have clear historical evidence, that our ordinations descended not from the church of Rome, after she became so corrupt, as in the opinion of protestants, to cease from being a true church.

It will perhaps be asked, How do we know, but the first reformers had been ordained by some of the vilest men in the Roman church? But let me ask, how do we know, or is it probable, that this was the case? The reformers themselves appear to have entertained no scruples on this head. Let it still be remembered, that irregularity in ordinations was not made matter of complaint against her; that her corruptions had not so early risen to their height; and that she had not yet established, by a general council, her grossest errours, nor expunged her purest members.

But admitting that a man of corrupt principles and morals acts in an ordination; will his character nullify the transaction? As long as the scribes sat in Moses' seat, Christ acknowledged them as officers of the Jewish church; nor did he deny the authority of

the high priest, though his personal character was far from recommending him.

The person ordained derives his authority to preach from Jesus Christ; not from the men who ordain him. They indigitate the person to be vested with this authority, and officially instate him in the regular exercise of it; but it is Christ's gospel, not their will, which must direct him in the execution of his office. If they are corrupt in principles or manners, it will not thence follow, that he must preach heresy or immorality. He is ordained to preach the gospel; and whoever may ordain him, the charge which he receives, and the vow which he makes, bind him to teach, not the commandments of men, but all things whatsoever Christ has commanded.

To break the chain of succession at the link in question, it must be proved, that the persons, from whom the first reformers received ordination, not only were in errours, but had actually ceased to be officers of Christ.

With respect to the ordinations in this land little needs to be said. It is well known, that the first ministers in the country, were ordained in England, by men whose authority is not controverted. Though some of our fathers supposed that lay-ordinations might be justified, yet this sentiment was disapproved by their brethren in England; and was not so long retained here, as to be carried into practice. The instalment of persons already ordained, was in some instances, performed by lay-brethren; but during the first century after the settlement of New-England, ordinations were constantly solemnized by the hands of ordained elders, except in two or three instances; and even in these there was the presence and concurrence of elders, though they imposed not their hands. President Stiles says,* that C no more than one such instance, in the last century, appears with certainty.' And if there were a few such instances, in different times and places, they affect not the succession; because, ordinations among us being

* Election Sermon.

performed by a number of ministers, not by a single person, it may always be presumed, that some of the number are men regularly authorized.

The President, on a full, thorough and laborious inquiry,' affirms, that' the succession, in the line of presbyters,. was preserved without interruption, at the time of the reformation, and the New-England ordinations, in this line, may with assurance be traced back even to the holy apostles.'

FINIS.