This passage evidently means, that if we have but faith in CHRIST, and love for him, we are in visible covenant with him, although we belong to no Church possessing a ministry, and, consequently, have no sacraments nor covenanting rites. This directly contradicts the Scriptures, the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, your own assertions, and the declarations of your sensible coadjutors, Dr. Mason and Mr. M'Leod.

1. You contradict the Scriptures. They make the Christian Church a visible society, partaking of visible ordinances, administered by a visible ministry. Your Church consists of men possessing invisible graces-faith in CHRIST, and love for him.

The Scriptures make the visible Church to consist of good and bad members, as appears from the similitude of a net cast into the sea, which takes both good and bad fish; and of a marriage feast, which receives both good and bad guests. But your Church consists altogether of the good.

The Scriptures make a ministry essential to a visible Church, as appears from CHRIST's instituting a ministry to conduct all the affairs of his spiritual kingdom. But your Church requires no ministry.

Your Church is different from CHRIST's; inasmuch as he makes baptism essential to an admission into his Church. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved. Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the FATHER, and of the Son, and of the HOLY GHOST. We are all baptized into one body, says the Apostle Paul-into one visible body, or one visible Church.

If your account of the Church of CHRIST upon earth be true, then the least that can be said is, that he has two visible Churches upon earth, one of which consists altogether of good people, the other of both good and bad. But, according to the Scriptures, there is but one Church upon earth, and, accordingly, but one hope of our calling-the hope of seeing GoD in glory; one faith in FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST, and one baptism, by which we are made members of this one Church.

If all who profess faith in CHRIST, and love for him, are members of him, it was needless for St. Peter, when the Jews inquired of him, What shall we do? to say to them-Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of JESUS CHRIST, for the remission of sins. It was needless for the same Apostle to ask, in the case of Cornelius and his household-Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the HOLY GHOST as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the LORD JESUS. It was needless for Paul, after he professed faith in CHRIST, and received the HOLY GHOST, to be baptized. But we find that he was baptized. He arose, says the text, and was baptized.

In short, the New Testament makes visible ordinances, and a visible ministry, essential to CHRIST's Church Militant upon earth.

VOL. I.--16

2. You are also completely at warfare with your own Confession of Faith. The ministry and the sacrament, say that confession, are essential to the Church. But your Church is very different from the Presbyterian Church. Yours makes faith in CHRIST, and love for him, all that are essential to a Christian Church.

3. You are at complete warfare with yourself. You say, p. 342, The Christian ministry and ordinances were given to edify the body of CHRIST, and are the great instruments which GOD does, in fact, employ for this purpose.' Consequently, they are essential to a Christian Church; for what GOD appoints, can never be indifferent.

Again you say, in the same page, '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 lifegiving 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, than among those who have no connexion with that household.'

Here, Sir, you talk like a Bible Christian. You make the Church of CHRIST to consist both of good and bad members; for, you say, there is in it 'much corruption.' You also call the Church the household of GOD,' which, of course, makes it a visible society. And you say, that to this 'household, God's gracious promises, and life-giving SPIRIT are vouchsafed.' Consequently, those who are out of this household, out of this visible society, are not entitled to these promises, and to GOD'S life-giving SPIRIT. Is not this saying decisively, that faith will not make a man a member of CHRIST's visible Church?

Again you say, p. 8. We agree with our episcopal brethren in believing, that CHRIST hath appointed officers in his Church to preach the word, to administer sacraments, to dispense discipline, and to commit these powers to other faithful men.' What CHRIST has instituted in his Church as means of salvation, must be essential to his Church, and an angel from heaven has no power to abrogate them. Thus, your Church and CHRIST's are utterly irreconcileable; and thus also you are proved to be at complete warfare with yourself.

4. You are in direct opposition to your coadjutor Dr. Mason. He has been already quoted, saying-" Her, [the Church's] ministry enters into her very being." Can there be any Church then without a ministry? Can those who have faith and love, although united together upon sound doctrinal principles, be a Church without a ministry? Can they be initiated into the Church without a ministry? Not if Dr. Mason be right; and I am well satisfied that he is. There can be no Church-membership without baptism-no baptism without a i Chap. xxv. 3. xxvii. 4. xxviii. 1.

ministry, and, consequently, no Church without both. So that it is impossible for a man, according to the Doctor, let his faith be ever so strong, and his love ever so ardent, to be a member of CHRIST's visible Church without a ministry, and without baptism.

You are also, Sir, completely at variance with Mr. M'Leod, He asserts, "We are not to receive a man to communion, merely because he is regenerate; nor are we to reject him, merely because he is unregenerate.

"1. We are not officers of the invisible Church. Saintship is, in it, the criterion of membership.

"2. It is impossible that regeneration is the criterion of membership in the visible Church: no mere man can judge the heart. Upon this principle, we never could associate in the Church with confidence. We cannot be certain of one another's regeneration.

"3. It is presumption to say, that saintship is the criterion of visible membership. It condemns the conduct of CHRIST, and of the Apostles. CHRIST admitted as a member, and ordained as a minister, Judas, whom he knew to be unregenerate. Simon the sorcerer was a baptized Church member, while in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity.

“4. By a divine constitution, the Church of the Jews included some unregenerate men.

"5. The Christian visible Church, according to CHRIST's account of it, embraces some unregenerate men.

"Is it a vine? It has barren branches. Is it a field of grown corn? The tares must grow with the wheat untill the harvest. These tares are the children of the wicked one. This is not to be denied.

"6. The principle, that regeneration is the criterion of membership, is pregnant with mischief. 1. It encourages ignorance in ministers. 2. It is an engine of tyranny. 3. It encourages spiritual pride. 4. It is destructive to piety. 5. It encourages licentiousness. 6. It is a certain method of banishing saints from the Church, and of receiving hypocrites."

Thus, Sir, I have completely proved that you are at variance with Mr. M'Leod, with Dr. Mason, with yourself, with the Presbyterian Confession of faith, and with the holy Scriptures. And yet, Sir, you have written a book to give your 'Christian brethren' a true notion of the nature and constitution of the Christian Church.

It really, Sir, would be an endless business to attend to all the surmises, inconsistencies, and positive, unfounded assertions contained in your Letters. I shall therefore decline the unpleasant task, and proceed to a point of some importance your view of the principles of the reformers of the Church of England. This will afford us a curious specimen of assertion without proof, and of misrepresentation without plausibility,

k Catechism, p. 99.

REV. SIR:

LETTER XIV.

I SHALL NOW examine whether the fathers of the Reformation in England were 'presbyterians in principle, as you assert.a Your first proof that they were, is taken from the book entitled, The Institution of a Christian Man. This book was published, as you correctly observe, in the year 1537, in the reign of Henry the Eighth. It was called the Bishop's Book, because it was composed by Archishop Cranmer, and several other prelates. You assert, that it is expressly said in this book, that although the fathers of the succeeding Church after the Apostles instituted certain inferior degrees of ministry; yet the truth is, that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any other degree or distinction in orders, but only of Deacons, or Ministers, and of Presbyters or Bishops.'

I doubt, Sir, whether you are not as unfortunate in this quotation, as you have been in several others. The book you quote from, is so rare, that I am pretty well satisfied, there is not a man in this country who has seen it. Nearly a hundred years ago, Collier, who has given an abstract of it, said it was a very rare book. When he wrote his Ecclesiastical History, he had it before him, and in the abstract he has given us, there is not a syllable of what you have quoted; but much to the contrary. In relation to the authority of Bishops and Priests, he says, "They [the compilers of the Institution] proceed to a more particular explanation of the authority of the clergy, and divide it into two branches;-Potestas ordinis, et potestas jurisdictionis, [Power of order, and power of jurisdiction.] Concerning the first, not being contested, they say nothing: the latter, touching jurisdiction committed to the hierarchy, they throw into three subdivisions. By the first, they are empowered to reprove immorality and misbelief, and excommunicate the obstinate and ungovernable.-By the second branch of jurisdiction, Bishops are authorized by our SAVIOUR to continue the succession, and perpetuate the hierarchy. They are the judges of the qualifications for priesthood, and may admit or refuse as they think fit."

They further observe, that "a third branch of jurisdiction, belonging to Bishops and Priests, comprehends the power of making canons for the discipline and service of the Church." Under this head, "they lay it down for a certain truth, that neither the Scripture, nor any father of the apostolical age, mentions our SAVIOUR's making any distinction or disparity in the Apostolical or Episcopal character; but that all the Apostles and Bishops were settled upon a foot of equality, with respect to jurisdiction and authority,"

a Letter V. p. 219.

b Eccles. Hist. Vol. II. p. 140

Now, Sir, it is evident from Collier's abstract of the Institution, that you have been led into an error by some prejudiced writer, from whom, most probably, you have taken your quotation. You assert, after your author, that the Institution maintains an equality among all the ministers of the gospel. This is not the truth. It maintains an equality among all the Apostles and Bishops, in opposition to the Pope's supremacy; but does not give the least hint of an equality among all the ministers of the gospel. This, Sir, shows how cautious we ought to be not to deliver ourselves up to the statements and opinions of others.

You proceed-'About six years after the publication of this hook, another appeared, which was designed to promote the same laudable purposes. This was entitled, The necessary Erudition of a Christian Man. It was drawn up by a committee of Bishops and other divines; was afterwards read and approved by the Lords spiritual and temporal, and the lower house of Parliament, was prefaced by the King, and published by his command. This book certainly proves that those who drew it up, had obtained much more just and clear views of several important doctrines, than they possessed at the date of the former publication. But with regard to ministerial parity, their sentiments remained unchanged. They still asserted the same doctrine. They say, St. Paul consecrated and ordained Bishops by the imposition of hands; but that there is no certain rule prescribed in Scripture for the nomination, election, or presentation of them, [that is true] but that this is left to the positive laws of every cominunity. [Undoubtedly!] The office of the said ministers is, to preach the word, to minister the sacraments, to bind and loose, to excommunicate those that will not be reformed, and to pray for the universal Church. Having afterwards mentioned the order of Deacons, they go. on to say, "Of these two orders only, that is to say, Priests and Deacons, Scripture maketh express mention; and how they were conferred of the Apostles by prayer and imposition of hands."

Still I must have recourse to Collier. I have never seen the Erudition, nor do I believe that you, Sir, ever have. Like the Institution, it is an exceedingly rare book. Collier gives us an abstract of it. "The Erudition," says he, "makes orders one of the seven sacraments, and defines it a gift of grace for administration in the Church; that it is conveyed by consecration and imposition of the Bishop's hands; that in the beginning of Christianity, this character was given by the Apostles. The proof is drawn from the epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus."

This is sufficient proof that the Erudition maintains three orders in the Church. Notwithstanding this, there are to be found, according to Collier, the words which you have quoted, viz. the Scripture speaks expressly of no more than the two orders of Priests and Deacons." There is undoubtedly a seeming contradiction between these two passages; and there is no