themselves are merely pretended orders. Yes, on their own admission, they are mere laymen, placed in the very same circumstances as the lowest dissenting minister in the land; while his Grace of Canterbury, and all our bishops, are destitute of the episcopal character. "Schismatical bishops," says St. Cyprian," are not true bishops;" and Dodwell remarks, that consecrations in schism are null and void. "The mischief of schism," says the latter, "is nullity of orders and sacraments in the persons guilty of separation." Now it is admitted on all hands that there was a schism subsequent to the Revolution; and the question is, were the Nonjurors, or the parties in possession, guilty? These writers, by admitting that Hickes and Collier were bishops, thereby allowing the validity of the acts of the Nonjurors, have decided that the bishops in possession were the schismatics; and, as it is an acknowledged principle that the orders conferred by schismatics are invalid, it follows from the principles of these men that we are cut off from the apostolical succession altogether. We have stated that a Nonjuring bishop existed a few years since at Shrewsbury. We ask the writers whether he was a true and canonical bishop? If Hickes and Collier were bishops, so was this individual. Nay, according to the views of the authors of the Tracts, he was the only true bishop at that time in England; and if he does not now survive, there is no longer any canonical bishop in this country. He was the last of the apostolic line in our land.

The Nonjurors, who adhered to Hickes and Collier, acted consistently with their principles. They boldly asserted that Tillotson and his brethren were not true bishops; and that the Established Church was not a true church. This assertion was grounded on the canons already quoted. The Nonjurors perceived that Hickes and

this was consistent. But the writers in question have sworn canonical obedience to the present bishop of Oxford; who, if Hickes and Collier were bishops, as they allege, has no claim whatever to the episcopal character; and their oath of canonical obedience is a mere farce.

There cannot be two co-ordinate jurisdictions in one diocess, which must have been the case if Tillotson and his brethren, and Hickes and Collier, with the other Nonjurors who were pretended to be consecrated, were all lawful bishops. This difficulty was seen by the Nonjurors themselves; for, though they alleged that the possessors were not lawful bishops, yet they appear to have entertained some scruples on the subject, and therefore they took refuge under a subterfuge, calling Hickes and Collier suffragaus. It is very probable, too, that the writers of the Tracts may resort to the same evasion. The case, however, is not in the least altered by this line of argument. Suffragans could only be appointed by the bishops in possession; and when appointed, they acted under the direction of the diocesans. Bishops suffragan were the chorepiscopi of ancient times, who were the vicarii of the bishops in times of necessity, acting by commission from those in possession of the sees. "In the primitive Church," says an author who is held in reverence by the writers of the Tracts, being himself a Nonjuror, "there were bishops frequently placed in villages of the larger diocesses, who were from thence called chorepiscopi; but they were subject to the bishop of the city, under

and state "

whose jurisdiction the village was, and therefore could act nothing but by his license and commission." It is stated by another very learned author, that " at the beginning of the Reformation some attempt was made in England to restore these chorepiscopi, under the name of suffragan bishops, to be consecrated by the archbishop, and two other bishops, and to have the same power as suffragans formerly had within this realm; but none were to have or act any thing properly episcopal without consent obtained from the bishop of the city in whose diocess he was."+

Now, supposing Sancroft and Lloyd could appoint suffragans-for Hickes was nominated by the former, and Wagstaffe by the latter-still they could not constitute them their successors, to act after their decease. What, then, becomes of the consecration of Collier, who was consecrated by Hickes? If Hickes and Wagstaffe had even been true bishops, they could not have consecrated others to the episcopal office, unless Sancroft and Lloyd possessed the power of appointing their successors, which power was never recognised by the Church. But the writers of the Tracts, by admitting the validity of Collier's consecration, must believe that Hickes was not merely a true bishop, but that he had the power to appoint a successor. Nay, they must admit that the line of succession was in Hickes, and not in the bishops of the Anglican Church, since it could not be continued in both parties. If, however, Hickes and Collier had been suffragans, their authority must have ceased with the death of the bishops by whom they were appointed; and on this ground even, Collier, who was consecrated by Hickes, could not have been a bishop.

Nor could Hickes and Collier be bishops at large, or without sees; for the canons already quoted appoint that bishops should be ordained to particular districts. The sixth canon of Chalcedon prohibits absolute ordinations; and the canons of that council are admitted by the Church of England, and also by the writers of the Tracts.

By the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, it was decided, that by heretics they understood those who, pro

Brett's Church Government, p. 215. Part II. p. 63.

+ Bingham's Antiquities.
Tracts:-No. XV. p. 10.

fessing the same faith, yet made a separation from canonical bishops. At the revolution, there was no difference in points of faith between the bishops in possession and the Nonjurors. As, therefore, there could not be two sets of canonical bishops, it follows, that if Tillotson and his brethren were truly consecrated, Hickes and Collier were heretics, and consequently not true bishops. Now, it is admitted by these writers that heretics cannot transmit valid orders; "but it may be said, that we have really no valid orders, as having received them from a heretical church. True, Rome may be so considered now; but she was not heretical in the primitive ages." Heresy, according to the ancient Church, may be of two sorts: first, when new articles of faith are made and imposed as terms of communion, as is the case with the Church of Rome; and, secondly, when persons separate from a true church, and appoint pretended bishops, and intrude into sees belonging to others, which was the crime of the Nonjurors. In ancient times, even if a bishop was unjustly deprived of his see, he did not, on that account, separate from the Church, if the successor was not a heretic, but sound in the faith.

In connexion with this subject, we will now direct the attention of our readers to one of the most extraordinary acts which we have ever witnessed. In the list of subscribers to the selections from the fathers, now in a course of publication in Oxford, are the names of many of our bishops; and besides our own bishops, there are the names of some of the Scottish prelates. Our surprise was unbounded when we read the following:

"Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Ross and Argyll.

Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Edinburgh.'

Now, we ask the writers what right they have to apply the title of lordship to these gentlemen? Why is it not applied to the American bishops? What constitutes the difference between a bishop of the American and a bishop of the Scottish episcopal Church? There are, in fact, no such persons as the Lord Bishop of Ross and Argyll, See, also, Hammond's Works, Vol. II.

and the Lord Bishop of Edinburgh : and thus these writers are actually deceiving, or, at all events, aiming at deceiving, the public. And if they will make the attempt in such a case as that which we have pointed out, what security have we that attempts of a graver kind will not be made? The men who can practise upon the credulity of the people in such a case are not to be trusted in any of their statements. If they can endeavour to induce the belief that there are such persons as the Lord Bishop of Ross and Argyll, and the Lord Bishop of Edinburgh, in the nineteenth century, when the trick may so easily be detected, can the public depend on their statements respecting antiquity, when there are so few who have the ability, and fewer still who have the inclination to take the trouble, to detect the imposture? We hear complaints of John M'IIale, for assuming the style and title of a bishop in Ireland; yet he has just the same right to the style and title in Ireland as the bishops of the episcopal Church in Scotland have to that of lordship. Our bishops are lords, because there is a temporal barony attached to their sees, from which the title is derived; but the bishops of the episcopal Church in Scotland have no more claim to the designation, than the bishops of the episcopal Church in the United States. No man simply as a bishop has a right to the title. Of this fact the writers in question are well aware; consequently, they could have adopted this scheme only for the purpose of misleading the unthinking and the ignorant. Such mean attempts are surely disgraceful to any cause, and to the supporters of any cause. Nor can any analogous case be found, except in the tricks and impostures of Jesuits and Papists. We are not among those who have been eager to prefer the charge of Popery against the writers of these Tracts; but, really, we are constrained to admit, that the fact to which we have alluded is neither more nor less than a Popish trick for the purpose of deceiving the public.

It will be seen from the foregoing remarks, that, on principles admitted by all churchmen, the bishops who adhered to the government at the revolution, or the Nonjurors, were schismatics; and that, consequently, the ordinations and consecrations of one party or the

men, we are constrained to assert, that the schism was with the Nonjurors, and that, consequently, their orders were invalid, Hickes and Collier not being true and canonical bishops. The writers of the Oxford Tracts have admitted that they were true bishops; and this admission, as we have shewn already, involves, according to the canons to which we have referred, and to which in other cases these writers refer, the nullity of all orders conferred by the government bishops at the period of the revolution, as well as all orders conferred by our present bishops, who are the successors of the bishops appointed by King William. On the principles of these writers, therefore, the apostolical succession is lost in England. On their own shewing, there cannot be two lines of succession in one church: subsequent to the revolution, however, there were two parties who claimed the succession; and the authors of the Tracts have decided, by admitting the validity of the consecrations of Hickes and Collier, that the succession was with the Nonjurors. Thus they deny the succession in the Church of England altogether: and yet call themselves churchmen. Let it be remembered that these men are the first in recent times to acknowledge that Hickes and Collier were bishops. Churchmen have never done so, because they could not without believing that our own bishops are merely nominal, and not true bishops. The inconsistency of the writers of the Tracts is most remarkable. In speaking of the episcopal Church in Scotland, they tell us that clergymen of the Church of England going to Scotland ought not to exercise their ministry without placing themselves under the direction of the bishops in that country; yet they allow of consecrations performed in England at the commencement of the last century by men who acted in open defiance of the bishops of our national Church, and who were to all intents and purposes schismatics. We venture to propose a case to the writers of the Tracts. Suppose some halfdozen of our present bishops, for some offence committed, were deprived of their sees. Would these men have the power of conferring valid orders and canonical consecrations, and of continuing the apostolical succession ? This was the exact position of the deeriod of the

revolution; and Hickes and Collier were exactly in the same state as any one would be, who, in the event of such a proceeding as that which we have now supposed, should be consecrated by those who might be deprived of their sees by the supreme authority in the country, namely, an act of the imperial parliament.

Now, we ask, what opinion can the public entertain of men who, while acting as clergymen of the Anglican Church, can presume to recognise Hickes and Collier as bishops; and as bishops of the Church of England, too, when the Nonjurors were in actual separation from her communion, and denounced her as having no claim to being a true church of Christ? On the principles of the Nonjurors, and according to the views of the writers of these Tracts, therefore, our Church is schismatical and false, and the apostolical succession is at an end. Such must be the belief of the Oxford writers; for it is involved in the admission that Hickes and Collier were bishops. The line of succession was continued, if their views are correct, in Hickes and Collier, from whom it de scended to those whom they conse crated; and when that line failed, as it did fail, at the end of the last century, the succession became extinct in England, and the orders of our Church and the ministrations of our clergy are null and void. If the English bishops in the days of Hickes and Collier were not true bishops, which could not have been the case if the Nonjurors were so, our bishops in the present day cannot be true and canonical bishops. These writers, therefore, have aimed a more fatal blow at the apostolical succession in this country than has ever been directed against it by the attacks of Papists and Dissenters. They may cry up the apostolical succession in their Tracts; but if their recognised views are correct, it no longer exists in Eng

land. Their own belief must be that it has ceased, or they would never claim Hickes and Collier as bishops. To place themselves, therefore, in the line of succession, these men must go over to the Church of Rome, which alone, according to their principles, is able to establish any fair claim to its possession.

We have one further remark to offer on this subject. It is this. In designating Ilickes and Collier bishops of the Church of England, the writers acted by design, or they acted ignorantly. If they acted ignorantly, all their pretences to soundness of views and an acquaintance with the sense of antiquity fall at once to the ground, and no one can in future rely on any statement which they may put forth on matters of doctrine or discipline; for, having fallen into one error of no small magnitude, they may justly be suspected of falling into others. But if they acted from design, then they are the enemies of the Anglican Church, and opposed to all her claims of apostolical succession; and no professions of attachment, however strong, will wipe off the dark stain from their reputation. In this dilemma we now leave them. Let them extricate themselves if they are able. No! they cannot extricate themselves. It will require more Jesuitism and sophistry than even they possess to extricate them. We have unmasked their pretences, and the effects will not soon be forgotten. We have met them on their own principles - principles respecting which they are so fond of declaiming; and we have convicted them either of gross ignorance, or actual dishonesty of purpose, and enmity to the Church of England. The most appropriate designation for such men, and that by which henceforth they ought to be distinguished, is this, namely,-THE OXFORD NONJURORS.

AMIDST the uproar that prevailed in the castle on the morning when the escape of the prisoners had been discovered, the gentle soul of Zuleika was in a whirlwind of agitation. Need it be told, that her eyes had never closed in sleep during the whole momentous night? Before midnight, she had stolen from her handmaidens, and ascended to the highest battlements of the castle; and there concealing herself from the observation of the guards, she had watched the opening of the gate, and the stealthy departure of the prisoners. She could even distinctly recognise the features of her beloved in the moonlight; and yet she dared not murmur a farewell. With suspended breath, and throbbing pulse, she had watched the whole party gliding from shade to shade, and from tree to tree; she had seen them gain the plain: and, at last, when they had reached a place of safety, she saw one of the number turn to take a parting look, while the action, still more than the tall figure, of the person, assured her that it was Becket. In a moment he would disappear for ever; and no longer able to repress her emotion, she had waved a last adieu, and thrown her arms to heaven in an agony of supplication. She then descended to her bower to listen to tremble at the faintest breath-to hear in every sound the recapture of her lover-and the long day and night that followed, while her fierce parent was employed in hot pursuit, did not bring to her terrors one moment of intermission. At last, when her endurance could have lasted no longer, she heard the distant trumpet of her father on his return. She rushed immediately to the gate, and saw the cavalcade approaching, every steed reeling with the long pursuit, while the riders were exhausted with fatigue and useless rage. But Becket was not there-oh, joy! he was now safe! Instead of waiting to welcome the return of her parent, and soothe his indignation, she hurried back to her apartment, and threw herself upon the divan, while the whole pentup agony of suspense burst forth in

were closed in sleep, and her heart lulled into forgetfulness.

But short-lived, alas! was this feeling of tranquillity with which she contemplated the escape of her lover. Even when she had but half woke, she felt a shadowy consciousness of deprivation that made her shudder at the thought of returning to a clearer perception of her loss: and when, at last, she opened her eyes, they fell upon the rich vase in which she had been accustomed to place the flowers she daily received from Gilbert. And there stood the last that she had received three mornings ago, and their leaves were dried up and withered. But where was he who had been wont to renew them? She wandered to the garden to find relief in change and motion; but there all was desolation to her desolate heart; even the slaves amidst their labours, seemed to be soundless phantoms, who mocked and deepened, rather than relieved, the solitude. The form and voice that to her feelings had hitherto constituted the living soul of this earthly paradise, were no longer here, and therefore all around her was dead. The walks he had smoothed for her treadthe favourite flowers he had planted for her acceptance-the places in which they had held brief but delightful intercourse-and the words he had uttered there, were now the only realities she could find, the only thoughts to which she gave willing access; but these were now like withered herbs and flowers, whose fragrance has exhaled, and left nothing but dust and bitterness. Even when at last she repaired to the presence of her father to greet his return, the apartment, together with the look and words of the wrathful, disappointed old man, brought back the trying scene she had so lately seen there, when Becket had preferred a Christian's death to the possession of the world and herself also; and, overwhelmed by that burst of recollection, she fell at the emir's feet. This action only drew his concentrated rage upon her own head.

"Child of a foolish mother!" he shouted, "dost thou weep for a fugitive here no longer?