self, obey, in all things, the monastic rules.' It is incredible that when Oswald, king of Northumbria, only forty-eight years after Augustine's arrival in England, and the establishment of Episcopacy by him, (which also previously existed in the ancient church,) requested Bishops from Scotland, that this very monastery of Iona or Hii, &c., should have sent Aidan with only Presbyterian ordination, when there were always, according to Bede's testimony, Bishops (and their superiority expressly recognized) in the monastery. They so exercised the Episcopal office," says the venerable historian, "that they still submitted to the rules of the institution.”

66

It is believed by some that the succession in the English church is necessarily traced through the church of Rome. But this is an entire mistake, which a more intimate knowledge of history would have corrected. For, in the year A. D., 596, when Augustine, a Bishop and missionary from Rome, under the auspices of Gregory the Great, arrived in Britain, he found a christian church already planted there, with its Bishops and other Clergy. The Roman Catholic historian, Lingard, speaking of Augustine, says: "He acted with a vigor proportionate to the confidence which Gregory had reposed in his zeal, and, by the influence of Ethelbert, prevailed on some of the British prelates to meet him near the confines of their country. From morning to night he labored to effect an accommodation. His exhortations, entreaties, and menaces, were ineffectual; but a miracle is said to have subdued their obstinacy, and a promise was extorted, that they would renew the conference on a future day. The promise was observed; but not till they had consulted a neighbouring hermit, famed for sanctity and wisdom. His answer betrays their secret apprehensions, and shows that the independence of their church was the chief object of their solicitude. He advised them to watch jealously the conduct of the missionary: if he rose to meet them,

*

Neque aliquis miretur-enim revera ita est-Ab Aidano omnes loci ipsius antistites usque hodie sic episcopale exercent officium, ut regente monasterium Abbate, quem ipsi cum concilio fratrum elegerint, omnes presbyteri, diaconi, cantores, lectores, cæterique gradus ecclesiastici, monachicam per omnia cum ipso episcopo regulam servant. Bed. vit. Cuth. e. xv. 1.

they might consider him as a man of a meek and unassuming temper, and securely listen to his demands: but, if he kept his seat, they should condemn him of pride, and return the insult with equal pride. On the appointed day, seven Bishops, accompanied by Dinoth, Abbot of Bangor, repaired to the conference. Augustine had arrived before them: he did not rise at their approach, and the advice of the hermit was religiously obeyed. To facilitate their compliance, the missionary had reduced his demands to three: that they should observe the orthodox computation of Easter; should conform to the Roman rite, in the administration of baptism; and join with him in preaching the gospel to the Saxons. Each request was refused, and his metropolitan authority contemptuously rejected."

Now this difference in the observance of the time of Easter,* on which the church of Rome was universally agreed, and conformity to which she imperiously and without exception demanded, of all who were subject to

* The modes of computing the time of the Easter festival, have been various in the christian church. The churches of Asia kept their Easter upon the same day on which the Jews celebrated their Passover. Hence they were called Quartodecimans, or such as kept Easter upon the fourteenth day after the appearance of the moon, which followed the vernal equinox in each year. This epoch being variable, might bring Easter upon any day of the week. The Western and other Churches did not follow this custom, but observed their Easter on the Sunday following the Jewish Passover. This discrepancy, the council of Nice endeavored to reconcile, by establishing the latter of the two methods above mentioned. The Alexandrian cycle of years, however, was different from that employed by the Roman church; hence, there still remained a great diversity in the time of observing Easter between the churches of the East and the West. Wearied of the contests growing out of this want of uniformity, the church of Rome, about the middle of the sixteenth century, adopted a new cycle according to tables drawn up by Diorysius Exiguus. The time fixed in these tables for observing Easter, was imposed by the council of Chalcedon, upon all the churches, on pain of incurring the charge of heresy.

Now that the British christians knew nothing of all this, is evident from the assertion of Bede, l. iii. c. 4.-"That they were so remotely situated that no one had extended to them the synodical decrees respecting the observance of the Paschal festival." That they were not Quartodecimans, Lingard himself has proved, by a reference to Bede, l. iii. c. 14, 17, where it is said, that they observed Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, only when that day happened to be

her, this especially, as well as the difference in the rite of administering baptism, prove that this ancient British church never had been under her dominion. That they were not subject to Rome, when Augustine first came among them, is beyond controversy true. That they had Bishops of their own, is also equally clear. The only point, then, of importance to determine, is, the origin of this church, and its Apostolic succession. This point must, of course, be settled by the testimony of history, and that testimony, being of a respectable and accredited character, ought to be considered decisive. We shall adduce the evidence on this point, according to the antiquity of the different writers, rather than the explicitness or value of their respective statements. And first, CLEMENT, Bishop of Rome, as he is the earliest, so he is the most credible witness. In his first epistle to the Corinthians,* he says: "Paul received the reward of his patience. He preached both in the East and in the West; and, having taught the whole world righteousness, and for that end TRAVELLED EVEN TO THE UTTER

a Sunday. That their ancesters were not Quartodecimans, he likewise proves, by citing Eusebius' hist. l. v. c. 23, also Socrates, 1. v. c. 21, and other authorties.

That they did not follow, in Augustine's time, the Roman computation of Easter, is clear from the disputes which took place between their Bishops and Augustine, on that very subject. Neither did they follow the ancient rule of the Roman church; for, says Lingard, "they observed, in the computation of Easter, a rule peculiar to themselves." Now, how shall we account for this fact? Dr. Lingard assures us that they had the "ancient cycle" of the Latin church, but by reason of their ignorance knew not how to apply it: i. e. they erroneously applied it. But what evidence is adduced on this point? None whatever. Nay, Dr. Lingard seems to contradict himself, for he says they had a rule peculiar to themselves. And this author, moreover, informs us, that these British Christians, when asked to give a reason for their custom in the time of observing Easter, replied, that they had received it from their forefathers. In fine, it is admitted that this ancient church had their own time, different from that of all other christians, for the Easter festival; and the only admissible explanation of this circumstance, is given by themselves, that their custom was peculiar to their Church, and beyond the memory of man. This proves that their church was not only independent of Rome, and always had been so, but that its origin was Apostolic, agreeably to the testimony of Eusebius and Theodoret.

MOST BOUNDS OF THE WEST, he at last suffered martyrdom by the command of the governors." Now, it is to be particularly noticed here, that Clement does not merely assert that St. Paul preached in the West”—that would have been too general to have designated Britain, with any degree of certainty-but he adds: "He travelled to the utmost bounds of the West." It is this last expression, so pointedly made by Clement, that renders his testimony absolutely conclusive on the fact of Paul's visiting Britain. For, in the language of his day, and long before it, Britain was styled the utmost Island* of the West, and the British ocean was called the Western.† If, then, St. Paul went to the utmost bounds of the West, he must have visited Britain.

TERTULLIAN‡ remarks: "There are places among the Britons, which were inaccessible to the Romans, but yet are subdued by Christ."

ORIGEN|| remarks: "The power of God our Saviour is even with them in Britain, who are divided from our world."

EUSEBIUSS is very explicit, saying, that some of the Apostles "passed over the ocean, and preached to those which are called the Britannic Islands." This writer was furnished with every means of information on these subjects, and doubtless was well assured of the fact here asserted. Next to him, THEODORET¶ tells us, that "the Apostles [whom he styles fishermen, publicans, and tentmakers] persuaded not only the Romans, but also the Britons, to receive the laws of the Crucified."

Finally, GILDAS,** the earliest of the British historians, informs us, that the gospel was first preached in Britain

* So Catullus Carm., xxvii., l. 12: De Mamurra: "Fuisti in ultima Occidentis insula."

+ So Plutarch, Eusebius, and Nicephorus.

Tertul. Adv. Judæos, c. 7. Britanorum inaccessa Romanis loca Christo vero subdita.

Orig. in Luc. cap. I., Hom. 6.

Uper ton okeanon parelthein epi tas kaloumenas Brittanikas nasous. Dem. Evang., I. 1, c. 7.

¶ Hoi de ameteroi alicis ou moncn tous Romaious alla kai Britanous dexasthai tou Staurothentos tous nomous anepeisan. Theod. tom. iv., Serm. 9.

**

Epist. c. I.

about the time of the revolt of Boadicea, queen of Iceni, in Britain, during the reign of Neris, (A. D., 60 or 61.) Referring to this revolt, Gildas says: "In the mean time, Christ, the true sun, afforded his rays, that is, the knowledge of his precepts, to this Island, benumbed with extreme cold, having been at a great distance from the sun, not the sun in the firmament, but the Eternal Sun in heaven."

Now, against this mass of testimony, to show that the Apostles (one of whom, in this expedition, was certainly Paul, the tent-maker) established christianity in Britain, there is nothing whatever to oppose.

But leaving the question of the succession in the English church, which is invulnerable in every point, it will still be urged, perhaps, that the succession had been previously corrupted in the church of Rome, and that, consequently, when she became dominant in Britain, her defect was grafted into the church of England. This supposition, however, has no color of support from facts.

For, however unsound the church of Rome was in many important points, both of faith and practice, it has always been admitted that this one, of the validity of her consecrations, she guarded with a most scrupulous care. To this truth, history again bears the fullest attestation; and a complete list of her Bishops, from the Apostles, is on record not on private record merely, but on the page of universal history, and intimately interwoven with the events of every age. 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 that they were not all true 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