to our own time.* The fact that not only this list has been preserved, but in a large number of instances, in these consecrations, the very names of the Consecrators have been handed down, then the names of the Consecrators of the Consecrators, all goes to prove the credibility of the record, and the difficulty of showing where one link in this chain has been broken.

It may also strengthen the belief of some, in the succession of the English Church, that the Church of Rome has ever kept an eagle eye on the English line of descent, and that even she, in the language of her most learned doctors, has been obliged to admit the validity of the orders of that Church..

*We have traced back the list, through the Bishops of Rome, as is more usually done, from the more perfect records of that See. More properly our succession comes from St. John, through Ireneus and Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, as it was from this source that Augustine received his consecration. The reader will find valuable tables on the successions of the "Four Patriarchal Sees," Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch, in Chapin's "Primitive Church," chapters xxiii.-xxvii.

CHAPTER VII.

DEVELOPMENTS OF MODERN SYSTEMS.

THE subject announced at the head of this chapter, is one which we feel reluctant to pursue. It is a mode of argument in respect to the truths of God, which, as a general rule, it is neither wise nor safe to adopt. It is simply the argument of expediency. Two considerations induce us to enter upon this argument, only with reluctance.

The first is, that this method of receiving the institutions of God is presumptuous and irreverent.

While we do not doubt that whatever is right, is also best, at the same time it better becomes the child of God to obey the commands of his Heavenly Father, not as a matter of expediency, but of duty. In our judgment that is a base and sordid love of God, which proceeds from personal advantage. "Sinners love those that love them." Luke vi. 32. The true Christian's language is, "Even so, Father for so it seemed good in thy sight." Mat. ii. 26. Nor does he stoop to cavil at the commands of God, or estimate the expediency or inexpediency, the profit or loss, of doing what God expressly enjoins.

And yet this is a popular mode of argument at the present day. With multitudes, the duties, ordinances, sacraments of religion, are subjected to this sordid test. The question has come to be asked, "What good does it do?" to observe this or that ordinance of Almighty God. Israel, in modern as in ancient times, have come to say: "It is vain to serve God, and what profit is it that we have kept his ordinance?" Mat. iii. 14.

This, then, is our first objection to this mode of argument, that it is irreverent toward God to talk about the expediency or the inexpediency of obeying Divine commands.

Our second objection is founded on man's igno

rance.

The expediency of changing God's ordinance, man is wholly incompetent to decide.

The real tendency of such innovations may not be developed in a long course of years, not until centuries have elapsed, until evils, radical and deadly, have penetrated the whole mass of Society. These fancied improvements upon the Institutions of Heaven may not be attended at first with obvious evil; nay, apparently with manifest advantage. And yet, it is loosening the keystone of a vast arch on which kingdoms repose, to be followed with slow but certain overthrow, or, it is removing the topmost stone of a mound which heads back a sea of waters, to be followed with ultimate overwhelming ruin.

For ourselves, we doubt not that here is one end to be answered, in the wisdom of God, in the present strange, mysterious condition, of nominal Christendom. That field has been for centuries, and still is, a great moral laboratory, where experiments, fearful and eventful, are making. And we doubt not that the ultimate result will be to humble man, and to exalt God, to teach all intelligent creatures in heaven and earth, that "the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom."

We believe that the great evils which now overhang the two wide extremes of nominal Christendom, in this western world, the Romish Church on the one hand, and the numerous sects on the other, have their origin in one and the same cause,—a departure from the Apostolic Church, the one having erred by adding to, and the other by taking from, the primitive faith. And yet if we will trace many of these departures back to their original source, we shall see that the departure was attended with evil, at first, scarcely perceptible, nay, apparently with decided benefit.

This, then, is our second objection against reasoning from the expediency of changing Divine institutions and precepts. Still, as this is a method of argument at the present day often employed, so we propose in the present chapter to adopt the argument, and to judge of modern systems by their tendencies, that is, to "judge of this tree by its fruits."

We are not reasoning, in this chapter, with the Romanists, though if so, we would adopt with them the same mode of argument. We are reasoning with those who have rejected Apostolic institutions and ordinances; and we propose to try these modern systems by their own favorite test, expediency. And we think we shall make apparent, to the satisfaction of our readers, perhaps to the surprise and amazement of some, that even within the comparatively short period of their existence, these systems will not bear such an examination.

We shall not give a historical sketch of the origin and progress of these systems, or a minute account of their present condition; but shall endeavor to show, that those religious systems which have rejected the Apostolic order, discipline, ministry, and worship, have, in a greater or less degree, lost the spirit and power of the Gospel, fallen into dangerous and deadly errors, and are exhibiting, to a greater or less degree, a godlessness of life and conversation.

* We wish, in this place, to protest against the use of the term, Catholic, as applied to the Papists. They are careful to claim this title to themselves, and even their most ignorant members have sagacity to feel the force of the argument, which the term gives them. "What, say they, are we not the Catholics? and does not Catholic mean universal?" The political press, with perhaps not an exception, and most of the books we use in our schools, persist in this most improper use of an important term. Call them " Romanists," or better still, call them " Papists," which is their appropriate and specific title, but, as for allowing them to be "Catholics," we cannot, without moral treacherv.