same principle, but upon the ground of expediency; of the Church of Sweden and Denmark, upon the principle of apostolical imparity; and that the Churches of Geneva and Holland wished for episcopacy, and plead necessity for their departure from it. In a short time, however, they found it more consistent, and more convenient to change their ground; and to justify, by the best reasons which they could invent, what at first they very modestly excused.

Before I close this letter, I shall make one or two observations. 1. It appears from history, that every Church upon earth, before the reformation, was episcopal; and that there were no disputes about ecclesiastical regimen before that period; for the notion started by some of the schoolmen, that Bishops are not a superior order, but a superior degree of the priesthood, cannot be called a dispute about the origin of episcopacy. It must, therefore, strike every reflecting mind as a most wonderfuĺ thing, that for fifteen hundred years there should have been no diversity of opinion upon the subject of episcopacy, if parity, according to some modern Christians, had been established by the Apostles; or if, according to others, they had left the government of the Church to human arrangement. There is, perhaps, nothing about which men differ more than about forms of government. In the very nature of things, it must be so. It may, therefore, I think, be fairly asserted, that it was morally impossible for the whole Christian world to have agreed in the episcopal form of government, if it had been left to men to determine for themselves what form they would adopt. Upon no principle, it appears to me, could such uniformity prevail, but upon thisthat the episcopal government was established by apostolic authority; and that, therefore, Christians did not think themselves at liberty to alter it.

The next observation that I would make, is this-that although some of the reformed, either from an unhappy necessity, or from an imperfect view of the evidence by which episcopacy is supported, or from that pernicious principle, that the government of the Church ought to be accommodated to the government of the state, did depart from the primitive regimen; yet, at this day, nine tenths of the Christian world are episcopal. This, I presume, no one will controvert. Now, although I should not choose to assert, without any qualification, that universality of belief and practice in this case is a sufficient proof of the apostolic origin of episcopacy; yet, I do assert, that when this universality can be traced up to the apostolic age, it is a clear and decisive proof of the divine source of this mode of government. Upon this argument I shall say no more at present, as I purpose to exhibit it, in a future letter, in every point of view in which I am able to place it. I have just introduced the observation here to show, that the few deviations from episcopal regimen, which unhappily occurred at the reformation, are but as the dust upon the balance; and that if we must count numbers, this mode of trial, as well as every other, is decidedly in our favour.

LETTER XVI.

REV. SIR:

To notice all the intimations, inferences, and positive, unfounded assertions in your letters,' would necessarily extend this discussion to an intolerable length. I shall, therefore, bring to view only those assertions, which are best calculated to mislead the unlearned and the unwary.

What further strikes me as worthy of notice in your sixth letter is, first, your assertion, that the Church of Sweden, although she has officers with the title of Bishops, yet those Bishops are no more than Superintendents, such as govern the Lutheran Churches in Germany.

In answer to this, I have nothing more to do than to refer you to your own quotation from Mosheim. He is undoubtedly good authority upon this point. He says, "The internal government of the Lutheran Church seems equally removed from episcopacy on the one hand, and from Presbyterianism on the other, if we except the kingdoms of Sweden and Denmark, which retain the form of ecclesiastical government that preceded the reformation, purged indeed from the superstitions and abuses that render it so odious."

The form of government preceding the reformation, was undoubtedly episcopal; and this form, Mosheim says, was retained; consequently, the Swedish Church is strictly episcopal. For this reason, a Presbyter of that Church would not be re-ordained by our Bishops; while a Minister of the Lutheran Church in Germany, or in this country, would be re-ordained; because the Lutherans, both here and there, have not Bishops, but Superintendents.

You observe, Sir, that several of the foregoing remarks apply to the United Brethren, or Moravians. They, indeed, have Bishops in their Churches, but explicitly renounce all claim of divine right for their system.' They have, then, it seems, by your own acknowledgment, a valid episcopacy. In this, you are undoubtedly correct. Archbishop Potter, when the Moravians first appeared in England, particularly examined their episcopacy, and pronounced it apostolical. Now, this is their own opinion of it, as well as the opinion of the English divines. If, then, in their own opinion, it is founded upon apostolical institution, sanctioned by the HOLY GHOST, it must necessarily be of divine appointment; and consequently, as the power of ordaining was from the beginning attached to the Apostles and their successors, the Bishops, wherever that order is wanting, the proper ordaining officer is wanting. This being the case, if they do not claim a divine right for their episcopacy, and do not re-ordain those that were ordained by Presbyters, it appears to me, that they act very inconsistently. For their episcopacy VOL. I,-19

is either a divine, or a human institution; there can be no medium. If a human, then it is not the primitive, apostolical episcopacy. If a divine institution, then it cannot admit ordination by mere Presbyters. I appeal to yourself, Sir, and to Dr. Mason, and Mr. M'Leod, whether, if episcopacy be a divine institution, and the power of ordaining be attached to Bishops, and to them only, it is not inconsistent to admit ordination by Presbyters? I am sure your two coadjutors argue precisely in the same manner, with respect to presbyterian ordination; and, I think, that it necessarily results from several of your own positions. You would all condemn ordination by lay-hands, and would not suffer a man ordained in that manner to officiate among you. But why, Sir, do you act thus? Can you produce from Scripture a passage which condemns lay-ordination? Or can you produce an express precept for ordination by Presbyters? I am certain, that you would all answer, We cannot; but we can produce what is equivalent; that is, apostolical practice; and as the Apos→ tles acted under the influence of the HOLY GHOST, in settling the constitution of the Christian Church, their practice is a sure guide and warrant to us. This, I am persuaded, would be the answer from you, and the other named gentlemen, and from every consistent Presbyterian. Now, this is precisely the manner in which we reason with respect to episcopacy. You cannot, therefore, find fault with us for condemning presbyterian ordination, without involving yourselves in the most palpable inconsistency. You say, lay-ordination is invalid, because there is no warrant in Scripture for it; consequently, the Moravians, and those English Episcopalians, who assert the apostolic institution of episcopacy, and yet admit, that ordination by Presbyters is valid, are grossly inconsistent with themselves. But, Sir, our Church stands clear of this inconsistency. She declares the order of Bishops to be apostolical and divine; and, therefore, requires all who have been ordained by Presbyters, to be episcopally ordained, before she admits them to minister in holy things.

Another of your witnesses is, the Methodist Church. You say, 'In order to swell the list of episcopal Churches as much as possible, the Methodist Church is frequently represented as such.' Represented as such! Pray, Sir, by whom? You must mean, by us, if you mean any thing to your purpose. Sir, it is impossible that you should be ignorant that we consider the Methodist episcopacy as good for nothing. It is impossible that you should be ignorant, that our Bishops re-ordain all that come over from them to us. Several instances have occurred in this city. If even one of their Bishops were to conform to our Church, he must submit to be ordained, first a Deacon, and then a Presbyter. This, Sir, you must certainly know. How is it then, that you can intimate, that we admit the Methodist episcopacy, for the sake of swelling the list of episcopal Churches? No, Sir, we not only consider them as non-episcopal; but also as the most

wanton schismatics that have ever disgraced the Christian Church. For they agree with us in all doctrinal points, they admit the validity of our episcopal orders, and they have a Liturgy, taken from ours, with no material alterations. They do not, I believe, often use it. Nor is this to be expected from a people so enthusiastic. Like the Pharisees of old, they say, and do not. They admit the propriety and expediency of a Liturgy, by establishing one; and they contradict and condemn themselves, by not using it.

You proceed, Sir, to observe of the Methodists, that 'Mr. Wesley, the venerable founder of that Church, when he undertook, a number of years ago, to digest a plan for its external. organization, especially in the United States, formally avowed himself to be of the opinion with Lord Chancellor King, that Bishop and Presbyter, in the primitive Church, were the same. And in perfect conformity with this belief, he himself, being only a Presbyter in the Church of England, united with other Presbyters in ordaining Ministers for his new Church. These Presbyters ordained the first Methodist Bishops, from whom all succeeding ordinations in that body have been derived.'

All this, Sir, is perfectly correct. Mr. John Wesley did as you say; and that in direct opposition to his solemn subscriptions when he was ordained, to his repeated declarations through a long life, and to numerous, strong, and conclusive reasons, which he had published against_separating from the Church of England. But this is not all: John Wesley, as appears from the correspondence of Dr. Coke with Bishop White, was not satisfied with himself for the step which he had taken. Doubts about the validity of the orders of his new-fangled Bishops appear to me to have troubled his mind, as well as Dr. Coke's who was one of those Bishops. Coke, therefore, writes to Bishop White, offering to give up their spurious episcopacy, and to return to the bosom of the Church, provided the Methodists could be indulged in some of their peculiarities. But their requisitions could not be complied with, and, of course, the whole fell to the ground. This transaction was an implicit acknowledgment of the invalidity of the Methodist episcopacy." Upon these facts it may be expedient to make two or three reflections.

First. The whole conduct of John Wesley, as appears from the accounts of this transaction at Bristol, given us by Coke, Whitehead, and Charles Wesley, convinces me that John Wesley, at the very time that he thus abandoned apostolic usage, was not satisfied with the correctness of his own conduct. Charles Wesley says, in his letter to Dr. Chandler, which has

a See a pamphlet lately published by the Rev. Mr. Kewley. [Also, BISHOP WHITE'S Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, (published since the publication of Dr. Bowden's Letters,) in which a full, and of course authentic, account of Dr. Coke's proposition, its grounds and its results, may be found; p. 211. and Appendix, No. 21.]

been published and re-published in this country, that he was at his brother's elbow all the time, and that he did not give him the least hint of his intention. He was afraid of encountering his brother Charles' arguments against such a measure; for Charles was very primitive in his notions of episcopacy. Another circumstance which convinces me that John Wesley's mind was not quite at ease when he assumed the episcopal character, is, that he was evidently persuaded to take that very unjustifiable step by Coke, and two or three others, and that it did not originate from himself. He appears to me to have yielded rather to importunity than to conviction. A third reason is, that he was evidently ashamed of the whole business; for the pretended consecration to the episcopal office was not performed in public, but in a private room; thus realizing, as Charles Wesley says, "the Nag's-Head ordination, and robbing his friends of their boasting." The last reason for conviction is, what I have already mentioned, that he afterwards wished to retrace his steps, and to undo, as far as he could, what he had done. Taking all these circumstances together, I am satisfied, that John Wesley acted from a doubting mind, if not absolutely in contradiction to his own conviction.

But, admitting that he was really convinced by Lord King; yet, I think, that Charles Wesley's excuse for him is the best that can possibly be made-"My brother was eighty-two years of age when he took this fatal step."

The other observation that I shall make upon this rash measure is, the great danger, and mischievous consequences, of departing either from the doctrine, or discipline of the primitive Church in the purest and best ages. Trace any heresy, or any schism you please, and it will be found to be a deviation from the Church in one or the other of these respects. Christianity can admit of no improvements. It was complete the moment the canon of Scripture was closed; and those who lived in or near the apostolic age, had many advantages for understanding what were the doctrines, the constitution, and the discipline of the Christian Church, which we have not. The Holy Scriptures, expounded and elucidated by primitive and universal belief and practice, will effectually secure us from the delusions, the heresies and schisms of later ages; and if John Wesley had governed himself by this rule, instead of giving himself up to Lord King's dictates, we never should have heard of the spurious episcopacy of the Methodists.

I shall now, Sir, go back to the first part of your sixth 'letter,' the consideration of which I postponed, till I had taken a view of what you have said concerning the English reformers.

The first thing deserving of notice, is your adducing the Waldenses, as witnesses to Presbyterian parity. You say that they maintained that 'there ought to be no diversity of rank among Ministers of the gospel-that Bishops and Presbyters, according to the word of GOD, and primitive practice, were the