Fathers, that the churches in the primitive ages were not uniformly governed by three orders of ministry; but frequently by two, and sometimes by one. Secondly, bishops were parochial clergymen, in many places at least, and nothing more. Thirdly, ordinations were performed by presbyters, especially in the case of Irenæus, and for a long time in the church at Alexandria. Fourthly, no particular account can be given of the origin of the church of Rome, or of its first seven bishops. Fifthly, the power of the English clergy is confessedly derived from the king, and not from any church. Sixthly, the informality of ordination in the English church was such, in the opinion of the Catholics, who are supposed to constitute the true church, as to destroy all power, that might be transmitted by the episcopal succession. Seventhly, English bishops were at an early period consecrated by presbyters, and at a much later period, ordination by presbyters was considered valid. Fi. nally, the consecration of archbishop Parker, who was the beginning of the succession since his time, both to English and American bishops, was declared, and is still considered by the Catholics, invalid, and was at best of a very suspicious and doubtful character.

These are difficulties in the way of your positions, which it can be no easy matter for the most sanguine friends of episcopacy to remove. Taking the whole train of evidence into consideration, the arguments in favour of the jure divino pretensions to episcopacy, when arrayed in all their strength, cannot place it on a firmer basis, than conjecture and possibility. Many contradictions must be reconciled, much positive tes-

timony destroyed, and much light brought out of darkness, even before this can be done. Is any one willing to accede to the extraordinary pretensions, which the episcopal church makes, to a divine origin and succession, on grounds so slender and feeble as these?

To support such claims, nothing should be considered sufficient, but clear, positive, continued, unanswerable evidence. This evidence is not found in the Bible, or the practice of the primitive ages; it is not found in history, or the common sense of mankind; nor do I believe it can be found any where.

It has not been my object to show, that the episcopal mode of church government is not a good one, when allowed to stand on its proper foundation. Whether it is well calculated to promote the great ob jects of the christian religion, and to make effectual the means of salvation in the hearts and lives of men, is not a question with which I am at present concerned. If it is a government with which the people are pleased, that is enough. They are the only proper judges. It may perhaps be doubted, whether it is so well adapted to the genius and spirit of our civil government and institutions, as some other form; yet while it does not interfere with these, and while it is allowed to be derived from the people, I can discover no reason why any one should complain.

It is not the form to which I object, but the pretensions, and the improper influence, which the heads of a church, professing to be vested by their official character with apostolical sanctity, will be likely to have on the weaker and more credulous part of society. It has been my aim to make it appear, that

no such pretensions are authorized in the scriptures, or sanctioned by the practice of the apostolic age.

Archdeacon Paley, one of the brightest ornaments of the episcopal church, long ago placed this subject in its true light, in his sermon on the distinction of orders in the church. He proves very clearly, that the apostolic usages and directions do not warrant any exclusive form of ecclesiastical government. He observes, "whilst the precepts of christian morality, and the fundamental articles of its faith, are for the most part precise and absolute, of perpetual, universal, and unalterable obligation; the laws which respect the discipline, instruction and government of the community, are delivered in terms so general and indefinite, as to admit of an application adapted to the mutable condition, and varying exigencies of the christian church."

The reason for this is very obvious. The christian religion was intended for all countries, and all times; and it was necessary that its external institutions should be of so general a nature, as to be adapted to the local circumstances, peculiar situation, and established laws of different communities. It was the end, and not the means, which our Saviour and his apostles had in view. Principles of faith, rules of action, the spirit of the gospel, the temper of love, piety and holiness, were to be established in the minds and hearts of men. How this object could best be effected under different circumstances, was left to the judgment and prudence of good men.*

The

*It is not a little amusing to see with what raptures the editor of Nelson's work on Festivals and Fasts, speaks of Law's three let

bishop of Lincoln advances similar sentiments.* Although he labours to prove episcopacy to be an apostolic institution, he does not consider it of divine origin. As God has prescribed no particular mode of civil government, so he acknowledges, that the commands and precepts of the New Testament do not enjoin any particular form of ecclesiastical polity.

Locke, who was also an episcopalian, uses still stronger language. "A church," says he, "I take to be a society, joining themselves together of their own accord, in order to the public worship of God, in such a manner as they shall judge acceptable to him, and effectual to the salvation of their souls." After having stated the objection offered by some, that no society can be regarded a true church, unless it have in it a presbyter or bishop, deriving his authority from the apostles, he goes on to remark; "to those who make this objection, I answer, let them show me the edict by which Christ has imposed that law on his church, and let not any man think me impertinent, if in a thing of this consequence,

ters to bishop Hoadly. He says they form a conclusive answer to archdeacon Paley, "expose his dangerous errors, detect the fallacy of his arguments, and drive him humbled from the strong holds in which he fancied himself secure!" And in what way is this wonderful achievement attained? By taking for granted the very thing to be proved, namely, that the "christian ministry is a divine, positive institution," and that the form of this institution was originally episcopal. Starting with these premises, it requires not much skill in logic to infer, that episcopacy is of divine origin, and therefore unchangeable. And this is the amount of Law's argument.

* Elements of Christian Theology, vol. ii. p. 376, et seqq. as quoted by Dr. Rees, Cycl. Art. Bish.

I require that the terms of the edict be very express and positive."* It will be well for all persons, who believe in the divine institution of any particular order of ministry, and that this order still remains, to search carefully and find such an edict before they are very, positive, or begin to seek for arguments from foreign and unauthenticated sources.

As no rules are prescribed in the scriptures on this subject, we have reason to think, that all denominations of christians are fully authorised to form such regulations for the government of their churches, as they may think best calculated to promote the great interests of religion. While every thing is done "decently and in order," while they endeavor to imbibe the spirit of the gospel, and acquire the temper, as well as copy the example of the apostles, they will be conforming to the will of God, and the precepts of our Saviour.

All the duties requisite for personal holiness, and acceptance with God, are clearly enjoined in the scriptures; but nothing is said about the manner in which ministers of the gospel shall be chosen, or the form in which they shall be initiated into their office. We know the apostles, and their immediate successors, were not guided by any uniform rules in this respect, and we have no reasons for supposing, that any such rules were intended to be applied to christians of after ages. There is not a single positive direction in the whole word of God on the subject. Every well ordered christian community has a right to establish such religious institutions, as may be best suited to

*Letters on Toleration..