TO THE REVEREND DEOCAR SCHMIDT.

[In answer to his Letter on the re-ordination of Lutheran Ministers.]

REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,

Calcutta, Dec. 23, 1825.

The great press of business with which I have had to contend ever since my arrival in Calcutta, has prevented my replying to your letter of the 1st November, till after the event occurred from which you wished to dissuade me. I can assure you, however, that though your arguments have remained unanswered, they have been carefully weighed by me, and that, though I have concluded by acting differently, I think highly of the talent which suggested them.

I have neither time nor inclination to enter into a controversy connected with some of the most important and difficult questions in the whole field of polemic divinity. I only wish to convince you that I have not been inattentive to your letter, and to set you right on some points on which you appear to have misunderstood me in our last conversation. You suppose that I generally admit ordination by Presbyters without a Bishop to be valid. I do not admit this. All I said is that, when a Christian nation has, by unfortunate circumstances, lost its apostolical succession of Bishops, the continuance of Ministers being a thing absolutely needful and essential, those good men are not to be censured who perpetuate it by the best means in

their power. And were I to return to Germany, I would again, as before, humbly and thankfully avail myself of the preaching and Sacramental ordinances of the Lutheran evangelical Church, not doubting that they are a true Church of Christ, and that the Spirit of God is with them, as I trust, he is with us also.

But, though an imperfect ordination may, doubtless, be accepted by our Lord and common Master, and though a Church, under circumstances such as I have described, may remain a true Church still, it does not follow that, where this supposed deficiency may be supplied, it may not be adviseable for a Minister of the Gospel either to seek for fresh orders himself, or to counsel others to do so. And this may be more especially adviseable where his, or their, ministerial utility is likely to be much augmented by a closer union with a Church under (what I conceive to be) the ancient discipline. We (that is, the members of our Church) have no right or inclination to judge other national Churches. But our own flocks have a sacred right to be well satisfied as to the Divine commission of those whom other spiritual rulers set over them. Even where the smallest doubt exists of the perfection of the orders received, and their conformity with apostolical practice, it may be a part of Christian prudence to choose the safer side. And even where this doubt is not felt by ourselves, yet, if its existence in others impedes our usefulness, we have the highest possible warrant, in the case of St. Paul and Timothy, for condescending, even in a more

material point, to the failings and prejudices of our brethren. Accordingly, if a preacher ordained in the method practised in Germany foresees a marked advantage to Christ's cause in a closer alliance with his episcopalian brethren, I see not that he dishonours his previous commission by seeking our prayers and blessing in the form which we think most conformable to God's will. And the humility is, surely, any thing but blameable which stoops for a time to even an inferior degree and inferior duties than those which he has already exercised.

For I see no weight in the argument that holy orders cannot be repeated without profanation. In the first place, it is a matter of doubt whether the first orders were valid or no, and, in the very fact of fresh orders being given without a formal renunciation of the former, it is plain that the fresh orders are tacitly "sub conditione." But, secondly, there is nothing, as I conceive, in the nature of ordination which makes it profane to repeat it on just grounds, or reasonable scruple on the part of the Church or its rulers. Ordination stands on a different ground from baptism. It is not a new creation, but a solemn devotion of a man to a particular office, accompanied by prayer, and, as we believe, an accession of the Holy Spirit. But though a man can be only once regenerate, he may be often renewed and quickened by the Holy Ghost, and there is no reason, a priori, why he should not receive an outward ordination (as he certainly may receive an inward call) to a new sphere of action in the Church, as well as to a new office in

it. I do not say that this has ever been the practice of the Church, though I still think that something very analogous to it may be found in Acts xiii. But I say this to shew the difference between the two cases of re-baptizing and re-ordaining, and that the same risk of profanation does not attach to the last as, I admit, does in every doubtful case to the former.

Accordingly, I need not remind you that the great body of ancient Christians allowed the validity of baptism (the matter and words being correct) whether conferred by heretics, schismatics, or laymen. But though the ancient Church never re-baptized, they most certainly re-ordained in the case of the Meletian and Novatian Clergy, as appears from Theodoret, Eccles. Hist. 1. i. ix. and Conc. Nicen. can. 8.

Still, I have no right or desire to judge devout and learned divines of another national Church. If they come to sojourn among us satisfied with the commission which they have received, or if they desire our help in their efforts to convert the heathen, I gladly meet them as Christians and fellowlabourers. I rejoice sincerely that Christ is made known so widely through their means. I gladly admit them, (as I should desire myself to be admitted in Germany or Holland,) to the communion of our Church, and to all that interchange of good will and good offices (as in the case of the Missionary societies of our Church,) which is essential to our carrying on the Gospel work in concert. But I am not inconsistent with these feelings if I

think that the difference between us, though it should not interrupt our communion, is in itself a misfortune to be remedied. Nor do I feel the less love and reverence for their character and talents, when I earnestly wish them to become in all points like ourselves, except those sins of infirmity, of which I am mournfully conscious.

I remain, dear Sir,

Your sincere friend and servant in Christ,

REGINALD CALCUTTA.

TO MRS. R. HEBER.

Sandheads, February 5th, 1826.

I get this letter ready to send by the pilot, who expects to be able to leave us in the course of the morning. We have a beautiful day and a favourable breeze. The strenuous measures which Government took to secure my horse a passage have proved abortive. They were very kindly meant, and I have reason to believe that I have to thank for them the zeal of Mr. Lushington, who appears to have taken a good deal of trouble on the subject. I am now quite well. I cannot help thinking that both my illness and yours proceeded, in part, from the agitation of this second sad parting. I should have been unworthy of you could I have left you without a severe pang. We are both