that some may rule, and some obey: that this order is not newly devised, but received in the Church from the Apostles' times; and that God himself made a distinction between Ministers, and appointed degrees," &c. Again he says, "The word Bishop, notwithstanding it is often times used by St. Paul for every Pastor of the Church of GOD, who have a kind of oversight of their several charges, and so may suo modo-after a sort, be called Bishops or Superintendents, yet here (on the text-a Bishop must be unreproveable, &c.) it signifieth, by way of excellence, those chief pastors, to whom the oversight of the lives and manners of the other Ministers is committed."y

66

Numerous other passages might be produced from Lutheran and Calvinistic divines, to the same purpose. But I shall add no more. Enough has been quoted to prove, that the most learned men of those persuasions held that the Apostles instituted prelacy in the Church, and that it was universally the government down to the reformation. And the reason they give is the best that can possibly be given, namely, that it is best calculated to prevent schism, and to promote peace and good order, lest, as Calvin speaks, ex æqualitate, ut fieri solet, dissidia nascerentur;" lest from equality, as it usually happens, dissensions should arise." If Calvin afterwards altered his opinion with respect to the apostolic institution of prelacy, it is an instance of that influence which situation and circumstances have over the human mind; and therefore can have no weight in the great controversy between us. The reason which he gives for prelacy ever did, and ever will exist; and although he may have been inconsistent, truth, like its great author, must ever be unchangeable, ever the same.

What gives Luther, and Calvin, and some others, an appearance of inconsistency on this subject, is, that they do not generally explain the kind of imparity which they maintain. Hence it is, that they sometimes appear to be perfect equality men; at other times, to assert as strongly as possible inequality. But this is easily explained. They did not hold an inequality of order, but an inequality of degree. This opinion, the offspring of the "dregs of Popery," preserves them from self-contradiction; and in no other way can it be done. When Calvin declares that there was no equality in the primitive Church, and says, the reason was, to prevent dissensions; when he says, that the Bishop among his Presbyters, was as the Roman Consuls among the Senators; when he makes the Church in the fourth century, when all acknowledge it was episcopal, the standard of purity and excellence; when he censures, in severe terms, the Papists for departing from the purity of the Church in the age of Cyprian, and speaks of him and others as distinguished prelates; when such passages as these occur, it is impossible to suppose

y For all these quotations, see BANCROFT's Survey, from p. 110 to p. 121. z Instit. Lib. IV. sect. 2.

that he meant to assert the doctrine of equality. But, on the other hand, it is impossible, from several passages in his writings, to suppose that he held an inequality of order. The only possible way, therefore, to keep him clear of contradiction, is to ascribe to him the opinion already mentioned. The same observations are applicable to Luther, with this additional evidence of their correctness, that he, in fact, did establish a prelacy in Germany; not, indeed, on the ground of a divine right which destroys the validity of other ordinations; but on the ground of apostolical usage, for the sake of unity, and the prevention of those mischiefs which are the natural fruit of schism.

I believe that I have now given a correct view of this part of the controversy, and shall, therefore, say nothing more about it. After all, this is but a poor way to settle a point of fact; nor should I have had recourse to it, had not you filled several pages of your book with testimonies from German, Dutch, and Genevan divines. Neither your testimonies nor mine, have the weight of a feather in the scale of evidence; for, on both sides, they are nothing but opinion, and opinion can never determine a matter of fact. We have both had recourse to the only proper evidence, Scripture and the primitive fathers; and if I do not deceive myself, on these grounds you are completely defeated. A few words with respect to Calvin's ordination and cha

racter.

If you will attend to what I said in my fifteenth Letter about Calvin's ordination, you will perceive that I did not speak of it as a matter beyond a doubt, that he never was ordained. I expressly declare, that it is very uncertain whether he received even Presbyterian ordination. This necessarily implies that I was not satisfied either one way or the other. And yet, from reading your Seventh Letter, every one would be led to suppose, that I had positively asserted, that Calvin never was ordained. I mentioned it as a matter of doubt; as a point in which I wanted information. And to show you on what authority I doubted, I quoted Dr. Leaming and Mr. Reeves. The former, you say, was an ignorant or dishonest guide.' This is neither decent nor true. He was not either; but a respectable, pious, and wellinformed man. This I know from a long and intimate acquaintance with him. He may have been mistaken; but if mistakes are marks of ignorance or dishonesty, what is to become of you and me? More decorum would have become you when speaking of a faithful Minister of CHRIST, who is now, I have no doubt, enjoying the fruit of his pious labonrs.-This to departed merit.

To return. What you quote from Beza with respect to Calvin's ordination, if it stood alone, would not be satisfactory. For the word 'designatus' does not determine whether Beza speaks of ordination or installation. The whole passage ought to have been quoted to enable us to determine precisely. But I acknowledge that my doubt is removed by the testimonies of Bellarmine and Junius, and by the probabilities you have stated. I have, therefore, no further opposition to make.

With respect to Calvin's character, I freely acknowledged that he was a man of talents, learning, and zeal; but at the same time asserted, that he was arbitrary and tyrannical. This I still assert, and were it necessary, or in any degree useful, would fill several pages with decisive proofs of my correctness. But no good can come of it: nor should I ever have mentioned it, were it not to show that presbytery admits (to say the least) of as much tyranny as episcopacy. Had you not so liberally bespattered prelates, Calvin's temper and conduct would never have been brought to view by me. Still, however, notwithstanding the provocation you gave me, it would have been more prudent to have said nothing about him, in this respect. I do not, therefore, feel the least reluctance in acknowledging my regret, that I followed the bad example you set me.

It certainly would afford me great pleasure, if every stain on the character of Calvin could be completely wiped away. But, sorry I am to say, this cannot be done. We may palliate his misconduct from the prevailing temper and notions of the age; but to justify it, would be a task which no man in his senses would undertake.

One more particular with respect to Calvin. You say, that Mr. How and myself make that reformer the father of Presbyterian parity; but that we are incorrect, as the Church of Geneva was governed by a presbytery before Calvin set his foot in that city. It is really a matter of very little consequence, whether Presbyterianism began two or three years sooner or later. We may both be right, according to the view we take of the subject. That Church was under the direction of the magistrates and two or three of the reforming Ministers, who remained after the Popish Bishop and Clergy had fled, to avoid the fury of the mob. It was utterly impossible to have any other but a temporary government, during the short interval between the flight of the Bishop and the arrival of Calvin; and that government was necessarily in its leading feature Presbyterian. On Calvin's arrival, he was admitted one of their preachers, and a divinity reader. Not pleased with the state of things, he drew up a system of Church government, and presented it to the people to be received under the obligation of an oath. The people were dissatisfied with it; disturbance arose, and Calvin was banished. It was not long, however, that he continued in exile. He was soon recalled, and then he established his system, with some slight alterations. So that, in fact, Presbyterianism was not a regular system, and fully established, till Calvin's return from banishment. This is the grand epoch of that system; although, in a certain qualified sense, it existed in Geneva a few months sooner. This is a correct view of the subject, as you will find by consulting Mosheim and Hooker. And, indeed, it agrees pretty much with your own account of the matter. Mr. How and myself, therefore, are substantially correct.

A few words with respect to the doctrines of Calvin. You

say,a aDr. B. and Mr. How both throw out many reflections on that system of doctrine which is generally called Calvinism. The latter, in particular, speaks of it as a detestable system, of which he has no language adequately to express his abhorrence. It was my original intention to devote a whole letter to the consideration of this greatly misunderstood and abused system of truth."

Now, Sir, in looking over my letters, I cannot find that I have said a word against Calvin's doctrinal opinions; but as you are frequently most grossly off your guard when you tell your readers what I have said, or have not said, it can create no surprise in me, or in any body else, that the beginning, middle, and end of your last work should, in this respect, be all of a piece. But this by the way.

As to Mr. How, he will answer for himself, and, no doubt, to the purpose. As your observation respects me, I now say what I did not in any page of my letters addressed to you. Personal, unconditional election, with its unavoidable counterpart, personal, unconditional reprobation, I, with Mr. How, hold in the utmost abhorrence; nor can I ever think of some of Calvin's positions without shuddering. The following is one of them. "As God has his effectual call whereby he gives the elect the salvation to which he has ordained them; so has he his judgments towards the reprobates, whereby he executes his decree concerning them. As many, therefore, as he created to live miserably, and then perish everlastingly, these, that they may be brought to the end for which they were created, he sometimes deprives of the possibility of hearing the word, and at other times, by preaching thereof, blinds and stupifies them the more." This, and many other such passages in the writings of Calvin, make my blood run cold. I never can think of the greater part of the human race being brought into existence under a decree of damnation, without the strongest feeling of indignation against the man who could pen such a sentence. What a picture of a gracious and merciful GOD!-But I am done. The subject always lacerates my feelings.

You have asserted that the Church of England is Calvinistic in her doctrines, and that her reformers were Calvinists. You certainly must be unacquainted with the writings of many of her ablest divines, who have proved these assertions to be totally groundless. Had you read Tucker, Randolph, Daubeny, Pearson, Winchester, Laurence, Pretyman, and others, who have written upon the subject, you never would have ventured such assertions. That several eminent divines of her communion have been Calvinists, is beyond a doubt, as several have been Arians; but the great body of her clergy, ever since the reformation, and particularly since the reign of Elizabeth, have been on the

a Continuation, p. 329. [p. 420, 2d ed.] b Institut. B. III. chap. xxiv. sect. 21. VOL. II.-16

Arminian side of this controversy; and in this country, I doubt whether there are three clergymen of our Church, who believe the doctrine of individual election and reprobation.

There are certain doctrines found in our articles and offices which ought not to be called Calvinistic, as they are are not peculiar to Calvinism, but are common to almost all denominations of Christians. Those doctrines are, the depravity of human nature, the necessity of the renewal of the mind by divine influence, salvation by the merit of CHRIST's atonement considered as a strict and proper sacrifice, a trinity of persons in the unity of the Godhead, the necessity of holiness and obedience springing from evangelical faith, the resurrection of the body, a general judgment, eternal happiness to the righteous, and eternal misery to the wicked. These are the doctrines which our Church constantly inculcates; but never does she teach the doctrines of absolute electiou and reprobation; of irresistible grace and final perseverance. She uses, indeed, the words election and predestination; but it would be the excess of weakness thence to infer that she is Calvinistic. Her doctrines are most unequivocally general redemption, and the defectibility of divine grace; and if these are not the doctrines of holy Scripture, it will be hard to reconcile it with itself, with the attributes of the Deity, and with the common sense of mankind. But this is a controversy into which I am not disposed to enter at present-Mr. How will probably occupy some pages with it.

There is one more particular on which I wish to say a few words, before I examine the contents of your two last letters. What I have reference to, is the government of the Church in the kingdoms of Sweden and Denmark. You deny that they are episcopal; but at the same time acknowledge, that there is a gradation of Ministers among them. This, however, you assert, rests on the ground of human prudence, and, consequently, they lay no claim to apostolic sanction. For this you quote Dr. Colin, Pastor of the Swedish Church in Philadelphia. But still I must adhere to Mosheim, and to his translator, Dr. Maclaine, who, you know, was a Presbyterian, and yet asserts that the Churches of those northern kingdoms are different from the Churches in Germany; the former being episcopal, the latter neither episcopal nor presbyterian. Here then the matter must rest, and the reader must judge for himself.

e Eccles. Hist. Vol. IV. p. 287.