And Melancthon, one of the greatest characters among the reformed, "lays the blame on the cruelty of the Popish Bishops, that that canonical polity was destroyed, which (saith he) we so earnestly desired to preserve," and bids the Papists consider "what account they will render to God for thus scattering his church."*

As to the church of Holland, it is well known that her divines also pleaded necessity for their departure from Episcopacy. Bogerman, the President of the Synod of Dort, lamented to the British Bishops who attended that assembly, the unhappy situation of their church from a want of Bishops: Nobis non licet esse tam beatis, was his solemn declaration.

It is needless to enter into a more minute detail of the testimonies, which the foreign Reformers have left upon record, in favour of the excellency, expediency, and Apostolical institution of Episcopacy. Enough has been done to show, upon a general view, that the regimen of the church of England was formed upon a principle of imparity by Apostolic institution; of the church of Scotland, and the Lutheran churches in Germany, upon the 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

*

* Chandler's Appeal defended, p. 239.

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 priest✩ hood, cannot be called a dispute about the origin of Episcopacy. It must, therefore, strike every reflecting mind as a most wonderful thing, that for 1500 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, there fore, 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 this that 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 Epis❤ copacy; yet, I do assert, that when this univer sality can be traced up to the Apostolic age, that 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 decid edly in our favour.

LETTER XVI.

REV. SIR,

To notice all the intimations, inferences, and po sitive, 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.AN

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 that those Bishops are no more than Superintendents, such as govern the Lu» theran 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 kingdom of Sweden and Denmark, which retain the form of ecclesiastical government that preceded the reformation, purged indeed from the superstitions and abuses that rendered it so odious."

The form of government preceding the refor mation, 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 reordained 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, par ticularly examined their Episcopacy, and pronounc ed 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