"But surely you are aware of all the circumstances of the Nag's Head consecration. This must at least diminish confidence as to the continuity of your links, and compel every reasonable mind to doubt as to the reality of your succession. Even a doubt on such a point is fatal to all the claims of your Church."

Yet you, Sir, can have no "doubt upon this point;" and still you are raising a doubt in the minds of the ignorant and unwary; and countenancing the only pretext of the Church of Rome to deny us the character of a true Church. Your jest again imposed hard laws upon you.

Again; a lay writer in the Tracts had said,

"Ordination, or, as it is called in the case of bishops, consecration, though it does not precisely come within our definition of a sacrament, is nevertheless a rite partaking, in a high degree, of the sacramental character, and it is by reference to the proper sacraments that its nature can be most satisfactorily illustrated."

Now this statement is made, not to exalt the priesthood, (although, if we duly "magnified our office," it were to be hoped, that it would be exercised more earnestly,) but to meet the common-place objection to the transmission of orders by a regular unbroken succession from the Apostles, viz., that some of the bishops, through whom they were transmitted, may have been unholy men. Now the case of the " proper sacraments" does illustrate this; for since we hold that "the effect of Christ's ordinance is not taken away by the wickedness of evil men," even though they "have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments," forasmuch as "the sacraments be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men," (Art. xxvi.) we cannot consistently object, à priori, to the grace of ordination being conveyed down, by virtue of our Lord's institution, even through the hands of evil men. In the words of the layman, (shortly following your extract,) p. 10.

"He who receives unworthily, or in an improper state of mind, either ordination or consecration, may probably receive to his own soul no saving health from the hallowed rite; but while we admit, as we do, the validity of sacraments administered by a priest thus unworthily ordained, we cannot consistently deny, that of ordination, in any of its grades, when be

stowed by a bishop as unworthily consecrated. The very question of worth, indeed, with relation to such matters is absurd. Who is worthy? Who is a fit dispenser of the gifts of the Holy Spirit? What are, after all, the petty differences between sinner and sinner, when viewed in relation to Him, whose eyes are too pure to behold iniquity, and who charges His very angels with folly ?"

This would have been the question to be considered, had you been in earnest; but it was an earnest question, and so afforded no room for pleasantry. You turn aside, then to lay hold of the expression, "our definition of a sacrament," and make the Pope to say, (p. 13.):

"We do not blame you, beloved brethren, for its not coming perfectly within your Church's definition of a sacrament; but we feel convinced that, when opportunity may serve, you will so alter the definition as to increase the number of your sacraments."

Yet since the "layman" distinguished "orders" from the "proper sacraments," it was an ill pleasantry which would represent him as wishing to include them therein, although you need not have gone as far as Rome for a definition which would have included them. St. Augustine's definition of a sacrament, (with which Calvin wishes to show that his own agrees, Instit. iv. 14. I.) had sufficed: "a visible sign of a sacred thing," or "a visible form of invisible grace." The word "sacrament" has namely, (as every one knows,) a larger use, although the "two proper sacraments" have always had their distinct reverence, as not conveying grace only, but directly uniting men with their Redeemer. In this larger sense, however, even foreign reformers have not scrupled to call ordination not merely "a rite, partaking in a high degree of the sacramental character," but "a sacrament." Thus even Calvin says (Instit. iv. 14. 20.):

"I am speaking of the sacraments instituted for the use of the whole Church. For the imposition of hands, whereby the ministers of the Church are initiated to their office, as on the one hand I am not unwilling that it should be called a sacrament, so on the other I do not count it among the ordinary sacraments."

And again (iv. 19. 31.):

"There remaineth imposition of hands, which, as in true and lawful ordinations, I allow to be a sacrament, so I deny that it has any place in this farce, (those of Rome,) wherein they neither obey Christ's command, nor regard the end, to which the promise ought to lead us."

And Melancthon (Apolog. Confess. de numero et usu sacram.):

"If orders be understood of the ministry of the word,' we should not scruple to call orders a sacrament. For the ministry of the word has the command of God, and magnificent promises, Rom. i. Is. lv. If orders are understood in this sense, neither should I scruple to call imposition of hands a sacrament. For the Church hath the command to appoint ministers, which ought to be most acceptable to us, for we know, that God approves that ministry, and is present thereat. And it is of moment, to set forth and extol, as much as may be, the ministry of the word, against fanatical men, who dream that the Holy Spirit is given, not by the word, but for some preparations of their own if they sit idle," &c.

And again (Loci, de numero sacram.) :

"I approve most thoroughly that ordination be added thereto, (to the sacraments,) i. e., the calling to the ministry of the Church, and the public attestation of that calling. For all these are ordained by a command of the Gospel, as Tit. i. 5. and there is added a promise, the greatest of all, which attests that God really worketh effectually by the ministry of those who are chosen by the voice of the Church, as that universal saying beareth record of the apostles, and all who transmit the word delivered through the apostles, The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.' And Christ saith, John xvii., I pray not for these alone,' &c. and John xx. 23. Eph. iv. 8-11. Luke x. 16. John xv. 5. 2 Cor. v. 18. 20. 2 Cor. iii. 6. These, and many like sayings, evidently testify that God worketh effectually by this very ministry of those who teach the Gospel, which ministry He wills to preserve in the Church by a continued calling."

We do not, however, need such authorities; we would rather refer you to the wisdom of our English writers, as Hooker, who speaketh of things as being "as sacraments," or Archbishop Wake, who objects not to its being called "a kind of Particular Sacrament."

But before you repeat your jest, allow me one earnest question; When one is set apart for the ministry, and the bishop pronounces over him the words,

"Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the

Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands,"

do you think that he receives no spiritual benefit? or that no spiritual benefit is thereby implied? if not, are not the words blasphemy? but if the Holy Ghost be thereby bestowed, if the ordained person "receive the Holy Ghost for the office of a priest in the Church of God," is not ordination to him a means of grace, and so, although not a sacrament, does it not "possess in a high degree the sacramental character?" and ought this subject to be treated of in merriment?

Again, a writer after having, in a very interesting paper, pointed out the notices of an extensive Christian ritual contained in Scripture itself, adduced two passages, "in further illustration of the subject" from Tertullian, A.D. 200, and St. Basil, A.D. 350, both of whom maintain the binding character of usages, which, though not in Scripture, had come down from the Apostles by a "continuous tradition." And who would not? Is not our argument against the modern Church of Rome, that she has introduced "a corrupt following of the Apostles," (Art. 25.) "fond things vainly invented" and grounded upon no "warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God" (Art. 22.)? The ground taken by the Church of Rome is that all her present traditions are to be received, as of equal validity with the written word, because she holds them; our ground, that they are not to be so received, because they cannot be proved to be apostolic, and some are corrupt and vainly invented. Our controversy then with Rome is not an à priori question on the value of tradition in itself, or at an earlier period of the Church, or of such traditions, as, though not contained in Scripture, are primitive, universal, and apostolical, but it is one purely historical, that the Romanist traditions not being such, but, on the contrary, repugnant to Scripture, are not to be received. It has manifestly, then, nothing to do with the question between Rome and ourselves, what Tertullian and St. Basil held of traditions

which could be proved to be apostolical; nor does our accepting traditions of the universal Church in their day, involve our accepting those of the particular Church of Rome, after so many centuries of corruption, in the present.

In your Romanist character it is natural to say,

"These are the principles which have ever guided the Catholic Church; by deviating from these the nations of Europe have fallen into anarchy and confusion; and it is only by zealous efforts, such as our children of the University are now making for the restoration of those principles, that peace and harmony and unity can be reproduced."

But in your real character how will you excuse the fallacy which your assumed one palmed upon your readers? especially when the writer had accompanied his citations with the remark :

"Tertullian is on the one hand, a very early witness for the existence of the general doctrine which this passage contains, while on the other he gives no sanction to the claims of those later customs on our acceptance, which the Church of Rome upholds, but which cannot be clearly traced to primitive times."

Do you really believe that Tertullian and St. Basil bear out the claims of modern Rome? If not, your assumed character was too hard for your honesty-if you do, I leave you to arrange the question with a really learned divine and Bishop of our day;

"In the passage to which reference has just been made, Tertullian speaks of written and unwritten tradition; but the cases in which he lays any stress upon the authority of the latter, are precisely those which our reformers allowed to be within its province-cases of ceremonies and ritual observances. Of these he enumerates several for which no express warrant can be found in Scripture, and which must consequently have been derived solely from tradition; the forms, for instance, observed in baptism, in the administration of the Lord's Supper, and in public prayer."

Bishop Kaye is here referring to the very passage of Tertullian, the quotation of which, together with that of St. Basil, calls forth your reprobation; and we cannot do better than refer you, and ultra-Protestants generally, to the masterly