lified respect. Mr. Milne adhered to his resolution of making no reply, and perhaps a reply was not necessary, if there were none in the colony, by whom the last word would not be judged the best argument in the controversy. It is patural to suppose, that many would be gratified with a controversy, of the importance of which they could form no just conception, and in the results of which they had no interest or concern, but the progress of which they would attach themselves to the different parties in the dispute, until the pretence of organizing one congregation, threw the whole religion of the province into distraction and confusion. We have the happiness of believing that the irritation has subsided, and that tranquillity has been restored.

It is far from our intention to disturb this tranquillity, nor is it necessary to cross the Atlantic in pursuit of controversy, or to enlarge the stores of pure theology: but the cause of episcopacy is every where interesting, and a cursory. attention to this distant controversy may show by what means the foundations of prelacy are undermined, and give an insight into the state of religion in our colonies, and into the opinions which foreigners and colonists entertain of the ecclesiastical policy which is pursued in the remote possessions and dependencies of the empire.

In former times it was the common argument of the Dissenters at home, that the Church of England was but partially reformed, and they justified their separation on the pretence that the Church of England differed from other reformed Churches, and held not what they conceived to be the truth. A more specious argument has arisen of late, and the Dissenter invites proselytes to the conventicle, not on the ground of any difference, but on the more delusive plea, that it is all the same, that there is no difference, and that all the various forms

of religion will end in eternal peace. This argument is well known in the dissenting districts, and it has its effects, especially when it is com- . bined with the want of Church room, and when the service of the conventicle is assimilated with certain modifications to the service of the Church. Our acquaintance with this popular argument had not, however, prepared us to learn, that the Church of England and the Church of Scotland form but one Church, distinguished only by their form of government, a trifle lighter than the air, when it suits the convenience of a writer so to represent it, but at all other times, a fountain and occasion of the bitterest acrimony and reproach.

"Amid the war of contending passions, systems, and opinions, it is consolatory to think that a Christian Church has been established and maintained in the United

Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I speak only of one Christian Church, be cause I view the ecclesiastical constitutions of England and Scotland as forming one Church-associated under one head-in every view co-ordinate-maintained by the same state equally pure in principle and efficient in operation." Burns's View, p. 3.

The only ground of this union and co-ordinacy of the Churches of England and Scotland, is that they are both established: the Church of England is established by law in England; the Church of Scotland is established by law in Scotland, The consistent Dissenters who ob ject to the civil establishment of the Church of England, cannot approve the civil establishment of the Church of Scotland: but it is ne vertheless established. The commu pion of the Church, which rests upon no better foundation than that of a civil establishment, is entirely of a local nature, and, in the present case, the river Tweed is its boundary and definition; so that the members of the Church of England and the members of the Church of Scotland are Churchimen or Dissenters according to the bank of the

river on which they may chance to stand: if that river should change its course the boundaries of communion and dissent would be contracted or enlarged; or if it should cease to flow, they might be thrown into inextricable confusion. Such is the unity of the Church, which depends on a legal establishment within a limited district.

Measured by this criterion, the Church of Scotland, as by law established, cannot be extended beyond the Tweed. Whatever may be its constitutional connection with

the Church of Scotland, the Presby terian kirk in London Wall is, in England, unquestionably a Dissenting congregation, and in no respect co-ordinate with the Church of England. Neither is the Church of Scotland established in any of the colonies, in which the civil establishment of religion must depend, not on the laws of England or of Scotland, but on the terms agreed upon on the first settlement or surrender of those colonies. The Church of Rome, as well as the Church of England, is established in Canada, and it is not pretended that the Church of Scotland is established in any of the colonies; and when, on the ground of civil establishment, she claims co-ordinacy with the Church of England, she must be content, upon the same ground, to partake of co-ordinacy with the Church of Rome.

The

Church of Scotland has no more claim to establishment in the colonies of Great Britain, than any sect which is not established in Great Britain, or than it has to claim establishment in the states of the Union in virtue of its establishment in Scotland. The colonists are deluded, if they are led to infer an establishment of Presbytery abroad from an establishment of Presbytery at home: and if such a claim should, at any time, be preferred, on the argument of numbers, it should be remembered, that upon this argument the Heathens have

the first, and the Catholics the second claim to establishment.

But it is pretended, that the coordinacy of the Church of Scotland is recognised, not only by the law, but by the canons and constitutions of the Church of England.

is recognized by the Church of England, "This union in every thing but forms for in Canon 55, which was framed in 1604, when the Church of Scotland had assumed a presbyterian form, her clergy were commanded to pray for the Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland, as parts of Christ's holy Catholic Church, which is View, p. 3, 4. dispersed throughout the world.” Burns's

It is a specious but not an insuperable argument: Mr. Milne replies:

"Canon 55 of the Church of England, which commands her clergy to pray for Ireland, as part of Christ's holy Catholic the Churches of England, Scotland, and Church, which is dispersed throughout the world, is no such recognition of the Kirk as Dr. Burns supposes. Presbyterian parity was introduced into Scotland and established in that kingdom as the scriptaral and primitive form of Church government, in opposition to episcopacy, which lawful. But would the Church of England, in Canon 55, recognize persons holding such opinions, and acting upon them, as a part of Christ's holy Catholic Church, which is dispersed throughout the world,

was declared to be anti-christian and un

when, in Canon 7, she orders them to be

excommunicated ipso facto, and so continue until they repent and publicly revoke such' their wicked errors?' The reason of a child must perceive that the answer ought to be in the negative. The truth is, that when the Canon in question was framed, King James was seated on the throne of Elizabeth, and, as before his accession to that throne he had revived the name and office of bishop in Scotland, he was now pursuing the measures deemed prudent for the introduction and establishment of a true and regular episcopacy, 'not' says Bishop Guthry, without the consent and furtherance of many of the wisest among the ministry.' In this Canon the Church of England is, therefore, not chargeable with the inconsistency and folly of contradicting her own doctrine, and undermining her own constitution, by recognizing the presbyterian parity of Scot

This statement, to which Dr. Burns makes no reply beyond a vague charge of misrepresentation, is confirmed by all the prefatory canons, which distinctly recognize the authority of bishops and the supremacy of the king, and pronounce sentence of excommunica tion on all who dispute these doc trines. Even in the form of bidding prayer, as well as in the first canon, the title of the king, as supreme governor, in these his realms, and all other his dominions and countries, over all persons in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as temporal," is distinctly and unequivocally asserted and maintained. It certainly cannot be the intention of the Church, in this ecclesiastical recognition of the Church of Scotland, to give countenance to Presbyterianism, or to depreciate the divine and apostolical right of Episcopacy.

Another argument for the coordinacy of the Churches of England and Scotland, is collected from the incautious language of some divines in speaking of the origin of ecclesiastical polity. These are no more than private sentiments, having no authority to contradict the express declarations of the Church herself in her offices of ordination and consecration; they are a virtual attack upon the doctrine of the Church, and a gratuitous concession to the Dissenters, of which they will not fail to avail themselves; although they are happily too general and superficial to be compared with the precise and elaborate arguments of those theologians who have examined the question in all its parts. The easy confidence with which it is asserted and believed, that Christ left no form, or no permanent form and exemplary model of ecclesiastical government, has been again and again exposed and refuted by Bilson, Hooker, Leslie, Potter, Brett, Skinner, and Dau beny. When the reasonings of these

are refuted, and when the force of their inferences from the Scriptures, and of their researches into the history of the primitive Church are repelied, it will be time to rely on the assertions of other divines, and to have doubts of the apostolical origin and authority of prelacy.

But the foreign Churches are not governed by Bishops, and the doctrine of the foreign Churches has been approved by English Divines, and therefore the want of Episcopacy is immaterial. It is evident, from the tendency of their own writings, that the testimony of ap probation which Bishop Hall, and Archbishop Wake, bore to the con tinental Church, respected their doctrine, and not their discipline and constitution. Some of the Protestant Churches, as in Denmark and Sweden, are still governed by Bishops: others, as in Prussia and Saxony, are placed under the con trol of Superintendants, which is in fact an illegitimate Episcopacy; and most of the foreign Protestants have admitted, that the want of Episcopacy is not a merit but a defect, originating in the hard necessity of the times of the Reformation. It was the auxious effort of Dr. Grabe, at the beginning of the last century, to remove these anomalies, and to supply these deficiencies by the revival of a pure Episcopacy in the Churches of the continent, and the sentiments of Calvin, are known to have been so friendly to the pre lacy of this country, that he pro nounced those who opposed it, to be worthy of every anathema, nullo non anathemate dignos. The want of Episcopal discipline, is an unseemly blemish in the Churches of the continent; but is this blemish of recent origin and limited extent, to be compared with the prevalence of Episcopacy, universally through the fifteen centuries before the Re formation, and widely since the Reformation through all the settlements of the Romish Church, through

the Protestant Churches in England and Ireland, Scotland and America, and now happily in Asia also; through the Greek Church in Russia and Turkey, in Egypt and Abys sinia, and through the extensive patriarchate of Antioch, stretching over to the secluded Christians of St. Thomas, in Malabar. These are the instances to which the appeal should be made abroad and at home, when it is intended to propagate the Gospel where it is not already known; or, if it is meant to revive its energies, where they are now nearly suppressed, it should be presented in a form in which it has been contemplated from ancient time, without the arbitrary appendages of Popery, or the equally arbitrary privations of Presbyterianism and Independency. If it was intended to replant the Church in Britain or Germany, the prejudices of the Sectaries might be consulted: in all other parts, it is necessary to respect the primitive constitution of the Church.

When the perpetual and universal claims of Episcopacy are thus superseded and abated, under pretence of a legal and canonical, a private and foreign recognition of Presbyterianism, it seems to be a work of supererogation, to inquire into the gradations of ministry recorded in the Scriptures; but it is an argument too plausible and deceptive to be omitted, to assert the identity of Bishops and Presbyters, in the Apostolic writings. The argument from the name, needs not to be debated: it is conceded, that the Apostles did designate the same order of ministry, under the different titles of Bishops and Presbyters: but it cannot from thence be inferred, that there is Scriptural authority for Presbyterian parity. They, who governed, and to whom the power of ordaining the ministry was committed in the first ages of the Church, were denominated Apostles and it must be shewn, either that the Presbyters were of REMEMBRANCER, No. 34...

equal authority with the Apostles, and administered the same offices, or the doctrine of Prelacy is unimpeached and animpeachable. The Apostles were Presbyters, as the higher includes the lower order, and the Apostles Peter and John, did not disdain to call themselves Elders but the Presbyters did not call themselves, nor were they called Apostles, nor had they the distinctive power of that higher order. The rule of Episcopacy is the subordination of the Presbyters to the Prelates: the rule of Presbyterianism is the parity of its ministers.

The Dissenters contend that Episcopacy is not founded on the Scriptures, and cannot be established upon legitimate inferences from the Scriptures. At the same time it is coneeded, and the argument may be extended, as well to the various forms of Independency, as to the Presbyterianism established in the Church of Scotland, that

"The gradation of Church government as established in Scotland, has been admired by many who view it only as a human contrivance, warranted by expediency, not by Scripture.... Every iota of the Presbyterian scheme could not possibly be found in any scripture-example, although the general system is explicitly authorized by the practice of the primitive Burns's View, P. 25. Church, as far as the cases occurred."

The question is thus resolved into the correctness of the inferences, from certain recorded facts: and the Episcopalian is confident of the result, whether the investigation be directed to the state of the Church under the immediate superintendance of Christ himself; or to that of the Church administered by his Apostles, under the extraordinary agency of the Holy Spirit; or to that of the primitive Christians, of which the proceedings are more fully detailed and recorded. In the time of Christ it will not be pretended, that the Seventy were of the same rank and 4 L

order as the Twelve, or that either were not subordinate to Christ: there was therefore in his time a gradation, and not a parity of ministry. In the time of his Apostles, the Deacons were confessedly an inferior order of the Presbyters, if they did not sustain the office of the Seventy, as is commonly supposed, the origin is indistinct; but they were certainly not of the same rank with the Apostles, for the decree of the council of Jerusalem was formed, not in the name of the Apostles, or in the name of the Elders, but in the name of the Apostles and Elders: Saint Paul, also upon more than one occasion, speaks of Apostles and Prophets as distinct orders; and it may be shown, that the Prophets were equivalent to the Bishops and Presbyters. In the apostolic age, there was therefore a subordination in the ministry of the Church: the state of the primitive Church, is clearly exhibited by Mr. Milne, and no doubt is left of the sentiments of the Christian Fathers. There was indeed no dispute on the theory of ecclesiastical government, before the time of Arius; nor was there any deviation in practice before the time of the Reformation. Mr. Milne is also very successful in correcting various errors and misrepresentations, into which Dr. Burns had fallen, concerning the history of Prelacy, especially on the origin of Christianity, and ecclesiastical government in Scotland, on the views which the Scottish Reformers entertained concerning Prelacy; on the consecration of certain Bishops at the time of the Restoration; and on the state of the Episcopal Church in Scotland. These are points, which would naturally be agitated by Scottish polemics, in the midst of a Scottish population, and they could not be discussed without effect, by a Scotch Episcopalian, whose very character it is to be well versed in ecclesiastical antiquities. These points are, however, less interesting to the general

reader, and it is necessary to return from this cursory view of the principles of ecclesiastical government, to the ecclesiastical practice which obtains in the colonies, and to the censures which that practice calls forth in foreign settlements..

Doctor Burns pretends, that it is a misuomer to say, that the Church of England is established in America, and proceeds to offer a remark of more serious interest to his correspondent:

"If you had said that English Episcopacy is established in these colonies, and that the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge" (the Society for propagating the Gospel is meant) "supports a few Missionaries, under the name of Rectors, you would have been nearer the truth."

Letters, P. 11.

It is very true that the English episcopacy is established in the provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia, and in the latter province the establishment consists of the bishop and an ecclesiastical commissary. The zeal of the bishops in both provinces is unquestionable, and nothing is neglected which their limited means will allow them to attempt. A subscription has been recently raised in this country to assist in building churches, and the Society for propagating the Gospel has always lent its zealous and liberal aid in providing missionaries and schoolmasters. But is it worthy of a great nation to leave the religious interests of its colonists thus dependent on the casual charities of voluntary societies? Or if these colonies are too remote to receive from the government at home an efficient religious establishment, what shall be said of the state of the Scilly Islands, where a missionary is stationed, as in a heathen land, by the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge. The propagation and encouragement of schism appears to be a primary object in our colonial policy, and in the recent regulation for the new settlement at the Cape, it was proposed, that a certain number of settlers should have