having been granted to a Presbyterian minister, affords you any room for exultation, certainly, several instances of mere laymen's having been licensed to hold livings, affords the fanatic, at least as much room for exulting in the inference, that the church of England considers orders of no manner of consequence. Now, Sir, do be candid, and allow the latter to be as good reasoning as the former.

It is scarcely possible for us to form any thing like an adequate conception of the difficulties with which the church had to contend in the reign of Elizabeth. Harassed on the one hand by the Puritans, and, on the other, by the Papists, she had to wink at several things which were inconsistent with her principles and usages. Her most formidable enemies being the Papists, and the whole Protestant interest depending so much upon her maintaining her ground, her clergy, while they maintained the apostolical institution of Episcopacy, were, at the same time, very cautious of explicitly inferring from it, the invalidity of Presbyterian ordination. They wanted the aid of the Puritans, and of the foreign reformed, against the common enemy; and they would have had no reason to expect that, had they expressly asserted that Presbyterian orders in all cases are invalid. Hence arose the salvo of a case of necessity, and the distinction between apostolical and divine institution; and, upon one or other of these principles, I have no doubt that Grindal acted. I have taken up more time with this article than

Testimony of the Reformers.

53

it really deserves. It must be a desperate cause indeed that needs such support; and the urging of this case, taking all the circumstances I have mentioned into the account, is peculiarly ridiculous. The irregular conduct of Grindal is brought to prove the Presbyterianism of the Reformers who lived thirty years before this event, and who had declared to all the world, in the most explicit manner, that in the primitive church there were three orders, and that none should be considered as lawful ministers of the church of England, who had not been Episcopally ordained. The conduct of a man who had deliberately subscribed to the principles of his church, both as to doctrine and regimen, and who had directly contradicted those principles, is produced as a proof that they are Presbyterian. Can any thing be more preposterous? Surely, Sir, you cannot be in earnest. Suppose I were to quote you as denying the doctrine of ministerial succession, would it be any kind of proof that your confession of faith does not maintain that doctrine? And of what weight would your belief be in opposition to the standard of your own church? Just nothing at all. Nothing can be more fallacious, nothing more insidious than this procedure? Is there any church upon earth, every individual of whose ministers perfectly accords with her standards in principle? I will venture to assert that there is not. Away then with such an improper mode of discussing the subject. Its obvious design is ad captandum vulgus.

When a doctrine cannot be proved by scripture, or reason; when a fact cannot be substantiated by proper and sufficient evidence, then A. B. and C. are introduced to prove it. Men of sense and learning ought not to descend so low as this.

Another of your arguments to prove that the church of England does not place Episcopacy upon the ground of divine right, so far as to annul ordination by Presbyters, is, that the 55th canon requires the clergy to "pray for the churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland, as parts of Christ's holy catholic church, which is dispersed throughout the world."

This, Sir, is not the point in dispute between us. The question is not, whether the church of Eng land declares ordination by Presbyters invalid; but whether she places Episcopacy upon the ground of divine right? I have proved from the preface to the ordinal, and from the declaration of the church, that none will be considered by her lawful Bishops, Priests and Deacons, who are not Episcopally or dained; and from the prayers in the ordination offices, that she maintains the divine right of Epis copacy. This is all I feel any concern about; the consequence of this principle is another question, which I am not called upon at present to discuss.

There is, Sir, something very unfair in your management of this subject. The question between us simply is, What is the government of the Chris tian church by apostolical and divine appointment?

We say it is Episcopal; you say it is Presbyterian. To prove that you are right you quote some Epis copalians, who allow, under certain circumstances, the validity of your orders. And although you do not expressly draw the inference, yet you evidently produce these quotations to impress upon the minds of your readers this position, that Episcopacy is not a divine institution, because some Episcopalians who maintain that it is, at the same time do not carry the principle so far as to unchurch Presbyterians. This, Sir, is not a proper view of the subject. Reason as much as you please against the ground upon which we place our regimen ; marshal, if you can find them, fifty Episcopalians, who assert, in opposition to the principles of their own church, that Episcopacy is a human institu tion; but do not fly off to another question, viz. What is the necessary consequence of believing Episcopacy to be of divine institution? This is not the question we are discussing. Men frequently differ about the consequences of principles. Consequences are made out by reasoning; and men reason very differently. How strikingly is this the case with Calvinists! Some of them admit without any scruple, all the consequences with which their principles are charged; others reject these conse quences, and contend that they do not flow from the doctrines of Calvin. Thus also the Westminster divines, in their disputes, with the Independents, deny the validity of ordination by laymen, and

strenuously maintain the necessity of unbroken suc cession; yet there are some Presbyterian ministers, who, while they assert the divine institution of a mi nistry, do not carry the principle so far as to invalidate lay ordination. Just so it is with some Episcopalians. They say that maintaining the divine institution of Episcopacy does not invalidate Presbyte rian ordination. Whether those Presbyterians and Episcopalians are consistent, is another question.

*

It may be further observed, that those who as sert the divine institution of Episcopacy, must necessarily be supposed to maintain, that a church which rejects Episcopacy, or cannot possibly obtain it, (which is placing it upon the most favourable ground) is quo ad hoc imperfect and unsound. For if Episcopacy rests upon divine institution, then a Presbyterian church, which wants Episcopacy, wants a divine institution; and, consequently, in a very important point, must be defective. And whether a conscientious man, convinced of this, can derive any comfort from the concession, that this principle does not go so far as totally to unchurch; or whether he can continue a member of such a church consistently with the duty of being a member of a complete, sound, and scriptural church; is a question of great importance, and, therefore, deserves the attention of every serious Christian.. - The next observation which you make, in the pursuit of your object, is the following: "Dr. Warner, a learned Episcopal historian, declares,