that, strong analogical reasoning; but this is not positive precept 3. When our Savior instituted the holy eucharist, he said to his apostles, and to them only, "do this in remembrance of me;" but there is no positive precept, that others shall receive the sacred symbols. We know indeed from scripture and the fathers, that it was the practice of the primitive church, and St. Paul has given some directions concerning it. This is true also with respect to episcopacy; but it seems, that apostolic practice and institution are no proof of divine institution. Thus, by means of this standard to determine what is, and what is not invariably binding, our christian duties (to the great joy of many) are much contracted. We may, or may not, just as we please, without any fear of condemnation, (for where there is no law, there is no transgression) observe the Lord's day, stay at home, or do any thing else: We may have our children baptized, or not: We may partake of the eucharist, or let it alone. From a hint which you give, I do not think that you would be willing to subscribe to all this; yet it appears to me, that those episcopalians who make this distinction, if they would be consistent, must go to these lengths.

But it may be asked, "Is every practice of the apostles of divine institution?" Certainly not. "How then are we to know?" By the nature and end of the institution and by its being the universal practice of the church from the apostolic age. "We do not say that episcopacy cannot be changed, merely because we have apostolical practice for it; but because such is the nature of the christian priesthood, that it can only be continued in that method which God has appointed for its continuance. Thus episcopacy (according to both high and low churchmen) is the only instituted method of continuing the priesthood; therefore episcopacy is unchangeable, not because it is an apostolical practice, but because the nature of the thing requires it; a positive institution being only to be continued in that method which God has appointed; so that it is the nature of the priesthood, and not the apostolical practice alone, that make it necessary to be continued. The apostolical practice indeed shews, that episcopacy is the order that is appointed, but it is the nature of the priesthood that assures us that it is unalterable; and that, because an office which is of no significancy, but as it is of divine appointment, and instituted by God, can no otherways be continued, but in that way of continuance which God has appointed."

"The argument proceeds thus:-The christian priesthood is a divine positive institution, which as it could only begin by the divine appointment, so it can only descend to after ages in such a method as God has been pleased to appoint.

"The apostles instituted episcopacy alone; therefore this method of episcopacy is unalterable, not because an apostolical practice cannot be laid aside, but because the priesthood can only descend to after ages, in such a method as is of divine appointment.

"So that the question is not fairly stated when it is asked, whether episcopacy, being an apostolical practice, may be laid aside? But it should be asked, whether an instituted particular method of continuing the priesthood be not necessary to be continued? Whether an appointed order of receiving a commission from God be not neces

sary to be observed, in order to receive a commission from him? If the case was thus stated, as it ought, to be fairly stated, any one would soon perceive, that we can no more lay aside episcopacy, and yet continue the christian priesthood, than we can alter the terms of salvation, and yet be in covenant with God."*

Those who acknowledge episcopacy to be of apostolic institution, cannot, in my opinion, preserve consistency, without acknowledging it to be also of divine origin. The bishops derived their commission from the apostles, the apostles from Christ. The bishops were invested with the whole of the apostolic commission, the presbyters with only a fiart. This constitutes the proper difference between them, in the opinion of both those who favor the distinction between apostolic and divine institution, and those who do not. Then those who received the whole of this commission, were, in a strict and proper sense, the apostles' successors. But if this commission was to the apostles divine, as it most assuredly was, the very same commission must have been so to those to whom they communicated it; unless a regular transmission by human hands, converts a divine into a human institution, which no body will assert. It follows then, that episcopacy is of divine origin.

Further: St. Paul in his epistles to Timothy, gives him several charges which imply, (if words have any meaning) that he, Timothy, had the whole of the apostolic commission conveyed to him. Now, the epistles to Timothy are acknowledged by all christians, to be inspired writings. I ask then, would the Holy Ghost inspire St. Paul to give charges, which evidently exclude the presbyters from ordaining, and from exercising an equal power with Timothy, if it were not agreeable to the will of Christ, when he gave the original commission? Certainly not. Then from these scriptural and rational considerations, I infer, that episcopacy is of divine origin.t

This then being the case, the plea of necessity is, of consequence, precluded. Institutions resting upon divine authority, will not admit of abolition, or any alteration whatever, by human power. It is a maxim universally acknowledged, that the power which insti tutes is necessary to annul or alter, and although it should happen from imperious and unavoidable circumstances, that the institution • See Law's 2d Letter to bishop Hoadley.

The apostles (says the present arch-deacon of Sarum) did not enter upon the discharge of their commission, till they had received the promise of the Father in the gift of the Holy Ghost. They were commanded to tarry in Jerusalem till they were endued with power from on high....Luke xxiv. 49. What form of government therefore the apostles agreed to establish in the church, if not expressly commanded to them by Christ in person, must be considered as established under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

Thus, apostolical practice with respect to the government of the church well ascertained must, in this matter, be equivalent to apostolical precept with respect to the doctrine of it; because the Holy Spirit, by whom the apostles were directed, and whose office it was to teach them all things necessary to the well being of the christian church, would not lead them into error in one case, more than in the other.... Daubeny's Guide to the Church, discourse 2d. This book I heartily recommend to those, who wish to understand the nature and conitution of the christian church. It is a performance of great value, and ought be in the hands of every churchman.

cannot be preserved, yet it would be the height of arrogance to substitute something else, upon a supposition that it would do as well. Let this principle of substitution be once admitted, and there would soon be an end of all positive institutions; for cases of necessity would never be wanting: men being always restless and uneasy under what God appoints, and better pleased with their own inventions, than with divine institutions.

There is something plausible in telling people, that the govern ment of the church is an external, a circumstance; that it was instituted for the sake of christianity, and not christianity for the sake of it; so that if its origin be even divine, the mode of government must not be retained, when the end cannot be answered, or so well answered with as without it. Now this mode of reasoning appears to me to imply, 1st. That Christ could not prescribe any particular mode of government which would, as to essentials,be practicable in all circumstances; he was therefore obliged to leave it to human prudence, which must regard times and places, and every other worldly circumstance, and shape the church accordingly. This seems to be a reflection (certainly very undesignedly) upon his wisdom and power, who governs all things both in heaven and earth. 2d. It contradicts Christ's own declaration, that, his kingdom is not of this world; but the principle which we are combating, makes it completely of this world. The authority and power of this kingdom, are altogether spiritual, and totally unconnected with worldly policy. The episcopal government of the church can exist, and has existed in all the varying scenes of this mutable world; in adversity and prosperity; in poverty and wealth; under the smiles of the great, and the persecutions of the powerful; under the light of learning, and the darkness of ignorance; when interdicted and when encoura ged. And is such an establishment to be fashioned by human caprice, or laid aside to avoid temporal inconvenience, or better to an. swer, in human estimation, the ends of christianity. God forbid ! 3d. The groundless assertion, that the government of the church is but a circumstance, and therefore may be dispensed with, implies (I humbly conceive) a misapprehension of the very nature of episcopacy. To the episcopal office, (according to us) is attached the power of transmitting the priesthood. Now, if this power cease in the church, the priesthood itself ceases; unless it can be supposed that the stream can flow, when the source is dried up. And if the priesthood cease, where is the church? It is a theological maxim, no ministry, no church;" the Westminster divines themselves being judges. Men may form, according to their own whims, what they call a church; as they may, what, if they please, they may call a bible: but I doubt, whether any well informed christian will ascribe to either of them a divine origin.

We will not however stop here, but attend our opponents in the sportive excursions of their imagination, and with them shipwreck a number of unfortunate episcopalians upon a desolate island, without any priest among them to minister in holy things. "Well; what is to be done, (say they) in this case? Here is necessity most assuredly." I will not before I auswer this question, tell these enquirers

to spread before me a map of the world and point out this desolate island, on which this sad disaster took place, nor require them to. name the historian who records it; I will not ask whether the scriptures take notice of this, or any other case of necessity, and make provision for it; but will admit the case, because it is possible, and then tell them what these episcopalians would do, if they meant to act consistently with their principles. If they saved their bibles and prayer-books, (and if they did not, they must do without the one, and pray without the other as well as they can,) they would meet every Lord's day, and one of them who read well, would read the service of the church; and if they had been so fortunate as to preserve any printed sermons, he would read one of them, intermingling with these pious exercises, the singing of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs: but not one among them would ever think of preaching authoritatively, and of administering the holy sacraments; unless he happened to be puffed up with vanity, and were a gifted man; which might make some difference in his own estimation. "But suppose the congregation, by three or four selected persons, were to ordain this man; would not this be very regular and decent, and be sufficient authority for him to administer the christian sacraments?" Is the priesthood of God, or of man? «Undoubtedly of God, as to the original commission; but when, by God's good prov idence, the transmission of that commission has been interrupted, surely, as the priesthood was instituted for the good of men's souls, the best thing that can be done, all circumstances considered, is to restore it, and trust to God's goodness to pardon what irregularity may attend it." To restore it! This is begging the question; the restoration of it is the very thing to be proved. Can those who are not priests themselves, convey the priestoood? Can men give what they have not? Will a thousand cyphers make a unit? Why no; we cannot, to be sure, make out this point by reason;" [and I am very sure, you cannot make it out by scripture ;]" but we will trust to God's mercy and goodness for whatever may be amiss." But you had better not do what is amiss, and then you would have good ground for trusting in God's mercy and goodness. Usurping any office is a serious matter; but particularly a sacred office. * No man taketh this honor to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron;" but called of God, and called of the people, are widely dif ferent things; the latter may make an exhorter; but the former is absolutely necessary to make a priest.

By this time, Sir, it must be pretty evident, that I am no friend to cases of necessity, and that I differ from some episcopalians upon this point. This I account a misfortune, but I cannot help it. I have what appears to me good reasons for differing from them. What is meant by necessity? It means in this question,"want, desti. tution, preclusion. The people, in the case that has been put, are in want, and destitute of the priesthood, and of the christian sacraments; but this is the very reason, why they are not under a moral obligation to partake of the sacraments. It appears to me to be an ⚫ I accommodate myself entirely to the popular way of arguing upon this point.

idle expence of words, to ask whether people may not be in a situation, in which they cannot have the christian sacraments? Every body knows that they may. But the question should be, whether in such a situation, they are under a moral obligation to partake of them? Scripture and reason answer immediately, they are not. God does not gather where he has not strewed, nor look for improvement where he has given no talents. To people in their situation, the law obliging men to receive instruction from "the priest's lips;" to be baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, and to "eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ" is suspended; it has no operation whatever; it is as if it had no existence. This is not to be controverted as to obligation; nor do I think there can be any reasonable controversy with respect to utility. Where the sacraments can be had, it is every one's duty to partake of them; they are means of grace, by divine appointment, and no one can expect in God's ordinary dealings with men, to be pious and to be saved without them. But where they cannot be had, the case is widely different. That divine Being, who has converted by his institutions, natural actions into symbols of grace, can convey into the souls of men in the situation supposed, all the necessary aids of his spirit, in as great a degree, and with as much efficacy, as if they' lived under the most enlightened priesthood and the most valid ordinances. And we may be assured he would do it. Every chapter they read; every prayer they offer up, every psalm they sing, every pious conversation they hold, would be to them means, powerful means of grace. God's blessing would be with them; their very situation would be a recommendation to that gracious Being; every thing would be made up to them, which they could expect under a valid ministry; and they would not have the least reason to say, that "God had forsaken them." To assert the contrary to all this, is, in my humble opinion, to err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

If these things be so, then it is evident, that there can be no such thing as a case of necessity, in the sense in which the word ought to be used in this controversy. A case of necessity! Gracious heaven! What do men mean? Can men be under the necessity of usurping a sacred office? Is there no law of God with respect to it? Will any one be so bold as to assert that? Can any one then be under a necessity of violating that law? Will men, by so doing, be more sure of the divine blessing, and more likely to improve in religion, than by patiently and piously submitting to God's providence, and using faithfully all the means of improvement which they possess? Are the priesthood and the sacraments essential to salvation in all cases whatever? Has God so bound himself by his own rules in ordinary cases, that he will not deviate from them in extraordinary? Must men do what, by divine institution, they are precluded from doing, in order to be saved? These are really strange things. I ask again, what do men mean by a case of necessity? It is really high time, that this matter should be perfectly understood.

I shall continue my miscellaneous observations in the next letter, which I hope will conclude the series.