rible doctrine than that of the Manichæans, who made man the author of his own miscarriage, and did not fetch the principal of evil from God Almighty.

2d. Wickliffe is charged with denying infant baptism, and with giving a most absurd interpretation of our Saviour's declaration, that, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. He affirms, that by these words we are to understand only the water which flowed from our Saviour's side, in conjunction with the baptism of the spirit.

3d. He disallows imposition of hands in ordina tion, and all other ceremonies of an outward calling. He is likewise said to have given women the privilege of the priesthood and pulpit, and to allow Priests to ordain to their own order.

4th. Wickliffe is charged with several heterodoxies relating to the attributes and operations of the Almighty. As that, God always acts to the extent of his power, and can do nothing more nor otherwise, than what he does: That he could not alter the state of the creation, the order of things, or make the world greater or less than it is: That the First Cause is limited in the creation of humansouls, and cannot exceed such a fixed and determined number, nor annihilate any thing.

5th. Several errors relating to our Saviour are ascribed to him; as that our Saviour had three natures in a separate sense; whereas, the scriptures

inform us that he consists only of two, the human and divine.

Lastly: He is charged with denying that a Bishop is superior to a Priest.

These, Sir, are but a few of Wickliffe's heterodoxies, as they are given us by Collier. Now, you may either receive all, or reject all. Take Wickliffe, with some important truths, and many gross errors, and what does it all amount to? Precisely to this: that it was wasting time and paper to have noticed him. But as you have brought him to view, it was expedient for me to show, that Wickliffe's opinion, with respect to Episcopacy, is of no more consequence than George Fox's, with respect to a minis❤ try in any degree, or under any form.

You go on, Sir, in the same irrelevant and useless manner. You inform us, that the renowned martyrs, John Huss, and Jerome of Prague, who laid down their lives for the truth, a little after the time of Wickliffe, embraced the greater part, if not all the opinions of the English Reformer, and especially his doctrine concerning the parity of Christian Ministers. You then quote Eneas Sylvius to prove this, but do not let us know in what part of his works we are to look for the quotation; and you say, that this account is confirmed by Thuanus, without any reference to page or volume. Were I to pass over the whole of this, it would be

See also Mosheim, vol. iii. p. 333..

treating the matter as it deserves. When a writer gives us no particular reference, his assertion is not entitled to any notice. But waving this, I observe

First, That Collier, in the view he gives us of John Huss' and Jerome's sentiments, does not say a word of their notions of ecclesiastical government. This, indeed, taken alone, does not amount to much. But taken in connection with what follows, it has some weight.

In the second place; Mosheim does not say that John Huss maintained the principle of ministerial parity. And Mosheim's translator, Dr. Maclean, asserts, that he adopted the opinions of Wickliffe only "in relation to the papal hierarchy, the despotism of the court of Rome, and the corruption of the clergy; for in other respects, it is certain that he adhered to the most superstitious doctrines of the church, as appears by two sermons he had prepared for the council of Constance."*

It cannot, therefore, be deemed of a 'any consequence, that Eneas Sylvius (admitting the correctness of your quotation) charges John Huss, and Jerome of Prague, with maintaining the principle of ministerial parity.

Although I do not think it of the least moment what Sylvius says upon this point, yet I wish to have access to his works, to see with my own eyes, what he asserts with respect to these men, and

* Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. vol. iii. p. 410.

the Waldenses. But I have not his writings, nor do I know who has. They are, I find, in the library of Philadelphia; as appears from some notes in my possession, made upon your book by a sensible and candid Clergyman of that city. "As Dr. Miller (says he) quotes Thuanus, Eneas Sylvius, and Walsingham, to prove, that the Bishops of the Waldenses were mere Presbyters, I this day [July 27th] looked into these authors, in the Library; but in the places to which the indexes refer, could find nothing to the purpose. In Thuanus, there is a passage, which I find translated in Bishop Newton; but this cannot serve Dr. Miller's turn. Eneas Sylvius mentions them cursorily, when he introduces his account of John Huss. But the intemperate manner in which he speaks of both John Huss and the Waldenses, would at least invalidate what is brought from him, if it be there, which I doubt. In Walsingham I could find nothing; and, indeed, I should lay little stress on any thing from this monkish writer."

"When I looked on Bishop Newton's, and at Dr. Mosheim's representations of the Waldenses, and at the respectable, early testimonies, so far back as the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, which they refer to in their notes, I am surprised at Dr. Miller's bringing against them the testimony of Walsingham and Sylvius, who lived in the fifteenth, and that of Thưanus, who lived in the sixteenth century; even supposing their testimony to be as stated; of which, to say the VOL. II.

I

least, I have great doubts." Thus writes a man, who would not wilfully misrepresent any thing.

You next quote a passage from Tyndal, who was a canon of Oxford, in the reign of Henry the eighth. But I can see nothing in the quotation to which I cannot very readily subscribe. "All that were called Elders (or Priests, if they so will) were called Bishops also, though they have now divided the names." This is very correct. Presbyters were undoubtedly called Bishops at first, but at the beginning of the second century, those who succeeded to the Apostolical pre-eminence, had the title of Bishop appropriated to them.

This Tyndal, according to Collier,* was very he terodox, upon both Popish and Protestant principles. To mention but one particular: He maintained that all Christians were Priests, and denied the necessity of any distinct order. Such a man's ideas of ecclesiastical regimen, can be of no consequence, one way or the other.

1

Lambert's testimony is also of the same import with that of Tyndal's. He certainly did not mean to exclude the Apostles from their rank in the church; and then there were three orders, Apostles, Presbyters or Bishops, and Deacons. The community of names is nothing at all to the purpose, as has been proved, almost to a demonstration.

I have now, Sir, to examine what you are pleased to call the Concessions of Episcopalians.

• Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 72.