prevailed, it would guard against ordination by inferior ministers. I am disposed to believe, however, that to form a list of bishops regularly descending from the Apostles would not be, in all probability, an insurmountable labor. The records of some churches were, no doubt, lost in the days of persecution; but those of others may have have been saved. And it is remarkable, and a strong proof of the superintending care of the divine head of the church, that in the most critical and perilous situations, no interruptions in the ministry ever took place. It has been thought that the succession at Rome was involved in a difficulty that could not be cleared, because some variation exists among ancient authors, as to the order in which Linus, Cletus and Clemens succeeded one another. Let it be remembered, that this is entirely a Romish difficulty. For it does not affect the doctrine of Protestants, if, at Rome, there was a time, when there were either two Bishops or no Bishop, while there were enough in the neighboring churches to continue the succession. Dr. Cave has given a very probable solution of this difficulty. That St. Paul and St. Peter were both at Rome is very certain, and that one was at the head of the Jewish, and the other at the head of the Gentile converts, is highly probable. For Jews and Gentiles could not easily intermix, even after they were converted to Christianity. St. Paul consecrated Linus to be his successor. St. Peter consecrated Clemens to succeed him. Linus was succeeded by Cletus, or, as he is by some called, Anacletus. Clemens survived them both; and the prejudices of the Jewish and Gentile converts having worn off, Clemens became sole Bishop of Rome.

The next crisis, upon which great reliance has been placed, that an interruption in the succession could be proved, is the reformation. The reformation was commenced in the reign of Henry VIII. The principle upon, which it was grounded was, that "the Church of Rome was a true Church, though she had admitted some erroneous doctrines, and suffered many abuses to creep in." (8) It was never questioned, that her ministry was a true gospel ministry, only that the Pope of Rome had assumed a superiority over the other Bishops not authorized by the original constitution of the Church of Christ. While Henry was engaged in contending with the Pope, the clergy were busy in reforming the church. (9) And indeed all reformations ought to be effected by the clergy. Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, Latimer and Ridley, both Bishops, were among the most eminent of the reformers. These continued the succession, by the consecration of several other Bishops. In the reign of Edward VI. the reformation advanced rapidly. In that short but auspicious reign, the Liturgy was compiled, which has been the admiration of the wise, and the glory of the church ever since. There were also several more Bishops consecrated. Thus far the succession went on, in such a manner, as even the Church of Rome admitted to be correct.

It is true, the form of consecration was altered from the Roman Pontifical. But it was admitted by all, that nothing more was necessary to confer orders than the imposition of hands and prayer, by those duly authorized. This was the original mode of ordination. When Queen Mary ascended the throne, she restored the Roman Catholic Religion. Several of the Protestant Bishops were burned at the stake: some escaped her fury; and some renounced their principles and retained their sees. Of those that retained their sees, a few were never again ordained, viz. the Bishop of St. Asaph, the Bishop of Landaff, the Bishop of Westminster, &c. This amounts to a proof that their ordination was deemed valid even by the bigoted Mary and her persecuting clergy.

(8) Here it will be observed, that I have confined myself to the Reformation in England. But it may be asserted, that the above was the general principle upon which the reformation, in the most extensive view, was founded. Dr. Mosheim says, "Luther separated himself only from the church of Rome, which considers the Pope infallible, and not from the church in a more extensive sense." Vol. iv. 52. His translator remarks, "this judicious distinction has not been sufficiently attended to, and the Romanists have confounded the Papacy with the Catholic Church." It would seem that we have, in these days, some such Romanists under a new title.

(9) In consequence of the connection, that subsisted in England between Church and State, all the changes that were effected in the church were authorized or ratified by the civil authority. Still it is true, that the articles of religion, the liturgy and the homilies were all composed by the clergy. And it is because in these are found the doctrines of scripture, and such a form of worship and order of discipline as prevailed in the church of Christ, in her primitive purity, that the church of England is deemed a true church of Christ. Her connection with the state was merely accidental. For had she been a corrupt church, this would not have rendered her pure; nor, should that connection be dissolved, would this change her character as a christian church. In Scotland, there is a pure Episcopal church, entirely unconnected with the state. And in this country Episcopalians have preserved a regular succession from the church of England, because they believed her to be a true church, independent of all other considerations.

When Elizabeth succeeded Mary, she established the Protestant religion. Those Bishops who had evaded the cruelty of Mary were restored, and by them the succession was preserved. The first consecration under Elizabeth, about which some difficulties have been made, was that of Archbishop Parker. It is now clearly ascertained, that he was consecrated at Lambeth, December 17, 1559, by William Barlow, formerly Bishop of Bath, John Scory, formerly Bishop of Chichester, Miles Coverdale, formerly Bishop of Exeter, and John, Suffragan Bishop of Bedford. Barlow and John of Bedford were consecrated during the reign of Henry VIII. Scory and Coverdale during that of Edward VI. Thus the church struggled through all the difficulties of the reformation without any interruption of her ministry. "The very gates of hell could not prevail against her." (10)

The next season of affliction with the church was the time of Oliver Cromwell. Perceiving that the Bishops were little attached to him and his government, as the sees became vacant, they were not filled. Still death put an end to his career, before the Episcopate was destroyed. There remained nine Bishops at his death, and these after the restoration of Charles II. consecrated more.

Thus as to ordination alone, it is unquestionable, that there is nothing faulty in the English Church. Even the Romanists admit this; and only contend, that the English Church, having renounced all allegiance to the Pope, is not in communion with them. This Protestants do not regard.

The Church in America has regularly descended from the Church of England. Notwithstanding the perilous situation in which she was left at the close of the war, such was the superintending care of her divine head, that she was preserved from all error. Until she acquired a complete Episcopate, no ordinations were performed. This was after a while happily effected by the consecration of Bishops Seabury, White and Provost, in Great Britain.

It appears new, that a regular succession in the ministry is necessary to the very existence of a true Church, (11) and that the Pro

(10) I beg leave to apprize the reader, that I have not consulted Mr. Hume, nor drawn my knowledge of the reformation from his history. Correct and elegant as he generally is upon other subjects, whenever he comes to religion, he paints with dark or deceptious colors. That Clergymen should ever be actuated by pure motives, is a position which Mr. Hume never but reluctantly admits. My information has been principally taken from original records published by Father Courayer, as an Appendix to his " Defence of the Validity of the English Ordinations." With these records he was supplied by Arch. bishop Wake, from the archives of the church of Canterbury. And he amply deserves the praise of industrious and fair enquiry, as well as an honest and candid statement of facts, notwithstanding the then prejudices of his church, as to this subjeet.

(11) After all the clamour that has of late been made against the succession in the ministry, there is hardly a religious society to be found, that does not tenaciously preserve its succession. Is not this, then, in effect, declaring, that societies formed by men must inviolably preserve their form of govern ment, while the church, that was formed by Christ and his inspired apostles. may deviate from her government? This language true churchmen cannot hold, for they prefer divine institutions to human, and are contented, with hu mility and thankfulness, to receive the blessings of Christ in his appointed way.

testant Episcopal Church possesses such a succession. Still, much pains have been taken to perplex and confound this subject, plain as it really is, when fairly viewed. Those who are conscious, that they do not possess a legitimate ministry, seem anxious to divert the attention of men from this important subject; and although I should suppose they would dread the consequences of its being admitted, that any man or set of men can form a christian church, yet they discharge the only doctrine that can preserve unity and order in the Redeemer's kingdom. Yet if confusion reign for a time, this is nothing more than was fully foreseen by Jesus Christ; and of consequence it ought never to discourage the members of his church. Societies formed by men must be supported by human devices, and these often will be so diversified and often so at variance with the excellence of christianity, that they must shock the understanding of men of discernment.-Whereas the noble and simple means instituted by Christ and his Apostles, bear an intimate affinity to his religion.

FROM THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZINE.

The Corporation Spirit of the Clergy vindicated against the Objections of DAVID HUME, &c.

THIS author in his moral and political essays, makes the following observations upon the character of the clergy.

""Tis a trite, but not altogether a false maxim, that "priests of all religions are the same;" and though the character of the profession will not, in every instance, prevail over the personal character, yet it is sure always to predominate with the greater number. For as chymists observe, that spirits when raised to a certain height, are all the same, from whatever materials they may be extracted; so these men, being elevated above humanity, acquire a uniform character; which is entirely their own, and which, in my opinion, is, generally speaking, not the most amiable that is to be met with in human society. It is in most points, opposite to that of a soldier; as is the way of life, from which it is derived."

From this outline, which Mr. Hume has sketched with much apparent ingenuity, it is obvious, that what is usually called the frankness of a soldier, is the point of perfection indicated by this insinuating objector; but this I shall wave at present, to take a view of the subject more at large. In the first place, were it even to be granted, that there is something disagreeable in the character of a clergyman, does it by any means follow, that the person or profession is vicious or culpable? It is frequently said, that the clerical office tends to mould the minds of its professors into a grave and austere form; that i discourages innocent pleasures and harmless levity; that it leads the clergy to become spies upon the very looks of the people, (some of the sour sectarians no doubt are here intended) and unnaturally restrains the most harmless propensities, whenever they are unsuitable to their interests or pursuits. Much of this complaint is

admitted; but though there be many occasions in life, in which the clerical character might be censured or uneasily borne with, these occasions will be found, upon examination, to be uniformly those, when men are disposed to trespass upon the bounds of innocence, propriety or decency, Yet it is by no means to be inferred, that such person's really abhor the presence or the profession of those who create the temporary displeasure; on the contrary, during the calm and considerate periods of life, they may approve and esteem them. If even the presence of a Cato was a check upon the licentious or the unthinking of his time, how much more that of the real or supposed christian? Such a character as the former bears no resemblance to the gay, the dissipated, and much less with the profane. These will generally dislike him, but it does not follow that this dislike will ever amount to a perfect hatred. Liking, however, differs essentially from perfect approbation or esteem. A liking is excited chiefly by the more trivial accomplishments of the man, but approbation or esteem, from those alone which are important. The qualities which most effectually engage the liking of the generality of men, are of too low an order to be regarded as bearing the least affinity with the pursuits of religion or exalted virtue; on the contrary, there are certain vices, which, because they diffuse a degree of ease, gaiety and sprightliness over the temper and behavior, are very apt to obtain the momentary liking of those persons, but which, in a moment of reflection, produce abhorrence of their base

ness.

A man's own turn of character has also great influence in fixing the objects of his liking, which will be principally confined to those whose manners resemble his own, and therefore the sentiment of liking and disliking, in mankind, must be transient and precarious. Rational approbation, on the other hand, is less subject to the caprice of temper; though the external marks of this sentiment are but too often bestowed upon others, by those whose consciences tell them, to their anguish, that they do not bear the least resemblance with the objects of their approbation!

But if, as it is presumed, the most ingenious enemies to christianity can only prove, that some generally agreeable traits are wanting in the clerical character, that some circumstances in it may be perverted into occasions of vice; or, that it presents peculiar temptations requiring great caution to avoid, still nothing is alledged which can seriously affect either the spirit of the priestly office or the religion by which it is established. If they can urge nothing beyond these things, we may fearlessly expose our bosoms to their pointless arrows, But, on the other hand, it has been asserted, with great probability, that the clergy in general are in fact, equal, if not superior, to other classes of men, in whatever deserves the name of moral virtue or human excellence; which being granted, must form no inconsiderable argument in favor of the genius of the christian priesthood; because, if it really led to vice, it would infallibly corrupt the greater number.

On the contrary, in the sciences, in the polite arts, in useful discoveries, let any person take a general and impartial view, and they will find, that in every state of things the ministers of the church