though we do not agree with them in this respect, to vindicate what they consider to be the superiority of their own system; they must make allowance for us when we prefer to remain as we are, and when we regard theirs as only the best system that could be adopted under existing circumstances. The English Churchman who regards the Church as a religious Society instituted by our blessed Saviour, and handed down to us by the apostolical sucçession, rejoices to see the principles of the Church fairly carried out under circumstances the most unfavourable; he sympathizes with his North American brethren and he regards the American Church with feelings of parental affection: but he looks upon her as "a lily among thorns;" while for himself he says:

Hail to the Crown by Freedom shaped-to gird
An English sovereign's brow! and to the throne
Whereon he sits! whose deep foundations lie
In veneration and the people's love;

Whose steps are equity, whose seat is law.
-Hail to the state of England! and conjoin
With this a salutation as devout,

Made to the spiritual fabric of her Church,—
Founded in truth, by blood of martyrdom
Cemented, and by bands of wisdom reared
In beauty of holiness, with ordered pomp
Decent and unreproved. The voice that greets
The majesty of both, shall pray for both;
That mutually protected and sustained,
They may endure long as the sea surrounds

This favoured land, or sunshine warms her soila.
WORDSWORTH.

When Bishop Hobart returned from England to New-York, he drew a comparison between the circumstances of the Church under the modified voluntary system of America and those of the established system in England-deciding in favour of the former. This brought

Before the declaration of American Independence, the British Colonies in America were under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London, and the number of Episcopalians was small. Several attempts were made to introduce an Episcopate, but they failed. Archbishop Secker exerted himself most honourably in the cause, and merely sought from Government the Royal permission to consecrate Bishops for the Colonies, without claiming for them any temporal rank or power. At the time of the controversy about the Stamp Act, the subject was brought forward by the Rev. East Apthorpe, and again, a little before the Revolution, by Dr. Chandler, of Elizabeth Town. The measure was unpopular among the Americans themselves, who thought it would strengthen the hands of the civil Government; and it was most violently opposed by Dissenters of all denominations in England, who formed a committee in London to prevent its being carried into effect. This is another proof, if proof were wanting, of the real illiberality of many who clamour most for liberty; of the actual intolerance of the votaries of toleration. Episcopalians regard certain offices which can be discharged by a Bishop only, as essential to their spiritual edification and comfort; and to prevent their enjoying

upon the Bishop a violent and unchristian attack from the Erastians in this country, who are unable to make a distinction between the Church and the Establishment. Against these uncharitable assailants-men peculiarly violent against Churchmen, who consider the question of an Establishment though an important yet only a secondary consideration,—he found a vindicator in one whose friendship must have been regarded as an honour even by the Bishop of New York. The Rev. Hugh James Rose," whose praise is in all the Churches," came forward, and with his usual eloquence and power of argument proved that, without compromising our attachment to the civil and religious constitution of England, we can honour the American who prefers, however mistakenly, the institutions of his native land.

this blessing Dissenters combined. Nay, we may observe, that, even after the Revolution, it was doubted whether the new Republicans would tolerate the existence of a Bishop within their dominions.

It is always lamentable to see great national objects sacrificed to the low purposes of party. But such seems to have been the case, in many instances, with respect to the American Colonies. Good policy, as well as sound piety, would have led the mother country to establish and maintain the Church in those parts. "To persons who may give their attention to the colonial history," says the late venerated Bishop of Pennsylvania, "the question may occur, Why did not the British Government so far consult its own interests, as to authorize the consecrating of Bishops for America? The answer is, Any Ministry, who should have ventured on the measure, would have raised up against themselves the whole of the Dissenting interest in England; and the weight of that interest was more important to them than the making of a Party for the mother country in the Colonies"." These are facts worthy of record. The nation, forgetful that religion is a national concern, instead of seeking to promote the glory of God in the Colonies, bowed before the golden image of expediency, and was humbled by defeat, and punished by the loss of her colonial possessions.

When the independence of the United States was acknowledged, some fears were entertained whether the English Government, uninstructed by past experience, and still influenced by the short-sighted policy of the world, would permit the English Bishops to consecrate

b Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, by the Right Reverend Father in God, William White, D. D., Bishop of Pennsylvania, p. 5.

Americans. By some persons it was proposed to meet the difficulty by the election of one of the American clergy, who might without consecration, assume the Episcopal authority. At such a proposition the Churchman can scarcely repress a smile. The question between Churchmen and Sectarians, concerning Episcopacy, is not a mere childish question as to which form of Church government may be the best. If it were so, the lover of peace and concord would pronounce this to be a thing indifferent. But this is not a mere matter of preference, expediency, or prejudice: the question is one which relates to the validity of the sacraments, and to the right of any community renouncing Episeopacy to be called a branch of the Catholic Church. Unless the ministers of the Gospel are sent by CHRIST what right have they to act in his name? If a man were passing through a foreign country, he might be perfectly competent to act as ambassador for the Queen of England, so far as personal qualifications are concerned, but would any foreign Prince or Potentate receive him as such, unless he could produce his credentials? Many a lawyer may be as well qualified to perform the duties of the Lord High Chancellor, as the Chancellor himself, but is he, on that account, able to act as Chancellor? Certainly not, unless he has received a commission from the Sovereign. And so with respect to religion, what right has a man to act as the ambassador of GOD, unless GOD has commissioned him so to act? He may be an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, he may be a pious man, but he has no authority to speak in GoD's name until GOD has authorized him so to do. "How," asks St. Paul, "shall they preach," that is, preach lawfully, "except they be sent","-sent by God? With respect to the Ministry, in the Jewish dis

e Romans, x. 15.

pensation it was said: "No man taketh this honour unto himself but he that is called of GOD as was Aarond." "But, if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory." If a mission from GOD were necessary for the Jewish Ministry, a fortiori, reasons the Apostle, it must be necessary for the Christian Ministry. Nay, "Even Christ," says St. Paul, "glorified not himself to be made an High Priest, "but, as Isaiah says," the spirit of GOD was upon him because the Lord hath anointed him to preach glad tidings:" even He entered not upon his ministerial office until he was externally appointed thereunto. And as He was sent by the Father, so were the Apostles sent by Him to be his supreme ministers for the government of his Church, the administration of his sacraments, and the preaching of his Gospel. As my Father hath sent me," he said soon after his resurrection," even so send I you." As governors and chief pastors of the Church sent by Christ, the Apostles soon appointed under themselves Presbyters", called also Priests, in every city, and Deacons who were ordained to preach and administer the sacrament of Baptism. To confirm, however, persons who had been baptized, and to ordain ministers, was a power not confided to these orders of the Ministry, but reserved by the Apostles to themselves. Thus, when Philip the Deacon had converted the Samaritans and baptized them, Peter and John, two chief Pastors, went down to Samaria to confirm them. So that the Church during the greater part of the lifetime of the Apostles was constituted thus: the members were baptized believers; to officiate among the several congrega

d Heb. v. 4.
g John, xx. 2.
Acts, viii. 5.

e Cor. ii. 9.

h Acts, xiv. 23, and xx. 28.

Heb. v. 5.