members have been so frequently exposed, retained the purity of the faith, and was Episcopal from the days of the Apostles down to 1630; when the plague raged so dreadfully among them that it cut off most of the inhabitants, and all the Clergy except two. These

*

two, who were the most aged, being left alone, were obliged on account of an edict, preventing them from educating their youth at San Giovanni at home, to send to Geneva and Lausanne for Presbyterian Ministers, who carrying their unhallowed notions with them, introduced Presbyterianism into a Church which had previously ever been Episcopal. The existence also of the Syrian Church, in the East, as an Episcopal Church, enjoying a Scriptural Liturgy, and deriving her Episcopal form of government from the earliest and purest ages of Christianity, affords another strong and striking proof of the Divine and Apostolic origin of Episcopacy.

To the undeniable testimonies, and stubborn and incontrovertible arguments, which have been produced in proof and support of Episcopacy, or the government of the Church by Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, I could add many others; but enough I am sure has been advanced to convince any man who is sincerely desirous of embracing the truth, or not absolutely determined not to see it. You hate tithes, I know, pro'bably for the same reason for which the fox disliked the grapes-but you would be glad of the tenth of the tithe of such decisive evidence in support of your un scriptural system of Congregational Independency. I have shown, beyond the power of your contradiction, that no such a system as that you advocate has any foundation in the Word of God. You may, indeed, just as easily prove, from the Holy Scriptures, that all the metamorphoses, or all the nonsensical fables of the Heathen Mythologists, are true, as your newfancied system of Dissent. Compared with the Scrip

See Gilly's History of the Vaudois or Waldenses.

tures, they are equally as true, and manifest their authors to have possessed far more ingenuity than the inventor of Congregational Independency. And with regard to historical testimony, not a shadow of proof can you produce from the whole stream of ecclesiastical history, flowing down from the very days of the Saviour, to those of that hot-headed fanatic Robert Brown, of whom, however, Independents are generally ashamed, though with but little reason. You cannot point out the existence of a single Church, following your mode of pretended government, during the first fifteen hundred years after Christ: neither can you produce, during all that time, a single instance of an ordination to the Ministry of the Church which was considered as valid, if not performed by a Bishop. No mode, therefore, of Church government, except the Episcopal, and no mode of ordination except by a Bishop, have any claim whatever to the sanction of the Primitive Churches of Christ, or the Word of God, or any claim whatever upon the consciences, or to the obedience, of Christians. As the Episcopal is the only form of government instituted by God, through the medium of his inspired Apostles, for the regulation of his Church, no other ought to be obeyed, or can be obeyed without great wickedness. Obedience to any other amounts, in fact, to the rejection of Christ, as King and Head of the Church. And, I am at a loss to imagine, what claim persons who did not submit to that particular mode of government and discipline laid down by the Saviour, can have to the title of Christians. A Christian is one who bows to the authority, institutions, and commands of Christ, and he who does not do so cannot be a Christian. Leaving Religion out of the question, no man of sense would ever imagine that the Lord has left the important matter of Church discipline to be settled according to the wild notions and vagaries of any hotheaded fanatical pretender to inspiration, having nothing but his own selfish ends in view. Christ has given in

the Sacred Record, directions for the government of his Church to the end of time, and it is the imperative duty of every professing Christian to obey them. Just before he left the world, in virtue of his own power over all things in heaven and in earth, he committed to his blessed Apostles, authority to put his directions into execution, and to rule his Church, with a gracious and encouraging promise, that he would be with them always, even unto the end of the world. His meaning could not be, that he would be with the Apostles, strictly speaking, because he knew they would not exist to the end of the world. He evidently meant that he would be with them and their representatives-those to whom they should transmit that authority which they had themselves received from him. He does not promise that he will be with any but with them,-that is with those who should be their regular successors, ordained to the office by the laying on of hands: and even with such he will not be for their own sakes, but for the sake of the office which they sustain, because that office is of his own appointment. They exercise their authority, and perform all ecclesiastical offices-such as preaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments, not in their own name, but in virtue of their office, and in the sacred name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Christ committed authority to his Apostles, to preach the Gospel and to administer the Sacraments. The Apostles committed the same authority to Timothy, Titus, Ignatius, Clement, and others, and commanded them to commit the same to men whom they should judge faithful, which they accordingly did, and which others after them have ever since continued to do. And thus that authority which Christ committed to his Apostles has been transmitted down, from one to another in regular succession, to the present time. And the Clergy of the Apostolical Church of England, having received their authority in this way-in a direct line of succession from Christ, the fountain

of all authority, to his Church, they are the legitimate and authorised Ministers of Christ amongst us, and he who despiseth them despiseth Christ, and he who despiseth Christ despiseth him that sent him.

I am,

Sir,

Once more,

Your most obedient Servant,

L. S. E.

LETTER VI.

ON THE ORDINATION OF CHRISTIAN
MINISTERS.

SIR,

I am aware that you offer as an objection, that although the Clergy of the Church of England have received their Ordination in a regular, uninterrupted line of succession from the Apostles, they have received it through the corrupt channel of the Church of Rome. This, however, admitting it to be the case, which may perhaps be questioned, is not of the slightest consequence. The impurity of the channel neither did nor could corrupt the Ordinance itself, or render it a whit the less valid. Of this the Scripture affords sufficient proof. For our Saviour himself acknowledged Caiaphas to be the High Priest; and Caiaphas even prophesied as such, although he was a wicked man, and had received consecration to the office through as corrupt a channel as possible. For the High Priesthood had frequently been bought and sold, and obtained by the greatest corruption and bribery. It had also become an annual office instead of an office for life, and was no longer continued to the head of Aaron's family, as the Lord had commanded. Nevertheless, Caiaphas having been ordained or consecrated to the office, was the High Priest; and in virtue of his office, he prophesied,