RELIGIOUs TRACTs, No. 57. ar’ , -r- - § 77-c. 7 , /-º ( , ; 2. B. Ä * 7:/, ºzzº-ty *...*& &44 2. zººJ 3. ~ * 73 2. 3 ceived and encouraged it from my infancy. I found that religion, in all its parts, was to be supported by the sure test of scripture and of reason, and I could not conceive how the man, who ad- vocated a particular system only because he had been educated in it, differed from the disciple of Mahomet or the worshipper of Juggernaut. In the course of my reading and conversation, I had also learned that the divines of the Episcopal Church had been distinguished for their learning and piety; that the best systems of divinity and the most useful dissertations upon the several articles of Christian faith and practice had come from their pens; and 1 was not a little surprised to hear our minis- ters frequently quoting them as authorities in the pulpit, and to see their libraries filled with the books they had published. As I had become considerably acquainted with the clergy- men in the neighbourhood, I perceived too, that they expressed to each other a good deal of dissatisfaction in regard to the go- vernment of their own church, and some would even go so far as to recommend and vindicate the use of forms in worship. This convinced me that there was something wrong in the sys- tem, though I could not tell precisely what it was, and from all that I saw, and heard and read, I felt it my duty, as a man who was to give a strict account of the improvement of his ta- lents, to examine faithfully and impartially the nature of the Episcopal Church, when it was brought to my door, and to act according to my convictions. This examination I pursued to the best of my ability and opportunity, and the result has been a full and an unshaken belief, that the government of the church by bishops, priests and deacons, and the worship by forms, is of ancient and divine institution, and that every other mode is an innovation, not known to the apostles and their snccessors for many ages, but of recent date and fatal tendency. In my examination of the subject, I first made myſelf ac- quainted with the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America. S I also attended the worship of the Church, and although I was a little confused at the variety of form, yet there was an appearance of solemnity and an en- gagedness in devotion which was peculiarly impressive. My eonfusion I knew was owing to my having been used to a differ- ent mode, and did not therefore discourage me from a renewed attendance until I was satisfied with the beauty and propriety of all. Every person will, I think, on first coming to church, especially if he has been acquainted with none but the Congre- gational mode, be unfavourably impressed with the service. The cause of which is, that he attends as a spectator, and does W 4. not perceive the reasonableness of the several prayers and praises which are intended only for pious and devout worship- pers. They are not, like extemporaneous prayers, to be heard, but to be offered; and the humble Christian, who has long given vent to the emotions of his soul in their fervent strains, would deem it his greatest loss to be deprived of their use. After I became acquainted with the government of the Church, I considered first, whether it was good in itself and cal- culated to preserve unity and peace. I had heard much said of the power of bishops, and their infringement of the rights of the people, but I soon learnt that the charge was groundless, and that there was more true Christian freedom in the Church than in any other denomination with which I was acquainted. The bishop has the power of ordaining deacons and priests, after they have been suitably recommended, with the assistance of his presbyters; he confirms those who have been baptized; he consecrates chapels and churches, and when present he presides in Convention. But he has nothing to do with the votes of the people in the settlement and support of their minister; the clergy only are subject to his advice and direction; and I have sometimes thought that the opposition to bishops was on account of a due subordination in the ministry which did not give indi- viduals of that order a right to tyrannize over the consciences of the people. All acts in relation to the Church are passed in Convention where the power of the bishop is equal only to that of the presbyter, the deacon, or even the lay delegate. He can prescribe no new service; he can make no alterations in the old, and in every respect there is the same check upon the Episcopacy, as is possessed, in a civil view, by the legislature over the President. But there is a permanent and visible head to the Church; there is an authority to which offenders may be brought; there is a bond of union which strengthens and sup- ports the whole; and although all the bishops in America can exercise no more power than a single presbytery or association of congregational ministers, there is, nevertheless, a source from which power emanates, and without which, ah would be confu- sion and anarchy. * .. -- - And let me ask you, my friend, whether it is not necessary, that to every body there should be a head 2 The Church is a society which can exist only under a regular government, and how can this be administered without an authorised governor P And does not experience show that where all assume to be rulers in an equal degree there is disorder and every evil work P What government ever existed long where there was not a due 5 gradation in its officers P And how can it be expected, when mankind are so various in their tempers, passions and pursuits, that one uniform course should be pursued, and the same end accomplished where there is no subjection and no controul ? Let the history of dissent, and the public deelaration of Con- gregational reports furnish the answer. From considerations like these, I soon became satified that the Church was in itself the best mode of which I had any knowledge, so far as respected its government. It then be- came necessary to enquire whether it was agreeable to the will of God; for however useful and proper it might appear, still, if it was contrary to his commands, I knew it must be rejected, and the views which I had entertained, set aside as deceptions. To ascertain this, it seemed important to advert to the govern- ment which he himself established with the Jews, and here I found a striking similarity to the orders of the Church in the several offices of high priest, priest and levite. This, however, has been said to be nothing to the purpose, because the Jewish dispensation was done away upon the coming of Christ. But such does not appear to me to be the case. It was not done away, but changed and extended, and is it not reasonable to suppose that where there were once types and emblems, there must now be the substance and reality? Although circumcision was no longer to be continued as a token of the covenant be- tween God and his people, yet baptism was substituted in its stead, and for the same reason, the offices which had before prevailed, must have something corresponding to them in the Christian Church: and what is there that answers to the high priest, if it be not the bishop—to the priest, if it be not the presbyter—and to the levite, if it be not the deacon? But the argument is not, as some have pretended, that there must of necessity be bishops, priests and deacons in the Christian, be- cause there were high priests, priests and levites in the Jewish church. It is shown from this that a diversity and an inequali- ty of orders are not contrary to the will of God, but agreeable to his own government; and until there is some express com- mand to the contrary, I think, if there were no other reason, it is better to endeavour to imitate the divine conduct than to adopt the inconsistent and unprofitable inventions of men. But I did not rest my belief upon my view of the subject thus far considered. Although I found Episcopacy good in itself. and as I thought from the divine institution, agreeable to the will of God, I proceeded to discover, if possible, what go- vernment was established for the Church by Christ and his A_2 6 Apostles. The three orders we find existing while the Saviour was upon earth, consisting of himself, the twelve apostles, and 2, the seventy disciples. This seems an intimation, at least, that he intended the form of government which had prevailed among the Jews to be continued so far as related to the number and gradation of its officers; and after his ascension, it appears to me evident that the three orders still remained Of the appoint- ment of the deacons we have a particular account, and that they preached and baptised, whether as deacons or evangelists mat- ters not ; for their being deacons made them evangelists, and we have a history of their being solemnly ordained by the laying on of the hands of the apostles to the office of the former and not the latter. The term evangelist did not point out the nature of the office, but merely signified that the person to whom it was applied, was a preacher of the Gospel In regard to the office of presbyters there is no question; and what is the testi- mony in proof of the superior order of bishops ? All the Apostles were bishops, and as such received their commission from Christ, and under this commission they could exercise equal powers, plant churches, and ordain teachers as they thought necessary. But it does not follow, that because they received but one commission, and were alike authorised to perform all the duties of the Apostolical or Epis- copal office, that the same equality descended to all that they ordained. We know it did not in regard to the deacons, for Peter and John went down from Jerusalem to Samaria to con- firm the converts whom Philip had baptized, which it seems he had not the power to do. And there are very strong circum- stances which show also a difference in respect to presbyters. Timothy was the bishop of Ephesus; and I do not see how any candid person can read St. Paul’s epistles to him without being satisfied that he had the sole government of the Church in that place as it respected the ordination and reproof of pres- byters, and many things relating to the worship and conduct of the flock. Now, had the presbyters at Ephesus equal authority with Timothy? We read in the twentieth chapter of the Acts, that St. Paul called together the elders or presbyters of this Church, and addressed them in the most affectionate language for the last time. And is it not surprising that he does not say one word to them about the government of the Church, ordan- ing, reproving. &c. when he never expected to see them again, and when, according to the system of parity, this was as much their duty as it was that of Timothy P. He tells them to “f ed the flock of God,” but to Timothy he points out the qualifica- º: tions of those whom he was to ordain, and directs him to “tay hands suddenly on no man.” Is there any reasonable person that can say Timothy was not superior to these presbyters? and if so, to what order did he belong, if it were not that of bishops ? The directions given to him are such as are followed by the bishops of the Episcopal Church at the present day, nor do they, so far as I am acquainted, exceed the duties which he was commanded to perform ; and so strong is the evidence from this particălar, that it was said by a celebrated divine, “that he who could not find a bishop in Ephesus, would be puzzled to find one in England.” "- And the case of Titus is, in my mind, no less demonstrative than that of Timothy. He was sent to Crete, where St. Paul had previously established the Gospel; and what was his busi- ness? “To ordain elders in every city.” Was this the office of a bishop or a congregational minister? It appeared to me the former, and I thought also, that as St. Paul was in great need of the assistance of Titus with him at that time, it was strange he did not direct him to return after having ordained two or three presbyters, enough to constitute a council, and leave them to ordain the rest if they had the power; instead of which he himself was to go through the whole hundred cities of Crete. It seemed also, probable, that as St. Paul had been there before and converted the Island to Christianity, he had left some presbyters; and if such were the case, why did he send Titus for the express purpose of ordaining elders in every city ? A further testimony from Scripture in support of Episcopacy, I thought I perceived in the direction to the angels of the seven churches of Asia, in the Revelation. These angels I suppose were bishops, who had the jurisdiction over all the churches in the cities where they respectively dwelt. These were large places, containing many thousand Christians. In the church at Ephesus were probably many societies, and consequently a con- siderable number of presbyters. Still, one person is addressed as the angeſ or bishop of the church at Ephesus, and so at Smyrna, Thyatira and the rest. But if there were no distinct order of bishops superior to that of presbyters, all the latter were angels, and had equal power to reform abuses and confirm piety. The church collectively, as including all the different societies in a city, is called a candlestick, to which one star is attached. To me, this intimates, at least, diocesan Episcopacy, and seems in perfect agreement with the instances to which I have before alluded. Now, what is there to counteract all this Scripture evidence, 8 and to establish congregational independence or parity? It is said that the words bishop and presbyter are indiscriminately applied to the same persons, and that Timothy was ordained apith the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. But what does all this prove ; In regard to the first, it is not the name, but the thing for which the church contends. The word bishop, I am told, literally signifies an overseer, and may as well be applied to a presbyter as a bishop. The present bishop of New York is the overseer of his diocese as extending through the state, and the Rector of St. Stephen’s or Christ-Church is the overseer of his particular flock. But because one term is ap- plied to both, does it therefore follow that they are equal in office? The presbyters of Ephesus were all bishops or overseers of single societies, but had they therefore, the same power with Timothy, who had the oversight of them all P It is from the duties attached to the office, and not from the name, that we are to argue the superiority, and of these I think there are suffi- cient scriptural examples to set aside the doctrine of ministerial arity. p In regard to Timothy’s being ordained with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, it is undoubtedly true. But St. Paul tells him that he was also ordained by the laying on of his hands. And so every presbyter in the Episco- pal Church is ordained by the bishop, with the assistance of his presbyters. This is, therefore, a circumstance in favour of Episcopacy rather than against it. St. Paul himself, as bishop, ordained Timothy, but there were elders or presbyters present, assisting him in the work, and these, for aught we know, might have been bishops or apostles. From the testimony of scripture, which is to me as clear as the light of day, I proceeded to the history of the Church, and here I discovered such confirmation as I should hardly think scepticism itself would deny. All the ancient writers speak of Episcopacy as the universal government of the church, and but one solitary instance of dissent is mentioned previous to the fourth century. Particular persons are also styled bishops, not of single societies but of cities comprehending many church- es and thus forming dioceses, as the bishop of Jerusalem, of Antioch, of Alexandria, &c. An author, who wrote in the be- ginning of the fourth century, gives a history of the church down to his own times, and names all the bishops, in succession, of four principal cities. And it is an indisputable fact, which even the greatest opponents of Episcopacy admit, that in two hundred and fifty years from the time of Christ, the whole 9 Christian world was Episcopal, and so continued until the six- teenth century. And did Christ and his apostles establish Con- gregationalism or Presbyterianism which was so inefficient that no vestige of it was to be discovered after the short space of two hundred and fifty years? If this were the case, it is won- derful, it is miraculous that a universal change should have been so soon effected, and this too without opposition or notice. I find in ecclesiastical history an account of all the sects and heresies from Cerinthus down to Calvin, but I see no relation of a change from the original government of the Church to Episcopacy. And yet in the beginning of the third century it was Episcopal in every country and in every society, through- out Europe, Asia, and Africa. Can it, therefore, be, that any revolution actually took place? Is it possible that a few am- bitious men should rise up against the great body of presbyters and take from them their rights, without meeting with resist- ance—their power of ordaining and governing the Church F and not only this, but assert also, that they had always had this supremacy in one order from the foundation of the system? And who were these assuming men, who aspired to the office of bishop, contrary to the word of God and the institution of Christ and his apostles P. Their names are not given us, nor the time when they lived, nor the manner in which they accom- plished their end. It is said that the change was gradual, but when did it begin, and where was its progress P It aimed at the subjection of all the presbyters and deacons in the world, and it effected it too in the short course of two hundred and fifty years. This could not be by very slow degrees. And in regard to ordaining, it was an assumption of power which must have taken place at once, and this could not have been done without opposition; and if opposition had been made we should now be able to find some record of it in history. It is indeed incredible. Such as the Church was at the commence- ment of the third century, in regard to the nature of its govern- ment, it was in the beginning, or Congregationalism was chang- ed into Episcopacy by as great a miracle as that which was manifest on the day of Pentecost. . But the burden of prooflies with the Congregationalists; and if they cannot show that they had any existence in the church until 1600 years after its esta- blishment, they must be content with the name of innovators, And if they had, let them point out the time when, and the place where. It was not in Jesusalem, for there James was the first bishop ; it was not in Antioch, for from thence Episcopacy was transplanted to the East Indies, and has been continued 1: Q in"the Syrian Church discovered by Dr. Buchanan ever since. It was not in Rome nor in Greece, in Spain, nor the islands of the sea, and Congregationalists are challenged to produce any one instance of their existence as a society previous to the union at Geneva, which took place in the sixteenth century, and which has since degenerated into more open and avowed here- sy. Is it not passing strange that we can point out the rise and progress of all other sects and denominations, while in regard to Episcopacy the farther we go back, the more extensive we find it, until at last it pervades the whole church, and we read and hear of nothing else from the establishment of Christianity ? Taking all these circumstances together, the propriety of the Episcopal government, its agreeableness to the will of God, its support in the apostolic age, and its universality for sixteen hundred years after, can you wonder at my having renounced the system in which I was blindly educated, and attached my- self to that which is so ancient, so pure, and so divine P From my view of the subject, I must confess to you, my friend, that I did entertain doubts of the validity of any ministry excepting that derived from the apostles through the succession of bishops. For I could not conceive that two modes had been pointed out to convey the same office and authority, and it ap- peared to me as improper and unauthorised to depart from the line as it would have been for the descendants of Simeon to have assumed the priest’s office, which was appropriated to the tribe of Levi. Where there is authority to perform the duties of an office, it must have been received from a source where it really exists; and if the power of ordination was for sixteen hundred years confined to bishops, it is absurd to suppose that it may at liberty be assumed by any order of men. Involuntary ignorance I believe God will pardon; but where men persist in their prejudices when the means of information are presented to them, there is danger. The sacraments administered by un- authorised hands, may be blessed to those, who, from their education and circumstances of life have known but one way, but a plea in excuse will hardly be admitted from such as pur- sue the path of error when passion only prevents their ex- amining its course. Ameng the collateral evidences which have confirmed me in the belief of the apostolic origin of Episcopacy, there is nothing which has had more weight upon my mind than the history of the Syrian Church to which I have before alluded. This little society was discovered some years ago by Dr. Buchanan, the celebrated missionary, in Asia, and traced its records back to 11 the time of its establishment by one of the Apostles. For more than thirteen hundreu years it had held no courtnunication with any foreign church, and yet was found under a regular Episco- pal government Now, whence did it derive this if not from the original source? It could not have been from the Greek or the Romish Church, for it had never been connected with either until after its discovery by the Portuguese; nor did it receive the Episcopacy from England, a country of which it was altogether ignorant until Dr. Buchanan came amongst them. This church has since been visited by the American missionaries, whose accounts do not materially differ from those of Dr Buchanan. A similar argument may be produced from the history of the Greek and Romish Churches, which, though in many essential points opposed to each other, have nevertheless always main- tained Episcopacy. That the incumbrances of pope and pa- triarch should have grown out of it, furnishes no greater ob- jection to it than may be urged against Congregationalism from the circumstance that, according to the assertion of its advocates, this gave rise to an unscriptural prelacy. In conclusion, I will venture to say, that if a sect were now to spring up, similar in every particular to the Congregational- ists when they first appeared, there is not, even in New England, one man in ten thousand who would join their society. Length of time has effaced many absurdities, but their dis- tance from the truth is the same. They have thrown off the only valid ministry, and the evil cannot be removed until they return to the church which they have unjustifiably deserted. Having stated to you as fully as I am able, in the compass of a single letter, my reasons for joining the church, I will now dismiss the subject, so far as its government is concerned, and in my next will endeavour to satisfy you that I am upon equally as good ground in regard to its forms. In the hope that you will, in the mean time, enter into a closer examination, to- wards which I have only given you the outlines, I remain with respect and affection your friend, S. i2 LETTER II. I now proceed, agreably to my promise, to a vindication of the forms of the Church, and I trust that I shall make it appear to your satisfaction, that these are good and proper in them- selves, and agreeable to the practice of the Church in all ages. I had heard it frequently said, that in the reading of prayers there could be little or no devotion; and without much reflec- tion upon the subject, it seemed as if there must be some truth in the assertion. The custom was so different from that to which I had been used, and my mind was so habituated to an entire dependance upon the invention of my minister, that I did not dare to suppose that there could be any such thing as prayer where the language was premeditated. The supposition even earried with it the idea of profanity, and I was almost ready to condemn unequivocally, and without examination. But wheri I attended upon the worship of the Church, and noticed the ap- pearance so different from that in congregational societies— every knee bent and every heart and voice seemingly engaged, I could not but think that the spirit of supplication was there in a greater degree than I had ever before witnessed in any other place, and that if the blessing of God was ever granted to a hu- man petition, it would not be withheld from those who mani- fested so much apparent fervency and sincerity. * This, with some other circumstances, soon effaced my pre- vious impressions in regard to the reading of prayers as the ef- fect of early prejudice, and led me to consider the assertions which had been made as the ebullitions of ignorance and bigotry. I found that there were some Congregational ministers whe were always in the habit of using a form ; that whole associa- tions united in publishing and recommending volumes of writ- ten prayers for the use of their people; and that family devo- tions in most instances, were carried on this way; and upon re- flection, I could not consider the singing of psalms, as usually practised, and without any doubt of its propriety, to be any other than praying to God and praising him by forms. These are precomposed in all congregations, and if a general union is intended in the part of worship which they compose, as they partake in a great measure of the nature of prayer, it seemed to me that what was right in the one case could not be wrong in respect of the other. Besides, I found that extemporaneous prayers, on the part even of ministers, generally fell at last inte a form, and that indeed such they must always be considered in 13 regard to those who join in the petitions they contain. Public prayer, whether precomposed or extempore, is unavoidably a form to all by whom it is not originated, in as much as they re- ceive words which are dictated to them; and if they are intent only upon their devotions, it is impossible for them to determine whether the minister invents at the moment, repeats from me- mory, or reads from his half concealed manuscript. I knew also, that as respected myself, I had too generally been a hearer of prayer rather than a devout worshipper, and the appearance of a great portion of the congregation intimated a similar condi- tion on their part. I found that they were ready to criticise the language and style of prayer in the same manner they did the sermon; to admire every beauty of expression, and to applaud all the minutiae of detail to which the occasion led. With these views, which satisfied me at once that there could be no rational objection to forms even on the part of those who rejected them, I proceeded to consider whether they were not from the nature of prayer, and in order to the suitable edification of the people, far preferable to the extemporaneous mode. It is the design of public worship that the united wants and feelings of a whole congregation should be expressed. And how is this to be done unless some method be adopted, of which there may be a previous general knowledge and in the form and order of which all may agree ? If the petitions and praises be not uniform throughout the whole assembly, the devotions are no longer public but private, and in this case there is danger of the same confusion as that which the apostle reproved in the Church at Corinth, where the unlearned, although they gave their assent, could not understand that to which they said Amen. If we have true devotion of heart, we may always worship God with the spirit, but this of itself does not answer the end of our religious public assemblies. It is, indeed, essential to our acceptance with God, but unless it be united with reason and reflection, and thus assisted by the understanding, although there be, so far as it relates to individuals, internal piety, there will be ſittle edification produced to the Church as a body, and its members might as well confine all their devotion to their houses and their closets. The minister, at the monent, can speak only for him- self; he can express only his own feelings, and offer up his own supplications. There may be partial agreement with him ; but unless there be a blind submission or an enthusiastic ima. gination which is mistaken for the influences of that divine Comforter, by whom the reason and the will are directed as well as the passions engaged, the people will be content with hear. +3 14 ing, or it may be admiration, but there will be but little union in devotion. Is it to be expected, that any man should be able, from the mere impulse of the moment, to offer up petitions so suitable for the Church at large, and in which all the people can so well agree, as a common form prepared after much study and deli- beration, accompanied with earnest prayer to God for guidance and direction, by the greatest luminaries which the Christian world has produced since the days of the apostles F And is there not as much Christian liberty in the use of a form thus prepared and established by the common consent of the Church, as in the prescription of an individual, whose blunders, hesitations, ab- surdities and vulgarisms, amuse or mortify his hearers, according to their several characters, bringing ridicule upon the sacred cause which he professes to support, and destroying all the solemnity of worship P It is said that the cases of individuals are not particularized in forms, and that prayer cannot be varied according to circum- stances which are often taking place. And is this, indeed ne- cessary 2 These cases and circumstances are all included in general petitions and thanksgivings; and does any one suppose that the mind, while a general request or ascription of praise is uttered, cannot revert to a particular occurrence which it may properly include; or that God, in order to the bestowment of his favours, requires from his creatures an exact history of all things that fall under their observation ? He knows what we need and how we are situated, and although he will be inquired of in a suitable way, he does not ask for those minute definitions which are too often made to gratify vanity, to display a variety of talent, and thereby to gain popular applause. It appears to me that the particular cases of individuals are proper sub- jects for closet devotion, but that nothing should be introduced into the temple of God, excepting that with which every per- son is or may be acquainted, and in which every one ought nearlily and spiritually to join. ...” There is, I think, a great advantage in having a form of prayer for the whole Church, as it constitutes a bond of union which cannot be broken, and tends to the preservation of the faith in its purity. Not only the members of one society or congregation unite in their prayers and praises to one common Father, but the same petitions and thanksgivings are ascending to the throne of grace from the church universal. And if Christ has promised to hear the requests of two or three, when gathered together in his name, how much more will he grant | 5 their petitions when presented in the same way by the thousands and millions who kneel before his altar P That forms of prayer are of ancient and divine institution is to me evident from Scripture. The first piece of solemn wor- ship recorded in the Bible is a form—the song of Moses and the children of Israel after the destruction of Pharaoh and his host, which was first repeated by the men and afterwards re- sponded by Miriam and the women. Forms also were given to Moses and Aaron in the wilderness; one in relation to the atonement to be made for the expiation of an uncertain murder; another to be used when the ark rested and when it set forward, and a third for the blessing of the people by the priest. Besides, the whole book of psalms are forms of prayer and praise which were used in Jewish worship, and are still retained in the Church; and the following injunction of the wise man seems intended for the express purpose of discountenancing extempo- raneous prayer :—“Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God; for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth; therefore let thy words be few.” If we come to New Testament times, we find Christ pro- viding a full and ample form for the use of his disciples, even as John also had taught his followers the manner in which they were to pray. And when, after the ascension of Christ, the *pestles were gathered together, they lifted up their voices with one accord and united in a solemn form of prayer, the words of which are given to us in the fourth chapter of the Acts. The eacample of Christ furnishes a strong argument in fa- vour of forms. When he was in the garden he repeated the same words three times, and upon the cross he addressed the Father in language which had been prepared many ages before. He always attended the worship of the Jewish synagogue which was carried on altogether by forms, and had there been any impropriety in the mode, he would not certainly have with- held his reproof. From the time of Christ and his apostles, forms in public worship were universal in the Church until the sixteenth century, and the same arguments are to be produced in their favour from ecclesiastical history as in regard to the Episcopacy. When I had satisfied myself of the superior excellence of forms over extemporaneous prayers, and became convinced that they had prevailed in all ages of the Church, and been sanctioned by the example and precept of its great Head and his apostles, as well as by Moses and the prophets, I proceeded 16 to the consideration of the Episcopal Liturgy, which I found so rational, so comprehensive, and so well adapted to the ex- pression of public wants and feelings, that 1 could not for a mo- ment withhold my approbation. The language is scriptural and solemn, the arrangement excellent and instructive, and it may well be said that in the prayer book the bible is discovered in a devotional form. The morning and evening prayers are commenced by the reading on the part of the minister, two or three selections from Scripture, intended to call the people to a sense of their condi- tion, and to prepare their minds for the solemnities in which they are about to engage. Then follows an earnest Ealhortation, setting forth the duty of the worshipper, and inviting all present to unite in a humble confession of sin, which is the first thing necessary when we come into the temple of God. We have no praises to offer, no favours to ask for ourselves or others, and no consolations or encouragements to receive from the holy writings, without first acknowledging our transgressions and sincerely supplicating for the pardoning mercy of God. After the Ea:hortation in which the minister acquaints the people with the necessity and qualifications of Confession, they all unite, each one for himself, in bewailing their sins and im- ploring the forgiveness of their Maker. And if this confession be made from the heart; if this supplication proceed from a sincere desire of pardon, and be accompanied with strong reso- lutions of obedience, then are the people encouraged to hope that their iniquities are blotted out; and this encouragement is conveyed to them by the minister in the Declaration of Absolu- tion which follows. He is authorised by that Almighty Being from whom he derives his commission, to declare, that if they be truly penitent, their sins are forgiven; and on their bended knees they are to receive the joyful declaration. After this, as the restored prodigal, as the pardoned sinner, as the humble disciple, they are permitted to call God “Our Father,” and to unite in that comprehensive form which Jesus Christ has commanded us always to use, and by which we ac- knowledge ourselves as his followers. After repeating the Lord’s Prayer, and in view of the great privileges received in the forgiveness of sins, and the permission through Christ to call God Father, the whole congregation unite in solemn ascriptions of praise, the people performing their part as well as the minister his, and thus manifesting their com- mon interest in the whole service, 17 When the daily course of praises is ended, a Lesson is read from the Old Testament, which is followed by a hymn of thanksgiving with reference to the goodness of God in all his revelations to the children of men, and including the most de- vout adoration of his righteous attributes. To this succeeds a Lesson in the New Testament, which is followed by another hymn of praise, called forth by a sense of fervent gratitude for the interesting truths of the gospel of his dear Son. And what can be more proper than, after hearing those truths which are able to make us wise unto salvation, for the whole congregation to rise and exclaim with one voice, “We praise thee, O God, we acknowledge thee to be the Lord,” or “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited and redeemed his peo- ple P” Having heard the word of God as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, we proceed to acknowledge that our faith as Christians is founded thereon, and in union with the Church universal in heaven and upon earth, we declare the several articles of our belief as contained in the Apostles’ Creed. Then having first petitioned for mercy and salvation, we proceed to the collects or prayers, which are arranged agreea- bly to St. Paul’s direction to Timothy: “I eachort, therefore, that first of all supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giv- ing of thanks be made for all men, for kings and for all in authority,” &c. The service by being thrown into short col- lects instead of one continued prayer, is better calculated to keep up the spirit of devotion, and to prevent the mind from losing sight of the subject before it. Qur natures are such that we cannot confine our attention to any one thing for a great length of time, and the variety in the devotions of the Church is admirably adapted to afford that relief which the mind re- quires. In the morning service, the Litany or general supplication, is introduced, which is the most solemn and affecting composition that can well be conceived. Throughout the whole, our appeal is to the divine mercy flowing through Jesus Christ our Sa- viour; and in the language of Dr. Paley, there is nothing which a Christian petitioner can wish to ask or deprecate that is not there expressed with admirable solemnity and simplicity. Indeed, I have found that pious and sensible men of all de- nominations speak highly of the Liturgy of the Church; and this of itself is a convincing proof that it is an excellent form of sound words; and I trust that there are thousands and tens of B 2 …” 18 thousands now in the paradise on high, crying with saints and angels, holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts, and hymning praises to the Lamb that was slain, who knew no other services in the temple of God below than those in which the members of the Episcopal church unite. They were compiled by saints and martyrs, prophets and apostles;–for many hundred years they composed the whole of the public devotions of the Church, and they still remain, having escaped the corruptions of popery and the innovations of heresy, pure and unadulterated as the Holy Scriptures upon which they are founded. Cold then must be the heart and lifeless the affections of those who cannot in the worship of the Church pray and praise with the Spirit; who, in the prayers of saints and the hallelujahs of angels cannot rise above this fleeting, transitory scene, and hold sweet communion with their God and Saviour. In vindication of the postures practised by the Church in public worship, I need say but little to you. They are so ra- tional, significant and scriptural, that the blindest bigotry only can object to them. In prayer, churchmen kneel after the ex- ample of Moses and Solomon, Daniel, Paul and Christ. It is said by some that the posture is of no consequence, provided the heart be right. But this in my opinion is incorrect and absurd, and if carried to its full extent, would destroy every appearance of religion. The same assertion in regard to one external may be applied to all the rest, and with equal propriety can it be said, that if the heart be right, it is no matter whether a person attend public worship, receive the sacrament, or perform any other outward duty, although prescribed by the law of Christ. In this as in all other things, scripture is to be the test of pro- priety as well as of truth, and I do not believe we shall find in the Bible a single instance of a prayer being offered to God in any other posture than that of kneeling. It is true we read of some that stood and prayed. Solomon was one of these. “He stood before the altar of the Lord in the presence of all the congregation of Israel,” and prayed, “..And it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying—he rose from be- fore the altar of the Lord, from KNEELING on his knees with his hands spread up to heaven.” This then was his standing— not upon his feet but upon his knees, and as the word expresses simply a general disposition of the body and not the precise pos- ture, we may from analogy suppose, while the universal custom in the east confirms the hypothesis, that in every instance where standing is mentioned, kneeling was practised. The heathen kneel before their deities of wood and stone, and shall 19 Christians when they address the God of heaven, show less respect than pagans who worship at the statues of dumb and senseless idols P Standing in praise is a posture observed in the Church. Prayer humbles us and brings us upon our knees in view of our own unworthiness; praise exalts us in contemplation of the perfections of that God whom we adore. In the one, a sense of guilt and the need of pardon are expressed ; in the other we give vent to the grateful emotions of the soul, and rejoice before the Lord our King. When the scriptures are read, it is the custom of the Church to sit, which is the proper posture for hearing with attention, and one in regard to which there is but little difference of opinion. These are all the ceremonies of the Church, and although they may appear strange and unpleasant to such as have always been used to a different mode, I trust they will be found, upon examination, proper in themselves and agreeable to the will and the word of God. I had intended to make a few observations upon some of the offices of the Church, removing the objections which are made to the baptismal, confirmation and ordination services. But as you have the Congregational and Presbyterian platforms of Church government, and will perceive from them that every objection in regard to the word regeneration and to the fancied power of forgiving sins, will apply to the dissenters, it is unnecessary that I should say any thing upon the subject. I think, however, that the objections would not be so frequently advanced if the people generally knew that regeneration in baptism and for- giveness of sins in ordination are recognized by all the dissent- ing Churches in the same manner as by the Episcopal. I will conclude this letter with an extract from the celebrated Miss Hannah Moore, upon the service of the Church, and leave you to make your own comments both upon that and upon what l have offered. “Most sincerely attached to the Church myself, not, as far as I am able to judge, from prejudice, but from a fixed and settled conviction, I regard its institutions with a veneration at once affectionate and rational. Never need a Christian, except when his own heart is strangely indisposed, fail to derive benefit from its ordinances, and he may bless the overruling providence of God, that in this instance, the natural variableness and incon- stancy of human opinion is, as it were, fixed and settled, and hedged in by a stated service so pure, so evangelical, and which is enriched by such a large infusion of sacred scripture. If so 20 many of us contemn the service as having been to us individual- ly fruitless and unprofitable, let us enquire whether the bless- ing may not be withheld because we are not fervent in asking it. If we do not find a suitable humiliation in the Confession, a becoming earnestness'in the Petitions, a congenial joy in the .Adoration, and a corresponding gratitude in the Thanksgiving, it is because our hearts do not accompany our words; it is be- cause we rest in the form of godliness, and are contented to re- main destitute of its power. If we are not duly interested when the select portions of Scripture are read to us, it is because we do not, as new-born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word that we may grow thereby. Perhaps there has not been, since the age of the apostles, a Church upon earth in which the pub- lic worship was so solemn, and yet so cheerful, so simple, and yet so sublime, so full of fervour, at the same time so free from enthusiasm; so rich in the gold of Christian antiquity, yet so astonishingly exempt from its dross. That it has imperfections we do not deny; but what are they compared with its general excellence P They are as the spots on the sun’s disk, which a sharp observer may detect, but which neither diminish the warmth nor obscure the brightness.” These are the sentiments of a person who, in the opinion of the serious of all denominations, has fought valiantly, through a long line, for the Lord her God, and who deserves for her labours in the cause of Christ, the highest honours of the Church militant. That they may have their due influence upon your mind, is the ardent prayer of Your affectionate friend and well wisher, S. * Dººm-e APPENDIX. [At page 8, our author observes, that “all the ancient writers speak of Episcopacy as the universal government of the church, and but one solitary instance of dissent is mentioned previous to the fourth century.” On this sub- ject, the profound LEsli.E has written very fully and learnedly. His “short method with the Deists,” “in which the historical, the ritual and other external evidences of revelation are summed up in four short rules, pointing out as many criteria of the certainty of any historical fact, the co-existence of all of which renders its truth demon- 21 strable,” is a work, which is universally acknowledged to “bear the stamp of peculiar talent,” to be “marked by great clearness of understanding, and uncommon power of lucid arrangement and vigorous generalization.” “Leslie, (said Dr. Johnson, making an exception, in his case, from his sweeping censure of the English nonjurors, as wholly deficient in logical talent,) “Leslie was a reasoner indeed, and a reasoner not to be reasoned against.” In his “Dis- course on the qualifications requisite to administer the sa- craments,” to which the reader is particularly referred, as an able and acute defence of Episcopacy;" worthy of being associated with his defence of Christianity, he ad- duces a large body of evidence from primitive writers, to show the nature of the government of the Church in early ages, before it was possible that extensive corruption could prevail, without being known and resisted by the cham- pions of the faith. A few of his testimonies we shall now subjoin. •Anno Domini, 70. Clemens, Bishop of Rome and Mar- tyr, of whom mention is made by St. Paul, Philip. iv. 3,- writing to the Corinthians, (1st Epis. sect. 40,) says, “To the High Priest, his proper offices were appointed; the Priests had their proper order, and the Levites their pe- culiar services or deaconships: and the laymen what was proper for lay men.” This, St. Clement applied to the distribution of orders in the Christian Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons. 4. D. 71. St. Ignatius, a Martyr, was constituted by the Apostles, Bishop of Antioch. In his Epistle to the Trallions, he says, “Be subject to your Bishops, as to the Lord, and to the Presbyters, as to the Apostles of Christ; likewise the Deacons also, being ministers of the mysteries of Christ, ought to please in all things. Without these, there is no Church of the elect. He is without, who [* Leslie himself rests his “infallible demonstration of Episcopa. cy,” on the same ground, with his argument against the Deists. “It has all the four marks before mentioned, (he says,) to ascertain any fact, in the concurrent testimony of all churches, at all times: and therefore, must infallibly, be the government, which the Apos- tles left upon the earth. To which we must adhere till a greater authority than theirs shall alter it.” See his letter in the “Scholar Armed.” Vol. I.] ſº 22 does any thing without the Bishop, and Presbyters and Deacons; and such an one is defiled in his conscience.” In his Epistle to the JMagnesians, he admonishes them,- “As Christ did nothing without the Father, so neither do ye,—whether Presbyter, Deacon or Laick, any thing without the Bishop.” He directs his Epistle to the Church at Philadelphia,-" to those who were in unity with their Bishop, and Presbyters and Deacons,” and says,—“My brethren, be not deceived; if any shall follow him that makes a schism, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. I exhort you to partake of the one Eucharist; for there is one body of the Lord Jesus and one blood of his, which was shed for us; and one cup—and one altar; so there is one Bishop with his presbytery and the dea- cons, my fellow servants.” “Give heed to the Bishops and to the Presbytery and to the Deacons. Without the Bishop, do nothing.” In his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans,— “Let that sacrament be judged effectual and firm, which is dispensed by the Bishop, or him to whom the Bishop has committed it. It is not lawful without the Bishop either to baptize or celebrate the offices; but what he ap- proves of, according to the good pleasure of God, that is firm and safe, and so we do every thing, securely.” In his Fpistle to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, and Martyr, who, together with himself, was disciple to the Apostle, St. John, he gives this advice to the members of his charge, “Give heed to your Bishop, that God may hearken unto you; my soul for theirs, who subject themselves under the obedience of their Bishop, Presbyters and Deacons, and let me take my lot with them in the Lord.” J1. D. 180. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in France, and Disciple of Polycarp, writing against Heretics, de- clares,-‘‘We can reckon those Bishops who have been constituted by the Apostles, and their successors, all the way to our times.” “We have the successions of the Bi- shops, to whom the apostolic church in every place was committed. All these [i. e. heretics, are much later [*It will be recollected, that in the present argument, we have no concern with the opinions or the accuracy of the illustrations of the Fathers. All that we rely on, is their testimony as to matters of fact.] 23 than the Bishops, to whom the Apostles did deliver the churches.” .A. D. 203. Tertullian, writing in like manner, against heretics uses this forcible language; “Let them produce the original of their churches; let them show the order of their bishops, that by their succession, deduced from the be- ginning,-we may see whether their first bishop had any of the Apostles (or apostolical men, who did likewise persevere with the Apostles,) for his founder and prede- cessor; for thus the apostolical churches do derive their succession; as the church of Smyrna from Polycarp, whom John (the Apostle) placed there; the church of Rome from Clement, who was in like manner, ordained by Peter; and so the other churches can produce those constituted in their boshopricks by the Apostles.” Speaking of Bap- tism, he says, “The High Priest, who is the Bishop, has the power of conferring baptism, and under him, the Presbyters and Deacons; but not without the authority of the Bishop.” [* It is almost universally acknowledged, that in the third century, the testimony is conglusive with regard to the supremacy of Bishops (as the first order in the ministry,) over Presbyters and Deacons. In the third century, however, it is contended, that innovations com- menced. The following extract from Bishop Hobart’s ‘Apology,’ will place this subject in its proper light. It is taken from the (Ox- ford) Bampton Lectures of the Rev. John Hume Spry, who pays a very just and handsome compliment to its learned author; “Grant to the Episcopalian, that the supremacy of bishops prevailed through- out the primitive church, in the third, or beginning of the fourth century, and he contends that this is sufficient evidence of its being an apostolic institution. Thus does he reason; “The Apostles cer- tainly instituted a ministry in the Church. This supremacy of Bi- shops, therefore, must have been either of Apostolic institution, or it must have been an innovation or usurpation. If it had been an innovation or usurpation on apostolic order, it could not have re- ceived universal sanction, at a period so near the apostolic age, without opposition, and without the most explicit and marked record of so extraordinary a change or usurpation. But no such record ap- pears. No tradition even, of any such event, is mentioned in any of the writers of the first three centuries. No such change or usurpa- tion, therefore, could have taken place, in the constitution of the primitive church. The supremacy of bishops therefore, wiich uni- versally prevailed in the third, or beginning of the fourth century, could not have been an innovation or wsurpation. It must therefore have been an apostolic institution.”] 24 .A. D. 220. Origen, in his commentary on Matthew, names the distinct orders of Bishop, Presbyter and Dea- COI!. .A. D. 240. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, in his 80th Epistle, observes that the Emperor Valerian wrote to the Senate “that the Bishops and the Presbyters and the Deacons should be prosecuted.” Addressing his Pres- byters and Deacons, he says, “What danger ought we to fear from the displeasure of God, when some Presby- ters, neither mindful of the Gospel, nor of their own station in the Church, neither regarding the future judgment of God, nor the Bishop who is set over them,--which was never done under our predecessors, with the contempt and neglect of their bishop,-do arrogate all unto them- selves?” .A. D. 365. Optatus, Bishop of JMeld. “You, (Parme- nianus) found in the Church, Deaeons, Presbyters, Bi- shops. You have made them laymen. Acknowledge that you have subverted souls.” .A. D. 370. Ambrose, Bishop of JMilan. “God does require one thing from a Bishop, another from a Presby- ter, another from a Deacon, another"from a layman.” .A. D. 380. St. Jerome, who is claimed by our oppo- ments, has this language;—“The greatest of riches, or the humility of poverty does not make a Bishop greater or less, seeing all of thern are the successors of the Apos- tles.”—“That we may know the apostolical Oeconomy to be taken from the pattern of the Old Testament;-the same that Aaron and his Sons,—and the Levites were in the temple, the Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons are in the Church of Christ.”—“Be subject to your Bishop or Chief Priest, and receive him as the Father of your soul.” “The safety of the Church depends upon the dignity of the High Priest,--to whom unless a sort of absolute and eminent power be given above all, there will be as many schisms, in the church, as there are Priests. Thence it is, that without the command of the Bishop, neither a Presbyter nor a Deacon has power to baptize. And the Bishop is to impose his hands upon those who are bap- tized by Presbyters or Deacons, for the invocation of the Holy Spirit.”]