To the Episcopal Clergy in Connec licul, in North America. Reverend Brethren, and well beloved in Christ, WHEREAS it has been represented to us the Bishops of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, by the Reverend Dr. Samuel Seabury, your fel low Presbyter in Connecticut, that you are desirous to have the blessings of a free, valid, and purely Ecclesiastical Episcopacy communicated to you, and that you do consider the Scottish Episcopacy to be such in every sense of the word: And the said Dr. Seabury having been sufficiently recommended to us, as a person very fit for the Episcopate; and having also satisfied us that you were willing to acknowledge and submit to him, as your Bishop, when properly authorized to take the charge of you in that character :--Know therefore, dearly beloved, that We the Bishops, and. under Christ, the Governours, by regular succession, of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, con sidering the reasonableness of your request, and being entirely satisfied with the recommendations in favour of the said Dr. Samuel Seabury, have accordingly promoted him to the high Order of the Episcopate, by the laying on of our hands, and have there by invested him with proper powers for governing, and performing all Episcopal Offices in the Church in Connecticut. And having thus far complied with your desire, and done what was incumbent on us, to keep up the Episcopal Succession in a part of the Christian Church, which is now by mutual agreement loosed from, and given up by, those who once took the charge of it, permit us therefore, Reverend Brethren, to request your hearty and sincere endea vours to further and carry on the good work we have happily begun. To this end, we hope you will receive and acknowledge the Rt. Rev. Bishop Seabury as your Bishop and spiritual Governour, that you pay him all due and canonical obedience in that sacred character, and revi ently apply to him for all Episcopal Offices, which you, or the people committed to your pastoral care, may stand in need of at his hands, till through the goodness of God, the number of Bishops be increased among you, and the State of Connecticut be divided into separate Districts or Diocesses, as is the case in other parts of the Christian World. This recommendation, we flatter ourselves, you will take in good part from the Governours of a Church which cannot be suspected of aiming at supremacy of any kind, or over any people. Unacquainted as we are with the politicks of nations, and under no temptation to interfere in matters foreign to us, we have no other object in view but the interests of the Mediator's Kingdom, no higher ambition than to do our duty as messengers of the Prince of Peace, In the discharge of this duty, the example we wish to copy after is that of the Primitive Church, while in a similar situation, unconnected with, and unsupported by the temporal powers. On this footing, it is our earnest desire that the Episcopal Church in Connecticut be in full communion with the Episcopal Church in Scotland, as we the underwritten Bishops for ourselves, and our successors in office, agree to hold communion with Bishop Seabury and his successors, as practised in the various provinces of the PrimitiveChurch, in all the fundamental Articles of Faith, and by mutual intercourse of Ecclesiastical Correspondence, and brotherly fellowship, when opportuninity offers, or necessity requires. Upon this plan, which,we hope,will meet your joint approbation, and according to this standard of primitive practice, a Concordate has been drawn up and signed by us, the Bishops of the Church in Scotland, on the one part, and by Bishop Seabury on the other, the articles of which are to serve as a Bond of Union between the Catholic Remainder of the an- Your affectionate brethren, Bishop & Primus. ོབ་་་ For the Churchman's Magazine. A Fragment of Church Hislo. y. To those who object to Episcopal authority, on the ground of its derivation through a channel so corrupt as the Church of Rome, the following fragment of Church History may not be wholly without interest. Having lately perused the two letters of Bishop Burgess to the clergy of his diocess on this subject, and thinking they might convey information to some of your readers which they did not possess before, I take the liberty to send you the substance of what he has said, and chiefly in his own words. His object, as he states himself, is, "to shew that St. Paul preached the gospel in Britain; and to ascertain, as nearly as possible, the time of his journey thither, on the authority of Clemens Romanus, Eusebius, Jerome, Theodoret, and two British records." Of St. Paul's journey to Britain, a point of some importance in the history of the gospel, there is, fortunately, considerable evidence. Usher and Stillingfleet have collected the most unquestionable authorities for it; and some of the best ecclesiastical historians have no scruple in acceding to the general testimony of the Fathers, that the gospel was preached in Britain soon after the middle of the first century, but shrink from the particular evidences of time and person, as if doubting their probability. This timidity is, however, to be regretted, as by it they have given some advantages to the advocates both of popery and infidelity to the first, by suppressing important evidence which would disprove the assumed supremacy of the Church of Rome, and to the last, by withdrawing some strong and tangible proofs of the truth of Christianity. Gildas, who wrote his history in the year 546, says, that Christianity was introduced into Britain before the defeat of the British forces under Boadicea, (A. D. 61,) and between that event and some others, not long preceding it. After mentioning this defeat, he adds-" In the mean *Republished in the Churchman Armed." while, the sun of the gospel first enlightened this island,-which displayed his bright beams to the whole world, as we know, in the latter part of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar." It was in the 20th or 21st year of Tiberius, that the apostles received their commission to preach the gospel to all the world. Eusebius affirms that the gospel was preached in Britain by some of the apostles. Other ancient historians expressly assert this of St. Paul. He was sent prisoner to Rome in the second year of Nero, A. D. 56. The family of Caractacus, who, with himself, were sent as hostages from Britain, A. D. 51, were still at Rome; for we are informed by an ancient British record, that the father of Caractacus accompanied his son as an hostage, and returned to Britain af ter staying at Rome seven years, that is, till the year 58, and brought with him the knowledge of the Christian faith. Bishop Burgess concludes that St. Paul either accompanied this family on their return to Britain, or followed them after he had visited Spain. The practicability of St. Paul's journey to Britain, within the period mentioned by Gildas, depends in a considerable degree on the year of his first going to Rome, and that again upon the recal of Felix from Judea. The Bishop considers the latter event as simultaneous with the removal of Pallas, brother of Felix, from the administration of public affairs at Rome, which took place in the second year of Nero, A. D. 56. He thus obtains a point of time for St. Paul's first journey to Rome, which accords with the testimony of Eusebius and Jerome, and is consistent with Gildas's narration; a period which was peculiarly favourable for the apostle's journey to Britain, after his two years imprisonment at Rome; and which moreover afforded sufficient time for his labours and journies in the West and East, be fore his return to Rome in A. D. 67 or 68. To this interval Godeau allows eight years. Baronius, Massutius, Simson, and Stillingfleet, somewhat more, and the Historia Ecclesiastica Magdeburgica, two years. And Bishop Burgess is of opinion, that the great diversity of dates assigned to the same events in St. Paul's ministry,-his first visit to Rome,his return, and his death,-seems to have been occasioned, in no small degree, by the omission of so material a portion of that ministry, as the apostle's journey to the West. The testimonies of the first six centuries, which either expressly record St. Paul's journey to the West and to Britain, or afford such evidence of the propagation of Christianity in Spain and Britain, as coincides with this statement, are given in few words, as follows. 1. The first and most important is the testimony of Clemens Romanus," the friend and fellow-labourer of St. Paul," and himself a bishop of Rome. He says, that St. Paul, in preaching the gospel, went to the utmost bounds of the West. This was the usual designation of Britain. Catullus calls Britain ultima Brilannica, and ultima occidentis insula. The West included Gaul, Spain, and Britain. Theodoret speaks of the inhabitants of these countries as dwelling in the utmost bounds of the West. 2. In the second century, A. D. 179, Irenæus speaks of Christianity as propagated to the utmost bounds of the earth, by the apostles and their disciples, and particularly specifies the churches planted in Spain, and the Celtick nations. By the Celtick nations were meant the people of Germany, Gaul, and Britain. 3. At the end of the second, or beginning of the third century, (A. D. 193-200,) Tertullian mentions among the Christian converts, the inhabitants of Spain, Gaul, and Britain. Though neither Irenæus nor Tertullian expressly mention St.Paul, yet the conversion of Britain to Christianity, is recorded by them as the work of the apostles and their disciples. 4. In the fourth century, (A. D. 270-340,) Eusebius says, that some of the apostles "passed over the ocean to the British isles." And Jerome, in the same century, (A. D. 329-420,) ascribes that province expressly to St. Paul, and says, that after his imprisonment, having been in Spain, he went from ocean to ocean, and that he preached the gospel in the Western parts. In the western parts he included Britain, as is evident from a passage quoted by Cambden from his Epistle to Marcellus. 5. In the fifth century, (A. D. 423-460,) Theodoret mentions the Britons among the nations converted by the apostles; and says, that St. Paul after his release from imprisonment,went to Spain, and from thence carried the light of the gospel to other nations. He also says, that St. Paul brought salvation to the islands that lie in the ocean. 6. In the sixth century, (560600) Venantius Fortunatus says thus of St. Paul: Transit of oceanum, vel qua facit insula portum This passage has been sometimes admitted hesitatingly, as if verse were necessarily the vehicle of fiction. But that the testimony of Venantius Fortunatus is not to be ascribed to the license of poetical exaggeration, and that the language of Clement, Jerome, and Theodoret, is neither ambiguous, nor hyperbolical, we may judge from the authority of Gibbon, who will not be suspected of making any undue concessions in favour of Christianity, but who was well acquainted with the political facilities, which the Roman empire at that time afforded, for the universal propagation of the gospel. "The public highways," says he," which had been constructed for the Roman legions, opened an easy passage for the christian missionaries from Damascus to Corinth, and from Italy to the extremity of Spain or Britain." In addition to the authorities here cited, the Bishop refers to the following judicious modern writers, as concurring with him in opinion, to wit: Archbishop Parker, Cambden, Usher, Stillingfleet, Cave, Gibson, Nelson, and Collier. And he at the same time admits that Hales, Lardner, and Fell, are of a different opinion. On the authority of Usher, Bishop Burgess states that St. Paul appointed Aristobulus, who is mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans, as first bishop of the British churches, and that he also appointed the inferior ministers. By the appointment of Priests and Deacons, the form of church government was complete, and the British Church therefore, in a spiritual sense, was fully established. "What results then," he asks, "from this establishment of the British Church by St. Paul? The very interesting consequence, that the Church of Britain was fully established before the Church of Rome. For Linus, the first bishop of Rome, was appointed by the joint authority of St. Peter and St. Paul, in the year of their martyrdom, therefore after St. Paul's return from Britain. There was, however, communion between the British churches, and the [then uncorrupt] church of Rome, till the Saxons, in A. D. 449, landed in Britain, and took possession of the eastern and southern coasts, by which means the communication with Rome was cut off. In A. D. 597, Austin the Monk, with forty missionaries, landed in Kent, invested by Gregory, Bishop of Rome, " with an extensive jurisdiction over all the bishops of the Britons." His first attempts were made among the Saxons; and being successful in converting Ethel bert their king, he proceeded to gain over the Britons. In A. D. 601, he invited their Bishops and learned men to a conference. Seven British bishops attended, together with many learned men, among whom the most conspicuous was Dinooth, Abbot of the monastery [at that time very famous] at Bangor. The haughtiness of Austin exceedingly disgusted these pious men, who had previously agreed to consider his meekness as a test of his authority. He proposed to them, to conform fully to the Church of Rome, and to admit its supremacy. That church had, at this time, become filled with superstition. They utterly rejected all his propositions, insisted that their bishops had equal jurisdiction with the Bishop of Rome; and they even refused to hold communion with him and his Saxon converts. Upon this, he threatened them, that" if they would not have peace with brethren, they should have war from enemies," which he is accused of having brought about, by exciting Edilfred, king of Northumberland, to attack the Britons, who, at the first onset of his vengeance, is said to have destroyed 1200 of the unarmed and defenceless priests and inmates of the monastery at Bangor. ther eat nor drink with them, nor yet salute them, because they corrupted with superstition, images and idolatry, the true religion of Christ.” Humphrey Lloyd, the historian of Cambria, also adds his testimony to these facts :-"In those days the Britons refused the doctrine of Augustin as erroneous and corrupt.” And again-"The Britons did abhor the Romish doctrine taught in that time." There was then a church of "the faith once delivered to the saints," planted in Britain, by apostles and their disciples, FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY YEARS before the landing of Austin, with his coadjutors, and his full powers of "extensive jurisdiction" in England. Schools, monasteries, and churches were established, and were directed by men of piety and learning, and the fruits of their labours were in a flourishing state: but, at about the same period in which the Bishop of Rome was declared "Universal Pontiff," by a submissive emperor, and "after a long and doubtful struggle, the religion, with the government of the natives, sunk under the persevering efforts of the Saxons ;" and it was not till the period of the REFORMATION, 1000 years later, that the Britons were able to shake off the galling yoke of papal superstition, and to return to their former profession of ི ན་་་ The following passage of a letter from Bishop Davies to Archbishop Parker, contains a very interesting record of the sentiments of the Brit-"the true religion of Christ.” ish Church, at this early period :— "One notable story was in the chronicle: how after the Saxons conquered, continual war remained betwixt the Britons [then inhabitants of the realm] and the Saxons, the Britons being christians, and the Saxons pagans. As occasion served, they sometimes treated of peace, and then met together, and communed together, and did eat and drink together; but after that, by the means of Austin, the Saxons became christians in such sort as Austin had taught them, the Britons would not, after that, nei We publish the following Communication, not as containing our own sentiments on an important subject, but for the consideration of such of our brethren as are able to receive it. Had it been necessary to the writer's purpose to substantiate his remarks by an appeal to examples, we think he might have found them amongst the Butlers and Leightons of our own Church, without awakening those disgusting associations which are intimately connected with the mention of Roman Catholic ce |