land. This fiction, I flatter myself, has been sufficiently exposed. That the Pope of Rome should direct his missionary to plant Presbytery among the converts to Christianity in that island, is so monstrously absurd, that I wonder a man of sense can utter any thing of the kind. But the mind of man is a strange thing. It can see clearly enough when the object corresponds with its inclination; but when otherwise, a distinct perception, and a rational decision are not to be expected.

I have now, Sir, answered every thing of consequence, not only in this, but in every preceding letter; and that the precise point of dispute may be left clearly and strongly on the minds of our readers, I will, in a few words, again present it to their view.

The question between us is, what is the constitution of the Christian church? To prove it Episcopal, I have quoted-several passages from the New Testament; and, to show that our interpretation of these passages is correct, I have produced numerous testimonies from the primitive writers. This is the only possible way of deciding a question of fact. There has not been a single testimony produced by you that says, Episcopacy was not the government of the church in the Apostolic age; but I have produced a number of testimonies which directly say, that Episcopacy is a divine institution, and a still greater number which necessarily imply it. The comparatively few passages which you

have produced from the Fathers, are expressed in such vague and indefinite language, that unless we interpret them by what is clear and decisive, (as common sense says we ought) we must remain in the dark as to the meaning. By having recourse to this rule, we make St. Jerome consistent with himself; and what is of infinitely more consequence, we make the testimony of the Scriptures and of the Fathers perfectly consistent. If we abandon this. rule, and adopt your hypothesis, we immediately set them at variance, and present a difficulty to the mind incapable of rational solution.

I have also shown, from the nature of the human mind, which cannot act without a motive, and from the universally acknowledged circumstances of the church in the second century, that a change which deprived the Presbyters of their rights, could not have taken place. And, antecedently to this supposed change, I have shown that the venerable Ignatius, whose writings have been completely proved to be genuine and authentic, by Pearson and Hammond, and allowed to be so by the great body of the learned, declares over and over again, that Episcopacy is of divine institution. This testimony is of immense weight, and can never be diminished by any efforts of genius, by any subtleties of sophistry, or by any plausibility of theory.

It has also been shown, that no church, after the most severe investigation, can be produced, in which Episcopal government did not prevail, till

the sixteenth century. The Armenian and Persian churches in the East, those of Spain in the West, of Africa in the South, and of Great-Britain in the North, submitted to Episcopal regimen, without a single exception. And the proof we have for all this, is the universal testimony of those writers, upon whose authority we admit the canon of scripture.

Here then I would ask a conscientious Presbyterian, whether he can in his heart believe, that the primitive Saints and Martyrs would be so profligate as to usurp the Episcopal pre-eminence in defiance of the institution of the Apostles? Whether they would attempt this, not only without any worldly motive, but with a certainty of greater loads of care and affliction, and with the strongest probability of a terrible death? I would ask him, whether men would attempt to usurp a little spiritual authority with such expectations, and upon such principles? And if it were possible to conceive it, whether they could prevail in so short time over the widely dif fused church of Christ; and that too without opposition, or one word of complaint from the degraded Presbyters? But admitting these unreasonable suppositions, I would ask a conscientious Presbyterian, whether he ought to consider the supposition of a fact, as equivalent to the proof of it? The fact still remains to be proved, although we admit the possibility of it.

I conclude, therefore, in the words of Mr. Reeves,

that "Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, were the three orders of the church from the beginning the days of John Calvin, who, though a wise and learned man, showed his frailty first, by thrusting himself into the sacred function without being lawfully called; and, secondly, by drawing up, out of his own head, a new scheme of Ecclesiastical polity, wherein he excludes the Episcopal order, and lodges the whole power of the church in a minister with lay-elders; and taking advantage of the fondness and necessity of the people, and the absence of the Bishop, made them swear as absolutely to his new scheme, as if every tittle of it had been dictated from Mount Sinai; although, by his own confession, but intimated in scripture, and this intimation never thought of by any of the ancients, nor any strictures of such a form entertained in any church upon earth before his own time. This novel regimen found its way into the French and Dutch reformed churches, and after some time into the church of Scotland; but the church of England kept close to the primitive government, concluding that we might as well reform ourselves out of the inferior orders of Presbyter and Deacon, as that of Bishop. And that if any one of these Apostolic institutions may be nulled by human authority, so might the rest, and so we might come to have a new form of church government every moon, or, if that seem best, none at all. And, therefore, (says

he) though I have all imaginable good will and charity for the foreign churches, who, under their hands, have testified their readiness to conform with us, were they in our place, and plead necessity for their difference, yet being no judge, I shall not take upon me to determine how far this plea now will justify or excuse them. But this plea of theirs can never reach our home dissenters, who have nothing to object against the moderation of our present Bishops (as Calvin had against those of Rome) but only that they are Bishops. And, therefore, I cannot think it is either reasonable or lawful, to write ourselves out of an Apostolical institution, confirmed by the concurring sense and practice of all the Fathers, by a prescription of fifteen hundred years standing, and by the judgment of our own Reformers and Martyrs. I can never think ourselves, I say, obliged in charity to write ourselves. out of this complicated authority, into a compliance with such consciences as make such Bishops one article for schism, which their pretended patron St. Jerome makes decreed by the Apostles for the extirpation of the seeds of schism all the world over.' ""*

The way is now open for me to make a few res marks upon your concluding letter.

Your first observation is, that "the practical influence of any doctrine, has been generally con

* Preface concerning the right use of the Fathers.