We only contend, that the ministry and the ordinances of religion, which claim to be exclusively valid, ought to prove themselves more efficacious than those which are destitute of validity. We contend that there is, and must ever be, more virtue and holiness in the church of Christ, than out of it. We contend, in short, that in that household of God, to which his gracious promises, and his life-giving Spirit are vouchsafed, while we shall always find much corruption, we must expect to find, in general, much more of the life and power of religion; more fervent piety, more zeal for the interests of the Redeemer's kingdom, and more righteousness of life, than among those who have no connexion with that household. If not, wherein is the greater advantage of being in the church, than in the world? Nor do we, by taking this ground, furnish either an infidel or an heretic with a handle against us. An enemy of the gospel may come into all of our churches, and point to some, perhaps to many, of our members, who do not by any means walk worthy of the vocation wherewith they are called. Would he have a right from this fact, to infer the falsity of our system of faith? No ; the obvious distinction between principles and the conduct of those who profess them, would, if he were a candid man, prevent him from drawing this inference. But if an infidel could come into our solemn assemblies, even the purest of them, and not only assert, but prove, that there is no more either of strict morality or fervent piety, among the professors of religion, than among its despisers; if he could do this, then indeed he might, and ought, to triumph over us. As long as he could only with truth say, “Some of you "Christians are as bad as infidels;" I would confidently reply, "They are not Christians but hypocrites; for, if they had any portion of the spirit of their Master, they would not act thus." But if he could really make it appear that Christians are in general, and as a body, in no respect better than infidels, he would certainly establish his argument. This, however, blessed be God! the infidel cannot do; and the very circumstance of the enemies of Christianity marking with such eager triumph, every case of unworthy conduct in the professors of religion, shows that, in their opinjon, christian principles require more holiness than infidel principles require, and are expected to produce more. The same reasoning we adopt with our episcopal brethren. We do not ask them to produce perfection in their church; we do not ask them to show,

that all their members act conformably with their principles; but we insist upon their showing that there is, in general, a much larger portion of fervent piety, and of strict morality, in their church, than in any of the non-episcopal churches; and until they do this, every unprejudiced man will consider their claim of being alone "in covenant with Christ," as unreasonable as it is unscriptural.

It does not affect the solidity of this argument, that some churches which Presbyterians consider as not regularly organized, upon scriptural principles, nevertheless embrace in their bosom a large portion of unaffected piety. If we undertook to maintain that the Presbyterian church is the only real church on earth, and alone in covenant with Christ the head, such a fact would, indeed, present a difficulty of no easy solution. But we make no such arrogant claim. Wherever the unfeigned love of our divine Saviour, an humble reliance on his atoning sacrifice, and a corresponding holiness of life, pervade any denomination of Christians, we hail them as brethren in Christ; we acknowledge them to be a true church; and although we may observe and lament imperfections in their outward government, we consider them as truly in covenant with the King of Zion, as ourselves. All this is perfectly consistent with believing, as we do, that Presbyterian church government was the primitive model, and that it is the duty of every church to conform to this model. It is certainly the duty of every man to keep the whole law of God; yet as we do not deny that an individual professor is a real Christian, because we perceive some imperfections in his character; so neither do we deny a church to be a true church of Christ, because she is not in all respects conformed to our ideas of scriptural purity. We consider our episcopal brethren as having wandered far from the simplicity of apostolic order. But what then? Must we arrogantly unchurch them on that account? By no means. We lament their deviation; but notwithstanding this, can freely embrace them as members of the church universal; and were there no other church with which we could commune, should feel no scruple in holding communion with them as brethren.

Those who contend for the divine right of diocesan episcopacy, and for the doctrine of uninterrupted succession, in its most rigid form, often ask us, how we deduce our succession in the ministry? They profess to be able to trace their own line of ecclesiastical

descent, with the utmost ease; and gravely present us with long catalogues of bishops, from the Apostles down to the present day. Having done this, they demand from us similar catalogues, and a similar deduction. I shall not attempt at present to discuss the questions, whether such succession is essential to the christian ministry; and, whether, supposing it to be so, it can be distinctly traced through the medium of regular historical documents, from the apostolic age to the present. On both these questions the most learned and pious episcopal divines have been divided in opinion. Chillingworth, Barrow, Bishop Hoadley, and a number more, have taken the negative side; pronouncing the claim of succession to be as futile as it is unnecessary; and assailing it with the most pointed ridicule, as well as with formidable arguments.

But without entering into this controversy, I will take for granted, that the uninterrupted succession, is essential; that it is the only channel through which ministers of the present day can have the apostolic commission transmitted to them.. Supposing this to be the case, nothing is more easy, than to show, on presbyterian principles, that the succession in our church is as distinct, regular, and unbroken, as that of the episcopal church.

From the time of the Apostles to the æra of the reformation, our line of succession is certainly as good as theirs, for they are one and the same. When the reformers began their work, they found all the churches of Great Britain under episcopal government. Until that time, therefore, our opponents themselves being judges, a regular line of ordination had been preserved. If there be any doubt of this, it is a doubt which as much affects their succession as our own. In short, until this period, the two lines coincide, share the same fortunes, and are to be traced by the same means. When the reformation began, and the popish doctrine of imparity was discarded by a considerable portion of the Christians of Britain, the presbyters, who had been ordained by the bishops, undertook themselves to ordain in their turn; and from them it is as easy to trace the succession in the line of presbyters, as it is for our epis copal brethren to trace it in the line of diocesan bishops. Now if, as we have proved in the foregoing letters, the right of ordination, according to scripture and primitive usage, belongs to presbyters, it is evident that the succession through them, is as valid as any other or rather, to speak more properly, it is only so far as any

succession flows through the line of presbyters, that it is either regular or valid. It is the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, that constitutes a scriptural ordination; and it is because episcopal bishops are presbyters, and assisted in all ordinations by other presbyters, that we consider their ordaining acts, on the principles of scripture and primitive usage, as valid.

I have now presented, within as narrow limits as possible, a sketch of the arguments, by which we support our doctrine of the christian ministry. Much reasoning, and much testimony which would have served to strengthen our argument, have been necessarily omitted. But enough has been produced to establish the apostolic and primitive character of our church.

You have seen, that the scriptures contain but one commission for the gospel ministry; that bishop and presbyter are uniformly used in the New Testament as convertible titles for the same office; that the same character and powers, are also in the sacred writings ascribed interchangeably to bishops and presbyters, thus plainly establishing their indentity of order as well as of name; and that the christian church was organized by the apostles, after the model of the Jewish synagogue, which was undoubtedly Presbyterian in its form.

You have seen that all arguments which our episcopal brethern profess to derive from scripture in favour of their system, are perfectly nugatory, and do not yield it the least solid support.

You have seen that the fathers of the first two centuries are so far from furnishing a single passage which gives even a semblance of aid to the episcopal cause, that, like the scriptures, they every where speak a language wholly inconsistent with it, and favourable only to the doctrine of ministerial parity.

You have seen that the great body of the reformers and other witnesses for the truth, of different ages and nations, with one voice maintained the same doctrine, as taught in scripture, and in the primitive church; and that even the most conspicuous English reformers, while they assisted in organizing an episcopal establishment in their own country, defended it on the ground of human expediency, and the will of the magistrate, rather than that of divine right.

You have seen that the church of England, and those churches

which have immediately descended from her, STAND ABSOLUTELY ALONE, IN THE WHOLE PROTESTANT WORLD, in representing bishops as an order of clergy superior to presbyters; all other protestants, even those who adopt a sort of prelacy, having pronounced it to be a mere human invention.

You have seen some of the most learned and pious bishops and other divines of the church of England, utterly disclaiming the divine right of diocesan episcopacy; and declaring that they considered a great majority of the clergy of that church, in later as well as earlier times, as of the same opinion with themselves.

Finally; you have seen that the gradual introduction of prelacy, within the first four centuries, was not only practicable, but one of the most natural and probable of all events; and that the most competent judges, and profound inquirers into early history, have pronounced that it actually took place.

After the exhibition of testimony so various, abundant, and explicit, I cannot suppose, my brethren, that any of you can have a remaining doubt. This testimony not only establishes, in the most perfect manner, the validity of the ordinations and the ministry of our church; but it goes further, and proves that they are superior to those of our episcopal neighbours; more scriptural, more conformable to primitive usage, and possessing more of that whole character which is fitted to satisfy an humble, simple-hearted, Bible Christian. Be not moved, therefore, when the zealous advocates for the divine right of diocesan episcopacy charge you with schism, for being out of the communion of their church, and denounce your ministry and ordinances as invalid. After reading the foregoing sheets, I trust you will be prepared to receive such charges and such denunciations, with the same calm, dispassionate, conscious superiority, that you feel when a partizan of the papacy denounces you for rejecting the supremacy of the pope, and questions the possibility of your salvation out of the church of Rome. No, brethren, be not alarmed! there is nothing in their claims to intimidate the most tender conscience; nothing to excite a scruple in the most cautious mind. Let them exhibit, and assert, and reiterate their exclusive pretensions, with all the confidence of zeal and with all the heat of disputation. Let none of these things