allow the distinction between principles, and the conte duct of those who profess them. The former are often excellent, while the latter is base. We protest, and with the strongest reason, against the conclusion, that religion is false, because some men who profess to believe it are immoral ; or that a particular church is not a true church of Christ, because many of her members act in a manner unworthy of their profession. But our reasoning and conclusion, in this case, are wholly of a different kind. We only contend, that the ministry and the ordinances of religion, which claim to be exclusively valid, ought to prove themselves more efficaciods than those which are destitute of validity. 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 life-giving 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 ; more fervent piety, more zeal for the interests of the Redeemer's kingdom, and more righteousness of life, than among those who have no connexion with that household. If not, wherein is the greater advantage of being in the church, than in the world? Nor do we, by taking this ground, furnish either an infidel or an heretic with a handle against us. An enemy of the Gospel may come into all of our churches, and point to some, perhaps to many of our members, who do not by any means walk wore

thy of the vocation wherewith they are called. Would he have a right from this fact, to infer the falsity of our system of faith? No; the obvious distinction between principles and the conduct of those who profess them, would, if he were a candid man, prevent him from drawing this inference. But if an infidel could come into our solemn assemblies, even the purest of them, and not only assert, but prove, that there is no more either of strict morality or fervent piety, among the professors of religion, than among its despisers ; if he could do this, then indeed he might, and ought, to triumph over us. As long as he could only with trath say, “ Some of you " Christians are as bad as infidels ;" I would confidently reply, “ They are not Christians, but hy“ pocrites; for, if they had any portion of the spirit “ of their Master, they would not act thus.” But if he could really make it appear that Christians are in general, and as a body, in no respect better than infidels, he would certainly establish his argument. This, however, blessed be God! the infidel cannot do; and the very circumstance of the enemies of Christianity marking with such eager triumph, every case of unworthy conduct in the professors of religion, shows that, in their opinion, Christian principles require more holiness than infidel principles require, and are expected to produce

The same reasoning we adopt with our Episcopal brethren. We do not ask them to produce perfection in their church; we do not ask them to show, that all their members act conformably with

their principles; but we insist upon their show: ing that there is, in general, a much larger portion of fervent piety, and of strict morality, in their church, than in any of the non-episcopal churches ; and until they do this, every unprejudiced man will consider their claim of being alone “in covenant “ with Christ,” as unreasonable as it is unscriptural.

It does not affect the solidity of this argument, that some churches which Presbyterians consider as not regularly organized, upon scriptural princi. ples, nevertheless embrace in their bosom a large portion of unaffected piety. If we undertook to maintain that the Presbyterian church is the only real church on earth, and alone in covenant with Christ the Head, such a fact would, indeed, pre. sent a difficulty of no easy solution. But we make no such arrogant claim. Wherever the unfeigned love of our Divine Saviour, an humble reliance on his atoning sacrifice, and a corresponding holiness of life, pervade any denomination of Christians, we hail them as brethren in Christ ; we acknowledge them to be a true church; and although we may observe and lament imperfections in their outward government, we consider them as truly in covenant with the King of Zion, as ourselves. All this is perfectly consistent with believing, as we do, that Presbyterian church government was the primitive model, and that it is the duty of every church to conform to this model. It is certainly the duty of every man to keep the whole law of God; yet as we do not deny that an individual professor is a real

Christian, because we perceive some imperfections in his character; so neither do we deny a church to be a true church of Christ, because she in not in all respects conformed to our ideas of scriptural purity. We consider our Episcopal brethren as having wandered far from the simplicity of Apostolic order. But what then ? Must we arrogantly unchurch them on that account ? By no means. We lament their deviation ; but notwithstanding this, can freely embrace them as members of the Church universal; and were there no other church with which we could commune, should feel no scruple in holding communion with them as brethren.

Those who contend for the Divine right of dio. cesan Episcopacy, and for the doctrine of Uninterrupted Succession, in its most rigid form, often ask us, How we deduce our succession in the ministry ? They profess to be able to trace their own line of ecclesiastical descent, with the utmost ease ; and gravely present us with long catalogues of Bishops, from the Apostles down to the present day. Have ing done this, they demand from us similar catalogues, and a similar deduction. I shall not attempt at present to discuss the questions, Whether such succession is essential to the Christian ministry; and, Whether, supposing it to be so, it can be distinctly traced through the medium of regular historical documents, from the Apostolic age to the present. On both these questions the most learned and pious Episcopal Divines have been divided in

opinion. Chillingworth, Barrow, Bishop Hoadley, and a number more, have taken the negative side ; pronouncing the claim of succession to be as futile as it is unnecessary; and assailing it with the most pointed ridicule, as well as with formidable arguments.

But without entering into this controversy, I will take for granted, that the Cninterrupted Succession, is essential ; that it is the only channel through which ministers of the present day can have the Apostolic commission, transmitted to them. Supposing this

, . to be the case, nothing is more easy, than to show, on Presbyterian principles, that the succession in our church is as distinct, regular, and unbroken, as that of the Episcopal church.

From the time of the Apostles to the era of the Reformation, our line of succession is certainly as good as theirs, for they are one and the same. When the reformers began their work, they found all the churches of Great-Britain under Episcopal government. Until that time, therefore, our opponents themselves being judges, a regular line of ordinations had been preserved. If there be any doubt of this, it is a doubt which as much affects their succession as our own. In short, until this period, the two lincs coincide, share the same for. tunes, and are to be traced by the same means. When the Reformation began, and the Popish doctrine of imparity was discarded by a considerable portion of the Christians of Britain, the Presbyters, who had been ordained by the Bishops, undertook