To this it may be replied, that the instances which have been adduced for this purpose are no evidence of an interrupted _succession_, but, at most, are either interruptions in the _evidence_ of the succession (which is quite a different thing), or mere cases of competition between persons contending for and alternately possessing the same dignity, equally qualified, as far as their spiritual descent is concerned, to transmit the legitimate episcopal character. Now to allege a mere interruption of this sort, is only to allege that you know nothing of the succession during a certain period of time, which you call an interruption; and such an interruption of _historical evidence_ cannot invalidate the succession. But since the succession is found to recur at certain dates, and to be carried on without any proof, nay, without any surmise, of a spurious descent during that time when we are not able to name the persons, it may be legitimately assumed that all was regular and right; for if there had been any important defect, enemies enough would have been found to triumph in the discovery, and those public records (the ornament and security of the Church) would, long ere this, have been made the sport of infidels and schismatics. Separatists may possibly urge an argument from their numbers with success in an age unaccountably regardless of the advice of Job, “Enquire, I pray thee, of the former age, and prepare thyself to the search of their fathers: for we are but of yesterday, and know nothing.” But turn to the Sacred Scriptures, to the fathers, to the early historians, even to those of modern date, and you find that the anti-episcopalian cause comes not recommended either by numbers or antiquity. The first appointed Church with regular episcopacy was that at Jerusalem, of which place St. James was constituted bishop. This is plainly and unanimously testified by the ancient fathers and historians of the Church; the sacred history in a great measure, though not directly, proves the same.