You will perceive, my dear Christian friend, that I am taking the full license of a letter writer, to digress from time to time when anything occurs to me, that bears upon my main subject; and I know you will excuse it. But to return to the points on which, if the other Reformed Churches did not agree with us, they took very different ground from that which is taken by our more modern opponents, I may mention that those Churches, and those eminent individuals, who really fought the battle of the Reformation, were far from that undisguised and determined hostility to Episcopacy, which is now manifested by too many. The government of the Reformed Church in Sweden, was committed to an Archbishop and seven Bishops, who (like those in our own country) had (by virtue of their office) seats in the great Council of the nation. In Denmark also, the title and office of Bishops was retained, though they had less power than in Sweden. The Lutheran Churches in Germany universally, though they rejected the name and title of Bishop, yet retained the office, under the name of Superintendent.

1

There is good reason to believe that if Calvin had lived, a plan would have been formed and carried into execution, for bringing those Churches which bear his name into union and agreement with our own upon this point; 1 and many who were zealous for setting up and maintaining a different form of government, in their own Churches, were far from any wish to interfere with, or disturb, the form which was adopted in ours.2 Some of the

i Calvin says, in his Treatise, “De necessitate reformanda Ecclesiæ," "Let them give us such an Hierarchy, in which Bishops may be so above the rest, as they refuse not to be under Christ, and depend upon Him as their only Head; that they maintain a brotherly society, &c. If there be any that do not behave themselves with all reverence and obedience towards them, there is no anathema, but I confess them worthy of it." How different was the spirit which dictated such expressions, from that which has been manifested by many in our own Country, (both in earlier and later times,) who yet called themselves disciples of Calvin !

2 Zanchius congratulates Grindal on his elevation to the Archbishopric of Canterbury, as a station in which he might be eminently useful to the Church of Christ; Beza, (who on more points than one was a much higher Calvinist than Calvin himself,) writes with the greatest respect and affection to some of our Bishops, and he says especially of the English Churches, in reference to Episcopacy, "Fruantur sane istá

foreign Divines lamented that circumstances prevented the introduction of Episcopacy into their Churches : of which number were Francis Gomarus, and Festus Hommius (famous in the history of the Synod of Dordrecht) who were themselves decided Episcopalians in principle. Others who have been educated Dei beneficentia, quæ utinam sit illi nationi perpetua. "Let them enjoy that blessing of God, which I wish may be perpetual to that nation."

But for the favourable judgement of many of the Foreign Divines, (Reformers, or their immediate successors) upon this point, I would refer my readers to a book entitled, "Confessions and Proofs of Protestant Divines of Reformed Churches, that Episcopacy is in respect of the office according to the word of God, and in respect of the use, the best; together with a brief Treatise touching the original of Bishops and Metropolitans." 4to. Oxford, 1644; a book well worthy of being reprinted at present.

1 George Carleton, Bishop, then of Llandaff, and afterwards of Chichester, was one of the English Deputies to that Synod. He publicly testified, and called upon the Bishop of Salisbury, (Dr. J. Davenant) who had also been one of the Deputies, to bear witness to the truth of his assertion ; "That whereas in the Confession, (i. e. the Belgic Confession) there was inserted a strange conceit of the parity of ministers to be instituted by Christ, I declare our dissent utterly on that point. I shewed that by Christ a parity was never instituted in the Church; that He ordained twelve Apostles; as

in different principles have been unable to resist the arguments drawn from Scripture and antiquity in favour of Episcopacy. Of this number the excellent and truly apostolic Leighton deserves to be particularly mentioned; who, having been bred up in all the vehemence of the most decided Presbyterian views, afterwards not only accepted the office of a Bishop, but laboured much, though altogether in a truly mild and Christian Spirit, to

also seventy Disciples; that the authority of the twelve was above the other; that the Church preserved this order left by our Saviour. And therefore, when the extraordinary power of the Apostles ceased, yet this ordinary authority continued in Bishops who succeeded them; who were by Apostles left in the government of the Church, to ordain Ministers, and to see that they, who were so ordained, should preach no other Doctrine. That in an inferior degree, the Ministers who were governed by Bishops, succeeded the seventy Disciples,-that this order hath been maintained in the Church from the times of the Apostles. And herein I appealed to the judgement of antiquity, and to the judgement of any learned men now living; and craved herein to be satisfied if any man of learning could speak to the contary. To this there was no answer made by ANY. Whereupon we conceived that they yielded to the truth of the protestation. And somewhat I can say of mine own knowledge; for I had conference with divers of the best learned in that Synod. I told them that the cause of all their

introduce Episcopacy into Scotland. To his name should be added that of William Cowper, Bishop of Galloway, at a still earlier period, whose course was somewhat similar; for he had been brought up as a Presbyterian, but afterwards accepted a Bishopric, in which he unfeignedly followed his light, esteeming it" a lawful, ancient, and necessary government." He died in 1619. And to come to our own troubles was this;-that they had not Bishops among them; who, by their authority might repress turbulent spirits that broached novelties. Their answer was, that they did much honour and reverence the good order and discipline of the Church of England; and with all their hearts, would be glad to have it established among them: but that could not be hoped for in their state. Their hope was, that seeing they could not do what they desired, God would be merciful to them, if they did what they could."

I have seen in that Country how continually the Consistory, or one or two evil-minded colleagues in the ministry, could, and did exercise a much more powerful influence to prevent a faithful Minister from doing good, than any Bishop in England either could or would exercise to control or restrict a faithful Clergyman of our Church, from doing his duty, and making full proof of his Ministry,-though he were ever so much opposed to him in sentiment, or even actuated by personal ill-will, (to suppose the worst and most deplorable case which could happen.) What influence is exercised by Dissenting congregations over their Ministers, to restrict them