sing, on humble recipients, ordinances which, in themselves, are void, being administered by a void authority.

Of this last class, one portion contend, that if a case of necessity should really occur, so that the ordinances of religion must cease, or the Presbyterial system be acted upon, the proper course would be, to act upon such system; accompanying it, however, with a recognition of Episcopacy as of divine right, with an express declaration that their conduct was grounded, solely, on the difficulty of their situation, and that, while they admitted ordinances, Presbyterially administered, to be, in themselves, void, they trusted that God, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, would accept them as valid, and make them a channel of his grace.

Another portion of this class think that the case of ne cessity should dictate a very different conduct; supposing that it can never be proper, in any way, or under any view, to attempt to make a Priest, except in the mode pointed out by God; and that, if this mode be inaccessible, for a time, to a body of Christians, they ought to submit to the deprivation; rendering such services, and performing such acts only, as may be rendered, and performed, by laymen.*

Should the humble writer of these sheets presume to express an opinion, he would, at once, reject the first of these doctrines as entirely inadmissible. Fully convinced that Episcopacy is a divine institution, he can never subscribe to the validity of Presbyterial ordination, under whatever circumstances performed. Episcopal ordination is valid because God has appointed it. Presbyterial ordination is invalid because God has not appointed it. Necessity can do nothing more than excuse. It can never make that valid, which, in itself, is void. And, as far as necessity goes, it af fords as much sanction to ordination by laymen, or even by women, as to ordination by Presbyters. For, Presbyters, laymen, and women, in the article of ordination, are perfectly one. Necessity, in the very nature of things, admits the principle, departed from, to be true; and, of course, its opposite to be false.

The second class of Episcopalians agree in considering Presbyterial ordination, under all circumstances, as invalid.

*This opinion is advanced by the learned Doct. Bowden, whose writings, on this subject, are remarkable for great perspicuity in stating principles, and for great ability in enforcing them.

They differ, as to the course which it would be proper to pursue, should a case of real necessity occur; one set supposing that Presbyterial ordination, under the acknowledgements and declarations before mentioned, might be acted upon, until the Apostolic constitution could be obtained; the other being firmly persuaded that such conduct would be unlawful, and that Christians, in the circumstances described, would have nothing to do but submit to their lot, rendering such services as may be rendered without sacerdotal authority.*

But these differences of opinion do not affect the essentials of Episcopacy. All the classes agree in believing that there are, by institution of Christ and his Apostles, three distinct grades of ministers, with peculiar powers vested in the highest grade. The difference is, merely, as to the point of light in which the case of necessity ought to be viewed. With this explanation your boasted division of Episcopal writers will be seen in its proper character. For it is an undeniable fact that the great body of the divines of the church of England, and of the Episcopal church of this country, whatever allowance some of them may make for extraordinary cases, believe in the necessity of Episcopal ordination to a valid ministry. It is not going too far to say that nineteen, in twenty, of the divines, in question, come under this description.

In your seventh letter, setting forth what you call the concessions of Episcopalians, you have enumerated between thirty and forty writers. Trifling number indeed! How easy would it be to give a much longer list of Presbyterians who differ from the standards of their association on what are considered as very important doctrines! Will you put Calvanism to such a trial? You know it is rejected by very many of the learned members of the societies which make it an article of their public creed. I suspect I could soon furnish you with a greater number of names than you have collected, in your seventh letter; and this, too, without paying an exclusive attention to detached passages, or as vailing myself of any verbal distinctions, by which to impose upon the uninformed reader.† Let it be recollected, also,

* On this point Í say nothing.

f I have shewn how you quote writers, and produce testimony. No kind of reliance can be placed on your statements. But your

that very many Presbyterian divines, some few of whom have been mentioned, hesitate not to acknowledge the Apos-· · tolic institution of Episcopacy. How many clergymen have left your association, and united themselves to the Episcopal church, under a conviction of the necessity of her ordination to a valid ministry! As large a list, nearly, of clerical converts might be collected, I am inclined to think, in the state of Connecticut* alone, as you have brought together, in your seventh letter, from the whole Christian world. That letter is calculated, solely, for the credulous, and uninformed.

But indeed, what system, or doctrine, is there, whose advocates agree, perfectly, among themselves! The Infidel might talk of the multitude of Christian sects, and of the various opinions which have prevailed, and which still prevail, relative to the canon of scripture. In contending for the mere manhood of Christ, Socinians are ever ready to expatiate on the diversity of sentiment among their adversaries. The Quaker is delighted with nothing so much as the various points of light in which the priesthood and sacraments are viewed by opposing sects, and writers.†

sixth and seventh letters shall, bereafter, be subjected to a much more rigid scrutiny. Should no other person undertake the task, I pledge myself to expose them, in their true colors, to the public.

* Among these converts, too, were some of the most profound scholars that this country has produced.

For example, the Quaker may talk of the great variety of opinions among those who contend for a ministry as of divine institution. They put, he will say, the most opposite constructions upon the same passage of scripture. Some found their doctrine on one text; some, on another. And hardly two societies, among them, can agree as to the precise construction to be given to any single text. One set contend that the power of ordination is in the body of Christians; another, that it is in an order of men specially set apart by Christ himself for the purpose, the sacerdotal office flowing through this order, & not thro the congregation of christians at large. Among these last, endless differences prevail. Some say that the form and order of the ministry are matters submitted to human discretion, to be changed, from time to time, as circumstances may require.— Others not only discard this doctrine, but go so far as to place ecclesiastical government, in all its parts, upon the footing of unalterable obligation. As to the ministry itself, one society says it is in three orders; another, that it is in a single order; and even these divisions are, each of them, split up into subdivisions still more mi

There is, indeed, a very great unanimity, on the subject of the Episcopal constitution of the church, among those who contend for such constitution. The points in which they differ, as has been already observed, do not affect the essentials of the system; the great body of the clergy of the church of England, and of the Episcopal church of this country, subscribing to the institution, by Christ and his Apos tles, of distinct grades of ministers, with appropriate powers. Your third division of Episcopal authors is composed of those who "contend that one form of government (one form of ministry, you should have said) for the church is unalterably fixed by divine appointment; that this form is Episcopal; that it is absolutely essential to the existence of the church."*

nute. Those who say an outward ordination is necessary cannot agree, as to the manner in which, and the persons by whom, it is to be performed. Some say by laymen, as well as clergymen. Others say by clergymen alone. And these last are utterly at variance as to the marks by which a clergyman is to be known. See, cries the Quaker, what a chaos! One sect condemning another, and all torturing scripture to suit their own purposes. The same train ofremark might be pursued by the Baptist, or Socinian; above all, by the Infidel. Yet you and Doctor Mason lay no small stress on some subordinate differences of opinion among the advocates of Episcopacy. Pray, sir, are there no essential principles held, in common, by all those who contend for a ministry, as of divine institution, in the church of Christ? Are there no essential principles held by those who believe in the Godhead of the Savior? And as to your favorite doctrine of election and reprobation are there no points in which its discordant and wrangling professors agree? What doctrine is there, among whose advocates, differences of opinion will not be found. Nothing more can be expected than an union on essential principles. Such is the wonderful fertility, and no less wonderful perversity, of the human mind.

Is there any cardinal principle in which the advocates of Episcopacy unite? Yes. They unite in believing that the Apostles, acting under the commission, and in conformity to the will of Christ, guided, moreover, by the supernatural influence of the Spirit, established distinct grades of ministers with appropriate powers. Such as refuse to subscribe to this doctrine depart from the standards of their society and have no title to the name of Churchmen.

* Letters, p. 13.

These gentlemen are perfectly consistent ; for, considering Episcopacy as the divinely instituted method of continuing the priesthood, and considering the priesthood as assen. tial to the church, they regard Episcopacy, of course, as equally essential. Just as you and your friends, believing the ministry to be essential to the church, outward ordination essential to the ministry, and the Presbyterial mode essential to outward ordination, of course, hold that, without such mode, there can be no church, and no covenanted title to salvation.