of names is a gross and insufferable fallacy-that it does not follow, because the second order had a double title, that there were none who presided over them. We have seen that the Apostles go-verned those Presbyters and Bishops, and that they devolved their supremacy on a number of persons, to whom the care of churches was committed; and that this order had one of the titles, at first given to Presbyters, appropriated to them. That title is Bishop, according to all the Fathers, who are positive and decisive upon this point.

"You have seen-that the Christian church was organized by the Apostles, after the model of the Jewish Synagogue, which was undoubtedly Presbyterian in its form."-We have seen that the Synagogue and the Church are essentially different int their origin, their constitution, and their ministry; that the former was of human appointment, that the latter is of divine; that the ministry of the former possessed no character of sacredness, no commission from God, but from the people; that there was no principle of unity in the Synagogue, no sacraments, no marks of a Church; in short, that it was no Church; and, therefore, that the Synagogue was not the model of the Christian Church.

"You have seen that all the arguments which our Episcopal brethren profess to derive from scripture in favour of their system, are perfectly nugatory, and do not yield it the least solid support." We have seen that the Apostolic commission is to be

continued in the church to the end of the world; that it was devolved upon Barnabas, Epaphroditus, Timothy, Titus, and the Apocalyptic Angels; and that these had their successors, who were in power and rank superior to the Presbyters. This, we have observed, is a decisive proof, that the Apostolic pre-eminence is to be continued in the church for ever.

"You have seen that the Fathers of the first two centuries are so far from furnishing a single passage which gives even a semblance of aid to the Episcopal cause, that, like the scriptures, they every where speak a language wholly inconsistent with it, and favourable only to the doctrine of ministerial parity."-We have seen that this is a misrepresenta tion gross to excess. We have seen the testimonies of Clemens of Alexandria, of Tertullian, of Ireneus, of Dionysius, of Hegesippus, and of Ignatius, in the second century; and we have seen that the evidence is so clear and strong, that Blondel, Salmasius, Chamier, and a number of others, have given up the point after some time in that. century. We have also seen, that the third century affords a large collection of testimonies to Episcopal government as existing not only in that age, but also in the two preceding ages; and that the fourth century bears the same testimony. And the conclusion from all this is, that we have clear, decisive evidence for the Apostolic institution of Episcopacy.

"You have seen that the great body of the Reformers and other witnesses for the truth, of differ ent ages and nations, with one voice maintained the same doctrine, as taught in scripture, and in the primitive church; and that even the most conspicuous English Reformers, while they assisted in. organizing an Episcopal establishment in their own country, défended it on the ground of human expediency, and the will of the magistrate, rather than that of divine right."—We have seen that all this is at utter variance with the true state of the case; that all the Reformers of the church of England placed Episcopacy on the ground, not of human expediency, but of Apostolic institution. We have seen this to be the fact from the most authentic documents; from the Questions and Answers, from the preface to the Ordinal, from the Ordination offices, from Cranmer's catechism, and sermon on the Keys, and from the testimonies of Collier and Burnet. We have also seen that those distinguished witnesses for the truth, the Waldenses, and the Protestants of Bohemia, were Episcopalians upon the ground of Apostolic institution, and that they preserved this primitive government under all their sufferings, and in defiance of all the power of their enemies. We have seen all this proved by the testimony of historians the most respectable, and the most worthy of credit.

"You have seen that the church of England, and those churches which have immediately descended

from her, stand absolutely alone, in the whole Protestant world, in representing Bishops as an order of clergy superior to Presbyters; all other Protestants, even those who adopt a sort of prelacy, having pronounced it to be a mere human invention."

We have seen that this is in direct opposition to matter of fact. We have seen that not only the churches of England and Ireland, and the Episcopal church in Scotland and in this country, place Episcopacy upon the ground of Apostolic institution, but that also the Moravian church, and the churches of Sweden and Denmark place it upon the same ground. We have also seen that nearly the whole world is Episcopal; and that no proof can be brought that there ever existed a single Presbyterian church from the Apostolic age to the Reformation. And to this may be added, the late information given by Dr. Buchanan, that the Syrian church in the East-Indies is Episcopal, and has been so from its foundation.

"You have seen some of the most learned and pious Bishops and other divines of the church of England, utterly disclaiming the divine right of diocesan Episcopacy; and declaring that they considered a great majority of the clergy of that church, in later as well as earlier times, as of the same opinion with themselves."-We have seen that nearly all the divines whom you quote, as conceding that Episcopacy is a human institution, do, in the most express manner, maintain that it is an Apostolic in

stitution; and that this is the opinion of the great body of Episcopal divines is beyond all doubt.

"Finally: You have seen that the gradual introduction of Prelacy, within the first four centuries, was not only practicable, but one of the most natural and probable of all events; and that the most com petent judges, and profound inquirers into early history, have pronounced that it actually took place."

We have seen that there was no change, either gradual, or otherwise, in the government of the church; that not a single writer of antiquity gives any hint of a change; but, on the contrary, that they all declare Episcopacy was established by the Apostles. We have also seen, that, from the afflicted state of the church during the first three centuries, from the nature of the human mind which cannot act without a motive, and from the impossibility of assigning any motive for an attempt to alter the go. vernment of the church, no such change could have taken place. We have further seen, that if men could have been found weak and wicked enough to make the attempt, still that it was impracticable to succeed without the aid of the civil arm; and that, we know, for three centuries, was exerted, not to give distinction to the church of Christ, but to leave not a trace of it upon the face of the earth. And, lastly, we have seen, that the opponents of Episcopacy, confidently as they talk about a change, cannot so much as name the century in which the change took place, but that they are at utter variance.