Let us, briefly, attend to one or two of the learned divines enumerated in your second class of Episcopal writers.

And, here, let it be particularly recollected that they as sert, according to your own account, the Apostolic institution of Episcopacy; in other words, the Apostolic institution of

ministers powers which they did not give to others. Well, the com. mission is of Christ; flowing, from him, through the Apostles.— But the commission creates a difference between ministers; invest-ing some with powers with which it does not invest others. Christ, then, creates this difference. In a word-The commission makes the difference, and from Christ the commission flows.

Ordination by the Apostles made a distinction between the person ordained, and the laity. This distinction is of divine origin.How? The Apostles, in ordaining, acted as the agents of Christ; exercising a power which he had directed them to exercise. The same train of remark applies, equally, to the distinction between clergy and laity, and to the distinction between the different orders of the clergy. In both cases the distinction flows from an act of the Apostles under the commission given to them by their master. The act is authorized, or unauthorized. The latter will not be pretended as it supposes the Apostles to have been usurpers. If the act be authorized by Christ, the distinction, which it creates, whether of a clergyman from a layman, or of a clergyman from a clergyman, is created by Christ.-Indeed, if this be not so, the Sabbath of the first day is a mere human institution.

Our Savior was with his Apostles forty days and nights after his resurrection; speaking with them of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. The interesting subject of the constitution of his church, doubtless, occupied an important share of his attention. It may well be supposed that he gave the Apostles specific directions how to act. They were to build up and edify his own body. But apart from this-The Apostles were under the supernatural influence of the Spirit. Now the office of the Holy Spirit being to teach all things necessary to the well being of the Christian church, the practice of the Apostles is as truly divine, in establishing its minis. try, as their precept, in delivering its doctrine.-In short-The Apostles were as much commissioned to ordain ministers, to govern and build up the church, as to preach the doctrines of the gospel.They had a divine authority in the one case, as perfectly as in the other. In both they were under supernatural guidance. And it is as completely to give up the inspiration of the scriptures to deny that institutions, relative to the Christian church, which they estab lished, are divine institutions, as to deny that the doctrines of the gospel, which they preached, are divine doctrines.

The conduct of the Apostles, as I have before observed, in creating different grades of ministers, was authorized, or unauthorized. If unauthorized, it was an act of rebellion. If authorized, it was an act of Christ. Then the act of Christ created distinct grades of

three distinct grades of ministers, with peculiar powers vested in the highest grade.

Now, the mild language used by some eminent Episcopal divines, on the point in question, is to be attributed to the peculiar state of the religious world, and to the allowance which they supposed due to many of the reformed churches on account of the great difficulties with which those churches had to struggle. While they contend for Episcopacy as a divine institution, they feel a strong affection for their Protestant brethren of the continent; being unwilling to

ministers, with appropriate powers. In other words, Episcopacy, being an Apostolic institution, is of divine origin.

The following clear view of this subject is from the pen of a learned and excellent writer, in the Churchman's Magazine, for February last, under the signature of Eusebius. "The Bishops derived their commission from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ. The Bishops were invested with the whole of the Apostolic commission, the Presbyters with only a part. This constitutes the proper difference between them, in the opinion of both those who favor the distinction between Apostolic and divine institution, and those who do not. Then those who received the whole of this commission, were, in a strict and proper sense, the Apostle's successors. But if this commission was to the Apostles divine, as it most assuredly was, the very same commission must have been so to those to whom they communicated it; unless a regular transmission, by human hands, converts a divine into a human institution, which nobody will assert. It follows, then, that Episcopacy is of divine origin."

No persons contend more strenuously, than the Presbyterians, that Apostolic institution is equivalent to divine right.

Very few of the persons mentioned by Dr. M. in his second class of Episcopal authors, make the distinction, between Apostolic institution, and divine right, which we have been considering. Thus Bishop Hall is one of the authors. And Dr. M. tells us himself that the Bishop contended with great zeal, for the divine right of diocesan Episcopacy.

Even those who make the distinction, in question, go no further than to admit the validity of non-episcopal ordination in cases of necessity. How absurd, then, in a modern Presbyterian, to lay stress upon such a concession!

But whatever distinction some few divines of the church of En. gland may have been disposed to make between apostolic institution, and divine origin; most certain it is that the standards of that church know no such distinction; expressly declaring that Almighty God, by his Holy Spirit, did establish distinct orders of ministers; in other words, that Almighty God, by his Holy Spirit, did estab lish the Episcopal constitution of the Priesthood.

avow, explicitly, with respect to them, the true conclusion of their principle. They ground themselves, therefore, on the case of necessity; supposing it to furnish exceptions to general rules, and that it may render that good, which, otherwise, would not be good. Even Hooker, the great champion of Episcopacy, makes this allowance; and, in consequence of it, has, not infrequently, been cited by Presbyterians, as admitting the validity of their ordination. Upon this very gronnd of necessity Archbishop Usher puts the matter in the passage which you introduce from him. "I have ever declared my opinion to be, that Bishop and Presbyter differ only in degree, and not in order; and consequently, that in places where Bishops cannot be had, the ordination by Presbyters standeth valid. Yet, on the other side, holding as I do, that a Bishop hath superiority in degree over a Presbyter, you may easily judge, that the ordination made by such Presbyters, as have severed themselves from those Bishops unto whom they had sworn canonical obedience, cannot possibly by me be excused from being schismatical."

Usher, then, expressly avows it as his opinion that Bishops are, in degree, superior to Presbyters. Now, the question, whether Bishops and Presbyters are distinct orders, or distinct degrees of the same order, is a mere question of words. They may, with perfect propriety, be said to be distinct orders. They may, with perfect propriety, be said to be distinct degrees of the same order.* For example, they are both of the order of the priesthood; being thus distinguished from Deacons, and from the people. Again.. They differ in some points; Bishops being clothed with certain peculiar powers. Under this view, they may be said to be distinct orders of the ministry, or distinct grades of the one order of the priesthood; accordingly as the comparison is between the priesthood, on the one side, and the

You quote some Episcopal writers as saying that Bishops and Priests are one order; and then triumphantly pass them off as Presbyterians in principle. Is this candid? You know, sir, that many Episcopalians, who insist that Bishops and Priests are one order, explicitly declare Bishops to be superior to Priests by divine right. They are of the one order of the Priesthood; but they are distinct degrees of that order, the former possessing peculiar powers. The very same language might be applied, with perfect propriety, to Aaron and his sons, under the Jewish dispensation. They were equally Priests. Aaron was only the first, or High Priest.-See, sir, how a little explanation strips you of your fancied honors!

Deacons and people on the other; or as it is between the different grades of the ministry, considered as distinguished by the possession of different degrees of the sacerdotal authority.

Archbishop Usher, having thus unequivocally declared it as his opinion that Bishops are superior to Presbyters, goes on to state, as a consequence of this, that ordination by Presbyters is valid only where ordination by Bishops cannot be had; thus placing the thing upon the express footing of necessity.

In cases of necessity alone, then, according to this venerable Prelate, is Presbyterial ordination valid. In every other state of things he pronounces it to be schismatical. Now, necessity merely creates exceptions to general rules; always recognizing the validity of the system which it is pleaded as an apology for not observing. The Archbishop, then, proceeds to excuse not to justify the conduct of the foreign reformed churches; esteeming some to be less blamable than others, because placed in circumstances of greater difficulty.

Who sees not that Usher considers Episcopacy as a divine institution, and that he denies, as a general principle, the validity of Presbyterial ordination. Where Bishops cannot be had, it may be good. The French are more excusable than the people of the low countries. What is this but making allowance for cases of necessity! And when the Archbishop goes on to admit that the Protestant churches in France, and the low countries, are true members of the church universal; adding, "I do profess that with the like affection I should receive the blessed sacraments at the hands of the Dutch ministers, if I were in Holland, as I should do at the hands of the French ministers, if I were in Oparenton," he must be considered as acting under a strong sense of the difficulties with which the foreign re formers had to struggle; as making allowance for circumstances of necessity; and, as departing, to a certain degree, from the strictness of his principles, through a deep regard to his Protestant brethren of the continent, united with an ardent wish to promote harmony among the friends of the reformation in their opposition to papal idolatry, and error. Such is the true solution of his language. He expressly says that Bishops are superior to Presbyters. He expressly says that ordination by the latter is good only where ordination by the former cannot be had. He expressly says that

Presbyteriał ordination is schismatical except in cases of necessity. He excuses, not justifies the foreign reformers. Unless, therefore, we understand him in the way I have stated, he is perfectly at war with himself; and you would be the very first man to take advantage of his inconsistency. For to say that Episcopal ordination is the divinely instituted method of continuing the priesthood, and yet that nonepiscopal ordination will equally continue it, is too gross an absurdity to impute to any man of common sense; much less to such a man as Archbishop Usher. The truth is, he held the Episcopal doctrines, but was led, as many other good men have been led, to make concessions inconsistent, to a certain degree, with his principles; of which the advocates of parity have eagerly availed themselves. The difficulty of the times, and the supposed influence of necessity, as an exception to general rules, furnish an explanation of his conduct.

You even introduce Bishop Hall as testifying to the validity of Presbyterial ordination.

This distinguished Prelate, as you admit, was a most decided supporter of the divine right of diocesan Episcopacy; having written and labored, in its cause, with equal ability and zeal. Now, sir, what is diocesan Episcopacy? It is the government of the church by Bishops, as an order, or grade, superior to Presbyters; possessing, as one peculiar prerogative, the exclusive power of ordination. This exclusive power, then, according to Hall, is in Bishops, by divine right. What is this but to say that ordination by Presbyters is invalid? If not, then ordination by Bishops, to whom God has given the power, and ordination by Presbyters, to whom he has not given the power, are equally good. In other words, it is entirely immaterial whether ordination be performed with a divine authority, or without one. For, if God has given a particular power, exclusively, to Bishops, then he has not given it to Presbyters; and if Presbyters can exercise the power, equally with Bishops, then the authority of God is entirely out of the question, and a set of women may as well ordain as as a set of Priests. Why may not a set of women ordain? Because God has not authorized them to do so. Why may not Presbyters ordain? For precisely the same reason. Hall tells us that the exclu sive power of ordination is in Bishops by divine right. If the exclusive power be in Bishops, no other set of men çan