Another said that the ministers of the Church of England were dumb dogs, that its bishops were regardless of the advancement of the gospel, that their belly was their God, and that money was their idol. I inquired whether he was particularly well acquainted with the English bishops and clergy. He replied, that he had never been out of America; but that he had received these accounts from travellers. I told him that I had been personally acquainted with many of the bishops and clergy of the English Church, and that his assertion was not agreeable to the truth. A renegade now came forward, who stated himself to have been a member of the Established Church of Ireland. He said that the Thirty-nine Articles were a bundle of inconsistencies from beginning to end. I begged him to specify some of the inconsistencies. He said that the first Article asserts that God is without body, parts, or passions; that the second Article teaches that Christ is God; and that the fourth Article states that Christ ascended into heaven with his body, flesh, and bones. Thus, he maintained, the fourth Article was inconsistent with the first. I replied, that the same charge of inconsistency might be applied to the Scriptures with equal fairness, and quoted the texts by which the doctrines of the first, second, and fourth Articles are distinctly proved. He flew off at once to another subject, and maintained that baptism in the Church of England is not valid, inasmuch as it is not administered by persons having authority. I asked him what constituted a sufficient authority. He replied, "a commission from Christ, proved by the possession of miraculous gifts." I said that the English clergy possessed a commission from Christ, which could be proved most conclusively, even in the absence of miraculous gifts at the present time. He wished to know how their commission could be proved without miracles. I told him that the bishops of the English Church, by whom the inferior clergy are ordained, are apostles just as truly as St. Barnabas and St. Timothy were. This statement took him altogether by surprise; he looked at me incredulously, and wished for proof. I presented him with a brief outline of the clear and simple argument for the Apostolic Succession, and showed him historically that bishops have been always consecrated by bishops from the age of inspiration to the present time; that the commission of our Saviour to the eleven, extending as it did through all time and all the world, _implied_ an apostolical succession till the day of judgment; that Scripture testifies to a succession of Apostles as long as Scripture can testify to it; and that afterwards the continuance of the succession is proved by a vast number of Christian writers down to the present time. He considered for a moment, and then said, that such a succession must have come through Rome; that Rome was the mother of harlots, and that the Church of England was the eldest of her numerous family of daughters.