Stom f^e feifitari? of (ptofe66or ^atnuef (ttXtffer in (glemort? of ^ubge ^amuef Oliffer Q0recfetnribge ^teeenfeb 6)^ ^amuef Ottffer (jBrecfttnribge feong to t^e feifitatg of (princefon ^^eofogicaf ^eminarg BX 5936 .W8 c.l Woods, Leonard, 1774-1854 Lecbures on church go ve r nmeni: Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/lecturesonchurOOwood LECTURES CHURCH GOVERNMENT CONTAINING OBJECTIONS TO THE EPISCOPAL SCHEME. DELIVERED IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, AXDOVER, ACGl'ST, MDCCCXLUI. BY LEONARD WOODS, D. D. Professor of Christian Theolot'V. NEW YORK: PUBLISHED BY TURNER & HAY DEN, FEBRUARY, 1844. Entered according to Act of Congress, in tlie year 1844, bj' WILLIAM B. HAYDEN, in the Clerk's Office of the Southern District of New York. ANDOVER : ALLErf, MORRILL AND WARDWELL, Printers. ro THE PRESENT MEMBERS AND ALL FORMER MEMBERS OF THIS SEMINARY ; My beloved brethren ; The following Lectures, which are published in compliance with the request of those who heard them, 1 take the liberty to dedicate to you, in token of my esteem and affection for you, and my earnest desire that you may all enjoy the gracious pres- ence and blessing of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Yours in sincere brotherly love, LEONARD WOODS. Theological Seminary^ dndover^ Feb. 1844. CONTENTS. LECTURE I. Characteristics of the Seminary, page 1. — Motives for undertak- ing the discussion, 2. — Proposed manner of conducting it, 3. Preliminary Remarks, 4 — 12 (1) All Christians together form one body, 4. — And they should be united in love and fellowship, 5. — Not necessary to have the same forms, 6. — Good men and their errors to be kept dis- tinct, 7. — (2) Some definite form of church government neces- sary, 8. — (3) The Scriptures our guide, 9. — May we vary from them on account of a change of circumstances, 10-12. — Two forms of church government. Prelacy, and popular govern- ment, 12. — Prelacy described by Hooker, 12. Objections to Prelacy. (1) JVothing in Scripture in favor of it, 13-34. — Jewish Priest- hood, 13. — Christ's appointment of the Seventy and of the Twelve considered, 15-20. — Matt. 18: 18, examined — How applied by Episcopalians, 18-19. — Christ's instructions, 20-28. Bishop De Lancey's argument from Christ's promise, Matt. 23 : 20, pp. 21-28. LECTURE II. Prelacy not authorized by anything in the Acts of the Apostles, 29-32. — Bishops at this day proceed differently from the Apostles, 29, 30. — Disputes at Antioch, Acts xv, 31. — Paul's address to the elders at Ephesus, Acts xx, 32. — Prelacy not supported by the Epistles, 32-37. — Paul's address to the Phi- lippians, 32. — Ephes. 4 : 11, " Christ gave some Apostles," VI CONTENTS. etc., 33. — Illustration from this Seminary, 33, 34. — " Whom I delivered unto Satan, 1 Tim. 1 : 20, p. 34. — 2d. Objection — J^ew Testament opposed to Episcopacij yS7-o5. — As to the treat- ment of offenders. Matt. 18 : 15 — 17, p. 38. — Paul's direction how to treat the offender in the Corinthian church, 39. — Pro- ceedings, Acts xv, 40. — Do the Episcopalians proceed thus .^ 41, 42. — Suppose a different representation of the matter in Scripture, 43. — Have circumstances changed so as to justify a departure from precept and example as to discipline ? 44-47. JVew Testament opposed to different orders in the ministry, 47- 55.— Acts, 13: 1—3, p. 48 —Acts, xx, 49.— Tit. 1 : 5-7, p. 51. Deacons, 51. — Laying on the hands of the Presbyters, 1 Tim. 4: 14, p. 52.— 1 Pet. 4: 1-3, p. 53.— Reynolds, Burnet, Hol- land, Paley, and Onderdonk acknowledge Bishops and Pres- byters to have been the same, 54. LECTURE in. The Fathers not inspired, nor instructed orally by the Jipostles to make alterations, 57-60.— Arguments from early practice ex- amined, 60. — Ecclesiastical History as to Prelacy and Infant Baptism, 61-65. — Testimony of Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ire- naeus, particularly Jerome, 62. — Another supposition, 65-66. — Early practice cannot bind us, 66-68. — Saying of Tertul- lian, " whatever is first is true," etc., 68. — The Fathers not agreed, — and if agreed, no authority as to different orders, 68- 69. — Reasons for change, 69-76. — Introduction of Prelacy by the Fathers unautiiorized, 72. — Prelacy did not prevail imme- diately after the Apostles, 76-81. — Three propositions, 77. — Authors referred to, 80. — If Episcopalians could find no evi- dence of Prelacy in the first churches, would they renounce it.? 81. LECTURE IV. Apostolic succession. How this doctrine is held by High church- men, 83-84. — Quotation from Edinburgh Review, 84-87. — Quotation from Whately, 87-89.— Quotation from Usher and Peter King, 89.— The ministry divinely appointed but in dif- CONTENTS. VU ferent ways, 90. — Illustration from civil government, 92-97. — How Episcopalians regard civil government, 94. — Succes- sion as a fact, 95. — Proper conduct of ministers as to rules of order among different denominations, 97-99. — The subject placed on the ground of expediency^ 99-111. — Are Episcopal ministers and churches better than others, 101-104. — Prelacy introduces a hurtful distinction among ministers, 105-106. — Injures and degrades the inferior clergy, 106-109. — Hinders church members from doing their duty, 109-111. LECTURE V. The Episcopal scheme imposes burdensome restrictions^ 113-24. — Reading prayers, 113-15. — Dick's objections to the Liturgy, 115-16. — Why not prescribe sermons, 116-18. — Churching of women, 118-19. — Liturgy faulty, 119-35. — Irksome uniformi- ty and particularity, 120-3. — Arrangement of services with- out reason, 123-4. — Baptismal service — Baptismal Regenera- tion, 124-33. — HobarCs explanation, conditional title, etc., 127 -32 — Sponsors, 129-32. — Why not a second form of the Bap- tismal service, as in other cases, 132-3. — Unscriptural stan- dard of character^ 13)3-35. — In the Funeral service, 133-4. — In the Order of Confirmation, 134-5. — Episcopacy retains many of the additions to gospel instructions made in the Romish church, 135-43. — Holy days, 137-41. — Mode of Baptism among some of the Fathers, 138. — Paul testifies against observing days, etc., 139. — Burdensome observances, 139-40. — The whole machinery of the Episcopal church, 140-1.— Danger of beginning to introduce human inventions, 142-3. LECTURE \T. Cerem.onials, 145-61. — Christ and the Apostles, 145. — Principle of Episcopalians as to rites and Ceremonies, 146. — Influence of the ceremonies of the Romish church, 147-8. — Influence of the simple rites of the Puritans, 149-50. — I^esson taught by the simplicity of the divine works, 150-2. — Simplicity of the appearance of Christ and the Apostles, 153-4. — Attire of dig- nitaries in the Romish Church and of Episcopal Bishops, 155- Vlll CONTENTS. 61. — Bishop's dress at consecration, 155-6. — Puts on addi- tional garments, 156-7. — Contrast between Romish and Epis- copal attire, and that of Christ and the Apostles, 157-9. — Ca- non of Church of England as to dress, 159-60. LECTURE VII. The High church 'principle^ 163-92. — Rejected by many Episco- palians, — as Goode, a Layman, (Bowdler) and Hoadley, 164- 7. — High churchism un-churches all non-Episcopal denomi- ations, 167. — Ko evidence in support of its claims^ 168-173. — Testimony of Mosheim, 170. — Hallam as to the Church of England, 170-1.— Neander, \7\ -2.— Candid feelings of Con- gregational ists and others toicards Episcopalians, 174-82. — Example of the Puritan Emigrants, and their letter, 175-81. — What use Episcopalians make of all this, 179. — Proper use, 179-80.— De Lancey sees "hostility or apathy," \^2-'i.— Right spirit among Episcopalians, 183. — Mar Yohannan, his conduct and letter, 183-8. — High churchism would yield under a plen- tiful effusion of the Spirit, 188-91.— Will yield at the final judgment, 191-2. — The more candid Episcopalians subjected to difficulties, 192. — Special difficulties of those who take or- ders in the Episcopal church after having been in the minis- try before, 193. — Illustrated by the supposed case of Dr. Pay- son, 193-7. — Conclusion, 198. Erratum. Page 121, line 6 and 7 from bottom — erase the words — " who have the lesson in the Prayer Book right before them."' CHURCH GOVERNMENT. LECTURE I. The Founders of this Seminary, and the subsequent Founders of Professorships in the Seminary, were de- scendants of the Puritans, and were all Congregational- ists. But they had no sectarian zeal, and no bigotry. On the contrary, they were men of uncommon enlarge- ment of mind, and true liberality of feeling. Accord- ingly they directed, that the Seminary should be open to all Protestants, who should possess the requisite lit- erary and moral qualifications. It has been open, and equally open to all such, and has granted not only its general privileges, but the benefits of its charity-funds, to young men of eight different denominations of evan- gelical Christians. And as to the Professors, it was only required that they should be Congregationalists, or Presbyterians. Of the twelve men who have been officers in this Institution, two have been Presbyterians, and ten Congregationalists. Of these ten, five, perhaps, have been Congregationalists of what I may call the Massachusetts order, and five of the Connecticut order, that is, favorable to Consociations. In the choice of Professors, neither Founders, nor Trustees, nor Visitors have ever made any distinction between Congregation- alists and Presbyterians. 5i LECTURE I. It is well known to you, my young brethren, as well as to my Colleagues in office, that I have heretofore stood aloof from the controversies of the day respecting the forms of Church Government. Indeed my reluc- tance to take any part in these controversies has been so strong, and has produced such an effect upon my course of instruction in this Seminary, as to occasion a sus- picion, that I really sided in opinion with other denomi- nations, particularly with Episcopalians. A wish to remove misapprehension on this subject, and to make known to you the real convictions of my own mind, is one of the motives which influence me to undertake the work on which I now enter. But my chief motive is, a deliberate and full persuasion, that God requires this service of me, and that I may, in this way, do somethincr to advance the welfare of his kingdom. With ihis persuasion, I now commence the work ; intending to cast off all restraint, and to speak out the honest sentiments of my heart. And, in truth, why should I not do so on this subject, as >\ ell as on any other ; espe- cially as this is one of the subjects expressly assigned to me by the Founders of the Seminary ? Instead there- fore of making any apology for bringing it before you more prominently at this time, I ought rather to confess it as a fault, that I have neglected it so long. In the treatment of this subject, I shall do as I am ac- customed to do in the treatment of all other subjects. Here in my own Lecture Room, while addressing my beloved pupils on a subject belonging to my own de- partment, I shall use perfect freedom. So far as I have settled opinions respecting Church Government, you may expect mc to utter them with great plainness, CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 3 though it must be with brevity. I shall say, not all that I could say, but as much as the comparative importance of the subject seems to require, and as much as a suita- ble attention to other subjects in theology will permit. And in all that I say relative to Prelacy, I shall en- deavour to observe the divine precept which I have so often inculcated upon you, to speak the truth in love. At the same time, I shall use great frankness, both in defending my own opinions, and in pointing out what I conceive to be erroneous in the opinions of others. But I hope, through the grace of Christ, to be preserved from whatever would violate the laws of candor, or brotherly kindness. Protestant Episcopalians hold to the Protestant principle, that in regard to every subject, it is the right and duty of Christians to examine and judge for themselves, and, on all proper occasions, to state the reasons which satisfy them of the soundness of their own faith, and of the mistakes of those who differ from them. And I trust, that those who claim and ex- ercise this right, will not complain of me for doing the same. In these Lectures I shall exercise this right freely, without respect of persons. The word of God I hold to be our only guide, the infallible and sufficient rule of our faith and practice. Whatever truth is taught in the Scriptures, either expressly, or by plain implica- tion, is clothed with divine authority, and we are to re- ceive it with an implicit, confident faith. All that comes from God is to be treated with reverence and submission. We are not to call it in question. If God is the Teacher, we are to be learners. When He speaks, we are to hear, believe, and obey. But there is nothing of human origin, which is too high or sacred to be called 4 LECTURE I . in question. And there is no error, however sanctioned by antiquity, however extensively prevalent, and how- ever skilfully interM'oven with weighty truths, which may not be fearlessly attacked, nay, which ought not to be openly rejected. The honor of God and the welfare of man are most effectually promoted, by truth without any mixture of error. The loorcl of God, which is the fountain of divine truth, is perfect, and admits of no addition or improvement. But the minds of men, even the wisest and best, may be improved. Their habits of thinking and reasoning may be made more conformable to the truth, and their knowledge of divine things in- definitely increased. In order to do justice to my own views respecting Church Government, and to bring the subject advan- tageously before the members of this Seminary, I shall make a few preliminary remarks. My first remark is, that the whole number of true be- lievers on earth, taken together, form one society, one body, the spiritual church or kingdom of Christ. All believers, all real Christians stand in the same relation to Christ. They are all his disciples and followers. He is equally their Saviour and King. They are subject to the same supreme authority, and the same holy laws. They are all engaged in the same spiritual work, and are actuated by the same spiritual affection. They are interested in the same precious promises, and entitled to the same eternal inheritance. And they will all at last be united together in the same pure and blessed society in heaven. They also stand in substantially the same relation to one another. How much soever divided in regard to outward forms, and how much soever they CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 5 may, for the present, be wanting in personal esteem and love towards each other; still, being equally under the government of Christ, they are really fellow-citizens. Being children of the same Father, they are all brethren. God regards them in this light; and his judg- ment is truth. They are all children of God, and all brethren. Though they may sometimes overlook it, they are, in reality, members of the same body, and as such have a common interest. And whatever promotes the spiritual good of one, really promotes the good of all. And whatever injures any one member of that spiritual body, really injures all. This being the case, the duty of Christians towards one another is obvious. They ought to feel and act in conformity with the truth. Being really members of one body, they ought to exercise mutual sympathy, care and kindness. Being truly brethren, children of the same Father, they ought to have sincere mutual affection, to "love as brethren," and to take pleasure in each other's welfare. If any member of Christ's spiritual body is weak, or diseased, or defiled, it is no reason why the other members should not acknowledge it as a fellow member ; though it is a reason why they should sympathize with it, and endeavour to strengthen, or heal, or cleanse it. Now if Christians, disciples of Jesus, living in the same place, or in different places, do, in open practice, or in heart, separate themselves from one another ; if in any way they injure one another : if, on account of any differences in opinion, or in outward forms, real Christians neglect to love one another, or to do good to one another ; they violate the obligations which arise from their unchangeable relations to each 6 LECTURE I. Other, and to their common Head. They sin against truth. They sin against God, who acknowledges and loves all believers, as his children, and commands them to love one another. They sin against Christ, who died for those Christians whom they disown or neglect, as much as for themselves, and who requires them, as they love Him, to love his disciples. They sin against their fellow Christians, to whom they owe un- ceasing affection and fidelity. They sin against them- selves ; as they owe it to their own souls to cherish the happy feeling of kindness towards their brethren ; and as their want of love is an injury to their fellow disciples, which will, sooner or later, return in bitterness to them- selves. I am far from intending to signify, that Christians in different places, or in the same place, are absolutely bound in duty to adopt the very same forms of ecclesias- tical order. The most cordial love and fellowship, and the most profitable intercourse, may exist among Chris- tians under different forms, as is evident in our own country, and elsewhere. But if differences in ecclesias- tical forms are joined with an exclusive spirit ; then the principle of love and fellowship, so often enjoined by our Saviour, is violated, and the Saviour himself, the Head of the church, is offended and dishonored. And as differ- ences in external forms are so often made the occasion of breaking the bonds of affection among Christians ; it is certainly desirable that such differences should be avoided, and that the same modes of ecclesiastical order should, as far as possible, prevail. Christians should ear- nestly endeavour to attain to a substantial uniformity. But if they fail of reaching this, they should be sure not CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 7 to fail in the spirit of brotherly love, and not to violate the principle of a free and cordial fellowship, as mem- bers of ChrisVs spiritual kingdom. In these remarks on Christian fellowship, I have in mind an important distinction between good men, con- sidered as such, and any opinions or practices of theirs which we deem to be erroneous. It is evident from the Scriptures and from common observation, that good men may adopt views which are more or less incorrect re- specting the doctrines of religion, and more particularly respecting the external modes of worship and church government. Now it is very clear that we can consist- ently acknowledge them to be Christians, and heartily receive them and hold communion with them as Chris- tians, while we bear a humble and affectionate, but faith- ful testimony against what we believe to be erroneous. In this we only conform to the truth. For the truth is, as we understand it, that they are good men, called of God, born of his Spirit, and heirs of his kingdom. We love them and treat them as such. We believe Christ receives them, and we harmonize with him, receiving those whom he receives, having communion with Christ in the very act of having communion with his followers. This is acting according to the truth. On the other hand, it is a truth, as we understand it, that these fellow Christians are chargeable with some mistakes, — mis- takes, however, which may exist consistently with their possessing the character of true Christians. Still they are real mistakes, and mistakes in the view of Christ their Saviour. But does he approve these mistakes, or pass by them as of no consequence, because they are found in his disciples? By no means. Neither should we. He 8 LECTURE I bears testimony against their errors by his word and providence, and by the teaching of his Spirit, either in their minds, or in the minds of others, or in both. And his testimony will sooner or later be effectual. In like manner we also, in a way suitable to our condition, should labor to point out the mistakes which prevail in the church, and to expose their hurtful nature and tendency, having a desire that our fellow Christians should be rid of their mistakes, in proportion as we are sincere and ar- dent in our love. This too is acting according to the truth. In both parts of the conduct here described, we are perfectly consistent. Nor can we be consistent in any other way. If we refuse to acknowledge go.od men, and to receive them to our fellowship, we act against Him who is our perfect pattern, and who loves and re- ceives all believers. And it is equally evident, that if we countenance the mistakes which we find among good men, or neglect any proper efforts to correct them, we act against Him who came, as a Prophet, to bear wit- ness to the truth. My second remark is, that some definite form of eccle- siastical government is essential to the order and prosper- ity of the church. The affairs of the church must be administered, and must be administered in some partic- ular mode. Of this every one will be satisfied. Gov- ernment must evidently have some form, or it does not exist. And no arguments are necessary to show, that the more definite and intelligible its form, the more easi- ly and effectually may it be executed. Ecclesiastical government, in order to it^ just administration, requires, as really as civil government, specific principles and rules. CHURCH GO VERNMENT. 9 And to prevent confusion and strife, and to promote the highest degree of prosperity, the rules of government in the church should be comparatively few in number^ defi- nite and simple, well understood, firmly established, and strictly observed. In ecclesiastical as in civil society, it is important that we have the wisest and best govern- ment. But it is still more important that we have some government. My third remark is, that in settling the form of church government, and the specific rules according to which it is to be administered, we must carefully observe all the •principles which are made known in the Christian Scrip- tures. Christ and his Apostles must be regarded as infallible teachers. Whatever doctrine they taught, we receive as divine truth, and as binding upon our faith. Whatever moral precept they gave, we receive as of divine author- ity, and as binding upon our practice. And why are we not equally bound to observe whatever they taught relating to the subject now under consideration? If we find any direction or act of Christ, or his Apostles, re- specting the government of the church ; why are we not to regard it as expressing his mind, or the mind of his inspired Apostles, as to the proper manner of administer- ing our ecclesiastical affairs? And why is not an ex- pression of the divine will as obligatory on us relative to this subject, as to any other ? How can we feel ourselves at liberty to disregard the precepts or the example of our infallible guides in this case, more than in any other? If in regard to any of the particular forms of proceed- ing in Church Government, we are left without any defi- 10 LECTUREI. nite instruction from the word of God ; we are so far at liberty, yea, we are under obligation, to make a proper use of eur own judgment and discretion. In the case supposed, (and I think such cases really occur,) it is man- ifestly the will of God, that we should proceed accord- ing to our conviction of what is proper and expedient. But if we find general principles of ecclesiastical gov- ernment established in the word of God ; those princi- ples are to govern us. They constitute what we may justly call the Constitution of Church Government. Par- ticular legislation may be called for. But whenever we undertake to legislate, we should keep our eye upon those permanent scripture principles, which form our Ecclesi- astical Constitution, and should remember, that any act of ours, contravening those principles, would be wholly unauthorized, and would be marked with a rashness and arrogance very displeasing to God. There is, in my view, only one thing, which can in the least modify the suggestions I have now made. It is admitted, that Christ and his Apostles were guided by infallible wisdom; but it may perhaps be said, that their wisdom was exercised with reference to the circumstan- ces of the times in which they lived, every direction and act of theirs having been certainly right iri those circum- stances. But suppose some direction or act of those in- fallible guides related to some matter which was not of a moral or spiritual nature, and which, in itself, involved no permanent obligation ; some outward form, the pro- priety and expediency of which depended on existing circumstances. The question is, whetiier, in other and very different circumstances, we are necessarily bound to conform exactly to such a direction, or such an exam- CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 11 pie. And this is my reply. If the direction or act of Christ or his Apostles was manifestly grounded upon the peculiar circumstances then existing, and if circumstan- ces now exist which are materially different, and so dif- ferent, that had they existed in the time of Christ or his Apostles, the direction or act referred to would unques- tionably have been different ; in such a case we should be at liberty to govern ourselves by other principles. As an illustration of this matter, take the judgment which the Apostle gave to the Christians at Corinth, that it was expedient for them, as far as practicable, to abstain from marriage. His judgment or advice was plainly grounded on the peculiar circumstances of the time, namely, the persecutions and sufferings to which Chris- tians were then exposed. The Apostle expressly refer- red to those circumstances, as the reason of his advice. And had it not been for those circumstances, no one can suppose such advice would have been given. Now when circumstances become essentially different, and the rea- sons on v.'hich the advice of the Apostle was grounded no longer exist; it is manifest that we are not bound by that advice, but are at liberty to regulate our conduct by those other considerations, which are obvious to reason, and sanctioned by the word of God. The principle I have now laid before you is very clear, and applies to the present subject. Accordingly, if it shall appear, that any direction or act of Christ or his Apostles relative to Church Government, was evidently grounded on peculiar circumstances then existing, and not on general and immutable principles ; and if, at the present time, those circumstances have ceased, and others, having a very different bearing on the subject^ 12 LECTURE I. have come in their place ; then, I apprehend, that di- rection or act of Christ or his Apostles is not to govern us. Indeed there may be imperious reasons why we should deviate from it. Circumstances may now exist, which, had they existed in the time of Christ or his Apostles, would have materially varied the direction or act referred to. Take one or two instances. Christ directed the man who was healed of the leprosy, to go and show himself to the priest, and offer the gift which Moses commanded ; and Paul, for special reasons exist- ing at that time, circumcised Timothy. No man can suppose that such a direction would have been given, or such an act performed, in circumstances like those which now exist. And of course, no man can think that either the one or the other is to govern us. With the exception of such cases, — if such are found to exist, — we must regard any direction of Christ, or any direction or act of his Apostles, in regard to Church Government, as establishing a principle, which is obli- gatory on Christians at all times. What the real facts in the case are, and whether circumstances exist which are a proper ground for the exception above-mentioned, will be the subject of inquiry in the sequel. There are, in a general point of view, two forms of Church Government. ]. Prelacy, or government ad- ministered by Prelates, or Bishops. 2. Government of a popular character. Prelacy is thus described by Hooker. " A Bishop is a minister of God, unto whom with permanent continu- ance, there is given, not only power of administering the word and sacraments, which power other Presbyters have, but also a farther power to ordain ecclesiastical CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 13 persons, and a power of chiefty in government over Presbyters as well as laymen. So that this office as he is a Presbyter or Pastor, consisteth in those things which are common to him with other Pastors, as in ministering the word and sacraments ; — but those things incident to his office, which properly make him a Bish- op, cannot be common to him with other Pastors. Now — Bishops — are either at large, or else with restraint ; at large, when the subject of their government — is not tied to any certain place. Bishops with restraint are they, whose government over the church is contained within some definite, local compass beyond which their jurisdiction reacheth not." Episcopalians expressly claim for their system the sanction of Scripture and the Primitive Church, and maintain that from the Apostle's time there have been three orders of minis- ters in the Church of Christ, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. The plan of my Lectures is simple. As in my de- liberate and settled opinion, I differ from the adv^ocates of Prelacy, I shall state somewhat particularly the rea- so?is of this difference. In other words, I shall give you my chief objections against Prelacy. My first objection is, that the leading principles of Prelacy, as now understood and practised, are not au- thorized by the Christian Scriptures. The constitution of the Jewish priesthood has been considered by some, as requiring, or warranting, a simi- lar constitution in the Christian ministry. In the Jew- ish Priesthood there were three orders ; the High Priest, the Priests, and the Levites. But there is no intimation in the New Testament, that the Christian ministry was 14 LECTUREI. to be formed after the model of the former Priesthood. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews takes pains to show that the Jewish Priesthood, which was a part of the Mosaic ritual, is done away ; that Jesus Christ, and he only, is the High Priest of Christians ; and that all who are set apart to the work of preaching the gospel are his ministers, or servants. There is a wide and ob- vious difference between the plan of the gospel ministry as laid down in the New Testament, and the plan of the Priesthood, as laid down in the Old Testament. And whatever may be pretended by some Episcopalians, they are far from making the Jewish Priesthood their model. The three orders among Episcopal ministers do not by any means correspond with the orders in the Jewish Priesthood. And any attempt to make them more near- ly correspond, would end in a still more visible and un- warrantable departure from the teachings of the New Testament. It is clear, that there is no foundation for Prelacy in any of the appointments or instructions of Christ. Take his appointment of the seventy disciples, who were sent forth to teach, to work miracles, and to call sinners to repent and believe. This arrangement was intended for important purposes at the commencement of the Chris- tian dispensation. But no one considers it as perma- nent. And if it had been designed to be permanent, it would be as far as possible from giving any countenance to the Episcopal scheme of three orders in the ministry. In the next place, Jesus chose twelve of his disciples to be his constant companions, to hear his instructions and witness his miracles, and thus to be trained up for the special work assigned them. " He ordained twelve," CHURCHGOVERNMENT. 15 says Mark, " that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses and to cast out devils." These disci- ples Jesus finally commissioned to go forth as his Apos- tles, and qualified them by the gift of the Holy Spirit to be witnesses of his miracles, and particularly of his re- surrection, and to be infallible teachers and guides. See Matt. 28 : 19, 20. Mark 16 : 15, 16. Acts 1 : 8. The work to which they were called was a special and mo- mentous work. It was the work of proclaiming the Gos- pel, founding the first churches, establishing the Chris- tian religion by preaching and by miracles, completing the volume of inspiration, and exercising, under Christ, a paramount authority in all the concerns of religion. Their commission and their endowments were adapted to the peculiar objects which were then to be accom- plished. Those peculiar objects having been accom- plished, the peculiarities of their oflice ceased. They were indeed religious teachers, ministers of the gospel ; and as such, they have siiccessoi's. But they were teach- ers and ministers in a peculiar sense, and with peculiar qualifications, and peculiar authority. Considered in this light, they have no successors. Others have been sent forth as tnissionaries, as the word Apostles literally signifies. But those first Christian missionaries were distinguished above all others ; and the word Apostles, in a high and peculiar sense, has been appropriated to them. Now how does the fact that Christ appointed the Apostles to that peculiar work, and distinguished them by their qualifications from other ministers, prove that one set of ministers in after ages is to fill an office and possess qualifications above others ? All true ministers 16 LECTUREI. of Christ take the place of the Apostles considered sim- ply as gospel ministers. But where are the men at the present day, who inherit what was peculiar to the Aposto- lic character and office, or what distinguished the Apos- tles from other gospel ministers 1 The welfare, and even the continuance of the Church requires that men, pro- perly qualified, should from time to time be set apart for the work of the ministry ; and that the ministry should be a permanent institution. In this sense there is a suc- cession, I do not say an uninterrupted, but a real suc- cession, from the Apostles to the present time. But it can no more be proved that subsequent ministers of the gospel share the peculiarities of the apostolic office, than that they share the peculiarities of the office of Moses or David. When a special and temporary work is to be accomplished, God gives men special qualifications, and a special, temporary commission. And when there is an ordinary work to be accomplished, a work which is to be continued from age to age ; God gives men qualifica- tions and invests them with an office suited to that ordi- nary work. As far as the work to be done by ordinary ministers of the gospel bears a resemblance to the work which was to be done by Moses, or Bavid, or the twelve Apostles, so far, and no farther, can we suppose a resem- blance between them in regard to their respective offices and qualifications. So far as the peculiarities of the work assigned to Moses, or David, or the Apostles are concerned, a resemblance between them and ordinary ministers is precluded. In the arrangements of divine wisdom, means are always adapted to ends. But I must make one more remark. If it was indeed the design and the appointment of Christ, that there CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 17 should be permanently a superior order in the gospel ministry, sharing in the peculiarities of the Apostolic of- Jice, it would certainly be reasonable to expect them to be possessed of the peculiar qualifications of the Apos- tles, and with qualifications above those of the inferior orders. But I know not that the superior order of min- isters in the Episcopal church pretend to be indued with any of the peculiar qualifications of the Apostles, or with qualifications above those which are found in the inferior orders. And I am sure that the work which Prelates take upon themselves to perform, is widely different from the peculiar work of the Apostles, — in some respects fall- ing short of it, and in other respects going beyond it. Whereas, if Prelacy were founded upon the superior of- fice of the Apostles, it ought to have substantially the same functions assigned to it, not varying from its stan- dard either in the way of deficiency or excess. But in reality, modern Prelates omit altogether the principal works which were peculiar to the Apostolic oflice, such as being witnesses of the life and death and resurrection of Christ, casting out devils, and doing other miracles, preaching and writing under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit ; while in other respects, particularly in assuming and exercising exclusively the right of ordina- tion, they transcend the powers exercised by the Apos- tles. But the consideration of this point comes more properly under another head. It is sufficient for my present purpose to show, that the existence of the supe- rior office and superior endowments of the Apostles, af- fords no ground for the existence of a superior order among gospel ministers in subsequent ages. In other words ; its having been the Avill of Christ that the Apos- 2 18 LECTUREI. ties, for the special purposes then to be accomplished, should be invested with distinguished powers and hold a special and distinguished office, does not prove it to be his will that a particular order of ministers should exist in after ages, holding an office like that of the Apostles, and superior to that of ordinary ministers. Prelacy can- not be legitimately founded on the apostolic office. And how it comes to pass, that the advocates of Prelacy rest their cause so much on the superior authority belonging to the Apostles, it is difficult for me to understand. Their reasoning on this point appears to me to be whol- ly inconclusive, unless they can show that there is now the same necessity for the office of Prelates, as there was originally for the office of Apostles. It may be thought that the passage, Matt. 18 : 18, af- fords support to the high claims of Bishops. Christ said to his Apostles, " Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." But what does this prove ? The Apostles, as appointed and qualified by Christ, were invested with peculiar authority, and were enabled infallibly to exercise their authority in the busi- ness of Church discipline ; for this was the subject intro- duced in the three preceding verses. They were to have the gift of the Holy Spirit in such measures, that their instructions and their decisions should always be right, and their acts in the affair of binding and loosing, should be confirmed in heaven. But this proves nothing as to three orders in the ministry. And it is no proof of the superior authority of Bishops, unless it is made to appear that they possess the miraculous endowments which be- longed to the Apostles. In connection with this, take the CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 19 passage, John 20 : 22, 23, " Jesus breathed on the Apos- tles, and said, receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." The authori- ty here intended, whatever it was, belonged to the Apos- tles, as indued with the Holy Ghost. But what proof does it afford of the authority of one order of ministers in the Episcopal church above that of other orders? Episcopalians themselves do not regard it in this light. For when the Bishop ordains Priests, he says to them, " receive ye the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest^ — whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained." Now I suppose the Priest actually exercises the authori- ty thus committed to him by the Bishop. But how does he exercise it 1 This appears from the declaration of absolution, or remission of sins, made by the Priest in the daily service. He says : " Almighty God, the Fa- ther of our Lord Jesus Christ, hath given power and commandment to his ministers to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the remission of their sins. He pardoneth all those who truly repent, and unfeigned- ly believe his holy gospel. Wherefore let us beseech him to grant us true repentance, etc." This then I judge to be the meaning ; that when it is said to the Priest at his ordination, " whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ;" he is authorized to declare, that God will forgive those who repent, and then to pray for re- pentance, etc. This is what the Priest does in the af- fair of absolution. It is evident that the Bishop is not at all distinguished above the Priests, in this affair of pronouncing absolution to the penitent. Whether done 20 LECTUREI. by the Bishop or Priest, it is merely declaring that mo- mentous doctrine of the gospel, that God will forgive the penitent. And the right to declare this truth, which be- longs alike to all gospel ministers, is no pfoof of the su- periority of one order above another. This right, or authority, was exercised by the Apostles, as inspired men, and therefore infallible. It is exercised by minis- ters at this day, not as inspired, — not as having received the Holy Ghost in the peculiar sense in which the Apos- tles received it, but as instructed by inspired men. Understood as a declaration of a gospel truth, followed by a prayer for repentance and pardon, the rite or prac- tice of absolution is very suitable, and occasions no mis- take. But the application to any uninspired men of the exact words which Christ addressed to his inspired Apos- tles, is, in my apprehension, quite unwarrantable. And I am glad to see in the ordination service, that a second form is provided, in which the words of Christ to his Apostles, John 20 : 22 are omitted. I suppose the first form or the second is used, as may suit the feelings of those concerned. Having considered that there is nothing in the ap- pointment of the Apostles to their peculiar office, which can give support to Prelacy ; I proceed to say, that Pre- lacy can receive no support from the instructions of Christ. If we could find that, in any of his teachings addressed publicly to the multitude, or privately to the Apostles, he made it known as his will, that there should in follow- ing ages be different ranks or orders among his minis- ters, there would be no place left for any question or hesitation on our part. But no intimation of this kind appears in any of the instructions of Christ related by CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 21 the Evangelists, or in anything which the inspired Apos- tles said or did after the ascension of Christ. If any of the Apostles had on any occasion signified, that, in their free intercourse with Christ, they had learnt it to be his intention, that there should be different orders in the ministry, either immediately or ultimately ; this would be a conclusive argument for Prelacy. But nothing like this can be found. I have recently read a sermon, which was delivered in Boston last December by the Right Reverend Wil- liam H. De Lancey, D. D. — a sermon in which the American Prelate gives a description of the character and reward of a faithful Bishop, which is worthy of the serious attention of every gospel minister. I now refer to it, because it contains a passage relative to the subject which has just been under consideration. The author undertakes to reply to the objection urged against Episcopacy, /rom the alleged uncertainty of the succession of Bishops. He says ; " Our answer is, that the promise of perpetuity is from the lips of him, who has explicitly declared that His words shall not fail. * As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.' * Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.' The same power, which has preserved the Scriptures true, through the successive copies and edi- tions, amidst the distractions of persecution, the perver- sities of ignorance, and the distortions of heresy and schism, so that, at this moment, the pure word of God can be ascertained, is fully adequate to the faithful pre- servation of the ministry." — " It is not to human plan- ning, but to divine interposition, that we appeal. The promise is from the lips of Him whose power is adequate 22 LE CTURE I to the fulfilment." — Again he says ; " We may repose, with unshaken confidence, on the ability of the Promiser to fulfil his pledge." We heartily agree with the Prelate, that we " may re- pose, with unshaken confidence, on the ability of the Promiser to fulfil his pledge ;" that his " power is ade- quate to the fulfilment of his promise," that is, " to the faithful preservation of the ministry ;" and also that the promise of Christ implies " a succession of validly com- missioned ministers, to the end of the world." All this we hold as strongly as Episcopalians can do. With de- vout gratitude we receive the promise of our Redeemer, as a blessed encouragement to all his faithful ministers, whether in the Episcopal, Congregational, Presbyterian, or Baptist Church. True gospel ministers of different denominations have relied upon this gracious promise, and have experienced its fulfilment, and have been ani- mated and comforted by it in their labors. And I can- not doubt that ministers of other denominations have re- ceived the benefits of the promise as uniformly, and in as high a degree, as those of the Episcopal church. Nor can I admit that the benefits they have thus received, are stolen benefits, — benefits to which Christ has given them no title. As a matter of fact, he has bestowed the bene- fits of his presence as readily and as bountifully upon good ministers who are out of the Episcopal church, as upon those who are in it. The Lord Jesus is no respect- er of persons ; and in the fulfilment of his gracious pro- mise, he makes no difference among pious and faith- ful ministers, because they differ as to outward forms. If Episcopalians set up an exclusive claim to the pro- mise, that claim we know will not be sanctioned by their CHURCHGOVERNMENT. 23 Lord and Master. We appeal from them to him. And we shall continue to go to him, and plead his promise, and beseech him to grant his presence, with all the bless- ings involved in it, not only to us, but to all his faithful ministers, whether they follow with us, or not, being fully persuaded, that whatever straitness or partiality there may be among poor, imperfect, erring men, there is none in HIM. Yes ; we shall always prize that promise of Christ, and shall apply it to ourselves, undeserving as we are. Sensible that we are utterly insufficient for the arduous duties of the ministry, we shall trust in his all- sufficient grace, praying him to be with us, according to his word. And why should any of those who differ from us in regard to ecclesiastical forms, attempt to exclude us from the benefits of Christ's precious promise? In his infinite fulness is there not enough for them, and for us 1 With our present views, we shall continue to ap- propriate the promise to ourselves. And if we are ever convinced that it does not belong to us, we shall at once abandon the ministry, well knowing the truth of Christ's declaration ; " without me ye can do nothing." The author of the able and edifying sermon referred to considers the promise of Christ, " Lo I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world," as a clear and certain proof of the perpetual succession of Bishops. Bishops, that is, Prelatical Bishops, he regards as the successors of the Apostles. In a qualijied sense, Bish- ops, such as he describes in his sermon, are doubtless successors of the Apostles ; that is, they follow or come after the Apostles, and sustain an office in so?ne respects like that of the Apostles. In a limited sense, they carry forward the work of the gospel ministry, which, in a 24 LECTURE I. higher sense, was committed to the Apostles at the com- mencement of the Christian dispensation. In this qual- ified sense, I hold that faithful Bishops are successors of the Apostles. But are they the only successors 1 And does the promise of Christ belong exclusively to them ? If Bishops are the only successors of the Apostles, and if the promise of Christ belongs to none except Bishops ; then what becomes of the great body of gospel ministers in the Episcopal church and in other parts of the Chris- tian church, who are not Bishops ? There are in the kingdom of Christ on earth many hundreds of gospel ministers to one Prelate. What, I ask, becomes of all these, left as they are without the presence of their Lord and Master ? But if the promise relates to Gospel min- isters who are not Bishops ; then it may be fulfilled to- wards a succession of such ministers. And if so, how does it imply a succession of Bishops? And wherein lies the strength of the argument, by which the author attempts to prove the perpetual succession of Bishops, that is, Prelates, from the promise of Christ? It may be said, that the promise belongs primarily and by way of eminence to Bishops, and, in a lower sense, to the other order of ministers, ordained by Bishops. But how is this made to appear? There is nothing in the promise which indicates, that it was meant to be un- derstood in these different senses, as applied to different orders of ministers. The promise is very simple. " Lo, I am with you alvvay, even to the end of the world." With whom ? He does not say with one order of min- isters in a higher sense, and with another order in a low- er sense. He promised to be with the Apostles, and, by implication, with others after them, who should possess CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 25 the character of gospel ministers, and be engaged in car- rying on, in a restricted sense, the great work which the Apostles began. The promise may indeed be fulfilled in different measures, as other promises are. Ministers who are distinguished for their piety and faithfulness, such as Leighton, Scott, Cecil, Henry Martyn, Baxter, Edwards, Brainerd, Payson, Andrew Fuller, and Davies, w ill undoubtedly enjoy the presence of Christ in a higher degree, than ministers less pious and faithful. And this is equally true in regard to ministers of different denom- inations. The Lord Jesus Christ is a Great King ; and in administering the affairs of his great kingdom, he does not proceed according to the narrow and exclusive no- tions which so often influence the minds of men. His thoughts and ways are exceedingly different from ours. Show me a gospel minister, of whatever name, who is filled with the Holy Ghost, and preaches the truth in love and fidelity ; and you show me one, to whom Christ will specially grant his promised presence. And surely the fulfilment of his promise manifests to whom he intended it should belong. For does he not act according to his intentions ? I ask the pious author of the sermon before me, and other Episcopal ministers like him, whether it is not so. And they will permit me also to ask, whether they think their Blessed Lord is present with them, be- cause they are Episcopalians, — or, because they truly love him, and faithfully preach his gospel. If they say, though I presume they will not, — yet if any of them say, for the former reason, that is, because they are Episco- palians ; then I ask, for what reason Christ is so evident- ly and so graciously present with those ministers who are not Episcopalians '? But if they say, for the latter Jib LECTURE I. reason, that is, because they truly love him, and do the work of the ministry faithfully ; then they will doubtless admit, that other ministers, possessing the same character, may regard the promise as made to them, and may ex- pect to realize its accomplishments. There are, besides Bishops, multitudes of gospel ministers, who have the heart and who do the work of true and faithful servants of Christ, and to whom he does in fact, and according to his intention, fulfil his precious promise. And if all that is implied in the promise has or may have its accom- plishment in a succession of those whom the omniscient Redeemer regards and treats as good and faithful minis- ters, though not Bishops ; then the question returns ; how does the promise prove a succession of Bishops, in distinction from other gospel ministers? The promise of Christ is a matter of great practical moment ; and I have chosen to treat it as such. And let me say again, so that it may not be forgotten ; — if being included with- in the reach of this gracious promise, and enjoying the benefits of its fulfilment, proves men to be successors of the Apostles ; then faithful Congregational, Presbyterian, and Baptist ministers are such successors, as truly as Bishops ; and the promise no more proves the continued existence of these, than of those. The fulfilment of the promise by the unchangeable Promiser, certainly shows how he intended his promise to be understood and ap- plied. Pious and faithful Bishops, such as are set before us in this sermon, are, I doubt not, in an important, though qualified sense, successors of the Apostles, to whom the promise belongs. Pious and faithful Presby- ters and Deacons in the Episcopal church, are also suc- cessors of the Apostles. Otherwise, how could they. CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 27 equally with Bishops, be entitled to the promise ? Thus far the advocates of high Church principles agree with us. And here they stop. But He who is Head over all things to the church, which he bought with his own blood, does not stop here. They limit the succession of true gospel ministers and the intent of Christ's prom- ise to Bishops, and those who are ordained by Bishops. Not so with him who made the promise, and who has all power in heaven and earth. He speaks and acts on larger principles. There is nothing, nothing at all, either in the language of the promise, or in its obvious mean- ing, or in the manner of its fulfilment, which restricts it to a succession of Bishops, or which proves the exis- tence of such a succession, any more than a succession of other gospel ministers. And if we would agree with our Blessed Lord, — if we would have our views and feel- ings correspond with his mind, as expressed in his word and providence; we must guard not only against pride and bitterness, but against all narrowness and bigotry and party spirit, and must pray for enlargement of heart, and must rejoice in the wide extent of Christ's promise, and in the length and breadth of his love. It is in this way that I dispose of the passage quoted above, in which the author cites the promise of Christ, Matt. 28: 20, as a plain, conclusive argument, on which he confidently relies, to prove the perpetual succession of Bishops. I maintain, that neither the occasion, nor the language of the promise, nor its obvious meaning, nor the facts of its accomplishment, prove any such thing. Episcopalians may affirm, that it is a principle settled and certain, that Bishops are the only successors of the Apostles, and that they and those ordained by them are 28 LECTURE I. the only authorized and lawful ministers of Christ. What I have aimed to show in these remarks, is, that this principle cannot be proved from the promise of Christ. And I will only add, that I can no more admit, that Bishops and those who are ordained by them, are the only authorized and lawful ministers of Christ, than that hereditary kings and nobles are the only authorized and lawful rulers. LECTURE II. In the last Lecture, I stated it as my first objection against Prelacy, that it is not authorized hy the Chris- tian Scriptures. In discussing this point, I referred you particularly to the appointments and instructions of Christ, during his public ministry on earth. And I think it was made manifest, that there is nothing in his appointment of the seventy disciples, or of the twelve Apostles, or in the instructions he gave them, which af- fords the least support to Prelacy. Let us now inquire whether anything favorable to Prelacy can be found in the Acts of the Apostles ; — any- thing in the conduct of those, whom Christ appointed to preach his gospel and propagate his religion, which implied, that there should be three orders in the minis- try, and that one of these orders, namely. Bishops, should exercise authority, not only over the churches, but over two subordinate orders of ministers. Had the Apostles so understood the matter, they would doubtless have said or done something to show it. For they were commis- sioned and qualified to be witnesses and ministers of Christ, and, in his name, to teach the doctrines and laws of his kingdom, to establish churches, and to settle every- thing pertaining to their order and prosperity. And it was manifestly of great importance, that they should give a right direction to the great concer