LETTER XVII.

REV. SIR,

MY labour is now happily drawing to a close. I have little more to do than to take a view of your fanciful statement of "the rise and progress of Episcopacy." I do not conceive that it is necessary for me to do this; for if I have proved the fact, that Episcopacy is an Apostolical institution, all the efforts of your ingenuity to show that it took its rise long after the death of the Apostles, must be ascribed to the "audacity of fancy," and be deemed utterly inconsistent with the truth of history. No, Sir, it is not because you have said any thing in your eighth Letter, which in any degree affects the evidence I have produced, that I am led to examine your plausible attempt to account for what never has yet been accounted for; but because I shall be furnished with an opportunity of presenting to my readers, what I deem complete moral demonstration, that Episcopacy is not a human, but a divine institution. This is my leading motive for continuing this discussion: my secondary motive is, to show your readers, that you have exhibited to them, a perfect tissue of conjectures, lacies, and misrepresentations of facts.

There is a question, which, at the very outset of this inquiry, will occur to a reflecting mind.-If Episcopacy was introduced into the church after the Apostolic age, what can be the reason, that it cannot be determined by the advocates for parity, when this anti-christian usurpation took its rise. Some of them place it in the close of the first century, before the death of St. John, as Baxter, Chamier, and Du Moulin; others in the beginning of the second century, as Doddridge and Salmasius; others in the middle of that century, as Blondel and the Westminster divines; others at the close of that age, as Campbell and Chauncey; others in the third century, a long list of whom you will find in Sage's Cyprianic Age; and others again in the fourth century, as yourself, Lord King, and a few more. Here is a wide range taken by our opponents; not less than the space of two hundred years. Now, this difficulty of pointing out the time when Episcopacy took its rise, must be owing either to a want of records, or to the very trifling nature of the change. To the first it has never been ascribed; for the records are sufficiently ample. Nor can it, with the most distant appearance of reason, be ascribed to the latter; for the change was very striking and important; no less than that of depriving the Presbyters throughout the whole Christian church of their right of ordaining, and of establishing in one person a supremacy of power and jurisdiction. It is not possible to

consider such a change as unimportant, and unworthy of notice. This then is the first presumptive proof, that no such change took place.

You endeavour, Sir, to surmount the difficulty, which arises from the wide difference of opinion among Presbyterians, with respect to the date of Episcopacy, by saying that we cannot tell the time when infant communion began in the church. And do you seriously think, Sir, that this, were it true, would obviate the difficulty? How is it possible that you should not see, that there is no parrallel between the two cases? What human being did infant communion deprive of his rights? What was there in this practice to excite the passions of men? What to produce violent contention, and strenuous resistance? Was the adult injured by it? Did it exclude him from the altar? Not a single consideration can be perceived by the human mind to induce it to think, that any thing more than verbal contention would be the issue. But in the other case, the Presbyters were deprived of their most sacred rights. The right of ordaining, which was given them by Jesus Christ, and which they were as sure belonged to them as that they held the office of Presbyters, was wrested out of their hands. A parity of power and jurisdiction, which they had derived from the same source, was abolished, and a supremacy established in an individual, in every city. I appeal to every man who is ace quainted with human nature, whether such flagrant

injustice was not sufficient to rouse the fiercest passions of the heart? Let the trial be made at this day, by a number of the most daring spirits among the Presbyterian ministers in this country, to seat themselves in Episcopal chairs. To ask a child what would be the issue, would be to insult his understanding.

It must be obvious to every reflecting mind, that there is a great difference between opinions, which do not in the least affect the rights and privileges of others, and principles which do. The former may be broached and spread considerably, before any notice is taken of them. But the latter immediately set men upon exerting all the powers of resistance. Every effort would have been made by the Presbyters to prevent the execution of so daring a project; and considering the circumstances in which the church was, before the establishment of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine, it was morally impossible for the Bishops to succeed in their foolish and wicked attempt. There is, therefore, no parallel between the two cases.

I think I might safely trust this reasoning with `every impartial person. The difference between a principle which is perfectly harmless, and one that, when acted upon, is flagrantly unjust, sets the two cases at such an immense distance, that I am astonished at your bringing them to a point of comparison. But the unreasonableness of this mode of removing the difficulty need not have been in

sisted upon, for you have, by a single sentence, given up the point. Remember that the opponents of Episcopacy cannot agree, whether it took its rise in the first, second, or third century, or even till some time in the fourth. But you say, "It is certain that this corruption [infant communion] existed in the second century." Here you fix the time; for I suppose you do not mean to carry it up to the first century, and make it an Apostolical practice. Nor is it at all probable that it took its rise early in the second century, while numbers were living who had seen the Apostles administer the holy communion. We must, therefore, upon every ground of probability, place its beginning somewhere about the middle of the second century. Now, Sir, we do not tie you up in this manner.

We do not ask

you to give us a period of a few years, when all the Presbyterians in the world became Episcopalians; although we certainly have a right to call for the record of such a wonderful revolution. No, Sir, we will not confine you to so short a period as fifty years. You may take any entire century you please after the first; and if we do not prove from indubitable records, that Episcopacy existed before your given period, we are willing to give up the whole cause.

It seems then, that you can tell, within a few years, when infant communion began; but you request of us to allow you between two and three hundred years for the period, within which Epis copacy made its appearance, and then you can