REV. SIR:

LETTER XXI.

You go on in the same strain of unqualified inyective against Bishops; not recollecting that every thing with which you charge them, may be retorted upon presbytery in a tenfold degree. You say, 'If we examine the history of any episcopal Church on earth, we shall find it exhibiting, to say the least, as large a share of heresy, contention, and schism, as any which bears the presbyterian form; and, what is more, we shall ever find the Prelates themselves quite as forward as any others, in scenes of violence and outrage.'

These charges could not have proceeded from a proper motive. If they were even well founded, they ought not to have been advanced. Religion can derive no benefit from criminations of this kind, nor did your argument require the introduction of the subject. I fear you were not under the influence of your usual meekness of spirit, when you committed to paper several passages in your book. With an appearance of much candour and moderation, every now and then expressions dropped from your pen, which show that all is not right. I am sorry to make these observations; but when a man advances ill-founded, and at the same time severe things, he has no right to expect that they will be passed over in silence.

Before you indulged yourself in charges of this serious nature, you ought to have refreshed your memory with a perusal of the history of the Christian Church. If you had, you would have found but one Bishop a heretic for the first three hundred years; and very few, in any age, in comparison of Presbyters and laymen. And as to violence and outrage, I am totally at a loss to determine what you mean, and at what Church you point, cannot think that you have our Church in view, or the moderate Church of England, or of Ireland, or the episcopal Church in Scotland, or the Church of Sweden, or of Denmark, or of the Moravians. What, Sir, do you mean? When you tell us, you will most probably receive an answer.

I

I have, in the course of this discussion, several times expressed my astonishment at your manner of quoting authors, and at your wide departure from well authenticated facts. You give us another instance. You inform us, that Eusebius gives a sad picture of the divisions among Bishops; but you take care not to tell us in what part of his history that picture is to be found. I have looked over his account of the state of the Church in the early part of the fourth century; and so far from finding a great corruption of morals, I am astonished at the faith and patience displayed by all ranks of Christians, under sufferings the most appalling to human nature. Among these Christians, he gives a long list of illustrious Bishops, who endured the most excru

ciating tortures, rather than renounce their GoD and SAVIOUR. Read, Sir, his account of the Dioclesian persecution, and perhaps you will feel in your heart some tenderness, even for Bishops.

You have given us, Sir, a very unwarrantable account of the Nicene Council; and to have some colour for your representation, you say in a note, that Gregory Nazianzen 'speaks of the unprincipled ambition and shameful conduct of the clergy of that council.' When I see the passage which gives that information, I shall not be disposed to doubt that it is to be found in the works of Gregory; but then I shall oppose to it the account which Eusebius gives us of that council. He was a member of the council, and must, therefore, have known more about it than Gregory, who lived fifty years after the event. Eusebius says nothing, that I can find, about 'unprincipled ambition and shameful conduct. If you will consult the thirteenth Chapter of the third Book, you will find that nothing occurred inconsistent with gravity and decorum. He mentions, indeed, an undue degree of warmth that appeared in some of the members, and some instances of personal reflections, which the Emperor, who was present, immediately checked. Arianism, and the time of keeping Easter, were the most material points debated in that council, and the first in particular was very interesting; of course it would excite warmth, and warmth generally produces improprieties; but none occurred, according to Eusebius, but what the subjects, and the number of the members present, would naturally produce; none that would justify your assertion, that the clergy of that council were men of 'unprincipled ambition, and shameful conduct.'

When I read the account which Eusebius has given of that council, and the canons which were made by it, I cannot perceive in your representation, the least trace of moderation, or conformity to facts. I should think that men who could enact such canons as the following, must be pure themselves, and very zealous to promote purity in others. The second canon ordains, that "those who shall be convicted of any crime, shall be deprived of their ecclesiastical functions." The third forbids "Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and other clergymen, to keep women in the house with them, excepting those of whom there can be no suspicion." The ninth ordains, "that those Priests shall be degraded, who are found either to have sacrificed, or to have been guilty of other crimes before their ordination." The fifteenth forbids "the translation of Bishops and Priests," and ordains, "that those who shall be translated, shall return to their first Church." The seventeenth ordains "that clergymen who are usurers, or who take sordid gain, shall be deposed."b These canons look as

if the Bishops of that council were men of virtue and religion, and not ambitious and unprincipled, as you represent them. Add to this, that they had but lately come out of a most dreadful

a Page 330,

b Du PIN'S Eccles. Hist. Vol. I. p. 252, 253.

persecution, which generally purifies both priests and people; and then there can be no doubt that you have given a grossly erroneous account of the council of Nice, and the Bishops of the early part of the fourth century.

I should not, Sir, take any notice of your quotation from Dr. Owen, were it not to show your readers how strangely you have hooked yourself upon one of the horns of a dilemma. "The first express attempt," says the learned Dr. Owen, "to corrupt and divide a Church, made from within itself, was that in the Church of Jerusalem, made by Thebulis, because Simon The same Cleopas was chosen Bishop, and he was refused. rise had the schisms of the Novatians and Donatists, the heresies of Arius and others." Now, Simon Cleopas was either a diocesan, or a congregational Bishop. If a diocesan, then you give up the point, and acknowledge that kind of episcopacy to be an apostolical institution. If a congregational Bishop, then I would be glad to know, what the conduct of Thebulis has to do with diocesan episcopacy? Dr. Owen may have been a learned man; but if this specimen be any proof, he was not a reasoner. And how you could so far forget yourself as to quote with approbation a passage, which implies either a dereliction of your hypothesis, or a circumstance, which, if it has any force, lies entirely against yourself, can be accounted for in no other way, than by supposing that your zeal obscured your understanding.

What you say from page 339 to 341, is only a repetition of what you say in the first part of the letter; to which I have made a reply in my last. But it may be well to take notice of your mode of answering an obvious objection to your reasoning. Your position is, that those who belong to a true, visible Church, ought to be better than those who do not. To this I have shown, that the Quaker can talk precisely in the same manner with respect to Presbyterians, that you do with respect to Episcopalians; and that there is no possible way for you to break the force of the retort. This alone is quite sufficient to impose silence upon you, without adding another syllable; for the reasoning of the Quaker, upon the Presbyterian principle, "no ministry, no true Church," is perfectly logical. But other modes of reasoning may be adopted by us. I ask you, how do you determine that the members of our Church, when placed in equally favourable circumstances, are not better than the members of your Church? Will you say, I can see with my eyes and hear with my ears, and cannot perceive that they are a tittle better than we? But, Sir, have we not eyes and ears as well as you? And are they not as good as yours? Now, suppose their report should be that we are better than you, what would you say to it? I cannot see what, but that you do not think so. But suppose we do, who is to decide the point? Can any created being do it? I believe not.

I hope I shall not be misunderstood upon this point. I make

no claim for Episcopalians to superior goodness. I only put the matter upon this ground for the sake of argument; and to show the weakness of what you seem to think conclusive reasoning. In truth, the whole is mere assumption.

Another mode of reasoning used by us is, that there may be very correct principles, and yet not a suitable practice. But you say, this is merely an evasion of the argument.' And again: "We contend that there is, and must ever be, more virtue and holiness in the Church of CHRIST, than out of it.' Then it will follow, as you unchurch the Quakers by making a ministry essential to a true Church, that the objection in the mouth of a Quaker against you, is as strong as the same objection in the mouth of a Presbyterian against us. You ought then in reason to satisfy the Quaker, before you demand of us to satisfy you.

You go on-Nor do we, by taking this ground, furnish either an infidel or an heretic with a handle against us.' Why not? Because, as long as he could only with truth say, Some of you, Christians, are as bad as infidels; I would confidently reply, they are not Christians but hypocrites; for if they had any portion of the spirit of their Master, they would not act thus. But if he could really make it appear that Christians are in general, and as a body, in no respect better than infidels, he would certainly establish his argument.' And do you really think, Sir, that these are parallel cases ? Is there no difference between infidels and professing Christians who have no valid ministry? Have not these the Bible to regulate their principles, and improve them in virtue and piety? Infidels reject this. source of information altogether. They therefore can have no knowledge of GOD, but by their own unassisted reason; and what a fallible guide that is, the history of mankind sufficiently evinces. Were a Christian in a situation, in which he could not attend any public worship, but had to rely entirely upon his Bible for instruction, we might reasonably suppose that he would be a better man than the infidel, who rejects that source of instruction. Otherwise, what advantage has good instruction over bad? What advantage has revelation over reason? In that book he would find that the wrath of GOD, is revealed against all unrighteousness; that remission of sins is preached in the name of JESUS CHRIST, and in no other name whatever. Would not this (the blessing of GOD attending it) have a powerful tendency to raise him from a death of sin to a life of righteousness? It certainly would. But the infidel, by rejecting the Bible, foregoes this inestimable advantage. trusts to his own fallible reason, which can never assure him, that, were he even to repent of his past transgressions, and live righteously for the future, this would recommend him to the favour of GOD, and give him a reasonable hope of eternal happiness. Reason never produced this conviction in the minds of the Heathen. They were without hope, and without GOD in the world. Here there is a striking difference between the case

He

of the infidel and that of the Christian, although the latter were in a situation in which he could not attend any kind of public instruction and worship. But when the Christian regularly attends public worship, although the ministers who officiate have not received a valid ministry, yet the benefit of joining in the prayers and praises of a religious assembly, and the moral and religious lessons that are taught from the pulpit, must, in reason, be considered as very great.

Still farther. In a Church in which there is not a Scriptural and valid ministry, both those who administer what are deemed sacraments, and those who receive them, may receive considerable benefit from them. And as the ministers who officiate sincerely believe that they have a right to do so, and the people also have the same persuasion, there can be no doubt, that a GOD of mercy will pardon their involuntary error, and dispense that grace to their well meant endeavour to do his will, which is not attached by promise to unwarranted administrations. If you should not deem these observations satisfactory, you will be under the necessity of excluding from divine grace and mercy, those Christians who have no ministry.

Once more, Sir-The whole of your reasoning upon this point appears to me to rest upon a false foundation. It supposes that the ministry is of the essence of religion. There may be, and we know there is, faith in CHRIST, and love to God and man, which are the essentials of Christianity, where there is no ministry. A ministry is, in my opinion, essential to a visible Church. In this I believe Episcopalians and Presbyterians are generally agreed., It is, therefore, of great importance to preserve it. What God has appointed, no man, no Church has a right to reject. Still some good people may be so unhappy as to err upon this point. Of the cause of their error we are not competent judges. We must leave them to him who judgeth righteously.

Upon the whole matter, in the words of Dr. Hobart, "HE who worketh all things according to the council of his own will, may dispense with his own institutions, and depart from the settled order of the economy of grace. It may please him to bless the sincere exertions and labours of those who reject the positive institutions and laws of his house. He giveth not to man an account of his doings. The inefficacy of these institutions on the lives of many, and the piety and holiness which others exhibit who reject them, may be trials of our humility and submission; tests, whether under these inauspicious appearances we may not arrogantly exclaim, To what purpose are these positive ordinances? We may be virtuous and pious without them?' Ah! let not the humble believer be seduced by this specious, but arrogant reasoning from the ways of God's appointment. It was this proud spirit which urged our first parents to violate a positive institution of the ALMIGHTY;