two, as must be done, if we separate the order of presbyters from "the order of bishops."

❝ment.

Dr. Haweis, an eminent clergyman of the Church of England, now living, in the Introduction to his Ecclesiastical History, makes the following decided avowal. "Having, through divine mercy, obtained grace to be faithful-having in Providence "received my education, and been called to minister in the church "of England, I have embraced and subscribed her articles, ex an"imo, and have continued to prefer an episcopal mode of governBut disclaiming all exclusive pretensions, and joined to "the Lord in one spirit, with all the faithful of every denomination, "I candidly avow my conviction, that the true church is catholic, "or universal; not monopolized by any one body of professing "christians, but essentially a spiritual church; and consisting only "and equally of those who, in every denomination, love our Lord "Jesus Christ in sincerity. Respecting the administration of "this church, I am not convinced that the Lord of life and glory "left any precise regulations. His kingdom could alike subsist "under any species of government; and having nothing to do "with this world, was, in externals, to be regulated by existing "circumstances. Whether Episcopacy, Presbytery, or the con"gregational order, be established as the dominant profession, it "affects not the body of Christ. The living members, under each "of these modes of administration, are alike bound to love one "another out of a pure heart fervently; to indulge their brethren "in the same liberty of private judgment which they exercise "themselves; and ought never to suffer these regulations of out"ward order to destroy the unity of the spirit, or to break the "bonds of peace."

The Rev. Mr. Gisborne, a distinguished and popular writer, of the Church of England, also now living, avows opinions nearly similar to those contained in the preceding quotation. In his Survey of the Christian Religion, (chapter xii.) he has the following passage. "If Christ, or his apostles, enjoined the uniform adop"tion of episcopacy, the question is decided. Did Christ then, or "his disciples, deliver, or indirectly convey, such an injunction? "This topic has been greatly controverted. The fact appears to "be this: that the Saviour did not pronounce upon the subject; "that the apostles uniformly established a bishop in every district,

። as soon as the Church in that district became numerous; and thus "clearly evinced their judgment, as to the form of ecclesiastical government most advantageous, at least in those days, to christi"anity; but that they left no command which rendered episcopacy "universally indispensable in future times, if other forms should. "evidently promise, through local opinions and circumstances greater benefit to religion, SUCH IS THE GENERAL SENTIMENT OF THE PRESENT CHURCH OF ENGLAND ON THE SUBJECT."

An eminent layman of the church of England, in a work lately published, in the course of some excellent advices for promoting the prosperity of that church, expressly reprobates the exclusive claims for which some zealous hierarchists contend, and pronounces them most mischievous in their operation on the interests of religion. Among many pertinent and judicious remarks on this subject, he makes the following. "A general presumption lies. "against all extraordinary claims; and on this account, the oppo"sition which is commonly made to them, (though previous to "examination) is not absolutely unreasonable. They are marks "by which the weakest persons, as well as the weakest causes, are "particularly distinguished. In this kind of competition, the em"piric, the pedant, and the sophist, will far outstrip the skilful "physician, the able scholar, and the profound philosopher. The "same observation is applicable to bodies of men, ecclesiastical "as well as civil. Hence the high claims of the Romish church "afford the protestants one of their most legitimate presumptions • against her. From her claim of right to an absolute dictatorial "authority, we presume the contrary; from her claim to apostolic "purity in her faith, worship, government, and discipline, we

presume upon her corruption in each. From her denial of sal"vation to those that are without her pale, we presume it to be "peculiarly hazardous to be found within it. Thus by her ambi❝tious or fanatical endeavours to exalt herself above other churches, "she supplies them, and her adversaries in general, with a forcible "plea against herself." Again: "Suppose a church to give a "decided preference to episcopal government, not considering it "as absolutely essential to her being, but as conducive to her well"being; not as indispensably necessary, but expedient; and this "chiefly in respect to her own edification, without any positive "determination as to other churches; it is almost impossible that

a preference thus qualified should occasion any contest or animosity. But if she assert such a government to be of indispen"sable divine right, and set up a claim which nullifies the sacra"ments and administrations of other churches, she must expect to " encounter the most violent opposition. On the other hand, should a church, on account of the parity of her ministers, exalt herself "above other churches, and look down on the episcopal order, in "its most primitive state, as something popish and antichristian ; "she can hardly fail, by such an extravagance, to diminish her "credit with all impartial by-standers."

The opinions and the declarations of Dr. White, the present bishop of the episcopal churches in Pennsylvania, will have weight with all Episcopalians. In a pamphlet published by him, a few years ago, entitled, The Case of the Episcopal Churches in the United States considered, the principal object of which was to recommend a temporary departure from the line of episcopal succession, on the ground that bishops could not then be had, we find the following passage. p. 28. "Now if even those who hold "episcopacy to be of divine right, conceive the obligation to it not "to be binding when that idea would be destructive of public "worship; much more must they think so, who indeed venerate "and prefer that form as the most ancient and eligible, but without any idea of divine right in the case. This the author believes "to be the sentiment of the great body of Episcopalians in Ame"rica; in which respect they have in their favour, unquestionably, "the sense of the church of England; and, as he believes, the "opinions of her most distinguished prelates for piety, virtue, and "abilities."*

Another instance of concession from an eminent Episcopalian, is that of the present Bishop of Lincoln, who, in his Elements of Christian Theology, a work of great authority and popularity in the church of England at this time, expresses himself in the following terms. "Though I flatter myself that I have proved episco

* Christian Politics, by Ely Bates, Esq. Part II. Sect. 5. Second edition, 1806.

* It will be observed, that I am not alone in supposing that the great body of the church of England, both clergy and laity, reject the divine right of prelacy. A bishop of the highest reputation in the episcopal church in the United States, has pronounced that this is unquestionably so

"pacy to be an apostolical institution; yet I readily acknowledge, "that there is no precept in the New Testament, which com"mands that every church should be governed by bishops. No "church can exist without some government. But though there "must be rules and orders for the proper discharge of the offices of "public worship; though there must be fixed regulations con"cerning the appointment of ministers; and though a subordination "among them is expedient, in the highest degree; yet it does not "follow that all these things must be precisely the same in every "Christian country. They may vary with the other varying "circumstances of human society; with the extent of a country, "the manners of its inhabitants, the nature of its civil government, " and many other peculiarities which might be specified. As it "hath not pleased our Almighty Father to prescribe any particular "form of civil government, for the security of temporal comforts "to his rational creatures; so neither has he prescribed any "particular form of ecclesiastical polity, as absolutely necessary to "the attainment of eternal happiness. The scriptures do not "prescribe any particular form of church government." Vol. II. p. 383, &c.

To the foregoing quotations, I shall only add, that a number of the most learned divines of the church of England, when writing on other subjects, have indirectly made concessions quite as decisive as any that have been mentioned. Almost every divine of that church who has undertaken to explain the prophetic parts of the sacred writings, has represented the reformed Churches as "the Lord's sealed ones;" as his "anointed ones;" as the "witnesses against the man of sin;" as the "saints of the most high;" as having "the temple of God," and his "altar." Among many that might be named in confirmation of this remark, the ingenious and excellent Mr. Faber, in a work published in the course of the last year, (1806,) and which has received the decided approbation of his diocesan, expressly applies to the German protestants, those prophecies which represent the purest part of the Christian church. He dates the death of the witnesses at the battle of Mulburg, in April, 1547, and their resurrection at Magde burgh, in the year 1550. He does not claim for the church of England even the first rank among the witnesses, and much less the exclusive title to that honour.

The foregoing quotations are only a small specimen of what might have been produced, if our limits admitted of their being further multiplied. Nothing would be more easy than to fill a volume with concessions of similar import; concessions made, not by men of obscure name and small learning; but by divines of the most exalted character, for talents, erudition, and piety, that ever adorned the church of England; divines who shared her highest dignities, and who gave the most unquestionable evidence of attachment to her constitution. Those which we have detailed, however, are abundantly sufficient. They prove that Presbyterians are not alone in considering the fathers as favourable to the doctrine of ministerial parity; that the great body of the reformers, and other witnesses for the truth, in different ages and nations, were, in the opinion of enlightened Episcopalians, friends and advocates of the same doctrine; that the notion of the exclusive and unalterable divine right of diocesan episcopacy, has been not only rejected, but even reprobated, by some of the greatest divines of the church of England, in more indignant and severe language than I have permitted myself to use in the preceding pages; and that the most competent judges have considered a large majority of the English clergy, at all periods since the reformation, as advocates of the constitution of their national church, not on the principle of divine right, but of human expediency.