ys he Tye alial | Succession; 
 
 ie) 5 
 
 mitts ey VICKSBURG, it 
 
 D 
 $a 
 ee i 
 
 s 
 
ae 
 
 Tue following sermons were written and preached more 
 than a year ago in the discharge of parochial duty, and with- 
 out any expectation or intention of their publication. They 
 make no pretensions to literary merit and no such distinction 
 is claimed for them. Composed literally “currente ealamo,” 
 
 they are given to the public, just as they were preached, with 
 
 the exception of two or three additional quotations in the first 
 of the series, the notes and the appendix. 
 The writer has no expectation that these discourses will 
 
 “prove palatable to the great majority in this country “ who call 
 themselves Christians.” Yet he is not without hope that their 
 
 facts, statements and arguments, if duly weighed, will lead 
 
 _ to further examination on the part of those who are concerned 
 
 he le 
 “to know the truth.” “And if for necessary truth’s sake only, 
 any man will be offended, nay take, nay snatch at that offence 
 
 which is not given, I know no defence for that. "Tis truth | 
 and I must tell it; ’tis the Gospel, and I must preach it. And 
 
 far safer it is . duis case to bear anger trom men than a woe 
 from God.” | at 
 
 Columbia, July 1, 1843. 
 
a 
 
 SERMON 1. 
 
 “AND HE IS THE HEAD OF THE BODY, THE CHURCH.” 
 ¢ Corossrans, i. 18. 
 
 ‘Sr. Pavt, the apostle, in his epistle to the Colossians after 
 the salutations with which he commonly begins his letters, pro- 
 ceeds to speak of the great power and dignity of the Pence 
 He enlarges on this topic for the purpose, probably, of strength- 
 ening the confidence and hope of the christians at Colosse in the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and of encouraging them to “ fight the good 
 fight of faith.” By declaring in the most ample terms Christ’s 
 exalted power and dignity, he would raise them above the fear 
 of trial and. persecution in this life, to which they were constantly 
 exposed, and would inspire them with a trust in the Saviour, 
 
 ae 
 that would disarm even death of his terrors, For, whom could 
 
 put, 
 
 they reasonably dread, when so much power was engaged in 
 their behalf and for eis protection? “For by him,” says the 
 apostle, “were all things created, that are in Heaven, and’ that 
 are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or 
 dominions, or principalities, or powers ; all things. were ented 
 by him, and for him; And he is. before all things, and by him 
 all things consist ; ad he is the head:of the body, the church ; 
 
 “who is the ena the first born from the dead; that in all 
 
 things, he might have the pre-eminence.’”* 
 
 Under the Be taco and safe-guard of such a friend, the saints 
 at Colosse, might well rise superior to all the discouragements 
 and difficulties which encompassed them in their journey 
 through this weary world, and look forward with composure 
 to the approach of that inevitable hour, when they must sink 
 into the grave under the stroke of death. 
 
 We would do well, brethren, to remember that the same mercy 
 embraces. us, that the same power is engaged for our protection, — 
 that the sompgepscions edeemer is our unfailing friend, and 
 
 < Pak * Col. i. 16-18 
 
 “ oF 
 y. 
 
6 
 
 that in reliance upon him we are authorized to cherish the same 
 - blessed hopes for time and for eternity. 
 
 The first thing that strikes us, as worthy: of observation in 
 the text, is the singular terms in which the apostle speaks of 
 the Church. It is called a body—a body of oviach Christ is 
 the head. 
 
 The head is the scat of all those mental perceptions which 
 enable us to.exercise our judgment, and by which the actions 
 of the body are controlled and directed. So the Lord Jesus 
 Christ being head of, the church is the source of all wisdom, 
 power and dignity 1 init. ‘The meaning of the Apostle’s meta- 
 phor, we conceive, to be fully cleared by this brief and simple 
 explanation. Perhaps many points of resemblance might be 
 sought out, yet they would probably be of a. fanciful character 
 anc tend little to edification. ; 
 
 cat _.» As the church is here and elsewhere in Scrip- 
 nity of ‘ 
 
 the Primitive ture expressly called a bady,* we are at once and 
 
 eons $i necessarily reminded of the unity which should 
 
 distinguish it in faith and practice. As the members of the 
 natural body are united together and to the head, by the veins, 
 
 arteries, and nerves, so the members of the church are united 
 
 with: one another and to Christ the head, by the spirit, faith, 
 love, sacraments, word and ministry. “here is one faith, and 
 
 one baptism,” saith the apostle, in the very same connexion, in ~ 
 
 which he declares that, “there is one body.” t 
 
 It must be clear even to slight reflection, that in the first pro- 
 mulgation of the gospel and in the gathering together of the 
 church, believers were perfectly united in the profession of the 
 same faith and in submission to the same ordinances. The cir- 
 cumstances by which the first converts to christianity were sur- 
 rounded, measurably compelled: them to union: and that they 
 were so united is manifestly set forth in the declaration that 
 “they continued steadfastly in the Apostle’ s doctrine and feilow- 
 ship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers.”{ It was the 
 prayer of our blessed Saviour, and among the last which he, as 
 man, addressed to. the Fades concerning his disciples, that 
 “they all.might be one.”§ And it adds to “the affecting interest 
 
 of this prayer, to consider, that the divine Redeemer seems to— 
 
 * 1 CorjeL7. Eph. i..23: ive 16. + Eph. iy. 4, 5. | 
 we + Acts i..42 § St. John xvii. 20, 21. 
 op vi Gye 
 ea.) 4 
 » a 4 ; 
 
® 
 
 yr? 
 
 8 | 
 
 d 
 
 a ) 
 
 regard the unity of his chatets, as a necessary ‘evidence to the 
 world that the Father had sent Ris. “Neither pray I for these 
 alone; but for them also which shall believe: on me through 
 their word; ‘hat they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in 
 me, and I ‘a thee, that they also id be one in us: that the 
 world may believe that thou hast sent me.”* 
 
 “That they all may be one”—one'in love—one in faith—one 
 in practice—one in hope. his oneness of the christian church 
 continued with but little interruption, until the perilous and puri- 
 fying times ‘of persecution ceased and. believers began to exer- 
 cise themselves about questions, which in their discussion, 
 
 ina of ministering grace to those who heard, tended ae 
 
 trifes and divisions, and the evil works which usually attend 
 Hecd contentions. 
 _ Divisions of the christian name fave at Napethe Presont divie 
 so multiplied that, in our day, it seems that the ‘ions: 
 question is Pacis made, whether such things are allowable 
 
 .under the law of Christ. It appears to be taken for granted, 
 
 that men will differ in their religious views—that differences are 
 
 ‘. inevitable from the very constitution of men—that they will 
 
 have their preferences, and that these preferences, no matter 
 upon what grounds they may be entertained, may be safely 
 
 el a to the extent of attaching oneself to any society what- 
 
 “ee that professes to be christian. In short, there seems to be 
 a very widely diffused persuasion in the Pe mind; that one: 
 
 denomination of professed christianity is, as to’ auhore about 
 -as good as another. Hence we hear of many different associa- 
 
 tions styled churches—the deluded followers of Joe Smith, the 
 Mormon prophet, and others equally ignorant and fanatical— 
 appropriating to themselves this venerable and once venerated 
 appellation. Hence it has come to pass that the 
 exercise of a salutary discipline has almost ceased 
 among the professed followers of Christ,-it being 
 found impossible to prevent the reception, to what are called 
 church privileges, of those repelled, rejected or expelled by some 
 association calling itself christian, and hence the chief aim of the 
 ‘various sects of the age, seems to be, to gain influence and 
 power, by adding to oe numerical Stutneth, rather than to 
 eae true piety and godliness among men. 
 
 1 any serious and reflecting person, however, really think 
 
 Discipline 
 impracticable. 
 
 ll Fe ee RS * St. John xvii. 20, 21. " 
 ' a2 ot .4 
 be ie ve 
 P ae 4 
 os % 
 
 a? 
 
8 
 
 that the various bodies of men, who are known under the name 
 of churches of Christ, are Pane authorized to act in.his name, 
 and impart to others authority to administer the sacraments of 
 his religion? “Especially can they so think, when they perceive 
 the itactieal results to which such opinions lead in the countless 
 divisions into which the professed followers of Christ are now 
 scattered ? in the bitterness and rancour which opposing sects 
 éxhibit towards each other? 
 
 Bart¥ Spirit: Without the introduction of some restraining prin- 
 must’ be res- ciple.to counteract this general disposition among 
 aoe, men of the present day to separate into parties, it 
 must be too evident to need proof, that every thing like unity 
 among christians, will be at an end. The only bond to draw 
 men together in ecclesiastical associations will then be inclina- 
 tion and interest-or aécidental circumstances growing out of the 
 intercourse of social life. And when these cease to operate or to 
 have influence, new divisions must ensue from a change of cir- 
 cumstances. or, of relations in an ever varying and changing 
 world, until every distinctive feature of the christian system and 
 of the church, one after another, shall pass away and the whole 
 - be divested ay that divine Bilis which alone can and ought 
 to give it sanction and weight with men. Indeed if these sepa- 
 rations into distinct bodies or communities be allowable, there 
 seems to be no good reason why every man should not act for 
 himself and family in the affairs of religion, without the inter- 
 vention or aid of any ministry whatever. And certainly those 
 who at this day have discarded all authority in the church, act 
 consistently in'administering the rites of religion at all times, in 
 all places, and to all persons who ask for them, without reference 
 -to any rule, law or custom upon. the subject. ‘They act consis- 
 tently, we say, with their avowed principles. Whether these 
 principles be in accordance with the revealed will of God, as 
 _ interpreted by the practice of the prunitive church, is another 
 and very different matter. 
 
 . An idea seems to prevail quite extensively that 
 christianity in its doctrines and forms is suscepti- 
 ble of improvement like the arts and sciences, and 
 that new’ discoveries are to reward Investigation into it, as in- 
 other things. Hence old fashioned views of religion—such as 
 teaching children the catechism, and training them to the habit- 
 
 The «old 
 paths” forsaken. 
 
9 
 
 ual practice of devotion and other christian duties, are not only 
 
 - rejected but actually ridiculed as savouring of earthliness, and 
 the self-constituted reformers of the age set forth their own pecu- 
 
 - 
 
 liar sentiments with all the positive confidence and directness 
 of assertion which attach to the claim of infallibility. There is 
 truth in the maxim which says that extremes meet, and those 
 who first set. out with a denial of all authority’ are presently 
 found claiming all ‘authority for themselves. 
 
 This is strikingly shown in the movements of a 
 Campbellites 
 
 | modern: sect, called by themselves Reformers, but have failed to 
 
 better known among us under the appellation of see with 
 Campbellites. And here I beg to ‘be understood “~ 
 
 not as mentioning names reproachfully, but simply for the sake 
 of illustration. Among those, as well as among others to whom 
 I shall have occasion to refer in this discourse, I am free to de- 
 clare, and I take pleasure in saying, that I believe there. are 
 
 many humble, pious and sincere believers, “who through faith 
 
 and patience are striving to inherit the promises.”* 
 
 One of the characteristics of the sect, already named, is the 
 rejection of all creeds and the avowed Ms aaah of. the New Tes- 
 tament in their place, as the only and all-sufficient standard 
 of faith and } practice. If, say they, Creeds are contrary to the 
 New Testament , they are wrong and ought :to. be rejected. If 
 
 they. are in accordance with it, they are at least unnecessary and 
 
 may be injurious. There is APS TSI in this reasoning—full 
 
 ¢ as much as that which decided the fate of the famous library 
 _ of Alexandria,—but far more sophistry concealed under an exte- 
 
 rior of much candor and fairness.. The word creed, means 
 what? undoubtedly, belief. And it matters not in principle 
 whether it consist of one article or twenty. Now when we 
 
 ~ come to ask these people who have undertaken to reform chris- 
 
 tianity, or rather the church, what they believe to be meant by 
 christian baptism, they unhesitatingly declare, that it 1s emzer- 
 
 _ sion in water, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost: + 
 
 * Heb. vin, E2, 
 et The form of words in baptizing is not the same with all the preachers or pro- 
 claimers among these people. Someuse’the common form, «I baptize thee, in the 
 name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” Others of them say 
 ** By the authority of the Messiah I baptize thee for the remission of sins”—and 
 some here add, «In the name of the Father, &c.” Others again “1 baptize thee 
 * into the name of J esus for the remjssion of sins, by : 
 
 od a .~ 2 
 
5 
 
 = te 
 
 10 
 
 and that no affusion, pouring or sprinkling of water, can be pro- 
 perly regarded as baptism. Consequently all persons who have 
 been baptized in any other way than by immersion, they con- 
 sider as yet-without the pale of the church and strangers to the 
 covenants of promise. And their practice accords herewith ; for 
 no person can or will be received into what they are pleased to 
 style the kingdom of Heaven or of Christ, without ag ol to 
 be immersed. ' 
 
 _ Thus we see then, that while they profess to ciel all creeds, 
 they nevertheless’ abe io dee maintain—and right they are for 
 doing this—that interpretation of the language of scripture which 
 they believe to be the truth of God: and, consequently do, in 
 .practice, uphold the very thing which they condemn in others. 
 For a creed was never intended to express any thing more, than 
 
 -what was conceived to be the meaning of holy'scripture. It‘ is 
 
 the-purpose of the creed to express in as brief a form as possible 
 the leading facts and main doctrines of the christian religion, 
 
 -and so far aettivine the effect, as is alledged, of separating 
 
 men into parties, just the contrary object is aimed at, and just 
 the opposite result, for the most part, obtained by 
 
 eke their use. No*man, who believes in the divine 
 authority of the New ‘Testament, will object to a 
 
 single article of what is called the Apostles’ Creed. Much of it 
 is*in the very. language of scripture,* and that which is not, is 
 nevertheless so plainly deducible from it, that no intelligent per- 
 son will deny that it is built upon the express authority of God’s 
 
 holy word. .No really sound objection therefore can be urged 
 
 against its use. On the other hand, the many valuable purposes 
 
 ‘which it serves by presenting a concise summary of the Chris- 
 
 tian faith, and forming a bond of union among the followers © 
 
 of Christ, will always vindicate the wisdom of retaining it among 
 our forms of public worship. The precise period of time at which 
 
 this ereed, venerable for-its antiquity, was composed, is not 
 
 known swith certainty.. No doubt it was very near to the apos- 
 (les’ times, though we’ cannot assert that it belongs to the very 
 age in aurea they lived and preached. It is’as near a tran- 
 seript of what they taught, very briefly expressed, as can well 
 
 be conceived. Indeed some learned men have given it as their 
 
 i - 
 
 : * See 1 Cor. xv 
 
Til 
 
 opinion that this creed was formed as an abstract from the apos- 
 tolic writings, and intended as far as possible to supply the want 
 of the Bacied books among people who had not the opportunity 
 to read them, as likewise to furnish an outline, to ignorant peo- 
 ple, incapable of reading, of what thifigs they were required to 
 believe in order to their becoming christians. Purposes which 
 the creed is admirably adapied to answer, as any one may be 
 easily convinced of, who undertakes to teach the unlearned the 
 main doctrines of revelation and their own’corresponding duties. 
 But one of the chief and among the most excellent purposes 
 which the creed answers, especially by its:introduction into the 
 worship of the congregation is the preservation of unity, among 
 
 the members of the body. It is thus that we are/all enabled to 
 “speak the same thing,” and “be perfectly joined together,” | 
 
 the apostle enjoins, “in the same mind and the same hapeiing 
 It is thus we confess Christ “before men,” profess “the faith 
 once delivered to the saints,”} and | preclude all est occasion for 
 
 divisions. | AS ape 4 
 
 It is thus too, that liberty of conscience is F scoied Not that 
 sort of liberty, which amounts to free thinking, which spurns 
 all restrictions and limitations upon the reason and judgment, 
 which puts at defiance all law and ‘authority, and sets up its 
 own dictum as the infallible truth of God. This is licentious- 
 néss and not liberty. This is that wild spirit of insubordina- 
 tion, which under the name of freedom has never failed to ex- 
 ercise an iron despotism over the minds of men, wherever and 
 ~ iwhenever an opportunity was presented. Of .this, the past his- 
 tory of the world has furnished abundant and striking exam- 
 - ples, and it is in truth the real foundation of nearly all the 
 '. systems which Sectarianism has. introduced, defended and es-_ 
 tablished. | | ‘ . 
 The Apostles’ and Nicene creeds contain an outline: of the 
 main facts and doctrines of the Gospel. They deal with gene- 
 ral principles ;t they set forth not a single peculiarity, except as 
 itsmay distinguish christianity from all ether religions ; nor do 
 they enunciate a single fact, or declare a single doctrine in which. 
 the vast majority, if not all christians, do not agree. And hére 
 is a leading point of difference between the Protestant Episcopal 
 
 - * 1 Cor. #10.. f-SteJude, 3. 
 + These as applied in practice are extended and explained in the Worship, offi- 
 ces, &c. of the church. p 
 
 , ) | ¥ 
 
 2 
 
12> 
 
 Church and the various dissenting bodies around her. She re- 
 quires the reception only of that which was confessedly ac- 
 
 knowledged in the primitive church as the chris-_ 
 
 Difference be- 
 
 tween the Epis: tian faith—-as of universal belief and no less uni- 
 copal Church versal practice. The Nicene creed. was put forth 
 aut others. 
 
 as embodying the sense and judgment of the 
 aiid of Christ, as early as the year 325 (A. D.) and in con- 
 demnation of the Arian heresy which then began to disturb the 
 unity of the body. , Whatever can be shown to be of undoubted 
 belief and practice, among the whole body of believers previous 
 to' that time, we hold to be obligatory upon us at this day, as 
 members of be Catholic Church of Christ. We call on no man 
 to subscribe to any thing peculiar and distinct from what was | 
 thus believed and practised, in order to his becoming a chris- 
 tian. ‘The demand made is, “ dost thou believe all the articles 
 of the. christian faith as contained in the apostle’s creed?” and 
 upon the affirmative profession thus made, we baptize in the 
 name of the blessed and adorable Trinity, and receive the sub- 
 ject into the visible church, as a member of Christ’s body. Not 
 so with the» self-styled Reformat this age, who insist upon 
 immersion as indispensable to admission into the visible fold of 
 Christ. Not so with Presbyterians, who set forth in their “Con- 
 _ fession of Faith,” that “angels and men, predestinated and fore- 
 ordained are particularly ne epee bly designed—that the 
 righteous are chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of God’s 
 mere free grace and love, without any fonda tate of faith or good 
 works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in 
 the creature, as conditions, or causes cane him thereunto; 
 and all to the praise of his glorious grace”—and that it hath 
 pleased God, “for the glory of his sovereign power over his 
 ‘creatures, to pass by the rest of mankind, and ordain them to 
 dishonor and wrath for their sins to the praise of his glorious 
 justice” +—Not so with Methodists, who substitute internal per- 
 stiasions, which’ they call the assurance of faith, or the witness 
 of God’s spirit, for that holiness of life, that inward purity. and 
 ’ moral rectitude; which are the proper evidence of conversion— 
 of renovation—of an acceptable state with God. Not so with 
 Papists, who demand: unqualified submission to the decrees of 
 
 * Prayer Book. Office of Baptism. 
 t Confession of Faith; article or ch. ii. of God’s eternal decrees—Phila. Ed. 1821. 
 
1B 
 
 the council of Trent in the 16th century, as an indispensable 
 condition of salvation. Thus the theological opinions of men 
 are attempted to be bound‘on the consciences of mankind ‘as 
 dogmas of faith, and the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us 
 free, virtually destiovedlt 
 
 Goneniay to all these and many others too numerous to be ° 
 named, the Holy Catholic Church of Christ teaches as articles 
 of faith those things only which are plainly. delivered in the: 
 written word of Christ and his apostles, and about the truth 
 of which there never was any doubt among the faithful. And 
 now let me ask, is hot this reasonable? isnot this safe? is it not 
 consistent with the charity of the gospel? If my fellow man 
 professes his conviction of the truth of what the apostles taught, 
 why must I impose on him new and additional terms of com- 
 munion or fellowship which they never required? Why must 
 my interpretation of scripture be taken as correct and his con- 
 demned? or why his received, and mine rejected? Who is to 
 decide between us, if we chance to disagree? a thing very likely 
 to happen. We both appeal to the written word, who is to be 
 umpire between us? There is: no decision to be had in such a 
 case, without an appeal to the authority of the church ; without 
 reverting to primitive christianity, and that which has received 
 the sanction of all, every where and from the beginning to the 
 council of Nice, A. D. 325—(down to which period it is acknow- 
 ledged on all hands, the faith was kept pure and unadulterated 
 _ by the great body of believers in every part of the world—) and _ 
 this must be regarded as of apostolical authority. Further 
 than this we need not go, to be assured of our fellowship with 
 the apostles, and through the sacraments of the Church which 
 they established, of our union to Christ, the living head. 
 
 I have rguBtie it the more necessary to dwell’ — yo attitude 
 on this part of the subject, because of the misap- of the Church 
 
 tuwards others. 
 
 prehension and prejudice, not to say, misrepresen- 
 tation, which I know to abound in the community, respecting 
 the church, and the position which she’ occupies towards: the 
 various glisions professions ¢ around . ust ‘wThe church utters no 
 denuciations against others, who throtigh. faith and repentance, 
 are striving, however Aided in some things, after the crown 
 of life. She takes her stand on general principles, whichmay — 
 be known and read of all men and in the setting forth of these, 
 
y 
 
 14: 
 
 the plainness and simplicity of her language are equalled only 
 by its modesty—by the carefulness with which she has guarded 
 her formularies from the expression of a harsh and uncharitable 
 judgment on the faith and practice of others. 
 
 Are we asked what is the church? The xix article re- 
 plies: “'The visible Church .of Christ, is a congregation of 
 faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, 
 
 ~ and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s 
 
 ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite 
 to the same. 
 
 Is the demand made, who are authorized to minister the 
 word and. sacraments of Christ's religion? ‘The preface ‘to 
 
 ‘the ordinal furnishes the answer—thus:, “It is evident unto 
 all men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, 
 
 that from the Apostles’ time, there have been these orders of 
 ministers in Christ’s Church, Bishops, Priests, and», Deacons: 
 
 which offices were evermore had in such reverend estimation, 
 that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he 
 were first called, tried and examined, and known to have such 
 
 qualities as are requisite for the same; and-also by public 
 prayer, with imposition of hands, was approved and admitted 
 thereunto by lawful authority. And therefore to the intent 
 that these orders may be continued, and reverently used and 
 esteemed in this Church, no man shall be accounted or taken 
 to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in this Church, or 
 suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be 
 called, tried, examined and admitted thereunto, according to 
 the form hereafter following, or hath had Episcopal consecra- 
 tion or ordination.” It will be perceived from the foregoing 
 that the Church undertakes. to declare who shall be accounted 
 lawful ministers in her own communion. She raises not the 
 question, nor does she say one word about the authority of 
 those ‘who execute the’ functions of ‘religion’ among others, 
 She judges them not; to their-own master they stand or fall 
 
 and to him they must give account. If others think their, 
 
 authority called in question by the declaration which ‘she sets 
 forth. that “it is evident’ to‘all men, diligently reading Holy 
 Scripture and ancient :authors, that from the Apostles’ time 
 there have been these orders of ministers in Christ’s Church, 
 
 Bishops, Priests and Deaconis,” she is not to blame for it. It 
 
 > 
 
~% pa ey ay 
 e734 - =? me , = 
 
 15 
 
 is their own fault that they have not sought for that authority 
 from the source and in the way which she declares to be lawful, 
 It is her business to see that the’ application of the general 
 principle which she asserts, be made to those who seek to min- 
 ister in her congregations. And this is all that;she undertakes 
 to do, leaving others to pursue the course which they believe to 
 
 be warranted by the, word of God and the practice of the 
 
 Church of Christ. .It is however not a little re- . 
 yell : The general 
 
 markable that the correctness of the general prin-. principle of the 
 
 ciple stated by the church, is admitted by the Church admit- 
 
 | = ted by com- 
 large’ majority of those who have left her pale Sa 
 
 ‘and set up separate communions for themselves. 
 
 ‘Thus Calvin, the founder of Presbyterianism says, “If they 
 will give us he an hierarchy, in which the Bishops have such 
 a pre-eminence as that. they do not refuse to be subject unto 
 Christ, I will confess that they are worthy of all anathemas, 
 
 if any such there be, who will not reverence it, and submit 
 
 themselves to tt with a utmost obedience.” * 
 
 Thus Martin Luther: “I allow that each state ought to 
 have one Bishop of its own by divine right; which I show 
 
 from Paul, saying ‘ forethis cause left I thee in Crete’ tf. , 
 
 Thus Melancthon: “I would to God it lay in me to restore 
 the government of Bishops. For I see what manner of church 
 we shall have, the ecclesiastical polity ‘being dissolved. I do 
 see that héterfter will grow up in the euurch a greater tyranny 
 than there ever was before.” t- | 
 
 Thus Beza,.the successor of Calvin: “In my writings touch- 
 ing church government, I ever impugned the Romish hierarchy 
 
 but never intended to touch or impugn the ecclesiastical polity 
 of the Church of England.” § 
 
 The plea urged for establishing a government 
 Plea of neces- 
 of Presbyters contrary to what was the known ity. 
 order of the church was’ necessity. The refor- 
 mation on the continent was catried forward by the lower 
 orders of the clergy; that is by the Presbyters and Deacons, 
 in conjunction with the people. The Bishops refused to unite 
 with them except in a very few instances. In England on 
 
 * Word for the church p; 51, Joannes Cabrini Trac. Theo. omnes p. 69. 
 Ibid. Resolutions. ' + Ibid. Apology, &c. p. 395. 
 {bid. p- 52, Letter to Arclfy Whitgiit , , 
 
x 
 
 16 
 
 the’ contrary, the ministry, including Bishops, Priests and Dea- 
 
 cons, reformed’ with the people; and hence there existed no 
 
 necessity and no reason to change the order of government by 
 Bishops, and consequently no alteration, was then, or fora pong 
 time after, attempted. ’ 
 
 But what does this plea of necessity unavoidably suppose? 
 
 , Unquestionably, a departure from some established rule and 
 
 order, otherwise there could be no reason or sense at all, in 
 
 ‘such plea.’ It must be evident then beyond cavil, that thieh 
 
 the necessity ceases, the practice which the plea of necessity 
 is introduced to justify, ought to cease also. _ And it is on. this 
 
 ground precisely that we urge all those who practise Presby- 
 
 terian ordination,” to cease an irregularity, (to use the softest 
 term,) which the state of the Christian world no longer ren- 
 ders necessary, if it ever did, and return’to the application of 
 the rule which, beyond all doubt, vhonkess in the primitive and 
 apostolic ehusen! ¥ 
 
 ‘The Church ’ Dut. to justify this sephiatiin and uphold the 
 independent of Presbyterial form of Church government, it is 
 eat sometimes asserted that the orders of the Epis- 
 copal ‘Church are defective or vitiated because derived through 
 a corrupt channel—that is, the Romish Church. If this aihect 
 tion avails any thing, it-is as destructive of the validity of 
 Presbyterian orders, as it is of Episcopal ordination. For from 
 
 - whom did the Pasby ters that, founded the Presbyterian form 
 
 of church government in the 16th century, derive their autho- — 
 
 " rity?” Undoubtedly from the Church of Rome, and whatever 
 
 authority they claimed and exercised, without question flowed 
 
 through that channel. And can it be that this same fountain — 
 sent forth waters both sweet and bitter at the same time—that 
 more mysterious than Elisha’s salt at Jericho, Presbyterian 
 orders came forth from it pure’and unadulterated, while Epis- 
 copacy was tainted and corrupted? You. perceive then ‘that 
 the objection, if of any weight, is fatal to those who niake it. 
 But it is alledged that the Episcopacy of the English Church, 
 arid of course that of the American branch, comes ‘through the 
 Roman pontiffs or popes—and the Pope being the’ man of sin, 
 
 * The, Methodists of course included, for they have nothing but Huai ea 
 ordination to plead, if they’can make good their’ claim even to that. Neither 
 ae nor Coke was a Bishop. ; 
 
RY 
 
 , 
 
 ”~ 
 
 17 . 
 
 He can of course transmit no power ‘or authority i in the Church 
 of Christ. We see not that this shifting of ground, helps along 
 with the difficulty. For it is not to he conceived how, if the 
 connexion which Bishops maintained with the Roman Pope 
 vitiated or abrogated their authority, the power of Presbyters 
 was not annulled, because of the same connexion. 
 
 . That the popes of Rome, aided by the secular power, did 
 usurp and exercise an’ ecclesiastical domination in Great Bri- 
 tain, we are not so ignorant of history as td dény. That that 
 domination vitiated or destroyed the orders of the English 
 
 Church we do most emphatically deny; and to ‘sustain that 
 
 denial we appeal both to facts and argument. Much of the mis- | 
 apprehension and: consequent misrepresentation which abound 
 upon this subject, are referable to the ignorance which pre- 
 vails* respecting the original establishment of Christianity in 
 the British Islands, and: the subsequent introduction of Roman- 
 ism.. We deem the subject of importance and interest enough, 
 to merit particular attention; and although our observations 
 must at present be restricted ig the limits usually appropriated 
 toa single: discourse, yet will they be, we trust, amply sufficient 
 to lead to a correct a ties capaelins of the question before us. 
 It is matter of history, well authenticated, that 
 
 Augustin the monk came to. Britain from Greg- © Augustin not 
 the founder of 
 
 “ory of Rome, on a mission to the Anglo Saxons {the British Ch. 
 
 _in the year 590. It is equally well known that 
 “some time after his arrival he met in’ conference seven Bishops 
 already established in their sees in Britain and exercising Epis- 
 
 - copal authority over the churches under their care. The ques- 
 
 tion at once arises, by whom was christianity planted in Bri- 
 tain, and: whence ail these Bishops derive consecration? The 
 answer to these questions will show what connexion the an-*° 
 cient British Church had with the Roman see. 
 
 And first we have witnesses as to the fact that christianity 
 existed in Britain long before the arrival of Augustin. 
 
 & Tertullian’ (A. D. sr gee pithy. “some countries of the 
 
 — * Adversis J udeeos aT Hishéntawtim omnes termini, et Galliarum diverse 
 nationes, et Britannorum inaccessa Romani loca, Christo vero subdita.” 
 
 —Orat. Tom 1. p. 575. ** Kae yap at Boeravexae vyoot at rns Sadarrns exros Ketpevat, Kal 
 sv avrw ovoa tw Qxeavw one Ovvapews Tov Pwparos nsOovro. &C. 
 
 3 
 
* hS 
 Britons which proved inaccessible to the Romans _are’ subject 
 to Christ.” | 
 
 Origen (A. D. 230) says, “ When did Britain before the com- 
 ing of Christ unite in the worship of one God.” — . 
 
 Chrysostom (A. D, 400) “The British Islands, situated be- 
 yond our sea, and lying in the very ocean have felt the power 
 of the wel for even there eninge are built and altars 
 erected.” "his 
 
 You will remember that Augustin came to England A. D. 
 590. These testimonies show conclusively that christianity 
 was preached and churches erected there long before he was 
 born... 
 
 2. We have a witness as to the time, when christianity was 
 mtroduced into Britain. Gildas a Britain by birth A. D. 546, 
 ‘says it was in the year of our Lord 61—viz: in and about the 
 date of St. Paul’s travels to, the west. Gildas after mentioning” 
 the defeat of Boadicea, A. D. 61, adds, “in the meanwhile 
 the sun of the Gospel fi rst enlightened ‘this island.” ) 
 
 3. We have a,witness as to. the: persons by whom the gos- 
 pel was’ there, preached. Eusebius (A. D. 270—340) speaking 
 of the ttavels of the Apostles to propagate the faith, says some 
 of them, “ passed over the ocean to the British isleattes Emb TOS 
 nxahkovuevas Bostavixas vynoovs.”—Dem: Kv. L. 3, Cars 
 
 4, We have witnesses.as .to. the specific. man. Clemens 
 Romanus (A. D. 70) the intimate friend and, fellow laborer of 
 St.Paul, says of him, that in preaching the gospel he went to 
 the utmost bounds of the West, “env to tegua ts dusews,” ald 
 expression denoting Spain, Gaul and Britain, but more par-. 
 ticularly the last named region. 
 
 Jerome (A, D. 329—420) speaking of St. Paul’s imprisonment 
 . and subsequent journey into Spain, says, he went from ocean 
 to ocean and preached the gospel in the Western parts. That 
 ‘in the Western parts he included Britain is evident from his 
 _lettér to’ Marcella. Theodoret (A. D. 423—460) mentions the 
 Britons among the nations converted by the apostles, and says 
 that St. Paul, after his release from imprisonment went. to 
 Spain, and fron thence carried the light of the gospel to other 
 nations and brought salvation to the Islands that lie in the 
 ocean. All writers whom I have consulted understand by this 
 
19 
 
 expression, as used by the Fathers, the British Isles.* Theo- 
 
 doret calls the British christians “ disciples of the Tentmaker” 
 (St. Paul.) “These authorities are decisive as to. the establish- 
 ment of christianity in Britain before the coming of Augustin 
 in A. D. 590. The conclusion is irresistible from the testimony 
 that the church was there planted by the Apostles, and most 
 probably by St. Paul. “'The Bishop whom St. Paul is recorded 
 to have appointed, was Aristobulus, who is mentioned in the 
 Epistle to the Romans. By the appointment. of Bishops, 
 Priests and Deacons, the form of church government was 
 complete, and the British church, therefore, in a spiritual sense, 
 was fully established. .And what results from this establish- 
 ment of the British “church by St. Paul? This very interest- 
 ing consequence, that the church of Britam was pitch Chen 
 fully established before the church of Rome. -For older than. that 
 Linus, the first Bishop of Bome, was appointed “ ®™* 
 
 by the joint authority of St. Peter and St. Paul, in the year — 
 
 of their martyrdom, and therefore after St. Paul’s return from 
 Britain.” > i " 
 “The British church” continues the same writer, was never 
 theirs (the Romanists) but by usurpation. For though our 
 Saxon ancestors were converted to christianity by Popish 
 missionaries; yet at that very period, the British church main- 
 taining herself in the unconquered parts: of the island, had sub- 
 sisted from the days of her «first founder, St. Paul, and distin- 
 guished herself not only by her opposition to the The old Brit- 
 heresy of Pelagius, but to the corruptions of ish Cl’eh pure 
 i in order, doc- 
 Popery.”{ She had every thing necessary or trine and disci- 
 essential to the being and perfection of a church phnegs | 
 —doctrine, discipline and worship—dioceses, bishops, clergy, 
 
 _ * It will be perceived that the foregoing quotations are, very brief, and in some 
 “instances the substance of the witness’ testimony given without his precise words 
 
 —which would have, if so furnished, to be arrayed in the dress of the.ancient Greek | 
 or Latin. For the satisfaction of those who desire to settle the question of St. Paul’s , 
 
 preaching the gospel in Great Britain, I would refer for full information to the 
 _ Letters of Bishop Burgess of St. Dayid’s to his clergy, published in the 2d vol. of 
 «the Churchman Armed against the errors of the Time.” The point is there set- 
 tled, it seers to me, beyond controversy. > ‘ 
 
 + Bishop Burgess. ; 
 
 “{ The following passage from a letter of Bishop Davies to Archbishop Parker, 
 contains a very interesting record of the sentiments of the British church. ‘ One 
 notable story was in the chronicle; “howe, after the Saxons conquered, contynew- 
 
 ~ 
 
20 
 
 - 
 sacraments, rites, customs, church edifices and schools for the © 
 
 instruction of her children.. Nor let it be supposed that there 
 existed, in what may be called a rude and barbarous age, the 
 mere.“ form of godliness” in these arrangements, without the 
 
 manife station of its power in the principles and practice of the ° 
 “members of the British Church. The following extract from 
 
 a treatise still extant, of Fastidius, bishop of London, more 
 than a hundred years Before the arrival of Augustin, idl show 
 that the clergy of Britain not only understood. the genuine prin- 
 ciples of the gospel, but that they also knew how to inculcate 
 them, in practice. , 
 
 ue S lt is the will of God, that ink ani should be holy, and 
 apart from all stain of unrigbtsaieae so righteous, so mer- 
 
 ciful, so pure, so unspotted by. the world, ‘so single-hearted, that - 
 
 the heathen should find no fault in them, but say with, wonder, 
 
 blessed is the nation whose God jis the Lord, and the people 
 -. whom: he hath chosen for his inheritance. _We'xead in the 
 
 Evangelist that one came to our Saviour, and asked him what 
 he should do. to gain: eternal life, The answer he received 
 was, If thou -wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 
 Our Lord did not say, keep. faith aba For if faith is all that 
 is required, it is overmuch to say that the commandments must 
 be -kept.. But.far be it from me.that_I should suppose my Lord 
 to have taught. any thing overmuch. Let this be said only-by 
 those whose*sins have numbered them with the children of 
 perdition. - 
 
 ‘“ Let no man then deceive or mislead his brother :*except a 
 man is righteous, he hath not life; except he keep the com- 
 mandments of Christ, he hath no part with him. A christian 
 
 is one who shows mercy to all; «who is provoked by no wrong; 
 
 who suffers not the poor in this: world to be oppressed; who 
 
 all warre pees betta the Brittayns (then inhabitauntes of the realme) and 
 the Saxons, the Brittayns beyng christians, ‘and. the Saxons pagan. .As occasion 
 served, they sometymes treated of peace, and then mette together, and communed 
 together, and dyd eate and drynk together, but after that by the meanes of Austen 
 
 the Saxons became christians in such sort, as Austen had taught them, the Brittayns. 
 
 wold not after that nether eate nor. drynk wyth them, nor yet salute them, bycause 
 they corrupted wyth superstition, ymages and ydolatrie, the: true ee of Christ.” 
 Churchman Armed, &c. p. 390. ° . 
 
 relieves the wretched, succours the needy; who mourns with _ 
 mourners, and feels the pain of another as his own; who is © 
 
21 
 4 ‘ : ‘?,, 
 
 moved to tears by the sight of another’s tears; whose house 
 is open to all; whose table is spread for all the poor; whose 
 
 ‘good deeds all men know; whose wrongful dealing no man 
 
 feels; who serves God day and night and ever meditates upon 
 his precepts; who is made poor to the world, that he may be 
 rich towards God; who is content to be inglorious among men, 
 that he may appear glorious before God and. his angels; who 
 
 has no deceit in his heart; whose soul is simple and unde- 
 
 filed and his conscience faithful and, pure; whose whole mind 
 rests on God; whose whole hope is fixed:on Christ, desiring 
 heavenly ae rather than earthly, and leaving human things 
 
 to lay hold on things divine.”* 
 
 If the foregoing be a fair specimen of the teaching of the 
 ancient *British church, we may well conclude that the. foun- 
 dation of their eeaeeinctical establishment was laid by a wise 
 master builder—that. “in doctrine they were incorrupt and 
 held the mystery of faith ina pure conscience.” It was while 
 the christians of Britain were “living in all godly quietness,” 
 and animated doubtless by the. constraining love “of Christ, 
 were pushing their missions into the Forder parts of the 
 island for the conversion of the Picts and Scots, and into Ire- 
 land, that that terrible invasion of the Saxons took place, which 
 resulted in the conquest of the country, and well nigh the ruin 
 of the British Church. 'The Britons abandoned by the Romans, 
 presented but a feeble resistance to the veteran and disciplined 
 
 * battalions of the Saxons led on by daring spirits and animated 
 
 -by the hope of plunder. All the Eastern, Southern and mid- 
 
 land districts were in a short time over-run and in possession 
 
 of the invaders, and the unhappy Britons driven from their 
 
 homes were forced to seek reftige in France or in the moun- 
 
 tainous and inaccessible parts’ of Wales and Cornwall. Here 
 
 history represents them as sternly maintaining for a long time 
 
 ‘their independence, and’ what is equally honourable to their - 
 
 character, as faithfully adhering to the principles and practice 
 of the faith which they had received from the founders of their 
 
 ' church... It. was in this condition about the year 590, that 
 
 “Augustin found them. He had come on a mission from Gre- 
 
 gory, Bishop of Rome,‘ to attempt the conversion of the Saxons, 
 
 * Churton’s Early English Church p. 29, 30. 
 
22 
 
 and well indeed had it been if he had confined his views and 
 efforts to this single object, instead of attempting ‘as he did 
 subsequently, to establish a spiritual supremacy alike un- 
 known and repugnant to the. practice and feelings of the Bri-| 
 _,° tish christians. Augustin and his company came 
 | Wi oy Mae first to the court of king. Ethelbert at Canterbury, 
 old British whose queen, Bertha, was'a christian, who had 
 Church. ae ‘ d 
 brought’ with her from France a Bishop by name 
 Lindhard or Lithardus, as her ‘instructor in the faith of the 
 Gospel. He had for many years previous to the arrival of 
 Augustin, preached and administered the rites of our holy reli- 
 sion in the church of St. Martin’s near to Canterbary, a vene- 
 rable pile which yet survives, sacred alike for its antiquity 
 and for its associations with the early establishment of chris- 
 tianity in Britain. To the piety ‘and ‘hospitality of Liudhard, 
 Augustin was indebted for his first night’s entertainment at 
 Canterbury. ‘Within a little more than a year after this time, 
 Augustin received consecration at the hands of Vigil, aren 
 bishop of Arles, and Ethérius, bishop of Lyons in France, and 
 returning to Canterbury, was imvested with the pall* from 
 
 Gregory of Rome, as an Archbishop. . Here was the beginning” 
 
 of that assumption of authority which the successors of Gre- 
 sory, the Popes of Rome, have since claimed to exercise over 
 the British church. - It ce never been pretended even, that 
 Augustin received his spiritual authority as a Bishop, by" con- 
 sect ation at the hands of, Gregory. All history testifies that he 
 was consecrated by the Archbishop’ ‘of “Arles, a see at that time 
 independent of Rome, and consequently the line of succession 
 among the English bishops if traced through the Archbishop 
 of Canterbury conducts not to Rome, but to Arles, and thence 
 to Lyons—thence to Smyrna, where Polycarp presided as 
 Bishop and from him to St, John at eae: r 
 
 * The pall (pallium) was sent by*the Bishops of Rome to the Metropolitans and 
 other chief Bishops of the West, at or after their consecration, in token of their 
 recognition of them, as lawfully invested with their office. Though it was for 
 several ages only a sign of fraternal regard, and a pledge of intercommunion; it 
 came at length, (when the honorary Primacy of the Bishop of Rome had gradually 
 beén changed into a Supremacy of power,) to be regarded as a necessary prelimi- 
 nary to the exercise of jurisdiction by a newly consecrated Bishop. 
 
 + The Churches in Asia, (of which Ephesus: ‘and Smyrna, the sees of St. nyt 
 and St. Polycarp, wers the chief,) sent a mission to Gaul, about the middle of the 
 
 ; 
 
23; 
 
 Aegan Even the public forms of religion, as» then in- 
 Palais SORA troduced and established, were not taken from 
 ee the Ro- the Mass-book, as the Romanists boast, and dis- 
 
 senters ignorantly believe, but in the portions yet 
 retained. in the book of Common prayer, were older than’ the 
 beginning of the corrupt do¢étrine of the mass. Gregory, so 
 far from requiring Augustin to observe the service used at 
 Rome, expressly charges him to search diligently for what 
 might be more edifying in other, churches, referring him espe- 
 cially to the old church of Gaul which was closely united 
 in faith and practice with the old. British or Welsh church. 
 wey @ are not to love customs,” said hé, “on account of the 
 _places from which they come; but let us love all places where 
 good customs are observed, choage therefore from. every church 
 
 -whatever ‘is pious, Malivibus and well-ordered; and when you’ 
 
 have made a bundle a sdod rules, leave there for your best 
 legacy to the English.” Neither did Gregory claim to exercise 
 the powers which have been so’arrogantly- and without right 
 
 ‘or reason contended for as the prerogative of his successors. 
 
 Fof in opposition to the pretensions ‘of the Bishop of Constan- 
 ‘tinople, he asserted’ that, “ whosoever claims the universal 
 Eipiscopate, is the get: ntondh of Anti-Christ,” Ah! he little 
 imagined that he was then uttering a sentiment, which in 
 after ages. would apply with marvellous directness to his suc- 
 cessors. For the popes of Rome to this day claim the uni- 
 ‘versal Episcopate, and so fall under the heavy condemnation 
 ~and-withering rebuke of their illustrious predecessor. 
 
 Augustin had: hot long exercised his Episco- The Pope’s 
 supremacy not 
 
 pal authority’ in England, before he proposed 2¢' frst acknow- 
 
 and through ' Ethelbert suceeded in™ bringing — ledged. 
 
 ‘the British Bishops to’a conference, In this interview the 
 
 Archbishop of Cambria: (Wales,) seven bishops and a con- 
 siderable number of other British clergy.were present. Au- 
 gustin proposed to them to acknowledge the puthonty of the 
 
 plea century, under Photinus, who pong Bishop of Lyons, and was succeeded 
 by St. Ireneus. . This mission’established, if it did not found the Church in Gaul; 
 and perpetuated in that country, not only.the Apostolic’ succession in the time 
 of St. J ohn} but also the Asiatic Liturgy and usages 5 until the intimate connexion 
 between Rome and Gaul, which was cemented by the Carlovingian dynasty in the 
 
 + 
 
 8th and 9th centuries, enabled the pares to substitute gradually the Roman Liturgy 
 
 and customs for the Gallican. 2 
 
x 
 
 24 
 
 Bishop of Rome over their branch of the Catholic Church,—to 
 conform to the Romish custom of keeping Haster*—to use. the 
 Romish forms and ceremonies in celebrating the rite of bap- 
 tism and to join the Roman missionaries. in preaching the 
 gospel to the Saxons. To these demands they returned a ° 
 firm and decided negative, positively refusing to acknowledge 
 Augustin. as_ their Meaishichon The answer. of Dunod the 
 abbot of Bangor, clearly vindicates the independence of the 
 British church, and shows that the idea of Roman supremacy 
 was not tolerated for a moment. “We are bound,” said he, 
 “to serve ‘the church of God, and the bishop of Rome, and 
 every godly christian,’as far as keeping them in offices of love 
 and charity: this service we are ready to pay; but more than 
 this Ido not know to be due to him or any other. We have 
 a primate of our own, who is to oversee us under God, and to 
 keep us in the way, of Spiritual life.” 'This: answer given in 
 the genuine spirit of catholic independence, fully confirms the 
 truth of Sir Wm. Blackstone’s remark, that, “the ancient Bri- 
 tish. church: by whomsoever.founded was a stranger to the 
 Bishop of Rome. and his pretended authority.” “ Britain knew 
 not that the message from Rome was the fore-runner of forcing’ 
 away that independence, of. which the bare asking would not 
 gain the surrender: and though from this time onward to the 
 16th century, the Holy Catholic church. of Britain, fought inch 
 by inch, for that, liberty wherewith Christ had made her. free, 
 what could she do? ‘The student. of these times knows full 
 well the feeble condition of the Britons invaded by the pagan. 
 Saxons.” The slaughter of twelve hundred Ecclesiastics at 
 
 one time on the borders of Wales by Ethilfrid, king of North- 
 
 umberland, not without suspicion that, Augustin himself was. 
 privy to the relentless massacre, le melancholy evidence, 
 
 * << The British Church at this time kept their Easter-day on a Sunday: from 
 the 14th to the 20th day of the paschal moon inclusive; whereas the Roman church 
 kept it on the Sunday which fell between the 15th and 2ist. The rule of the 
 Church laid @own:at the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, m mentioned in the preceding 
 charter, was that Easter should be kebt on the first Sunday after the full moon next 
 following the 2ist day of March. Sometold Churches of the East had kept it on 
 the 14th day of the moon, which was the day of the Jews’ Passover, on whatever 
 day of the week it fell. ‘The Britons seem to havé had this custom, which they sup- © 
 posed to be observed in the churches founded by St. John in Asia; but after the Coun- 
 cil of Nice, wishing to correct their practice, they had still begun one day too soon.” 
 Cuurton’s “ Karly English Church, p. 44. New York edition. 
 
Q5 
 
 of the hapless condition of the Britons. “The British church 
 could not but be depressed when her sons suffered. What 
 then coutp she do in this situation when, in addition to the 
 attacks of the Saxon, the arm of the Italian’ church was 
 stretched forth not to assist, but (as it finally turned out) to 
 crush and enslave her loses any one say the British church 
 could at least protest? Aye! and so she did, most man- 
 fully and boldly. Her voice was heard, in the persons of 
 her Bishops,. her blergy.” and her laity, protesting against 
 
 a The following declaration and protest of the clergy of Berkshire, 1240, will 
 prove that however the fire of christian liberty may have been smothered’ in that 
 dark period of the world’s history, it was very far from “being extinct. «<The recs 
 tors of churches in Berkshire, all and each, say thus: | 
 
 First, that it is not lawful to contribute money to support a man ci ala the Em- 
 peror; for though the pope has excommunicated him, he has not been convicted © 
 or condemned as a heretic by any sentence of ‘the church. And if he has seized 
 or invaded the estates of the’ church of Rome, still it is not lawful for the church 
 _ to resist force by force. 
 
 ‘Secondly, that as the Roman church has its own estates,.the management of 
 which belongs to the lord pope, so have other churches theirs, granted them by 
 gift and allowance of pious kings, princes and noblemen; which - in no respect are 
 liable toepay tax or-tribute to the church of Rome. i 
 
 Thirdly, although the law says, all things belong to the prince, this does not 
 mean that they are part of his property. and domain, but are under his care and 
 charge; and in like manner tlie churches belong to the lord pope’ as to care and 
 charge, not as to dominion and property. And when Christ said, “ Thow art 
 Peter, and on this rock wilh I build my church,” he committed only the charge, 
 and not the property, to Peter, as is plain from, the following words, . “« Pen atee. 
 ever thou shalt bind and loose upon earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven:’ 
 not whatsoever thou shalt exact on earth shall be exacted in heaven. 
 
 Fourthly; inasmuch as it is plain from the authority of the Fathers, that the 
 mcome of churches is appointed for certain uses, as for'the church, the. ministers ~ 
 and the poor, it ought not to be turned to other uses but by. the authority. of the 
 whole church. Least of all puekt. the goods of the ‘church td be taken to’maintain 
 war against christians. . 
 
 Fifthly, that the king and nobles of England, ie inheritarice and good custom, 
 have the right of patronage over the churches of England; and the rectors, holding 
 livings under their patronage, cannot admit a .custom hurtful to their pr operty 
 without their leave. “ , 
 
 Sixthly, that churches were’ endowed, that rectors. might afford hospitality to 
 rich and poor according to their means; and if the intention of patrons is thus 
 frustrated, they will not in future build ‘or found churches, or be willing to give 
 away livings.» — 
 
 Seventhly, that the pope promised, when he first asked for a contribution, 
 never to repeat his demand: and that as a repeated act makes a custom, this 
 second contribution will be drawn into an unusual and slavish precedent.” Chur- 
 ton p. 319, 320. ; 
 
 4 
 
~ 
 
 26 
 
 the usurpation of Rome, from its commencement in the 6th 
 century up to its close in the 16th.” 
 * “he British church produced a noble. array of divines from 
 Dinoth (Dunod) of Bangor, to Cranmer of Canterbury who 
 from time to time did all they could.to resist the uncanonical 
 and anticatholic usurpation of her spiritual rights; but for cen- 
 turies it was all in vain... They could only stave off the evil 
 day for a time, and at length‘ about the end of the Norman 
 conquest, the catholic church of Britain, planted by apostolic 
 hands, was completely forced beneath the feet of her unatu- 
 ral and ambitious sister, the church of Rome. With her reli- 
 gion went her political glory. And methinks, the hot blood of _ 
 
 virtuous indignation, must now crimson che cheek of Eng- 
 land’s sons, when they look back to those times that saw their 
 soil, like fe church, under the thraldom of an Italian Bishop! 
 When their fonarchs, the 2d Henry and his son (out upon 
 stich drivelling cowards!) disgraced their own and their couh- 
 try’s name, the ‘first by baring his back to be scourged by the 
 meek and ‘unassuming successor of the fisherman; and the 
 last by eueely laying the crown of England at the footstool 
 
 ‘ of the pope’s legate.” 
 
 “There was not, "however, this pusillanimous submission on 
 ‘the ‘part of the Spiritual sons of England.*, They never, (no, 
 not from the days of St. Paul up to his»successors the’ English 
 
 Bishops of this day) they neyer yet yielded up the mitre of 
 
 eatholic independence into the hands of the usurping Romans. 
 The church of Britain was forced, it is true, to bow her head 
 
 ' for.a time, but her heart was-as ‘unbending as the onarled oaks | 
 
 of her own native forests.?? . 
 
 * William of Corboil, a French priest, elevated to the see of Cua ae contrary 
 to law and custom, and by intrigue, was the first ecclesiastic that attempted to betray 
 the independence of the English church. Up to this time (1125) the pope had no 
 jurisdiction in Piviand” The church was under a head of its own, governed by the 
 king in temporal matters, and by the archbishop “of Canterbury 1 in spiritual. Wil- 
 ‘liam of Corboil made the primacy of England consist in acting as the pope’s deputy. 
 The church and nation were far from quietly yielding to his measures. The writers 
 of the time never speak of William of Corboil, without expressing contempt for 
 his meanness; and his name became a standing jest in merry old England. ‘«‘ He 
 
 ought’ not to be called William of Corboil,” says John Bromton, abbot of Jorval, 
 
 ‘but William of Turmoil.” «Truly I would speak his praises if I could,” says 
 Henry, archdeacon of Huntingdon, «but they are beyond expression for no man 
 has yet discovered them.” . Churton p. 266, 268. 
 
27 
 
 “Dinoth of Bangor is: witness—Bishop Daganus is a later 
 witness, for he would not eat at the same table, no, nor in the 
 same house with these Roman schismatics.* ‘The king and 
 ‘clergy of Northumberland are still later witnesses, for they 
 treated with contempt, the papal mandate to restore his deposed 
 Bishop, Wilfrid. And there was the giant arm of Wickliffe 
 raised in. later days, and noble’ was the blow he struck. 
 And when he died in’ 1384, he bade by his example his fol- 
 lowers, the old catholics’ of Britain, the members of this church 
 of the Ries God, never to. cease till their protestations termi- 
 nated in action, and they had ejected that schismatic intruder 
 who had placed. his foot on their shoresin 596. "They never 
 ~ did cease.t Wickliffe’s followers, known in history under the 
 name of Lollards, kept up the protest which Dinoth, of Bangor 
 had raised, and which each succeeding age found bold and 
 faithful spirits to. prolong. The stake was prepared for them ; 
 but in vain, for they burnt. at the stake, yet were true to the 
 eatholic faith. .There is the bloody act of 1399, by which they 
 were burnt, and the names of many of the nelle sufferers on 
 whom ‘it bople effect: but it all would,not do. The flame lighted 
 up Britain, it spread to Smithfield and added brightness to the 
 death-light of Cranmer and his brother martyrs. It spread till 
 it reached» the continent, and Luther abroad, as well as the 
 eatholies in Britain (Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer) were nerved 
 by the-spirit of. Wickliffe.’’ ' 
 
 “But now came the time when the old, and oppressed chen 
 of Britain was able, as she had all aitne been willing’, to eject 
 the intruding and hence; schismatic church -of Rome. «Four 
 centuries had witnessed her: struggles in. vindication. of reli- 
 gious freedom, and now in the good providence of God the day 
 came when the prophetic words of the dying Grostéte, were to 
 receive their fulfilment, and the church of England “was set 
 
 * «¢ Nam Daganus Episcopus ad nos veniens non solum cibum nobiscum, sed nec 
 in eodem hospitio, quo vescebamur, sumere voluit.” Bede L. ii. c. 4. 
 
 Tt Grostéte, Bishop of Lincoln, and: Sewel, archbishop of York, may be instanced 
 among many other illustrious examples, of resistance to the claims of papal domi- : 
 nation. The former,.in the close of his letter to the Pope, employs the following 
 strong and emphatic language: ‘Since the commands I have received are so con- 
 trary to the holiness of the Apostolic see, destructive to the souls of men, and against 
 the catholic faith,—the very spirit of unity, the love of a son, and the obedience 
 of a subject, command me to rebel.” Churton p. 329. 
 
28 
 
 free fbi the Egyptian bondage” under which she groaned 
 “by the edge of a blood-stained sword.” 
 
 “The Bishop of Italy,” continues the eloquent divine* to 
 whom I am indebted for many of the preceding observations, 
 “the Bishop of Italy, called the Pope, had no more right in 
 Great Britain than he had in these United States of America ; 
 and he has about as ‘much right to spiritual supremacy in either, 
 as the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of Pennsylvania 
 has in Italy.” 
 
 “ When therefore the Bishop of Italy sent his messenger, Au- 
 gustin, in the sixth century, to ask the catholic church in Bri- 
 tain to submit to him, and this’ being indignantly refused, he 
 in after days forced that submission and by intrigue and 
 treachery usurped her rights, there was no more than. sheer 
 justice returned, when the British church had the power, as 
 she had in We 16th century, to eject the inttuder, sdul and 
 body, and send the writ of ejectment by the hands of her law- 
 ful Bishops Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer. And this she did 
 orderly, legally, canonically, completely. Ah! the British 
 church, never forgot the year 596—no, not when her temples 
 were over-run with foreign priests, her altars served by alien 
 hands and her property devoured by alien mouths. She never 
 forgot that year, though ten centuries had rolled round, during 
 which she could only express her remembrance by strong -pro- 
 testations and ineffectual efforts. She never forgot that year; 
 and’ when the 8th Henry, blotted out the pusillanimity of the 
 2d. by ‘proclaiming through the legal voice of the realm, the 
 independence of our motherland of the Bishop of Rome, me- 
 thinks the shades of Dinoth, with ‘the other clergy ae met’ 
 the monk Augustin in the 6th century, the shades of Wickliffe 
 and his martyred followers in the 14th century, clustered 
 around Cranmer and’ his Brothers of the 16th century, and 
 watched with an English churchman’s interest, the royal sig- 
 nature which cancelled forever, (God grant it be so!) the foul- 
 est blot that ever stained England’s: cross, political or religious. 
 From that period (the Reformation in the 16th century). the 
 church of the living God—the church of St‘ Paul—the old 
 British church, in her purity, in her zeal, faith and charity 
 
 * Rev. Wm. H. Odenheimer, Rector of St. Peter’s Church, Philadelphia. 
 
29 
 
 has been the boast and blessing of the land of our fathers. 
 _ May the fires of Smithfield be again kindled and her children, 
 to aman, burn and die at the stake, before they yield up the 
 trust of catholic independence and_ suffer the disgrace of 
 England’s church to be: told in her submission to a ae AoP 
 of Italy.” 
 
 From the Church of England, thus rescued from the domina- 
 tion of Rome during the reign of Henry 8th, and again deliv- 
 ered after a temporary depression, ‘under “ the Slene Mary” 
 —and purified and established in the days of Elizabeth—and_ 
 once more restored from the desolation’ which swept like a 
 _ flood over her under the iron rule of Cromwell the'.Protector, 
 from this Church, like Israel of .old, with, Amalekites smiting 
 her in the face and fiery’ serpents stinging’ at her feet, but still 
 holding her onward way, ever lookmg to her Abeiue Head 
 for guidance and protection—from this church, the uncompro- 
 mising asserter of Catholic verity—the Be ty leleed bulwark 
 of protestant principles—the dispenser, at this day, through 
 her 18,000 clergymen, of the bread of life to the men of every 
 clime and évery complexion—from this church, upon the labors 
 of whose missionaries the sun never sets—_whose zeal the fire 
 cannot destroy nor the floods quench—from this church, blessed, 
 ef God and blessing man, is derived the ministerial authority 
 by which you have been brought into the visible fold of Christ, 
 made members of his “one body” and united to the Ever- 
 
 living Head. For such grace, mercy and’ privilege, God’s 
 
 holy name be éver blessed; and to Him, the Father, Son and | 
 Holy Ghost, be ascribed a honour, praise and “glory, world 
 without end ! Amen. ; 
 
 ~~ 
 
Sea 1) 
 Leer PTAA hye | 
 
 \ & . moe P TEL ciria' : ¥, | , ey 
 
 “sy ° ‘ 
 ia ae st i € me 
 ~~ "q 3 
 f * ° 
 Te: Min ea ee . TT ae a 
 : ~ £ et é a 4 > Verh < ‘ 8) wnt 
 bf 4 : , . re be ' ’ - ua 
 2 ‘ i o%, ‘ : 4 is er be 
 ; eG ass ee oe Avo) Lae” 
 
 Tyee 
 
SERMON II. 
 
 & 
 
 * BUT WE DESIRE TO HEAR OF THEE WHAT THOU THINK- 
 EST: FOR AS CONCERNING THIS SECT,.WE KNOW THAT 
 EVERY WHERE IT IS SPOKEN AGAINST.” 
 
 Acts xxviii. 22, .' 
 
 ” 
 
 ‘Sucu, Brethren, was the reply of the Jews at Rome, to the 
 address of St: Paul, when he was sent.a prisoner from Jerusa- 
 lem to appear before Cesar. 'To save his life he had appealed 
 ‘to the highest tribunal known to the laws of the empire, and 
 after various vicissitudes by land and by sea, at length found 
 himself within the walls of. the imperial city. That his cause 
 might not be: prejudiced by the clamors of his’ own country- 
 men, whom he’ knew by past experience to be opposed to the 
 religion which he taught, he assembled the chief of’the Jews, 
 a few days after his arrival, and stated to them the cause 
 of his coming: riamely, that being delivered into the hands 
 of the Romans, though guilty of no crime, and about to. be 
 set at liberty becausé no cause of death was found in him, 
 the Jews nevertheless spake against it;. wherefore he was con- 
 strained to appeal unto. Ceasar. “Not that I had ought to 
 accuse my nation of:” said he: “For this cause therefore 
 have I called for you to see you, and to speak with you: be- 
 cause that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain, 
 And they said unto him, we neither received’ letters out. of 
 Judea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came 
 showed or spake any harm of thee.» But we desire to hear 
 of thee what thou thinkest; for as concerning this sect, we 
 know that every where it is spoken against.” i | 
 
 By this sect, is undoubtedly meant, the sect of the Naza- 
 renes or followers of Jesus Christ. It was the christian reli- 
 gion as taught by St. Paul and thé other Apostles, which every 
 where excited the opposition ‘and the enmity of the Jews, and 
 
mY 
 
 ¢ 
 
 “th 
 
 oe 
 
 indeed, generally, of all the nations to whom it was first 
 preaehen It was a religion of mortification and self- denial, 
 which inculcated internal purity and moral rectitude, a aly 
 gion that called for the exercise of constant vigilance over the 
 thoughts, no less than a watchful circumspection of the con- 
 duct, that rendered it the object of almost universal dislike and 
 -aversion. Striking at the roots of temporal ambition, it con- 
 tradicted the fondly cherished notions of the Jew in reference 
 to national glory and exaltation,—hence it was to him a stumn- 
 bling block and a stone of offence. Pronouncing of the Hea- - 
 then gods that they were dumb idols—that the worship offered 
 
 * to them was not only vain but an abomination to the true God, 
 
 who would call them into judgment for this perversion of their 
 reason, it seemed to. the Gentile a system of arrogance and 
 presumption, and he rejected it as foolishness.- Neither. Jew 
 nor Gentile in that age had any relish for the humbling doc- 
 trines of the Cross. Its charity was opposed to their pride, its 
 humility, seefaed to them meanness, its temperance, Ingrati- 
 tude to providence in not partaking of its bounties, and its 
 glorious promises as the wild dreams of fanaticism. Its sim- 
 ple rites and worship giving expression to the devout feelings 
 ‘of the heart, had nothing in them attractive to the unrenewed 
 mind of man, when.set in contrast with the imposing ceremo- 
 
 “nies of the Jewish ritual or the: magnificence. and pomp and 
 
 splendor of Roman worship. Jt can be no cause of wonder 
 then, that-every where it was spoken against. Yet it was the 
 truth of God, and the wisdom of God, and’the power of God. 
 Such it has proved itself to be, by eighteen centuries of endu- 
 rance against the natural’ hatred of mankind, by: dispelling the 
 darkness of ignorance wherever its glorious light has shined. 
 upon our earth, and by subduing the understandings of millions 
 ‘to the minion of truth and their hearts to the reign of happi- 
 “ness ‘and peace. It -would. be interesting, Brethren, to trace 
 this religion from its implantation in various countries by the 
 labors of the apostles, and show how it has every where 
 encountered opposition, and survived not only the overthrow 
 of kingdoms, states and empires, but the passing away. of 
 entire races and whole nations of men. It is destined,’ per- 
 haps, to encounter yet severer strials in its onward progress to 
 universal dominion, but sure as Heaven’s truth, it will put 
 
. down all opposition, ae at last reign without a rival in our 
 world. . 
 
 But I have selected this text not for the purpose: of consider- 
 ing the grounds of opposition to, christianity originally. They 
 ‘present, to our minds a very. striking analogy in the position 
 which the church occupies towards the world at.the present 
 
 ‘ day, and the character of the opposition which is. arrayed. 
 
 against her. It is our purpose to inquire why she. is every 
 where spoken. against, and whether opposition to her. is not 
 wilful or blind opposition against christianity itself. 
 
 = 
 
 « 
 
 The first charge brought against the church, _., First. objec- _ 
 
 tion; authorit 
 is exclusiveness of ministerial authority. If our. Weer cinigty' 
 
 claims upon the subject of the ministry be admit- 
 
 ted, say, those, who, have separated themselves from our com- 
 munion, then they are in schism. But.as there are confess- 
 ‘edly a great many pious people who are not Episcopalians, it 
 would be very uncharitable and illiberal-to say that they were 
 guilty ‘of schism, and \ we ought. therefore to admit the validity 
 of their orders. : 
 
 ‘Now we have stated the. objection as it is commonly made, 
 
 and let us meet it fairly and take, at’ the beginning, all ie 
 odium which usually attaches to the denial of its. force and 
 justice. 
 
 We ask, do piety and learning anf sis, of id aa im- 
 part the power of Orders? » It is not so pretended. Why will 
 not a pious man receive the sacraments of a pious man simply 
 because he is pious, or learned ‘or possessed of aptness to teach? 
 ‘It'is answered because hé has not been: ordained. Ordmation 
 then, it is clear, confers authority which ,is altogether sepa- 
 rate and. finite from qualifications for office. ‘'Thus we say 
 that’ a man ought to be pious and learned and apt to teach, 
 in order ,to receive: ordination, and,.that,he may exercise his 
 
 ministry profitably and to. edification. “But he may be ever’ 
 
 so pious, and Jearned and apt to teach, and: yet be no minis- 
 ter. Just so, a lawyer may be just, ad upright and learned 
 in the law, and yet not be in the office of a judge. —Quailifi- 
 cation for office is one thing, authority to fill the office and exer- 
 i its functions is quite another and different thing. 
 
 If ordination then confers, a: power and authority distinct 
 ' altogether from the qualifications for office, is it unreasonable 
 4 5 . 
 
Wy ue ~* 
 
 ah aoe AD 
 
 to ask and to demand the proof, whence that power and autho- 
 rity are derived? “Would you permit any man by his deci-' 
 sion to divest you of your rights and property, under the name: 
 of law, unless: you ‘were satisfied that he possessed the power 
 and : anieace of a Judge? And why ‘then should you allow 
 any one to minister to you the sacraments of religion, unless . 
 convinced that he was invested with ministerial authority ? 
 Now here is the precise line of difference between us and sur- 
 rounding denominations whose piety and learning and ability. 
 to instruct, we do not deny. We ask, whence your authority | 
 to-act ‘as ministers of: religion? Can you show that it is deri- 
 
 ved from Christ and his apostles?’ If this can-be shown, there 
 
 is an end at onee on our. part, of all objection to the orders ,of 
 dissenters, and we are more than ‘ready to receive their minis-. 
 trations. But if this cannot be shown, what else is the charge 
 of exclusiveness brought against the Church,» opt a charge’ 
 against the institution of Christ? ops 
 
 Ordination As then ordinatidn is necessary to confer. min- 
 necessary; but isterial authority, and it is so acknowledged, the 
 
 . how made va- 
 
 lid? ‘question at once’ arises, how is the power of pai 
 nation to be proved? _ We answer that originally the authority 
 to act in the name of Christ, in the appointments of religion — 
 was ‘certified to the world. by miracles. When the apostles 
 and other first teachers of christianity travelled into various 
 countriés in fulfilment of the work with. which they were 
 charged, they spake with togaupertlisy, healed the ne 
 cast out devils 
 and’ wonderful works, all of. pian ees conclusive. evidence 
 to. men that they were commissioned from on. high. And at 
 tl is, day, if anyone came to,us' bearing these unquestionable — 
 cledentials—these impressive marks of Heaven's acknowledg- , 
 ment, there is not one’ of us that would demand any further 
 proof of his auithority. But as these proofs of the 
 ean authen- ministerial power are no longer, vouchsafed—as 
 »  . . -miracles: have long since ceased, how shall the 
 
 ‘authority of the christian ministry be Gertified. and proven, in ~~ 
 
 any -other way, than by showing its transmission from the 
 
 original root? Fruitful as the mind of man is in devising — 
 dapttionts to mect a difficult, case, no other than this method, | 
 
 {o prove a succession in-the ministry, has ever been attempted 
 
 ‘h 
 
<5 Mites | oan 
 
 by any, except by those who deny that there is any ministry 
 at all established for the perpetual edification and government 
 of the church.* But: there is a ‘plain, common sense view to» 
 be taken of this subject,, which seems to me, will convince 
 any one of unprejudiced mind, not only that a ministry was 
 _ established by Christ, but that it. must of necessity have been 
 continued all along ‘to the present day, and. will be perpetuated 
 ~~ to the end of the world. For, first’ of all, Christ constituted a 
 ministry, commissioning the apostles, fetire a' church was 
 *gathered—hbefore the New T'estament or any part of it -was 
 written, , and before any christlan rite or sacfament was- 
 administered." His words to the Apostles are: “All power 
 is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth; Go ye therefore 
 and teach, (or make disciples,) of all Ee Oeee baptizing them 
 ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son, ahd of the Holy 
 Ghost—teaching them to observe all. things whatsoever I have 
 commanded -you, and lo! I am with you alway even unto the 
 end of the world.”* 
 be This declarati ion that he would be with them to the end of 
 the world, conveys an assurance as definite as’ language can. 
 well express it, of the perpetuity of the christian Noadity 
 . ministry. But without dwelling on an interpre- connéxion of s2- 
 tation which appears Shficiently obvious, we re- ee phere 
 - mark that the: commission enjoins, the perform- - | 
 ance of positive and explicit duties, namely: to baptize and 
 * teach all things whatsoever he’ hid commanded them. We 
 know most assuredly that the apostles did baptize and did 
 administer the Lord’s Supper. Were not :these sacraments 
 - to be of perpetual obligation ? Can any doubt, that they have 
 ‘been observed in every age of the Christian Church to the 
 present day? Corrupted as they may have been, and un- 
 doubtedty were,—ovetloaded and ‘obscured in their obvious 
 purpose and ‘design’. as they have been, by the superstitious 
 addition’s of man’s presuming wisdom, is it not undeniably 
 ‘#® true, that they have been celebrated in évery country where 
 _ the peiecitit of Christ has been professed, for the last eighteen 
 : Peoniurics? Now what do ‘these facts undeniably cotabtati 
 “Why, that the institution of sacraments pre-supposes the con- 
 stitution of a: ministry—and the perpetual obligation of the 
 
 former—that is sacraments—proves the uninterrupted contin- 
 * St. Matt. xxviii. 18-20. 
 
36 . bas 
 » . % 
 
 -uance of the latter. Not a week has: passed, we may safely 
 
 say, since the ascension, that baptism or the Lord’s Supper,, 
 has not been celebrated in some part or other of the earth, and 
 consequently not a day has passed without witnessing the exis; . 
 tence of a ministry in the church. The connexion between 
 
 them, is inseparable, and the fact that men have assumed the 
 
 office of the ministry, proves that the conviction rested upon 
 theirminds, that a ministry and sacraments, must go together 
 
 —that they could not be sundered without impugning the au-. 
 
 thority, and impairing the institution of Christ. Furthermore 
 the institution of sacraments and the authority to administer 
 them resting simply upon the command of Christ, both neces-_ 
 sarily Mead? integral parts of the same revelation. The same 
 diviné power that commissioned a ministry, commanded the 
 observance of sacraments, and both would be utterly destitute 
 of obligation, if they. could not be shown. to rest upon the 
 declared will of, him, to whom all pomen is given in Heaven 
 and Earth. i 
 - Under this aspéct of the case—that is, the ministry and 
 sacraments being equally integral parts of fepolatinn-- eciele 
 of divine institution—may not one be altered, changed or abro- 
 gated, with. as much show of reason as the omer? Might not — 
 
 the pretended necessity which would justify an assumption of 
 
 the. ministerial authority and office, just as well authorise the 
 entire disuse, or abrogation or alteration of the sacraments? 
 { contess, that with. every disposition to concede to men distin- 
 guished for piety, every thing upon this subject, which is not 
 utterly repugnant to the plain declarations of Holy Writ and 
 their unavoidable meaning, I can see no difference between the 
 claims to obedience and submission, of those who undertake 
 to change or dispense with the ministry and those who pre- 
 sume to abrogate the sacraments.: They must stand or, fall 
 
 together. Consistency has indeed forced very many who have 
 
 denied, one, to reject the other. Thus’ the large and respect- 
 able body iG Friends, otherwise known as’ Quakers, have 
 i : alike repudiated the ministry and the sacraments 
 Neglect of the Ms: | : 
 ministry leads to. Of the Gospel, as of binding force and obliga- 
 neglect of the tion upon the consciences of men. And as a 
 
 sacraments. 
 i, general rule, we may- observe, that those who 
 
 undervalue the authority of the ministry as of divine institu- 
 
 tue 
 
 . 
 
} 
 
 a 
 
 ™% 
 
 37 
 tion, make but little account of the sacraments of Christ’s reli- 
 gion. ‘They regard them as badges merely of profession—not 
 necessary in any sense to salvation, and are consequently 
 
 irregular, inconstant and’ infrequent in their observance. If it 
 be true then, that Christ instituted a ministry and sacraments 
 
 - in his chureh—if it be clear that the sacraments are of per- 
 
 -petual obligation and cannot be dispensed or administered with- 
 out a standing ministry—if the authority of the ministry. can- 
 “not. now be certified by miracles, it follows inevitably that .this 
 ministry can be known and verified only as proof shall be 
 exhibited that the authority originally delegated by Christ to 
 this apostles has been transmitted in an uninter- 
 
 rupted suceéssion to those who at this day claim. ,, 
 to exercise office in the Christian,Church. This 
 
 is what is ternted the apostolic succession, for maintaining 
 which; the charge of exclusiveness is brought against the 
 
 The Aposto- 
 © succession. 
 
 chureh—this is one of the reasons why she “is every where 
 
 ‘spoken against.” And yet, strange as it may appear, it 1s 
 nevertheless demonstrably true, that all those who contend 
 for the institution of a ministry authorized to act in Christ’s 
 name, in the appointments of religion, do adopt identically the 
 same principle.* Hear the Confession of Faith of the Presby- 
 
 g | \ 
 
 “* Although religion be a concern which equally belongs to every man, yet it 
 has pleased the all-wise Head of the Church, to appoint an order of men more 
 particularly to minister in holy things. 
 
 _. If all the interests of the church are precious in the view of every enlightened 
 Christian, it is evident that the mode of organization cannot be a trivial concern. 
 We agree with our Episcopal brethren in believing, that Christ hath appointed 
 Officers in his church to preach the word, to administer sacraments, to dispense 
 discipline, and to commit these powers to other faithful men. We believe as fully 
 
 as they, that there are different classes and different denominations of officers in* 
 
 the Church of Christ; and that, among these, there is, and ought to be a due 
 subordination. We concur with them in maintaining, that none are regularly 
 invested with the ministerial character, or can with propriety be recognized in 
 this character; but those who have been set apart to the office by persons lawfully 
 clothed with the power of ordaining. We unite with such, of them as hold the 
 opinion, that Christians in all ages, are bound to make the Apostolic order of 
 
 the Church, with respect to the ministry, as well ‘as other points, the model, as 
 
 far as possible, of all their ecclesiastical arrangements.”—Dr. Miller, professor in 
 
 _ the Presbyterian Theological Seminary, at Princeton, New Jersey. Next hear 
 
 Dr. McLeod, another Presbyterian and famous preacher. “ 4 person who is not 
 ordained to office by.a Presbytery has no right to be received as 4 Bie. «43 
 of Christ; his administration of ordinances is invalid; no divine blessing 1s pro- 
 
 mised upon his labors: it is rebellion against the Head of the Church to support ’ 
 
 ¥ 
 
 ¥ 
 
 a 
 
ey 
 
 38 
 
 | Aerian, Oivich? té ato this catholic visible church, Christ hath’ 
 
 given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of oad for the 
 gathering and perfecting of the saints,.in this life, to the end 
 
 ‘of the world: and doth.by his own presence and spirit, accord- 
 
 ing to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.” The same 
 authority sets’ forth that Baptism andthe Lord’s Supper, are 
 “holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace,” appointed by 
 
 ‘Christ, for our “solemn admission into the. Church,” and for 
 
 “confirming and sealing our interest In him;” and they are. 
 not to be dispensed by any but by a minister oF the word law- 
 
 fully ordained.” Do we enquire who are “lawfully ordained 
 ministers,” according to, the same standard? We are informed. 
 
 ! 
 
 that « the Presbytery,—consisting of all the ministers, and one 
 ruling elder from each congregation, within a certain district— 
 or any three ministers and\as many elders as may be present 
 belonging to the Presbytery,—have ‘power to examine and 
 
 Presbyterians 
 as exclusive as ordain, instal, remove, and judge. ministers.” 
 acum. What then becomes of the charge of exclusive- 
 ness against the church—if the very same, upon identically 
 the same erounds, may -be ‘urged against the Presbyterians 
 
 and indeed all others who reject Hpiscopacy, but yet claim 
 
 the power of ordination as grounded upon the commission 
 of Christ to his apostles?—Let the truth be told, Brethren— 
 
 ‘ honestly—openly—fairly. They flinch from the consequences 
 
 of their declared and published .sentiments. Professing a. °* 
 
 sound principle to which the truth of God’s word, compels 
 them to subscribe, they yet deny ts application in practice, 
 
 because its Be ctical exemplification would involve themselves 
 
 in the same odious imputation of exclusiveness which they seek * 
 to cast upon the church.—To prove this let us ask the ques- 
 tion ; where is the power of ordination lodged in the Church 
 of Christ? They reply, in a council of Presbyters. ho. 
 lodged it there? The apostles acting under the authority 
 of Ghrigt and guided by his holy spirit,—say- they. Now 
 _ what is the inevitable conclusion from those positions? Why 
 that none others than those presbyterially ordained, are law- 
 
 ati 
 “Mi oes his pretensions: Christ has excluded him i in his providenee, Porn pi te 
 
 ch the ordinary door, and if he has no evidence of miraculous power to testify 
 
 ne «eae ag ae he is an impostor!” McLeod’s Ecclesiastical Catechism. 
 © Ve . , mL ae 7 . : om a ¢ 
 irae é 
 im é in % Re ‘ 44. | 
 bs a Pe i a 
 
 license candidates for ‘the holy ministry; to - 
 
 3 
 % 
 
39 
 fal ministers of Christ. There is no escape‘from this conclu- 
 sion; for the apostles did not institute. two modes of ordina- 
 ‘tion, or leave the matter opened and unsettled by their practice. 
 With them there was but one church—but one source of power 
 and: authority in it—and hut one ministry—“ There is one 
 
 _ body, and-one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of 
 
 _ your calling ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and 
 Father ofall, who is above all, ae through all and in you 
 all. 2—If Prasbyierial ordination be: the institution of God— 
 Episcopal ordination must be of man. They cannot both be 
 
 - of divine authority, and consequently one or the other must, 
 -be without just claims to the obedience of man. If the for- , 
 mer, prove it by scripture and the voice of antiquity and we 
 surrender Eipiscopacy upon the spot. | 
 
 But that cannot be done my Brethren. The All history a- 
 
 Bible must be changed and the writings of the Seubert 
 
 » Fathers must be changed, before it can be shown pam aged 
 that, Presbyterianism is of God and Episcopacy of man. ‘The 
 challenge of the judicious Hooker has remained unanswered 
 some hundreds of years past, and is likely to continue so,’ 
 some: thousands of years to come. “A very strange thing, ‘ 
 sure it were,” he remarks, “that such a discipline as ye (the 
 Puritans) Sibel of should be taught by .Christ and his apos- 
 _tles in the word of God; and no church ever have found it out, 
 nor received it until this present time. Contrariwise, the gov- 
 ernment against which ye bend yourselves, be observed every. 
 where, throughout all generations’ and ages of the Christian . 
 world; no church ever perceiving the word of God to be 
 
 against it. We require you to find out but one church upon 
 
 - the face of the whole earth, that hath ‘been ordered by your 
 discipline, or hath, not been ordered by ours, ‘that is to say, by 
 
 _ Episcopal regimen, ‘since the time that the blessed Apostles 
 
 re here conversant. Many things out of antiquity ye bring 
 
 Ea the purest times of the church had observed the self- 
 same orders which you require; and’ as though your desire 
 were that the churches of old, should be patterns for us to, 
 follow, and even glasses wherein we might .see the practice 
 of that, which by you is gathered out of scripture. But the 
 truth is ye mean nothing less. All this is done for. Pe 110N'S 
 ‘sake only 5 for” ye complain of it as of an injur y, th 
 
 . * Eph. iv. 4-6. _ at 
 4 2 : é - . ae A * 
 : pat 
 * 4 7 -: y - 
 
a 
 
 ¢ ‘ 
 
 ya 
 ae 
 ‘ead 
 
 ' i" 
 
 ae 
 
 be 
 
 ay og 
 
 ~ 
 
 40 
 
 should be willed to seek for examples and patterns of govern: | 
 
 ‘ment in any of those times that have been before.” 
 
 Let those who reject’ Episcopacy meet this demand if thet 
 ean—let them trace a succession of ordinations by Presbyte- 
 ries, if they deem, such a thing possible, and so far from charg- 
 ing them with exclusiveness, we will give up our own oe 
 ‘and adopt theirs. 
 
 In the mean time let. it not be forgotten that the assumption 
 which they make—namely that: presbyterial ordination, has 
 the authority of scripture and the sanction of primitive prac- 
 
 tice to uphold it, carries with it all the odious features which it 
 
 is attempted to impress upon the claims of Episcopacy. If a 
 council of presbyters only are invested with ordaining power, 
 then ordination by a congregation is invalid, and this throws 
 the Independents, or Congregationalists and the whole body 
 
 of Baptisis into schism—not only so, it determines. against. 
 
 ‘the validity of ordination by a Bishop, in whom alone the 
 ordaining power resides according to. our system, and conse- 
 quently cuts off both Episcopalians and Methodists.. Thus 
 it is plain that the presbyterial system is to all intents .and 
 . purposes as exclusive as any other.’ It. is obliged to .be so, 
 
 my friends, in the very nature of things; for as Christ fétnideds 
 
 but one .Church, and committed to it the ministry of recon- 
 
 ~ ciliation—that ministry whether. constituted after the model of 
 Congregationalism, Presbyterianism. or Ejpiscopacy, necessa- 
 
 ee ee rily excludes all others. The grand question for 
 a 3 
 “the ministry of US all to determine is, what was the form of gov- 
 
 church. ernment established in the’ primitive church— 
 
 —and deaco ns, and it is agreed that these orders made up the 
 ministry 0 of the church in the days of the Apostles. We do 
 | not find m kGen once made of ordination by a congregation 
 or by 4 council of presbyters—on the contrary, everywhere 
 
 the th eterial authority is conferred expressly by the laying 
 on of the hands of the Apostles—not only of the twelve, but 
 of Paul and Barnabas—of 'Timothy and 'Titus.. One sing 
 
 ' ‘solitary, passage occurs where the laying-on of the hands of 
 
 the presbytery is mentioned.* And even in that case we do 
 
 Cees Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with | 
 
 we wile on.of the ae a the a ae * 1 Tim. iv. 14. ae: 
 : | Bas $ 
 
 was it congregational, presbyterial, or episcopal? 
 Shall we: appeal to scripture ? We read of Apostles—elders . 
 
 ~——- 
 
41° 
 
 not know that an ordination was referred to. But granting 
 that it was an ordination, it seems that the presence and 
 _action of an Apostle was necessary to give, it validity. For St. 
 Paul, referring to the transaction, let the authority. imparted by 
 it, be what it may,’says expressly it was by the Saga on 
 of his hands. (2 rr: 1. 6.) | 
 ‘To meet the arguments: of Episcopalians upon this aitieoe 
 drawn from the plain warrant of scripture and the undoubted 
 practice of the ‘primitive church, it is alledged that the Apos-- 
 tles were extraordinary officers and could have no succes- 
 sors—and that after their decease, the government of the 
 church necessarily. devolved upon Presbyters. Al! this ought 
 to be proven. We-cannot consent to take mere assertion 
 for argument, We may say however, in passing, that nei- 
 ther Barnabas, nor Silas, nor Junias, nor Andronicus, nor 
 Timothy, nor "Titus, appear to have exercised any extraordi- 
 nary powers—or to have been extraordinary officers, and yet 
 are they called apostles—and some of them we know exercised 
 the power of ordination and governed the church, | 
 ’ Again: those who reject Episcopacy say that it was intro- 
 - duced by little and little about the beginning of the 2d cen- 
 tury, 8o that before the council of Nice, A. D. 325, it was gene- 
 rally prevalent, and after that time was universal till the era 
 
 In answer to the presbyterian gloss on these words, we say: the word presby- 
 tery does not necessarily signify a body of presbyters, properly, so called. It is as 
 justly applicable to a council of Apostles—for every Apostle was in virtue of his 
 office a Presbyter, but it by no means follows that every presbyter was an apostle. 
 Every Governor of the State is ex-officio a Trustee of our University—but every 
 Trustee is not therefore Governor of the State. 
 
 ‘But let us see how ancient and. wise men understood ene ferm © prestyteay” as 
 here used by St. Paul. 
 
 St. Chrysostom says, «He (St. Paul) does not here sito of Steers, bet 
 
 - Bishops; for Presbyters do not ordain a Bishop.” . Theodoret. . “In this place 
 he calls those-Presbyters (i.e. old men) who had received se, grace of the Apos- 
 tleship.” oy ahs 
 
 Theophylact. “© That is, of Bishops; for. Presbyters am not ordain a Bishop.” 
 *¢ Others, as Jerome, Ambrose, and last but not least, JOHN CaLvin, maintain 
 that the term presbytery refers to the office to which Timothy was then ordained, 
 and interpret the passage thus: “ Neglect not the gift of the presbytery or poet 
 hood that is in thee, which was given by prophecy and the laying on of hands.” 
 
 Lastly, hear St. Paul’s explanation of his own words. “ Wherefore I put thee ‘ 
 in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by ae pur } 
 
 Ps ting on of my hands.” (2 Tim, ie 6. f P “s set 
 ’ . 4 
 % é * e 4 
 mm Pl a% . 
 
—— 2 
 
 42° 
 
 of the reformation. “A very strange matter, if it were true,” 
 says Archbishop Bancroft, “that, Christ should erect a form of 
 government for the ruling of*his church, to continue from his 
 departure out of the world, until his coming again, and that . 
 the same should never be thought of or put in practice for the 
 space of fifteen shundred years:, or at least, that the govern- 
 
 ‘ment and kingdom of Christ should then be pu a ay when 
 
 by all men’s confessions, the divinity of his person, we virtue 
 
 ‘of his priesthood, the power of his office as he. is a prophet, 
 
 and the honor of his kingly authority, was so. godly, so learn- 
 edly, and ‘so mightily established against «the Arians ‘in the 
 council of Nice,.as that the confession. of: the Christian faith, : 
 then. set forth, hath ever since without contradiction | vn 
 received | in the church.” 7 
 Strange mdeed that so eos a change in 
 »No record of the ae of church government, as: that denstea 
 any change. ; ne! 
 
 gech ‘by Episcopacy from parity should take place 
 and. no record be made of the fact—no detail of. the circum- 
 stances by which it was effected be mentioned by so much as’ 
 one writer. Strange beyond the power:of explanation, that 
 light and trivial matters about which Christians then differed, 
 should’ find.a place in the annals of those times, and yet the 
 wonderful revolution from the présbyterial to the Episcopal 
 mode of government pass utterly unnoticed, So early as the 
 time of Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna and the ‘disciple of 
 St. John, the whole christian world was agitated by the ques- 
 tion, on what day should Haster be.observed? and Polycarp 
 journeyed all the way from Asia to Rome to adjust the: differ- 
 
 ence. Can we really think that such things would form mat- 
 
 ters of grave’ discussion, and the introduction of Episcopacy 
 pass unheeded ? When, people make such -demands: of us, 
 they must ask us ‘to lay aside the common sense and under- 
 
 standing ‘of men. 
 
 “When I shall see” says the. learned Chillingworth, “all 
 the fables in the metamorphosis acted, and proved true sto- 
 ries; when I shall see all the denials and aristocracies 
 in the world lie down and sleep, and awake into monarchies ; 
 
 ‘then. will I begin to believe, that. presbyterial poverninent, 
 
 having continued’ in the stand during the apostles’ time, 
 
 “should presently after (against the Apostle’s doctrine and the | 
 
 ~~ 409 es 
 eS 7 
 
 iM 
 
) 
 
 43 
 
 will of Christ) be whirled about like a scene in a mask, and 
 transformed ‘into Episcopacy. In the meantime, while these 
 things remain thus incredible, and in human reason impossi- 
 ble; I hope I shall have leave to conclude thus: Episcopal ‘ 
 government is acknowledged to have, been universally received 
 in the church, presently after the Apostles? times.” 
 
 “Between the apostles’ times and this presently after, there 
 was_not time enough for, nor possibility of so great an altera- 
 tion.” | | 
 » “And therefore, there was no such*alteration as is pretended. 
 And therefore, Hpiscopacy, being confessed to be so ancient 
 and catholic, must be granted also to be Apostolic.” 
 
 Perhaps enough has now been said to show that there is 
 no just ground of complaint against the church, because of 
 her exclusiveness. Since’ she occupies in this respect, the 
 _ same position with others. If to be built upon the foundation 
 
 of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the’ chief 
 corner stone, be to render us exclusive, let it be even so.— 
 ‘We cannot help it. We dare not undertake to amend or alter 
 that which divine wisdom has ordained:and appointed. 
 
 It gives me no pleasure, I am sure, toshow the Union upon 
 points of difference between ourselves and other proper grounds 
 denominaticns.. I would that we were-perfectly ¢3"°* 
 joined together in the same mind’and judgment, and that we 
 all spake the same things. But when points of difference are 
 misunderstood and. especially when .they are misrepresented, 
 silence on my part would be an unworthy abandonment of 
 known obligations—would be a criminal. indifference to the 
 prevalence of error—and a disregard of your most important 
 and dearest interests. .I have no sympathy, and I hope you 
 have none, with that mawkish. sensibility which fears the 
 honest declaration of the truth, lest it make others feel unplea- 
 ‘sant. I have no respect for that pretended liberality of opinion, 
 which under the name of charity, will embrace all professions 
 of Christianity as equally sound branches of the one catholic 
 Church of Christ—and will cast into the shade all distinctive 
 principles as non essential and of minor consequence. Chris- 
 tianity, Brethren, “vejoiceth in the truth,” as well “as hopeth 
 all things, and endureth all things.” And while we dare not 
 pronounce.upon the character of those who follow unscriptural 
 
 a 3 4 ~ 
 
- them to attain eternal life. 
 
 44 
 
 and erroneous systems—while we leave them to the just and 
 righteous judgment of that God before whom we must all stand 
 at last, it is nevertheless our duty to-show them their error, to 
 lead éhierh to embrace the truth and by all Fgh means aid 
 
 Having therefore . made a pees upon this sibjede I 
 shall, God being my helper, go into it thoroughly and leave 
 nothing untouched as to the order, doctrine and worship of 
 the church, which may conduct you to a correct understand- 
 ing of, Ran principles-and your own correspondent privileges | 
 and duties, And if I sueceed in’ this, [ know the necessary 
 effect will be to inspire you with increasing reverence for the 
 institutions which God has established—and with a deeper 
 sense of gratitude to that good providence which has wrought 
 wondrously and mercifully for you, and: brought you into con- 
 nexion with his holy church. | 
 
 [ 
 
é 
 
 SERMON IIT. 
 
 “BUT WE DESIRE TO HEAR OF THEE WHAT THOU THINK- 
 EST: FOR AS CONCERNING THIS SECT, WE KNOW THAT 
 EVERY WHERE IT IS SPOKEN AGAINST.” eh & 
 : . be is. ACTS XXvili. 22. 
 
 Iv is not a little remarkable, that in the assaults made’ upon 
 Christianity, both in ancient aid ‘modern times, the chief point 
 of attack has ever been the ministry of the i haurch. The rea- 
 son, is plain. Every system which proposes to . he eieint de’ 
 teach men ‘their duty in what most nearly con- 4 necessary’ de- 
 cerns- them, must have defenders. And this is tianity see 
 more especially necessary, i a case where the - . 
 instructions delivered, are professedly - based upon the expres- 
 
 * sion of the divine weil. If there were not an order,of, men set 
 
 ‘for the defence of .the Gospel, it would very soon cease to, exert 
 ‘any influence, and like other systems, sink into oblivion, from 
 the attacks of its enemies, and from the indifference of man- 
 kind to whatever does not in some way subserve their pre- 
 sent interests. This must. be apparent enough to any one 
 who has been observant of the prevailing tone of moral feel- 
 ing, in those communities where the gospel is seldom,or never 
 preached, and in those countries where its truths are much 
 obscured and its doctrines much corrupted. 'The principles 
 of Christianity impose a check upon the, passions of men, 
 and thus offer a restraint to those pursuits in which their pas- 
 sions lead them to engage. Jts present rewards are not attrac- 
 tive to the unrenewed mind of man, while its promises are for 
 the most part, future and distant. ‘Hence its sanctions are of 
 that awful and impressive character which the Bible addresses’ 
 to our natural and instinctive fears, warning, us of a judgment 
 to come, and the solemn retributions of eternity ; and hence it 
 
 uses the language of authority. 
 
 Fs a ‘ 
 > . ~y 
 
 a 
 
46 : 
 
 It was doubtless from a ‘wise fordsight of the proneness of 
 the human mind to’ become “engrossed with “ temporal things” 
 to the exclusion and neglect of the « things that are eternal,” 
 that God established his church, having in it appointments to 
 keep alive the remembrance of ‘our future accountability and 
 most important interests, and committed to it the ministry of. 
 _ reconciliation, charged with the special duty of rousing’ men 
 
 ‘by. warning and rebuke, fromthe slumbérs of a careless. and 
 unreflecting life—and of quickening them in the pursuit of a 
 heavenly crown by holding up to their view ene glorious 
 rewards. of eternity. 
 
 That God ‘did establish his ania in the world, admits 
 of no more question, than that he made a revelation to man- 
 kind. That he appointed a ministry in that church, deriving 
 their authority to act in the appointments of religion Gah him, 
 is equally plain and certain. That this authority, whatever it 
 be, is delegated, no one will deny. By delegated authority, T 
 mean ,of course, authority to act in the name of another. It is 
 authority in Opposition to that which is assumed. - And that 
 _ no one is allowed to assume such authority in-the name of 
 God, is manifest from the’ whole recorded history of the divine 
 fitspeusatior€ as well as clear from express declarations of 
 ‘Holy, Writ. “No man. taketh this honor to himself ”__says 
 the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews—*“ but he that is 
 called of God as was Aaron.” “So, also Christ glorified not 
 
 "himself te be made an high priest; but he that said unto him,» 
 Thowart my Son, to day have [begotten thee,”* Such a decla: .’ 
 ration, enforced by the reference to the illustrious examples ‘ 
 
 piedwened by the Apostle in confirmation of its truth, must” 
 settle forever the question; whether the ministerial authority 
 “may be assumed or not—it must for ever stamp the seal of 
 ' .reprobation upon all assumptions of the ‘ministry 
 McKnight a 5 : | 
 “Presbyterian, on Without warrant. Dr. McKnight, a learned Pres- 
 cre of byterian divine of the church of Scotland, in his 
 celebrated work on the Epistles, has these words: 
 «The account of the designation, character and office of an 
 
 high priest, the Apostle, applies to Messiah, by observing, that 
 
 as in the gospel church, no man can.take the dignity of an 
 high priest to himself but only the person who is called to 
 
 the office, by God, like. Aaron in the Jewish _Church—so the 
 * ‘Heb. v. 45 5. 
 
 t 
 
 ~% 
 
 ss 
 
. 
 
 ie 
 
 9 
 A 
 a he 
 
 47 : 
 
 - 
 Christ, did not, by his own authority} assume the office of 
 high priest in the house*of God; but he bestowed that dignity 
 upon him, who declared him his son, by raising him from the 
 dead.” Aaron was set, apart and consecrated to the priest- 
 
 ‘heod,—he and: his sons,—afier an open and public manner, 
 
 Gaieline to the .express command of God, by Moses. . His 
 consecration was the visible and declared designation to the 
 office to which God had called him and’ his baile And when 
 afterwards Korah and his company assumed to themselves the 
 
 same office, and. undertook to’ offer incense to. the Lord, upon 
 
 the’ alledged plea, that all the congregation were holy, God 
 fried ibwedk in a singular and awful manner for their punish- 
 ment, and commanded a memorial to be made to be a token 
 to the children of Israel through their generations that no one 
 who was not of the seed of Aart should come near to offer 
 incense before the Lord—that is to execute the office of priest 
 
  hood—“ lest he perish as did Korah, and his company.”* As 
 
 ‘Aaron was’ publicly called to his office—so was Christ. For 
 
 it was not until’ his baptism in Jordan and the voice which 
 
 came from God, proclaiming him to be’ his beloved Son, that 
 
 Jesus began his-public ministry. 
 
 ' Whatever then be the picty, the righteousness, and the learn- 
 ing of any man, they do not in themselves confer the power 
 of office, ey necessary they may be to the proper dis- 
 
 OD charge 6 its duties. There are doubtless many men in our 
 
 _ country qualified to fill the office of ambassador . 
 
 * the station unless he have received the requisite 
 
 - Personal qual- 
 
 to foreign courts, yet no one is competent to fill ifications do not 
 confer office. 
 
 » grant of authority to do so from the President and’ Senate. 
 
 His knowledge and talents, be they ever so great, will not be 
 taken as his credentials,‘ to act as the representative of the 
 government. ‘Neither will his declaration cause him to be 
 received as, the nation’s accredited agent’’ In short, he must 
 present ho commission and when that is received, his acts, 
 whether he possess learning and skill in diplomacy or not, are 
 valid and binding to the “full extent, letter and spirit big his 
 instructions. 
 Just so there are many possessed of high and eminent quali. 
 
 fications, by reason of their piety, knowledge and other gifts. 
 
 to act as ambassadors of Christ. Still these talents, hence 
 
 bd Numb. Xvi. 
 
 4 
 
 : a 
 
 , 
 
 $ 
 
te 
 
 48. 
 
 essential to the efficiency of the ministry de not any more 
 make one a minister of Christ’s religion—than knowledge and 
 skill make another minister to a foreign court. The commis- 
 
 _ sion or authentic letter of authority derived from the true and 
 
 proper source of power in both cases is indispensable’ to give 
 validity to ministerial acts. In either ‘instance, the minister 
 acts not in his own name, but in the name of another. He is 
 an agent and must act according to the tenor of given and 
 prescribed instructions. The message which he bears may be 
 
 most unpleasant to deliver; but it is not his own, but his who - 
 
 sends him,.and he: must deliver it even in the terms in which 
 
 he received it) or prove faithless to his trusts Unless these 
 
 things be so, Brethren, the government which God has estab- 
 lished in his kingdom on Earth—called the Church—is less 
 
 certain in its provisions—less definite in its objects—less wise | 
 in its appointments—less fixed in its arrangements and less — 
 sure in its results than the institutions’ of men. ‘Once make 
 
 the Church the mere figment of man’s creation—once regard. it 
 
 in the light only of a human contrivance and subject to the 
 alteration or amendment of man’s presuming wisdom, in any of 
 its original and essential features, and all Vitality is gone from 
 
 _ its Lee al authority from: its enactments—all confidence from 
 
 its promises and all the assurance of heavenly hope from the 
 participation of its ordinances, It becomes the frail and totter- 
 
 -ing fabric of man’s caprice—built up of “hay and stubble,” and 
 
 doomed to’ “ suffer loss” when proved by the’ aH fires ” 
 
 of God’s truth—Such is. not the church of God built upon the 
 foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ himself 
 being the chief corner stone—Such is not the holy citadel of 
 @ith, hope and charity, against which ‘the gates of Hell shall 
 not prevail. “Walk about Zion, and go round about her: tell 
 the towers thereof. Mark ye ,well her bulwarks, consider her 
 valaces. As we have heard, so have we seen in the city of 
 the Lord of hosts, in the city of our God: God will establish it 
 for ever.” Thus sang David, under the law: and if his words, 
 
 inspired by the Holy: Ghost, were true of Jerusalem or Zion, | 
 
 ‘the type of the christian church, how much more shall they 
 
 not be thought applicable in every respect to that which St. 
 Paul calls the “House of God, which is the church of the 
 living God, the pillar and, sfougn of the truth.” ih 
 
 * 1 Tim. 1. ‘15. 
 
 2 ] 
 
 - Ja 7 — 
 
 ¥ 
 
ee | OR, 
 
 - In these views perhaps we shall all be found to agree. None 
 will deny the authority and perpetuity of Christ’s church: none 
 »- ‘ will question the fact that ‘the. christian ministry is a purely 
 4 delegated power deriving its authority alone from 7), Ministry 
 . God, If any. deny this last..position, ‘we leave a purely'delega- 
 : _ him'to settle the point with St. Paul, who says: “¢Po¥™ 
 
 » “As we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, 
 *) even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth: 
 ~~ our hearts.”* And, again, “ Now then we are ambassadors for 
 
 -) Christ, ‘as though God ‘did beseech you by us; we pray you , 
 
 es aT Christ’s aead be ye reconciled to God.”t hadodaes of the 
 ‘ hike import, etoinidy’ in the New Testament. ° £ The glorious 
 : gospel ef the blessed God,” which says St. Paul, “was com- 
 “mitted to my trust.”{- “ So account of us as of the. ministers 
 of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover 
 it is ‘required i in stewards, that a man be found faithful.”§ “ Ap- 
 
 ‘proving ourselves as the ninisters of God.”1 “Seeing we have 
 this ministry we faint not.”** “ All things are of, God, who hath’ 
 ‘~ econciledus to himself by Jesus Christ, and, Hathite siven to 
 
 us the ministry of reconciliation.”{t “I an Gfeat Tass our. 
 
 ‘Lord, who hath enabled. me; for that he counted me’ faithful, 
 
 putting me. ito tlie ministry.”{t Take heed to ‘the ministry . 
 
 which thou hast. received in the Lord that thou fulfil-it.’’9§ 
 
 “ Make-full ptoof of thy ministry.”" Thus, by whatéver terms, 
 
 office in the church is described—whether trust, ambassador- 
 ship,«stewardship or. ministry, we are at oncé ieriinded of its 
 * delegated character, and that great.and solemn responsibility, 
 * ‘from: the very nati, Bench - and authority of the charge, 
 ‘  attaches*to its management. » 
 " Indeéd it seems wonderful that’ any other’ view show ever 
 have been*taken of this, subject, and. that the idea should have 
 ‘been entertained that the ministry was not to be perpetuated as 
 
 originally constituted in the New Testament. For when we. 
 
 open that little volume and inquire into the character of Christ’s 
 religion, we are met at the outset by the information that, the 
 + Pee he i is to be preached to all nations. and that its institutions 
 are to run co-eval with’its propagation and extension even to 
 _ the end of the world. We read that sacraments were ordained 
 of Christ and were ‘to be Observed. by all those in all places 
 
 where the faith was embraced. Has not this religion come 
 ~ * 1 Thessy ii. 4. “2 Cor. y: 20. $1Tim.i.11. . § 1Cor. iv. 1, 2. 
 ; “1 2Cor. vid. © ** 2Cor. iv.1.  f4 2Cor.v.¥.  441Tim. i. 12. 
 bs im.” i . 1. iv. 17 
 Wee 0 ey §§ 2. Tim: iv. 5. 7 77 Col. iv. 17. 
 7 , 4 
 
 a 
 
id ‘ 
 
 50. 
 
 ‘ 
 
 down éven to us? ‘Have not its sacraments been administered - 
 
 for the last eighteen centuries, wherever ‘faith in the ‘Saviour 
 
 has been eetned and received. By whom,, Brethren, has . 
 
 this faith been preached and these sacraments: been Boke ad-, 
 ministered? 'There can be but one answer to these questions. 
 We must say by the ministry. The church, sacraments and - 
 ministry, thus become ‘witnesses to the truth. of Chuist’s reli- 
 . gion. During the darkest period of the world’s history—when 
 ~ the light of God’s truth shone ‘dimly, when’ the dectrine of 
 _ Christ was most obscured by the traditions of men and when 
 corruptions most marred the fair form, of Christianity, under 
 papal misrule and usurpation, still the church, sacraments and 
 ministry existed and /gave united testimony to the ‘world. that 
 Jesus had died and that through his name salvation Was yet 
 assured to the. hope of perishing man. The great facts upon 
 which the doctrine of redemption is founded, have thus been 
 - preserved’ to the. world and would be again, should darkness 
 once more cover the earth and gross darkness the people. 
 
 It is not denied by any, so far as I know, that Christ, after 
 his resurrection and previous to-his ascension into Heaven, 
 commissioned the eleven Apostles to, gather, his church. and 
 
 settle its order. and government.. During the, last. forty days . 
 
 of his continuance upon earth; we are told, he came to them 
 from time to time, giving them Pk Aen eae , and “ speaking 
 of the things pertaining . to the kingdom of: Goa: »* Tt is not to. 
 
 be supposed in reason then, that’ they. were left. in ignorance | 
 
 as to the extent of their powers or as to the order of adminis: 
 tration which Christ would have established “in* his church. 
 Still less is this supposition reasonable when we remember 
 
 that the Apostles were under the guidance of ‘that holy spirit — 
 
 which was to lead them into all truth and to bring to their 
 
 remembrance all things whatsoever that. Jesus had said unto: 
 
 them. ‘In fulfilment of their’ trust, it is’ certain that they in a 
 7 bce Mot public manner en Matthias in the place of 
 the Primitive , Judas, and*“he was numbered with the eleven 
 peeled 4 " Apostles. Equally clear and certain is it, that 
 
 twelve. others, as Paul and Barnabas and Silas, and 
 
 Timothy and .Titus and James, were called Apostles—and 
 
 that they exercised the powers of Apostles in governing the 
 
 church, and in ordaining to the holy, ministry. . These there- 
 
 * Acts 1. 3. f Acts 1 26 
 
 oJ 
 
 — 
 
 ” 
 
as 
 
 2 
 
 BL 
 
 ° 
 
 - fore according to the express language of scripture, constituted 
 
 the first or’ highest order of the gospel ministry. The’ testi- 
 mony is UAE direct and conclusive as to the constitution of 
 the second and third orders of the ministry, viz: the order of 
 Elders, Bishops or Presbytérs as they are interchan zeably * 
 
 deented in the New Testament, and the order. of Deacons. 
 - These are the orders of the chine ministry as unquestion- 
 ably established in the days of the Apostles. The testimony 
 
 : of the New Testament is silent as to any other order’ of admin- 
 
 istration. , Its canon closes with this’ arrangement, and if any 
 change or alteration of this order was made, the evidence of 
 it must be sought for elsewhere than in the records of inspi- 
 ration. The assertions therefore that Christ and his Apos- 
 tles left no specific. directions as to the order and government 
 of the church, and that the whole subject was left open to the 
 . exigencies oe times and occasions, .are ‘wholly gratuitous— 
 utterly destitute of proof and flatly contradicted by the. fact 
 that Christ continued forty days with the Apostles giving them 
 “commandments and speaking of the things, pertaining to the 
 kingdom of God—and by: the fact also that the Apostles did 
 
 * It is freely admitted - Episcopalians: ‘that these terms are thus interchangéably 
 used in the New Testament. The admission is improved into an argument in the 
 hands of the opponents of Episcopacy,.who most preposterously, argue from a com- 
 munity of names to a community in rank or order. The fallacy a the argument 
 has been too frequently exposed to need repetition here. . But it may nevertheless be 
 useful to subjoin the testimonies of Theodoret and Isidore on this subject, who lived 
 inthe 5th eentury and whose evidence in the case will preety be conic! ed by 
 the “‘ wise and prudent,” conclusive. 
 
 .Theodoret. «‘Epaphroditus was called the Bebathe of the Philippians, because 
 he was entrusted’ with the Episcopal government, 48 being their Bishop. For 
 those now called Bishops, were anciently called Apostles; but. in process of time, 
 the name of Apostle was left to those who were truly Apostles, and the name of 
 Bishop was restrained to those who ere anciently called Apostles: Thus Epaphro- 
 dits was the Apostle of the Philippians, Titus of the Cretans, and Timothy of the 
 Asiatics.” 
 
 Isidore. “<< The Bishops succeeded the, Apostles—they were cqututulal through 
 the whole world in the place, of the Apostles.” Isidore then says, that “* Aaron 
 ‘the High Priest, was what a pishep is, and Aaron’s sons prefigured the Presby- 
 ters.” 
 
 -Mosheim, oriiah will not be wdapeeted of any undue partiality towards Episcopacy, 
 
 says of Isidore, the Bishop of Pelusium. ‘He was a man of uncommon learning 
 
 and sanctity. A great number of his Epistles are yet extant, and discover*more 
 piety, genius, erudition and’ wisdom, than are to be’ found in the voluminous pro- 
 ‘ductions'of many other writers.” ; 
 
 . 
 
* 
 
 admit others into their number, and did ordain Presbyters and 
 Deacons. The obscurity and lack of precision’ which some 
 men allege to be thrown around the order and government of | 
 the Apostolic Church, are nothing short: of empty pretences, 
 and are about as bles to excuse their irreguarities and 
 schisms, as the alleged mysteries of faith, are ‘to excuse the 
 ‘indifference and sin of unbelief. + | . 
 -wThe three-fold constitution’ of the ministry as above stated, | 
 composed of Apostles, Presbyters and Deacons in their respec: 
 tive orders, we hold to be the, form of church’ government’ as 
 clearly Befiied ‘in! the New Testament. As it was éstablished 
 by divine authority and undeniably continued till the canon, 
 and of course the testimony of sacred scripture, was closed 
 we are comipelled to regard it.as of perpetual obligation.and 
 unchangeable, until authority can be shown to alter it.” | 
 If we would inquire as to the powers which these three 
 orders exercised respectively, we must look at their commis- 
 sions and at their acts. “As to the Apostles we find that thir- 
 teen of them were special witnesses of the résurrection of Jesus’ - 
 _ Christ. They were chosen for that specific purpose; and_so 
 ‘ far could. have no successors.. For the idea of witnéssés hav- 
 ing successors carries absurdity on its very face» ‘They may 
 be cotemporancous witnesses to the same matters of fact, as 
 the: five hundred brethren’ who saw Christ after his: resurrec- 
 . tion on a mountain in. Galilee, were with the Apostles then 
 _ present, mrattiossos of one and itis same fact. But to bear tes- 
 iat PO timony tothe resurtection of Christ was’ not tlie 
 postles not wits only duty with which the Apostles were ‘charged. 
 nesses merel¥; Tf we turn to their commission we shall see that 
 
 ‘but’ -tmhinisters 
 also in the or- they were specially charged to preach the gospel 
 
 bef ne tovall nations and to Ba ptids them in the name 
 ernors of the of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. _ Accord- 
 ehtrch. 
 
 ingly we find, in tracing the history of their acts, 
 that they not only testified that Christ was -raised: from the 
 dead, but also preached, and baptized for the remission of sins, 
 and that they ordained others to the performance - of the like 
 offices. "They, or-at least a portion of them, possessed also the - 
 power of conferring the miraculous gifs of the Holy Ghost by 
 
 i Archbishop Whately’s preposterous concessions Upon ios point to the con- 
 
 trary notwithstanding. ig teat oe 
 
 A? : ‘ 
 
 2 
 i 
 
ce 
 
 D2. 
 
 the imposition of their hands. Some of them also were en- 
 dowed with the spirit of prophecy. In these things then: as 
 witnesses of the resurrection of Christ—as prophets—as bestow- 
 ers of miraculous gifts, their office was extraordinary and as 
 such they had no successors. . 
 
 But it is. remarkable that in: the commission given to the 
 apostles, which was antecedent to the day of ‘Pastdoos when 
 they received the’ gift of the Holy Ghost—no reference. is 
 made to their extraordinary powers. The tenor of their com- 
 -mission*as recorded by St. Matthew and St. John, runs thus. 
 «All power is given to me in Heaven and in Earth. Go ye 
 therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in’ the name 
 of the, Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teach- 
 ing ‘them to observe all things whatsoever. I have commanded — 
 you, and lo I am with ‘you alway even unto the.end of the 
 world.”* “Then ‘said Jesus to them again,” are the: words of 
 St. John, “Peace. be unto you: As my Father hath sent me, 
 even so send T you: And when he had’ said this he bréathed 
 on’them, and ‘saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 
 Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are témitted unto them, and 
 whosesoever sins ye retain thea? are retained.” 
 
 ‘These last words, respecting the, power of remitting and 
 retaining sins, are generally understood: as conveying. the 
 power of discipline—of. inflicting’ and removing church cen- 
 sures—-a power ‘claimed and exereised* by ‘all’ denominations 
 to thisextent, and «indeed - indisperisable to ‘the preservation 
 of purity and order in any society whatever, 
 
 caw commission, ‘of the Apostles sets forth that they are to 
 —and ‘to exercise discipline. And* certainly 
 so far at: least no one will deny that they may and ever have 
 had successors in office. But the commission, as recorded by 
 both the evangelists, clearly indicates that they were invested 
 with yet higher. powers. Besides making disciples. of all na- 
 tions—-which is regarded: as a more correct rendering, than 
 teaching all nations—and baptizing them; they are further- 
 more to teach them :to observe all things whatsoever’ Christ 
 _ had commanded. Now as these. things whatever they were, 
 are not specifically set forth in thé commission itself, it seems, 
 reasonable to conclude that we must search for them in what 
 
 ‘the Apostles taught and in what they did. They have re- 
 . St. Matt. XXViil. 18-29. ° ° Sit St. John xx. pag 
 
 ‘ et% 
 * ’ 
 
54 
 
 oat what ag taught and what ibe did also: at least to: 
 a sufficient extent, we must suppose, to furnish the man of 
 God thoroughly unto every good word and work. ‘And among 
 the things which they did, acting under Christ’s commission, 
 we know that they Biased to the ministry, and in so doing 
 not oly established a precedent for those whom they. thane 
 ordained, to ‘do ‘as they had done, but moreover gave express 
 aaeotisng to that end. “'T'he thiies that thou hast heard of, 
 me among many witnesses,” says St. Paul to Timothy, “the 
 same commit thou, to faithful men, who shall be able to. teach 
 others also.”*_ > , 
 
 The words of St. Tohit in recording the salt of authority 
 to the Apostles, convey the idea of still more ample powers. 
 '“ Asmy Father hath sent’ me, even. so I send-you:” and.then 
 breathing on them said, “Receive ye'the Holy Ghost.” What- 
 ever'may be made out of these words, no one will deny that 
 this much at least is certain, that Christ invests his Apostles 
 with full power and authority to settle the order, and admin- 
 ister the affairs of his kingdom ‘on earth. . ‘A hatower then they 
 
 _ What the’ “taught, and commanded in pursuance of this. ob- 
 rere ae ject, we hold to be binding upon the consciences i 
 they taught; . Of all believers. ‘That they ordained elders is not 
 what did they? -denied—that these elders ministered.in the church 
 in subordination to-a higher order of the ministry called Apos-. 
 tles, is as.clear as any other’ fact recorded in the: sacred wris 
 fasesithal not’a single instance of the elders exercising, the 
 power of ordination, has: ever. been clearly made out is: just 
 as certain, as that ine higher or apostolic order did exercise 
 that power. "That the Apostles ordained Deacons is admitted 
 —that these deacons both preachéd and baptized, and so far 
 were ministers, stands as plainly recorded in the Acts of the 
 Apostles » as. any thing else tobe read, therein. Here then, 
 Brethren, int “the ministry of the church thus constituted of 
 Apostles, Presbyters and Deacons; is that Episcopacy for which 
 we contend as the order established by divine wisdom in 
 Christ’s, kingdom on earth. Christ said -he would be with 
 the Apostles “always, even unto the end Ah the world.” Are 
 .we ‘to suppose then that the Apostles left the church desti- 
 tute of a ministry—that they: left the whole body of believers 
 
 Wrousiaaeh the world, ‘in Jerusalem, Antioch, Luphesus, Rome, 
 * 2 Tim. il. 2 4 
 
 i 
 oi we 
 ¢ 
 
‘7 
 
 D5 
 
 Corinth, and a hundred other places where they had. planted 
 
 _the faith of the gospel, in an unorganized state—left them to 
 
 choose a ministry and. ordain: them from ‘among: themselves— 
 
 to define their _powers and settle the limits. of their. jurisdic- 
 
 tion?” Such a supposition lies not within the boundaries. of 
 the most extravagant credulity. It would’ be ‘an “example 
 without precedent in the history of man. ‘It- was a thing 
 
 plainly impossible from the very nature of, the christian insti- 
 
 tution, , having. ordimances to be administered, and -by neces- 
 
 - sary consequence, ‘requiring an order of men-for that purpose, 
 
 invested with power and authority to perpetuate the office. of 
 administration. . And accordingly the very first witnesses that 
 
 ' present themselves .to our examination,after the writers of the 
 
 ‘New Testament had passed off the stage’ of. action—witnesses, 
 some of whom saw.and conversed. with ‘the apostles and: i 
 boured with them in, their ministry—witnesses, upon whom 
 
 - we ate obliged. to. rely, to prove ‘the. authenticity and genuine- 
 
 ‘ness of the new Testament—these witnesses testify, with one 
 voice, that the ministry of the, church in their day was consti- 
 
 . tuted after the ‘model of the Apostolic age—that they did not 
 
 establish: it, after‘ the form or order in which it existed among 
 them’, but that they had so received it’ from the apostles them- 
 selves. T'o illustrate the value of these witnessesy}: ‘Pose to is 
 let us ask, how know we. that the book called the. made of the 
 ' : y “oe,1 « «writers .of, the 
 ‘New Testament was written in the age of thé gst three cen- 
 apostles and by the disciples of. Christ? Thomas . turies. 
 
 Paine asserts that it was written three hundred years later. 
 How. do-we meet this* bold and unblushing assertion of infi- 
 delity? ‘Simply, by referring. to the writings of the Fathers 
 of the first three. centuries. They make mention of the gos- 
 pels of the New Testament and of other portions’ of the same 
 
 good and suflicient-to settle the simple question of fact, whether 
 the New Testament was in existence in-their respective ages 
 or not? If yea, then why is not the same testimony equally. 
 available to settle the questidn’ of fact, as to what was the 
 
 ‘order of the Christian ministry. ‘Let us, heat, them spedk ‘for 
 themselves. We begin with Clement of Rome; whom St. Paul 
 
 commends as bys fellow laborer in his’ epistle to the PDOAPPE, 
 
 . 
 
 - work and quote passages from it.~ Is their. testimony then. 
 
4 
 
 . 36 
 
 * He wrote about 40 years after our Lord's death and 
 ate the life-timeof St. John... «, gg EH 
 He says in his Ist Epistle to ‘the Corinthians.* “ The apos- 
 ‘tles preaching through countries and cities, appointed the 
 | first, fruits of their conversions to be pene and ministers © 
 over such as should afterwards believe.” —“ The apostles — 
 knew by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there should conten- 
 tions artse concerning’ the episcopal namnve (or. order) and 
 for this cause, having perfect foreknowledge (of these’ things,) ° 
 they did ‘ordain, those whom we have mentioned before ; and * 
 moreover, did establish the constitution, that other approved 
 meh should succeed those,who died in. thew office*and minis- 
 try.” —* To the high priest his proper offices were appointed ; 
 the priests had their’ proper. order, and the levites their. pecu- 
 liar services or hag age and the laymen what was pro- 
 | per for lay ymen.” - This. St: Clement: applies’ to the distribu- 
 tion of orders in ‘the Christian Church, bishops, priests and 
 deacous.. : ate ' 
 Such. is he plain, unequivocal and.decisive testimony of the 
 earliest ecclesiastical writer, whese works have reached us, next 
 
 after: the apostles. . A writer who-was himself chosen bi the. - 
 
 apostles arid appointed to: preside as bishop over one of the . 
 churches which they had planted. te 
 
 The néxt witness’ we produce is Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, 
 A. D.71,.. He was constituted Bishop of Antioch, by the apos- 
 ‘tles then living ¢, and wrote epistles to ‘various. bhinichak, while 
 ‘on his journey to.Rome, in which jhe exhorts the inferior minis-, 
 ters, presbyters and deacottts to be ins stibjection to their bishop. 
 He séaled, the truth of his religion by suffering martyrdom, 
 being thrown to wild beasts at Rome, by order of ‘Trajan, less 
 than, ten yedrs after the death of. St. Jotpa: or about A. D. 107. 
 
 | om 
 
 ¥ ~ 
 * 
 
 ~ 
 
 To the Ephesians, after speaking of their: “excellent bishop - 
 
 Onésithtis,” «he thus writes: “ Por ‘even Jesus Christ our in- 
 separable life, ‘as sent. by the will of the Father; as the 
 bishops, appointed unto the utmost bounds of the basin; are 
 by the will of Jesus Christ») °.. i 
 
 ‘To the Magnesians : “T- exhort you that ayoit elit ss do- 
 
 all things wn a divine concord ;, Leu Maas OEMS an the 
 
 es j bee, See Oxford ol Eidon 1677, $ Ag, P 8b. 
 
 Py ; ; et + 
 
 Pi, 
 
, 57 Oy aces ‘ 
 
 é 
 
 place’ of God, your shoe bip tal in the place of the council of 
 
 BP the apostles ; and, your deacons: most dear. to me, ‘being en- 
 
 wh 
 
 trusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ.” * Such language 
 partakes largely, you ‘perceive, of. the hyperbotical style of the 
 oriéntals. We are quoting Ignatiug, you will remember, not 
 
 ni to settle the point of reverence-and dignity’ due to the min- 
 
 ria 4 
 
 istry, but to show the fact stated, that the~ ministry” consisted 
 of three orders. In. this ‘same epistle he mentions’ by name, 
 the bishop Damas, the Siar ial Bassus and. Apollonias, arid 
 the deacon Sotia. ‘ j 
 
 ‘ 
 _ To the 'Trallians: “ Let: all’ reverence ihe deacons as Jesus 
 Christ, and the bishop'as the Father, and the presbyters-as . 
 
 ‘the Sandhedrim of God and college of the -apostles—he that 
 
 does any thing without .the bishop and pr sr heoniig uid Hee : 
 cons, 1s not pure.in his conscience.’ 
 
 To the Philadelphians: “ To, those’ who were in unity with 
 .their bishop and presbyters and deacons—there is one bishop 
 with his. presbyters, and the deacons my fellow’ servants— 
 -Giveheed to the-bishop and to the presbytery and to the alae 
 
 -— cons-—do nothing without the bishop. 4 
 
 o*the Smyrneans, over whom Polycarp the distiple of. St. 
 Johit, presided as bishop: “ See that ye all follow your bishop, 
 -as Jesus Christ did the Father ; and the presbyters. as the 
 apostles. and reverence the ieacode as the.command of God 
 —my soul be security for them that » ssilage to their bishop with 
 their.presbyters and deacons.” 
 “Is it posible. for any intelligent. ‘aiid mee mind to read 
 
 “these guatations and come to:any’other coliclusion thany that 
 
 there were three orders,—bishops, priest8 and deacons—in the 
 christiansministry jn the age of Ignatius ? ‘If. his’ words prove, . 
 any. thing» they undoubtedly show that in the first century, . 
 the Christian: Chutch was. episcopally constituted—that » the : 
 three orders of the ministry were regarded ag of divine insti- 
 _ tution -and a ai apie to. the regular constitution of 
 aveny ehurch:*,. . > 
 
 We next cite y Raheny Eker of Sig In his erigila to 
 the Philippians he.says: “ Polycarp dnd the presbyters that 
 vare with him, to the Church of Giod which 4s. at Philippi, ce.” 
 
 — the deacons must be.blameless as the ministers of God in 
 Christ and not» of pearls A Het subject to the priests and _ 
 
 “ . 
 ; y 
 
58 . 
 
 deacons—and let the elders be -compassiqnate—and merciful 
 towards all.”’, Here again is direct, evidence against that parity 
 which opposes itself to episcopacy. 
 
 » We come to the second century, and here we find | Treneus 
 the disciple of Polycarp, and Bishop of Lyons, A. D. 180, using 
 the. succession, of Bishops from. the apostles as an argumient 
 against heretics. He says: “ We can. reckon up those whom 
 the apostles, ordained. to be bishops in the several churches 
 and who they were that succeeded them down, to our time.” 
 And he proceeds to give us the succession from the apostles 
 down ta Eleutherius, the 12th in order, who was Bishop of 
 Rome when Ireneus wrote. ‘Clement of Alexandria, the cotem- 
 
 porary of Ireneeus, enumerates thé three several and distinct 
 
 ‘orders, with: their respective offices. His words are, “ There 
 are bere precepts which relate to presbyters, ottices which 
 belong to bishops, and others respecting deacons.” 
 
 ‘Tertullian, a, celebrated presbyter of the church. in Africa, 
 : ved at the close of. the 2nd and. inthe forepart, of the 3rd 
 century. He testifies that bishops were. settled. in-his native 
 land and had been so from the earliest introduction. of the gOs- 
 pel into the country. Writing against heretics, he says, “ let 
 them. show the order of their bishops, that by Audis Succession 
 deduced from the beginning, we may see whether their first 
 bishop had any of the apostles or apostolicale men, who did 
 likewise persevere with the apostles, for his founder and pre- 
 decessors; for thus the apostolical churches do: derive their 
 succession, as the church of Smyrna from Polycarp; whom 
 John the apostle placed siti deh siehasics s Rome Seon 
 Clement, &c.” 
 
 Speaking. of baptism, Tertullian says: ‘ The Bishop has the 
 power of conferring baptism, and under him the presbyters 
 and deacons, but not without the authority of the bishop.” — 
 
 Origen, another famous presbyter of the same age, in his 
 comment on the Loid’s prayer has these words—“ there is a 
 
 debt due to deacons, another to presbyters, and another to 
 
 bishops, which is” the greatest , of all. ‘and exacted by the 
 Saviour of the whole church and who will seit tion y pane 
 the non payment of it.” . 
 
 Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, A.D. 240.. From. the’ writings 
 
 of this illustrious Father, we ak compile a volume upon the. 
 
 as 
 
* 
 
 subject, before'us.. He expressly refers the constitution of the 
 ministry in the orders of bishops, ppisabytep and deacons to 
 the will of Christ and the apostles. 
 
 “JD. xlv. to Cornelius, bishop of Rome. “ We pape chiefly, 
 my Brother; to endeavour to keep that unity which was en- 
 joined by our Lord and sus ARIES to us their successors, to 
 » be carefully observed by us.’ 
 Ep. xvi. to Elorentius, “ Christ said to the Bracsce and by 
 _ that, to all Bishops or governors of his church who succeed 
 the, Apostles by vicarious ordination and are in their stead 
 * He that heareth*you heareth me. ? 
 
 Kip. Ixxx. Successio, . “ Valerian (the emperor) wrote to 
 the Senate that the Bishops and the Presbyters and the Dea- 
 cons should be prosecuted.” | 
 
 Optatus Mileyitanus, A. D. 365, Bishop of Mileve, or Mela, 
 in Africa, “ The church. has her several aS bishops, 
 presbyters, deacons, and thé company of the faithful.” . 
 
 “ You found in the church, deacons, presbyters, bishops : 
 
 ou have made them laymen ; acknowledge that you have 
 subverted souls.” ‘L..2. Con. Parmenianum. bie 
 _.If the time allowed we might quote from Labo of Milan,, 
 A. D. .370.: Jerome, A. D. 380. St. Augustin, A. D.’ 420, oom 
 ~ many others both Bc, and after them—particularly Eusebius, 
 A. D. 320, the first ecclesiastical historian, and who has given 
 us catalogues of the bishops by name, in.the order of their suc- 
 eession,-in all, the principal ate from the Apostles down 
 to his time—Thiey all testify, to ‘the three-fold constitution of 
 the ministry and the’ authority of bishops to ordain and. to 
 ‘govern the church. .We might ‘quote from that very ancient 
 work, certainly existing in the 3rd century, called the Apostolic 
 canons,” .to prove the same thing.—From the decrees of coun- 
 cils,.in ages when the faith, doctrine and order. of the Gospel 
 were confessedly kept pure by the great body of the faithful. 
 We might travel'along down the stréam of time, through all 
 the adverse and Prosperous, conditions -of the church—when 
 
 st «The Apostolic Canons are ‘Seney! five ecclesiastical laws or rules, profess- 
 edly ‘enacted by the’ Apostles, and collécted. and preserved, by’ Clemens Romanus., 
 The matter of them is ancient; for they describe the customs and institutions of 
 : Christians, particularly of the Greek and. Oriental churches, in the 2nd and 3rd 
 centuries. But the phraseology indicates a compiler living in the 3rd century.” 
 Murdoch's Mosheim, vol, i. p. 224, v.13. (New Haven, 1832.) 
 
 * 
 
a 
 
 60°. 
 
 oppressed and’ when protected—when maintaining purity of - 
 
 "doctrine and practice, and when: introducing and sanctioning 
 
 corruptions; and, all along we shall find an-accumulation of 
 evidence. to the fact we have been: ‘laboring to establish, that 
 Episcopacy was the settled order and’ government sf the 
 church. ‘We miglit cite “abundant authorities, even the most 
 learned, and distinguished of those who have rejected Episco- 
 pacy to show that from the 2nd century down.to the 16th it 
 
 *was of universal -prevalencé. in. the christian church. We 
 
 might bring forward the Lutherans, Calvin, Beza, Melanecthon 
 
 Wi others to prove not only the ietnlnes of Hpspeere 
 ‘bi the lamentable necessity which some of them pleaded: to 
 justify their formation of another and different’ system” of 
 
 church government. But what would it all avail? Men of 
 
 this age have become wiser than. the Apostles, the Fathers 
 and the Reformers—wiser and holier than: those who sealed 
 
 their testimony ‘to Christ’s truth, and their fidelity to his cause” 
 
 with their blood—and they ask ita are all your proofs: worth ?. 
 ‘The succession is incapable of: proof or it has been broken— 
 ~or it has been vitiated ‘and, rendered worthless by 
 
 The common 
 objection to the ~ the corruption of those through; whose. hands it 
 pe Suc- has come!—Let us then meet- them on these 
 
 1. The succession is incapable of proof. Is the testimony of . 
 
 Clement, Ignatius, Irenzeus, ‘Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Eiuse- 
 
 bius, Ambrose, Jerome, Aas and others, sufficient to prove 
 the. atthentidity: and uncorrupted. preservation of the books of 
 the New Testament in their respective ages? Then why: is 
 
 their testimony to be rejected when it equally proves the estab-* 
 
 lishment’ and universal prevalences, of ;Episcopacy?. Is the 
 New Testament to, be rejected ‘because you cannot. show by’ 
 direct and positive evidence, that it was in existence every: 
 yeat since’ it was writter? Then why is Episcopacy to. be 
 repudiated, unless you prove. its -existence every. single year 
 by positive. proof, since the death of the Apostles? But copies 
 of the New Testament were ‘multiplied very soon and. spread 
 
 over the-world-and most carefully guarded against ‘alteration. 
 
 And so bishops were multiplied asthe faith ‘of the gospel 
 spread, and their office was neither sought after; because it 
 
 . * See Appendix A. . 
 
 grounds and. consider these ‘their strong reasons. 
 
 “9 
 
 a 
 
 . 
 
a 
 
 61 
 
 was the post of chief danger in times of persecution, ‘and in 
 this state the church was till 320—and the office’ itself was 
 most earefully fenced by canons against intrusion ‘into it, or 
 unwarrantable assumption of its powers, -»The first of the 
 Apostolical canons reads. “Let a ot be consecrated _ by 
 two or three Bishops.” 
 Now here is the statement of a pitino Brsth ‘The princi- 
 ren, upon which this whole controversy about the Ple which may 
 ; : oe ee . Settle the con- 
 succession turns. What is ordination? It is. troversy.’ Or- 
 nothing more nor less than designation to office aearee ee 
 aor the right to exercise cértain powers delega- . 
 ted by the: great head of ‘the church for the-edification of his 
 ‘ members? You are not to imagine that, we hold that’ a sort 
 of mysterious influence. or HyTBIG ‘virtue has *been stream- 
 ing down from the hands of Bishops upon‘the heads of those 
 whom ‘they have ordained:in all’ past ages, and that this is 
 
 ' the Apostolical Succession. No! It is simply the right to 
 
 exercise certain functions, certified by its ‘proper evidence— 
 ordination is ‘@ thing hahanvita openly and publicly in which 
 ordinarily many persons take part. But the ‘Apos stolical canon 
 requires that a bishop shall» be ordained by ‘at ‘least two or 
 three bishops,’ and the proof of this fact, im the absence’ of- 
 miracles; is.the proper certificate to all persons that the person 
 
 ordained is invested -with that delegated authority, which he. 
 
 could not of tight assume. In short, ordination is the regular 
 induction to office by lawful Mareniey in opposition to its un- 
 
 authorised and arrogant assumption. .Now it is clear that, 
 
 such a fact is'as capable of proof as any ether fact, And con- 
 sequently a succéssion of erdinations is of far more easy proot 
 
 —than lineal succession—such for example as the sticcession _ 
 
 of the.Aaronic priesthood.. For the ordination of a bisho 
 would only take place:at the end of his. predecessor’s life— 
 consequently the proofs. would have to be produced: at long 
 
 intervals—after considerable periods of time had elapsed, and | 
 
 ‘the longer a Bishop lived, the féwer.would be the number of 
 links in the chain of succession. Thus the Episcopate of the 
 late Bishop White of Pennsylvania extended through fifty. 
 ‘years’; he is therefore the only link between John Moore, arch- 
 Dishop of ellie, ore Feb. 12, 1775 and Jackson 
 
 % 
 
 va 
 
than natural. 
 
 és eae : ie  ' 
 . s. o 
 
 a - a’ 62 
 
 Kemper, the present Bishoy of isioac ednseerated by Bishop 
 
 White, Septaad, 1835. -And’hence, - -» cme 
 
 It is far easier to,trace the Episcopal succes- 
 ' Proof of offici- 
 
 a descent’ more /Stor thromgh hundreds of. years, ‘than it is for 
 
 easily,» proved any living man to, trace his descent to his. great 
 
 grandfather: ‘The truth of lineal descent, in 
 
 every step, is dependent upon the veracity of a single’ witness 
 
 and that-is the mother in each case: Whereas the truth 
 
 © 
 
 and certainty of the Episcopal succession are made:evident by 
 
 the testimony of many Witnesses to a public transaction, which 
 
 is made matter of public record. No one qtestions the succes- 
 
 sion of the, Aaronic priesthood which we all know was ttans- | 
 mitted by carnal descent; although the truth of that succes- ’ 
 sion depended in each daddenrt upon the single testimony of .a 
 woman as to.a point of which no human being besides herself . 
 could Have any certain ‘knowledge. And yet, with ‘such a 
 fact as this admitted and wunqtestioned, men who stand up 
 before the people to argue questions of theology, will in the 
 face of day, gravely assert that thre Apostolicat succession is 
 incapable ‘of proof! 
 
 Is it morally possible, think you, that any man could suc- 
 
 -cessfully. claim and exercise thé Episcopal office in the Catho- 
 
 lic Church of this country or in England at this day, without 
 showing that he had received, Kipiscopal consecration cr ordi- 
 nation? You know well what would be the fate of any such - 
 effort—you know that it would meet with the ridicule and 
 
 contempt which have. attended the foolish attempts of Dashiell 
 and George-M. West, to set up-a>pseudg-Episcopacy. If then 
 such a thing be morally impossible: now, let those who declaim 
 
 against the apostolical succession, show how ,it was merally © 
 possible in any preceding age Bi the church, acting under 
 
 identically the same. rule of Painaeh or consecration. The 
 rulé of the church of the’ first three centuries. was, as we have 
 
 already shdwn, that “a Bishop be ordained by two or three 
 Bishops ”—this rule is repeated at the general council of Nice, 
 325, A. D.—only ' with its provisions ¢ extended so as to rip t 
 Hpiscopal consecrations more difficult of performance, thereby 
 increasing the evidence to the fact in each case, in these words: 
 A Bishop ought td be constituted by all ‘the Bishops of the 
 
 - province, but if this be not practicable by reason of urgent. 
 
63: 
 
 necessity, three rust’ by-all, means meet together, and with 
 
 the consent of those that are absent, let them perform, the ordi- 
 nation” Such was the ropnjatiotbestablished in every church 
 
 ‘throughout the world—in the British, the Gallican, the Spanish, 
 
 the Roman, the Carthaginian, the Alexandrian, clue Antiochean — 
 and all others. :Such is nearly. the identical rile that vpreysts 
 in the Protestant Episcopal. Church in the United State 
 Trace the lines of Episcopal succession wherever you please, 
 that at Canterbury, at Arles or Lyons in France, or at Rome, 
 
 _or at Constantinople, and what does. it prove? Why, that these 
 churches never allowed: of any other than Episcopal conse- 
 
 ’ eration or ordination. If then the rejectors of Episcopacy will 
 
 take any of these lists and’ show where it i§ defective—if they 
 will show us cause. to ‘believe that in any one case or in any 
 
 number of cases, the rule established: throughout the church 
 has been tvidlated or neglected or evaded, we shall then have 
 
 : before us a matter admitting of ate cmnidiondlsia until this is 
 
 no 
 
 ed 
 
 ‘the Episcopal succession, they -say, has «been. 
 
 ‘referred to the alleged elevation ‘of a woman 
 
 doné, "we shall take their biotal declarations about the Ejpisco- 
 pal succession, as naked:assertions, which can only be met by 
 
 positive and direct and unequivocal denial. (Appendix B.). But 
 
 a) 
 
 The story e 
 broken. © When asked in. what instaneé, we. are ° pope Joait does 
 
 not effect this 
 question at all. 
 
 named Joan, to the Papacy in the 9th century. 
 
 - Now be it observed here that whether the story be true or 
 false, it does: not invalidate the succession even as maintained 
 
 by Romanists—much less does it oppugn the strength of the 
 
 argument and evidence which sustains the succession in the 
 
 Episcopal churches which have’ dissented from Rome. I am 
 
 “in no way conceried. to prove or disprove the truth of the story, 
 ‘otherwise than as every man’ is concerned to. know -the icer- 
 
 tainty of history; for as I shall show the succession for which 
 
 we contend, although it is indirectly connected withthe Ro- 
 
 aT, 
 
 man church, as ehiistiabiy itself--at one time was, yet it does 
 not run thighs the line of Roman Pontiffs at all_—But let us 
 consider the story itself. Mosheirp;* the ecclesiastical histo- 
 
 nit ‘Gieseler, who cares little ie the Managaiie succession, sliows that ‘te alleged 
 
 ye? of Joan, is not only apocryphal, but chronologically impossible, there being 
 8 
 
 carce any interval between’ LEO IV. and BENEDICT III. See Cunningham's 
 
 Translation, vol. ii. p. 20. (Philadelphia edition.) - 
 
 v4 : us S éF us s 
 
a) 
 
 a 
 
 . 
 ¥ 
 
 ” 
 
 ‘rian, whoke eiuthority in this. case at least will ‘not» be. ques- 
 a el says that “ between the pontificate of Leo IV. who 
 died in the year, 855, and that of Benedict IL: a’ certain 
 woman, who had the art to. disguise her ‘sex for a sonsider-. 
 
 "able. time,.és- said by ‘learning, ‘genius and dexterity, to have. 
 
 ‘made soni her way to the papal chair, and to have governed 
 the chia with the title and dignity of” pontitt ’ about two 
 years.” After stating that this story gave rise to long sand 
 ~ embittered discussion, some asserting and others denying ‘its 
 truth, he expresses his opinion, that some unusual event had 
 accnrtne at Rome, and concludes by. observing, that “ what it 
 was that, gaye rise to this story is yet to be discovered, and is 
 likely to remainso.” According to, history the whole rests 
 
 ‘upon a say so—it is at best but-a ‘flimsy argument that can 
 
 ‘be constructed. lipon so insecure a’ foundation. But take it as: 
 all true, out and out, does it invalidate the Expiscopal succes- 
 “sion ? | Not at all. na first of all, if it. did, it must.be shown’ 
 that the Popes of Rome consecrate ishons_awhigh they do 
 not—and secondly, it must:be shewn that during the two years” 
 
 ae 
 
 in which Joan is said to have swayed the papal sceptre, all the - * 
 
 _ bishops in the Roman’Church must have’ died—and that Swat 
 herself consecrated successors to them-—and this. would indeed 
 
 _churehes, that all the bishops the, world over must have died 
 “ith ‘those two years—that the churches’ in, Britain,’ France, Ger- 
 
 m ‘many, Italy; Spain, in all Greece, in all Africa, in all the East, 
 
 lost all their pipes within. these two years when Joan was 
 
 _in the papal chair. Now, willing as we are to-stretch the line , 
 
 of credulity to the measure of other, men’ s demands in. order to 
 please them, this is rather further than in-reason or in common 
 sense we: can \go. The truth is, that those who have thrown 
 ee Expiscopacy, feel bound to show, reason. for abandoning 
 
 _ a 
 
 . an institution. so ancient and attended by’so many “marks of Re 
 
 its seriptural authority; and being hard pressed. for arguments, — 
 : c 
 
 they have caught at this story about Pope Joan, which com- 
 bines the. Pesible: with the. ridiculous, to demolish the whole — 
 
 theory, as they. think, of the apostolical succession: They 
 know well that tiidioule often prevails, when solid. arguments 
 
 are lacking, and boldly asserting that a woman was Once Kore, 
 
 ms to 
 
 have broken the chain of Roman.succession. But it must be , 
 ‘ shown, thirdly, in order to, invalidate the succession im other 
 
i 65 
 
 ask what is such a succession worth ?—as though they had 
 destroyed the apostolical succession by showing that a link 
 was lacking in the Roman chain! But I would ask what 
 _ becomes of the succession in the British church ?—The bishops 
 of that church were not.consecrated by the pope of Rome— 
 the same may be asked of any other church ?2—what becomes 
 of the succession in Spain, in France, in Sweden, Denmark, 
 Norway, in Greece, in other Eastern churches? Why, had 
 _ the Pope undertaken to’ consecrate bishops for all these, he 
 ~ might have abandoned every thing else, and the triple crown 
 had sat heavily indeed on his brows—too heavily indeed for 
 any mortal to bear! ‘The truth is, as. before Theswioe 
 stated, the Pope does not consecrate bishops at sion of bishops 
 all—unless it be some in Rome or parts adja- not through the 
 ‘cent, of which I am not certainly informed one Popes of Rome. 
 way or the other,—and therefore the validity of the succession 
 ‘has nothing to do with the question who is Pope, or whether 
 _ there be any Pope at all. One remark more before quitting 
 this part of the subject: I would ask those who are so. fond of 
 ~ quoting Pope Joan and her reign of two years to destroy the 
 succession, whether the usurpation of Queen Athaliah for six 
 “years of the throne of David—and the- destruction. by her of 
 all the seed royal but Joash, vitiated the promise of God to 
 '« David that a man should not fail him to sit upon his throne ! 
 ' Did the intrusion of Athaliah for six years destroy or break 
 the line of succession of kings to come from his loins? or in- 
 validate God’s promise? - | 
 But after all, say the opponents of the apostolical succession, 
 although you make out your case by historical testimony, yet 
 the succession comes through channels so impure that we can- 
 not receive it. This objection is grounded on the eratuitous 
 ‘assumption, that the succession must be traced through the 
 - Roman pontiffs. Now, as already stated, the succession does 
 | genet run in this channel, because the pontiff does not conse- 
 
 erate. We will state here upon the authority of the Romish 
 canon law, what power the Pope does claim in reference to 
 bishops, that we may see how far his pretensions interfere, 
 if good, with the validity of the succession. “'The Pope holds 
 the place of God in the earth, so that he can confer ecclesi- 
 astical benefices without dimunition.” In opposition to this 
 
 * 
 g 
 
ao * ° 
 
 claim, Henry 8th proclaimed himself head of the realm and 
 church of England. Again. “'T’he translation, the deposition 
 or resignation of a bishop, is reserved to the Roman Pontiff . 
 ‘alone, not so much by any canonical constitution as by the 
 ‘divine institution.” It is hardly necessary to remind you that 
 ‘this claim was. long and successfully resisted by the British 
 church—and that it was ever opposed by the Greek and orien- 
 tal churches—It has ever been the policy of the Pope to dimin- 
 ish the power of bishops, and nothing has he labored more to 
 destroy than an independent Episcopacy. No barrier stands 
 so much in his way now as the. Episcopacy of the English 
 church—and that of the independent Eastern dioceses; the 
 independence of dioceses presents, in fact, the most effectual 
 check to that consolidation of power which Rome has. long 
 endeavored to effect by concentrating all rule and authority 
 in the hands of the Pope. Our own system of church govern- 
 ment in the United States is a confederacy ‘of independent 
 ‘dioceses—and like the state sovereignties, by having each its 
 own governor and legislative assembly or council, effectually 
 counteracts’ the tendency to consolidation. Once more, the 
 anon law says: “As the translation, the deposition and 
 resignation of bishops, so likewise the confirmation of those 
 who are elected, after their eléction, is reserved to the Roman 
 Pontiff alone, by reason of the spiritual bond.” Not one word 
 about consecration. ‘These are the claims of the Pope—ex- 
 orbitant enough as all will allow: but remember-that these 
 claims were not always admitted, and had they been so, we. 
 see not how the admitting of them -can destroy or corrupt the 
 succession. For although.the bishops in nearly the whole 
 of the western church did at one time yield to and acknow- 
 ledge the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff, still that did not 
 deprive or divest them of the right and authority to ordain— 
 a right’ which they always claimed in virtue of their office, 
 and which they always continued to exercise. It was. only 
 so late as the council of Trent in the 16th century, that the 
 question was agitated whether the bishops held their office 
 “de jure divino:” or “de jure pontifico”—i. e. from Christ 
 or the pope. The archbishop of Grenada strenously main- 
 tained in the council, that “wheresoever a bishop. shall be, 
 ‘whether in Rome or in Augubium, all are of the same merit, 
 
67 , 
 eae . , 
 and of the same priesthood, and all successors of the Apostles. 
 He inveighed against those who said St. Peter had ordained 
 the other apostles, bishops. He admonished the council to 
 study the scriptures and observe that power to teach through- 
 out the world, to administer the sacraments’ and to govern the 
 church, is equally given to all. And therefore as the Apostles 
 had authority, not from Peter, but from Christ, so the succes- 
 sors of the Apostles have not power from Peter, but from Christ 
 himself.” ‘The archbishop of Paris manfully upheld the same 
 
 - Sentiments, nor did they meet with opposition in the council 
 
 but from the Monks, Jesuits, Legates and Cardinals. It is 
 through these, who are not of the regular order of the clergy, 
 that the Pope has ever endeavored to enlarge and strengthen 
 his power. ‘The conclave which elects the Pope 
 ‘ ‘ ‘ ; F , By whom is 
 consists of seventy cardinals in all, of which six the Pope him- 
 only are bishops, fifty of them are priests and the Self elected? 
 rest deacons: from which it is clear that he relies much more 
 upon the presbytery, than any thing else, for the gift and main- 
 tenance of his authority. | og > 
 - But suppose for argument’s sake that the succession does 
 come through the Roman church—that the Pope did confirm 
 the election of bishops, and order their consecration by other 
 bishops, which is the utmost that can. be said, does this invali- 
 date or-vitiate the succession? Why, we might just as well 
 say that the pure faith or doctrine of the scriptures, which all 
 the reformed churches now teach, is. corrupted and. vitiated, 
 because it passed through the hands of the Romanists. ‘They 
 had in ‘their keeping at one time the Bible, to the very same 
 extent that they had in their keeping the power of ordination. 
 Tf the word of salvation has been transmitted to us through 
 
 their instrumentality, and we now have it in its simplicity and 
 
 ae 
 
 integrity, why may we not have the authority to administer 
 
 that word, transmitted through the same channel, in its integ- 
 rity also? Werte the doctrine and sacranients of Christ’s reli- 
 gion corrupted by the church of Rome ?—so was the order of 
 the gospel. Were these corruptions rejected and thrown off 
 at the reformation, in respect to the faith of the gospel?—so 
 were they also in respect to the order of the Gospel ministry. 
 So that there exists not one reason for rejecting Episcopacy 
 because of its’ having passed through the Roman church, that 
 
68 
 
 does not apply with equal strength on the same grounds, for 
 rejecting the Gospel itself. — 
 The idea that the succession is vitiated by its 
 The succes- ’ : ; 
 sion not pollut- having come through an impure channel, gains 
 ed by the me- no countenance whatever from the sentiments 
 dium through } : : 
 which it is and practice of men in other things. ‘Thus the 
 brought down truth of God was not less his truth because it 
 was proclaimed by Balaam and afterwards by 
 Judas. ‘The sacrament of baptism.is not less a sacrament to 
 him -who receives it, because the minister who performs it, 
 shall afterwards prove to be an unholy and wicked man. His 
 - wickedness furnishes a just reason for depriving him of office, 
 but affects not the validity of the act which he executed, by 
 virtue ‘of the delegated authority with which he was invested. 
 If it were otherwise—if our faith were directed to the minis- 
 ter and not to Christ, the institutor of the ordinance—and if 
 we cannot be certain of receiving the sacraments until posi- 
 tively certified and assured of the piety of him who adminis- 
 ters them, we never can be certain of receiving them at all. 
 Again, take the position that the channel of transmission cor- 
 rupts that. which descends through it, and what do you make 
 of the holy Saviour of the world? 'T'race the line of succession 
 through which the promised deliverer, the holy seed of salva- 
 tion, came according to the flesh, and then ask yourselves, are 
 you prepared to admit the principles contended for? ‘There is 
 in the line of the Saviour’s ancestry, Rahab, the-harlot—Tha- 
 mar, who sought and obtained incestuous connexion with her 
 own father-in-law.—T here is Ruth, the Moabitess, the offspring 
 of Lot’ and his own daughter—there is Bathsheba, the wife 
 of Uriah the Hittite, who admitted the adulterous embraces of 
 David. If then the promised seed of. redemption was neither 
 tainted nor destroyed by transmission through this line of an- 
 cestral succession—and it would be impious to say so—why 
 should it be supposed that the spiritual seed for the ministra- 
 tion of salvation has suffered injury or been destroyed, because 
 some of the agents for transmitting it have shown themselves 
 as unworthy of the high honor vouchsafed to them, as those 
 pointed out in the line iv the Saviour’s ancestry ? 
 But let us carry the principle contended for, to its draeea 
 results, by applying it to those who most Monel urge its force. 
 
69 
 
 The bishops of the British church were in communion with 
 the Church of Rome, and Rome being a corrupt church, there- 
 fore ordination by the British bishops ‘is worth nothing. We 
 might ask here, what then was the worth of Mr. Wesley’s ordi- 
 nation, since Hie received it from a British bishop ? But we 
 will let that pass for the present. 
 
 The great plea which the Methodists put in to "The Metho- 
 justify theli separation from the church, and their Ree ot 
 setting up a different communion, was that the 
 
 Church of England was a corrupt church. In the letter of 
 the Methodist bishops to their members prefixed to their book 
 of discipline, they quote the words of the Messrs. Wesley, say- 
 ing, “ God then (1737) thrust them’ out to raise a holy people.” 
 In ch. i. s. 1. they speak of being convinced “ that there was a 
 great deficiency of vital religion in the Church of England 
 in America.” 'The book of ‘asc sHne proceeds to state that 
 Mr. John Wesley did “solemnly set apart by the imposition 
 of his hands, and prayer,» Thomas Coke, Doctor of civil law, 
 late of Jesus College, in the University of Oxford, and a 
 Presbyter of the Church of England, for the E'piscopal 
 office.”* Now if the plea of corruption can be made good 
 against the Church of England, and there was.“a great defi- 
 ciency of vital piety” in “h so that the Methodists felt con- 
 Stramed to withdraw and set up for themselves, I desire to ask 
 whether Mr. Wesley’s maintaining communion with this cor- 
 -rupt church, deficient as it was “in vital piety,” and his con- 
 M, tinuing in that communion to the day of his death, and his 
 declaring that he believed it the purest national church in the 
 _ world—whether all this does not destroy the validity of his 
 ordination of 'Thomas Coke, L. L. D., Fellow of Jesus College, 
 ee &e. dc. &c. In a word, if communion with Rome 
 ~ destroy, because of Rome’s corruptions, the ministerial author- 
 ity—does not the communion of Mr. Wesley with the Church 
 of England destroy, because of its corruptions, his authority to 
 ordain also? If the principle contended for avail in one case, 
 why not in both? If not in both, why in either? 
 
 - We are not concerned to answer these questions, Brethren: 
 
 Nor are we disposed to press the subject further at) present 
 
 upon the attention of those whose sensibility is the more sanor 
 
 ~ 
 
 ** See Appendix C. 
 
P ) 
 70 
 excited, Brion investigation is directed to the weak points of 
 their system, The man whose title deeds are defective,,above 
 all others, is sensitive to any, intimation of a flaw of which 
 he is Banralle conscious himself. And so it is in religious — 
 systems: the upholders of them know their defects, and these 
 they keep out of view and manifest any thing’ but a gracious 
 temper towards those who would examine into them. \ 
 A summary - In conclusion, we would just remind you, that 
 of the argu- we have showed from scripture that the office of 
 ment: the points Rs ‘ : 
 raised and de- the ministry is a delegated authority, and that the 
 aoe ministry of the Apostolic church consisted of three 
 orders, We have endeavored to establish by argument, that 
 a ministry thus constituted was left, by the apostles in the 
 church when they quitted the earth. We have arrayed: be- 
 fore you the testimony of credible: witnesses to prove that this 
 ministry, So constituted, was continued in the church till such 
 time as is ace on all hands, that it prevailed uni- 
 versally and without a single exception in any country. We 
 have argued, and as we think conclusively, that 1t was morally 
 impossible for the chain-of Episcopal succession to be broken, 
 and that any such alleged interruption is destitute of proof. 
 We have considered the objection grounded on: the papal .cor- 
 ruptions to vitiate of invalidate the succession, and shown that 
 it is without force. It may bé asked then whether, if the posi- 
 tion we take upon this subject be made good, we do not wn- 
 church all other denominations of Christians and leave them 
 DoEpiscopa- £0 the uncovenanted mercies of God? I reply, 
 lians unchurch in the first place, we do not wachurch them. It 
 ce ae is an inference which those make who, by a vol- 
 untary act of their own, have separated themselves from that 
 order of the gospel hile we Have endeavored to prove was 
 established in the primitive church. It is therefore unjust. and 
 ungenerous to charge us with consequences which do not flow 
 from any act of ours, but which are the legitimate results of 
 their own deliberate proceedings. We have endeavored in 
 every possible way consistent with christian charity, to prevent 
 these divisions—and: come what may—charge upon us what- 
 
 or act, give any countenance or sanction, to the infidel maxim 
 that division into sects is advantageous to the cause of truth 
 en J 
 
* Mae ‘ 
 
 TE" 
 
 and piety, while the affecting prayer of Christ for the unity 
 
 ef his church, shall be received and acknowledged as part 
 and parcel of divine revelation. “Neither pray I for these 
 
 alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through 
 
 their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in 
 me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in. us: that the 
 world may believe that thou hast sent me.”* No, we shall do 
 all we can. by declaring the truth in the love of it, and by fair 
 argument—by instructing those who oppose themselves to us, 
 
 in the spirit of "meekness—and by endeavoring to keep the 
 
 unity.of the spirit in the bond of peace, to bring all believers 
 to “that agreement in the faith and knowledge of, God, and 
 that ripeness and perfectness of age in Christ, that there be 
 left no place among them, either for error’in religion, or for 
 Viciousness -in. life.’”’+ 
 
 How far the various bodies of professed chris- If we must. 
 
 express an o- 
 tians around us, united under rules and regula- neat Ss ott: 
 
 tions for their government, which they have «itis this. 
 drawn from the word of God, and sanctioned by what they 
 honestly; believe. to be a just and fair interpretation, of its 
 meaning—how far they are to be regarded as churches of 
 Christ, I shall not undertake to say. I honestly think it is a 
 matter admitting of serious question. While I freely concede 
 that some of them preach the faith of the gospel, and that this 
 faith, wherever received, will manifest, and does in them mani- 
 
 fest, its appropriate fruits in righteousness—in charity—and in 
 _ hope—-still candor obliges me to declare, that in the exercise of 
 the best reason and judgment which God has given me, and 
 
 enlightened by all the information which the most diligent 
 -search has afforded to my mind, I think them destitute of an 
 essential feature or mark of the visible Catholic church. of 
 
 Christ: that)is, a ministry, deriving authority to act in the 
 
 appointments of religion, from the Apostles. At the, same 
 
 time, I grant that their ecclesiastical organizations have all the 
 
 force and obligation, on those who Naas submitted to their au- 
 
 thority, which the most solemn vows and engagements can 
 bring upon the soul. "heir ordinances, administered by the 
 ministry which they have—such for example, as baptism and 
 the Lord’s. supper—are to those who receive them, with the 
 
 understanding they have of their nature and apiearone prop-_ 
 
 ® St. John xvii. 20, 21. + Ordinal. 
 
 beg" 
 
oo 
 
 erly sacraments—just as much so.as an oath taken before a 
 _ private citizen, instead of a magistrate or judge, is binding on 
 the conscience of him who takes it—See Appendix D. 
 * And now is there just reason to charge upon such sentiments 
 the odium of illiberality and uncharitableness? » It is often said 
 that the’ differences among christians are unimportant—not of 
 that grave and serious character to cause emulations, strifes and 
 divisions. If so, why do not those who have gone out from us, 
 return? and why ‘should every attempt like the present, to 
 state the true grounds of difference be frowned upon as ungra- 
 cious and be met by the weapons which calumny employs against 
 
 stubborn facts, honest statements and candid and fair argu-) 
 
 ments? We have no wish whatever to multiply causes of 
 difference between ourselves and other denominations of chris- 
 tians. On the contrary, the terms of communion which the 
 FEipiscopal church requires are so free and liberal, as more _fre- 
 quently to give others occasion to charge her with laxity, than 
 afford fair opportunity to them, as she justly does, to commend 
 her catholic spirit—-she offers no disputed points in theology as 
 tests to her members of the soundness of their christian charac- 
 ter, but stating the facts and doctrines of the Apostles’ creed as 
 the articles of her faith, and inculcating charity, she prays: for 
 “all who profess and call themselves christians, that they may 
 be led into the way of truth, and hold the faith in unity of spirit, 
 in the bond of peace and in righteousness of life.” She goes 
 further, and in accordance with the Apostle’s directions that 
 prayers and supplications be offered up for all men—the lan- 
 ‘guage of her liturgy is that it “may please God to have mercy 
 upon all men.” She stops not here, but in obedience to the 
 blessed Saviour’s injunctions and in the spirit of his meek and 
 lowly example, iustructs.us to ‘pray “that it may please thee 
 to forgive our enemies, persecutors and ies. and to turn 
 their hearts.” , 
 
 Such is the-spirit 1 pray may rule ever,more in my heart-- 
 and. while I'shall “contend earnestly for the faith once deliv- 
 ered to the saints,” and “speak the truth boldly as I-ought to 
 speak,” God being my helper, I shall endeavor to utter not a 
 word or sentiment Inconsistent with the spirit of sincerity and 
 truthin which that prayer should be offered. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 A. p. 60. “TI allow that each state ought to have one bishop 
 of its own by divine right ; which I show from Paul, saying 
 —‘ for this cause left I ‘thee in Crete”” M. Luther. 
 
 “The bishops might easily retain the obedience due unto 
 
 | them, if they urged us not to keep those traditions which we 
 cannot keep with a good conscience.” Melancthon. 
 
 “We have often protested that we do greatly approve the 
 ecclesiastical polity and degrees in the church, and as much 
 as lieth in us, do desire to conserve them.” cea stn! 
 
 “I would to God 1t lay in me to restore the government of 
 bishops. For I see what manner of church we shall have, 
 the ecclesiastical polity being dissolved. I do see that here- 
 after will grow up in the ah ath a greater tyranny than there 
 ever was before.” Melancthon. 
 
 “ By what right or law may we dissolve the ecclesiastical 
 polity, if the. Bistichs will grant to us, that which in reason 
 they ought to grant?’ And if it were lawful for us to do so, 
 papecty it were not expedient. gay was ever of .this 
 
 . . opinion.” Melancthon. 
 
 ~.. ““Zuingle hay sent Hither in print, his confession of faith. 
 
 » You would say neither more nor less, than that he is not in ~ 
 his senses. At one stroke, he would abolish all ceremonies, 
 and he would have no Bishops.” Melancthon. 
 
 “If they will give us such an hierarchy, in which the 
 bishops have arg a pre-eminence as that they do not refuse 
 to be subject unto Christ, I will confess that ther y are worthy 
 of all anathemas, if any such there be, who will not reve- 
 rence it, and submit themselves to ye the utmost obe- 
 dience.” Calvin. 
 
 Of Calvin’s Episcopal opinions, Mons. Daille, a French 
 protestant divine thus writes—“ Calvin honored all bishops that 
 were not subjects of the Pope, such as were the -prelates of 
 
 England. We confess that the foundation of their charge is 
 10 
 
74 
 
 good and lawful, established by the Apne according to the 
 command of Christ.” Bingham’s French Church’s Apology 
 for the Church of England. 
 
 Mons. De L’Angle, another divine of the same church, thus 
 writes to the bishop of London: “Calvin, in his treatise of the 
 necessity of the Reformation, makes no difficulty to say, that 
 if there should be any so wnreasonable as to refuse the com- 
 munion of a church that was pure in its worship and doctrine, 
 and not to submit himself with respect to its government, under 
 pretence, that it had retained an Episcopacy qualified as yours 
 is, there would be no censure or rigor of discipline that ought 
 not to be exercised upon them.” Be eacars dnbeasonahie 
 ness of separation, at the end.“ 
 
 “ Tt was essential that by the perpetual ordination of God, 
 it was, it is, and it will be necessary, that some one in the 
 presbytery, chief both in place and dignity, should preside to 
 govern -the proceedings s, by that right which is. gwen him 
 of God.” Beza. 
 
 Ln tay writings touching chureh government, I ever ‘im- 
 pugned.the Remish hierar che but never intended to touch or 
 impugn the ecclesiastical polity of the church of Hngland.s 
 Beza. ¢ 
 
 If there are any, as you will not easily persuade me, who 
 would reject the whole order cf:bishops, God forbid that any 
 man in his. senses should assent to their madness—* Let her 
 (Church of England) enjoy that singular blessing (Episcopacy) 
 of God, which I pray may be perpetual” Beza. 
 
 “ By the perpetual observation of all churches, even from the 
 Apostles’ times, we sce, that it seemed eu to the Holy 
 Ghost, that among Re ee to whom the procuration of 
 churches was" ee committed, there should be one that 
 
 should have the care or charge of divers churches, and the . 
 
 whole ministry committed to him; and by reason of that 
 charge he was above the rest; and therefore the name of 
 bishop was attributed pectin to those chief rulers.” Bis 
 cer de cura, &e. 
 
 Of the Episcopate, therefore, that is, as superiority of one 
 - Pastor above the rest, we first peeing that it is repugnant to 
 no divine law. If any one think otherwise, that is, if any one 
 condemn the whole ancient church of folly or even of impiety, 
 
 ’ 
 ) 
 . ; tp 
 ." ine % 
 
 Pi 4 * 
 
 alk 
 
eee, 
 
 re 
 
 the burden of pioof beyond doubt lies upon him; &c. The 
 very ministry instituted by the Apostles sufficiently proves that 
 equality of the Ecclesiastical offices was not commanded by 
 Christ. We, therefore, first-lay down this, which is undoubt- 
 edly: true, that it, (viz: the ‘Episcopate or superiority of one 
 Pastor above the rest,) neither can or ought to be found fault 
 with; in which we have agreeing with us, Zanchius, Chemni- 
 tius, Tenarnains, Calvin, Melancthon, Byer. and even Beza, 
 as thu far he says, that one certain person chosen by the judg- 
 ment of the rest of his co-presbyters was anal,9 over the pres- 
 bytery and was permanently so. 
 
 Another is, that that Episcopate, which we treat of, was 
 received by the universal church. .This appears from all the 
 councils, whose authority, now likewise is very great among the 
 pious. It appears also. from an examination of the, councils 
 either national or provincial, of which there is almost none 
 
 ‘which does not show manifest signs of Kpiscopal superiority. 
 
 All the fathers, without exception, testify the same, of .whom 
 he who shows least defference to the Episcopate is Jerome, 
 himself not. a bishop, but a presbyter. "Therefore the testimony 
 of him alone.is sufficient :. “It was decreed through the whole 
 world that one chosen from the presbyters should be set over 
 the rest, to whom all care of the church should belong.” In- 
 deed this error of Aerius was condemned by the whole church, 
 that he said that a Presbyter ought to be distinguished from 
 a bishop by no difference. .Jerome himself, in’ reply to him, 
 who had written that there is no difference between a bishop 
 and a presbyter, answered, this is unskilfully enough to make 
 shipwreck in port, as it is said. Even Zanchius acknowl- 
 edges the agreement of the whole church in this matter. 
 
 The third thing is this, that the Episcopate had its com- 
 mencement in the time of tha Apostles. The catalogues of the 
 bishops in Irenzus, Eusebius, Socrates, Theodoret, md others, 
 all of which begin in the Apostolic age, testify this. But to 
 refuse credit in a historical matter to so great authors, and so 
 unanimous among themselves, is not the part of any but an 
 irreverent ahd se aeben dafpiition. For that is just as if you 
 should deny that it was true, what all histories of the omans 
 declare, that the consulate began from the expelled ‘Tarquins. 
 But let us hear Jerome again: “At Alexandria,” he says, “from 
 
16 
 
 Mark the Evangelist the presbyters always named one chosen 
 from themselves, placed in a higher degree, bishop.” 
 
 Mark died in the 8th year of Nero: to whom succeeded 
 Anianus, to Anianus* Abilius, to Abilius Cerdo, the Apostle 
 John being yet alive. After the death of James, Simeon had 
 the Episcopate of Jerusalem: after the death of Peter and Paul, 
 Linus, Anacletus, and Clemens had the Roman; and Euodius 
 and Ignatius, that of Antioch, the:same Apostle still living. 
 This ancient history is surely not to be despised, to which 
 Ignatius himself, the contemporary of the Apostles, and Justin 
 Martyr and Ireneeus, who followed him next, afford the most 
 open testimony which there is no need to transcribe. ‘ Now 
 indeed, says Cyprian, ‘bishops are appointed in all the 
 provinces and in every city.’ 
 
 Let the fourth be, that this bishop was approved of by the 
 Divine law, or (as Bucer says) it seemed good to the Holy 
 Spirit that one among) the presbyters should have special 
 charge. ‘The divine revelation affords to this assertion an 
 argument not to be ‘withstood; for Christ himself commands 
 it to be written to the seven angels of the Asiatic churches. 
 Those who understand the churches themselves by the angels 
 manifestly contradict the sacred writings. For the candle- 
 sticks are the churches, says Christ: but the stars are the 
 angels of the seven churches. It is wonderful whither the 
 humor of contradicting may not carry men, when they dare to 
 confound those things which the Holy Spirit so evidently dis- 
 tinguished. We do not deny that the name of angel may be 
 suited to every Pastor in a certain general signification: but 
 here it is manifestly written to one in every church. Was 
 there therefore only ‘one~Pastor in every city? No, indeed. 
 For even in Paul’s time many presbyters were appointed at 
 Ephesus to feed the church of God. (Acts xx. 17, 18.) Why, 
 therefore, are letters sent to one person in every church, if no 
 one had a certain peculiar and eminent function?” After 
 showing that some of the ancient Fathers, and among the Re- 
 formers, Bullinger, Beza, Rainoldus, agree with him in the 
 representation: he says, “Christ, therefore, writing to those 
 bishops, thus eminent among the clergy, undoubtedly approved 
 of this Episcopal superiority.” Grotius. 
 
 To the statements and argument of this learned presbyterian, 
 
17 
 
 we need not add any thing: They must be hard indeed to con- 
 vince who are proof against the facts and reasoning of Grotius. 
 
 The foregoing extracts are quoted from a small but exceed- 
 ingly valuable compilation by the bishop of New-Jersey, en- 
 titled “a word for the church,” to which the reader is “ benev- 
 olently” recommended. 'To obtain it, will cost very little, and 
 its perusal may confer lasting and inappreciable. benefit. 
 
 ‘ “i 
 
 B. p. 63. “ Despairing of justifying their ordinations from 
 . the scriptures, the resort of dissenters is to a denial of the epis- 
 copal succession. But by this very denial they show how im- 
 portant itis. Now that there has been a body of men in the 
 world called bishops ever since the days of the Apostles, is as 
 undeniable as that there has been a body of christians. One 
 may as well deny the continuance of the human race, or the 
 succession of the generations of men as the continuance and 
 -suceession of bishops. ‘The succession of bishops as a body of 
 men, then, has never been broken. But it is alledged that the 
 succession has been vitiated by irregular RAmissions, thus 
 violating the law upon which it depends. But what if the 
 allegation were true? Suppose there have been men profess- 
 ing and acknowledged to be members of the christian church, 
 who have never been baptized, is not he who is truly baptized, 
 now amember of the church? Suppose that men have occa- 
 sionally assumed the office of a presbyter, and been allowed 
 to exercise the duties and functions of that office without any 
 ordination at all, is he who is regularly ordained in this age 
 any the less a penal on that account? Does the invalidity 
 of his orders or the fact of his having had no orders, annihi- 
 late the order in the ministry to which he pretended to belong ? 
 Most certainly not. Neither could the fact (if there were such 
 an one) that some men have been received as bishops without 
 a regular ordination to the Episcopate, — “destroy the order of 
 bpighaa ps, or make him who is regularly, ordained in this age 
 any the less a bishop, than if no such irregularity had ever 
 occurred. ‘ But suppose they could prove that the order was 
 lost, what would they gain? Simply a freedom from the 
 restraint of God’s laws, a liberty to follow the decrées and 
 desires of their own hearts. 
 
78 
 
 But let us haste to notice the eis breaks in the snc- 
 cession. 4, 
 1. “Tt is not enough to state the fact in a general manner; 
 you must trace the succession in every individual case. , You 
 are a priest: I go to you for baptism, for instance. I must 
 closely examine your authority: by whom were you ordained ? 
 By the Bishop of Vermont. By whom was the Bishop of 
 Vermont ordained? (consecrated.) And by whom was that 
 individual ordained? and so on. Are you prepared to answer 
 these questions? Have you the documents to prove your legit- 
 imate pastoral descent from Jesus Christ? Can you. establish 
 -your ecclesiastical pedigree beyond all controversy? I ask 
 
 nothing unnecessary. 
 
 1. To this, I reply that it is mot necessary to trace the suc- 
 cession in every individual case, because every bishop had 
 three to ordain him, and they had nine, and so on. Thus 
 the individual succession. becomes, in two or three genera- 
 tions, merged in the general succession, and if there were but 
 one sound and valid Bishop in a nation or a church a few 
 generations back, all their bishops would be sound and -valid 
 now. For instance: it appears from an actual comparison of 
 the table: of the American succession, that if only one of the 
 bishops in this country forty years ago had been valid, all would 
 be so now; for they can all trace their succession to him. 
 
 2. I can give the succession in the individual case, taking 
 only one in the line, whereas there are in fact never less than 
 three. Hopkins, GriswoLtp, Wuire—Moore of Canterbury, 
 in England; thence by the line of Canterbury, eighty-seven 
 names, to Aucusting, A. D. 596. From Augustine, through 
 Lyons, to Potycarp of Smyrna, thirty-one names, and Poly- 
 carp was ordained by Sv. Jon, and St. John by Jzsus 
 Curist. Again, by the same line, I go back to T'heodore, 
 ninth archbishop of Canterbury, A. D. 688, eighty-nine names 
 from ‘Bishop Hopkins: and thence, by the Bishops of Rome, 
 seventy-six names, to Sr. Perer, who. was ordained by 
 "Curist. Again, by the same line, I go back to Cuiceny, | 
 A. D. 1414, twenty-nine names; wid thence by St. Davids 
 to Davin, A. D. 519, sixty-six names, thence by Jerusalem, to 
 Sr. James and the rest of rue Aposriss, fifty-one names, | 
 
 Thus Bishop Hopkins, from whom d had my orders is the 
 
 + 
 
 » 
 
s 
 
 : 
 
 79 
 
 121st from Sr. Joun, giving about 14 years for each bishop: 
 165th from Sr. Perer, about 10 years for each bishop: 146th 
 from Str. James, and the rest of the apostles a at Jerusalem about 
 12 years for Seas bishop. 
 
 I have omitted the names in each line of succession for 
 brevity’s sake; but if my friends’ incredulity will not be over- 
 come without, I will furnish every one.” 
 
 REV. W. D. WILSON. 
 
 Banner of the Cross, June, 10, 1843. 
 
 “But the question is often cl can the succession be 
 
 traced up step by step to the Apostles? Is there no breach in 
 
 it which would invalidate the whole? The Master’s promise 
 ‘lo! Tam with you alway, even to the end of the world,’ is 
 enough to assure the humble believer, that no such oh 
 has occurred, or can occur to the end of the world. Besides, 
 the utmost pains have always been taken in every branch af 
 the church to keep the succession regular and pure. Diocesan 
 succession’ and Apostolical succession are two distinct things. 
 As in Maryland, for example, we have had four Bishops, but 
 
 ‘no one of them has been concerned in the consecration of his 
 
 successor. -So that a vacancy or interregnum in a particular 
 Diocese—or in. fifty or an hundred dioceses, even of long con- 
 tinuance, does not affect the succession. in the least. One of 
 the Apostolical canons enjoins, that two or three Bishops, at 
 least, shall unite in every consecration. The succession there- 
 fore does not depend upon a line of single Bishops in. one Dio- 
 cese running back to the Apostles—because every Bishop has 
 had at least three to ordain him either one of whom had power 
 to perpetuate the succession. How rapidly do the securities 
 multiply as we go back! Bishop Whittingham had three to 
 ordain him; his ordainers had nine; at the third step. there 
 were twenty-seven: at the fourth eighty-one: at the fifth two 
 hundred and forty-three: and so on increasing in a three fold 
 proportion. Now if any one of the entire number to whom 
 
 Bishop W’s. consecration may be traced back had a valid ordi- 
 
 nation, the succession is in him, and he can transmit it to any 
 other in whose consecration he may assist. 
 
 ‘The securities therefore are incalculably strong, and the 
 lain of any duly consecrated bishop to the Apostolic suc- 
 cession, is more certain than that of any monarch upon earth 
 
 * 
 
¥ vr. 
 
 80. 
 
 to his hereditary crown. Lists of the Apostolical succession, 
 
 in descent from the different Apostles, have been carefully 
 
 preserved by Eusebius and other early writers—-and they 
 
 Sl 
 eka 
 ‘eo. ‘ 
 
 have been continued in different lines down to the present 
 
 day. Any reader who desires to consult them, is referred to 
 Percival on Apostolical succession, and Chapin’s primitive 
 church. Rome may trace its line to St. Peter—the Greeks to 
 St. Paul—the Syrians and Nestorians to St. Thomas and the 
 American Episcopal church to St. Joun. 
 
 Bishop White, the head of the American line of Paitin was 
 consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury We will there- 
 fore present a list beginning with St. John, and coming through 
 the Episcopate of Lyons, in France or shank and that of Can- 
 terbury in England, till it connects with ours in the United 
 States of America. 
 
 St. JoHn. 3 
 
 1. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. CANTERBURY. 
 
 Bishops of Lyons. 39 A. D. 596, AUGUSTINE, mis- 
 1. Pothinus. 33 sionary to the Anglo Sax- 
 2. Ireneus. ons, was consecrated by 
 3. Gacharias. St Virgilius, 24th Bishop of 
 4. Elias. J i: Arles, assisted by Aitheri- 
 5. Faustinus. | des us, 3lst Bishop of Lyons. 
 6. Verus. 34.. Lawrence, 1 NOE Be NR GY 8 
 7. Julius. 35. Mellitus, < 619. 
 8. Ptolemy. 36. Justus, a 624. 
 9. Vocius. 37. Honorius, ae 634. 
 10. Maximus. 38. Adeodatus, ye 654. 
 11. Tetradus. | . 39. Theodore, - gs 688. 
 12. Verissimus. 40. Brithwald, a. & 693. 
 13. Justus. 41. Tatwine, es RES 
 14. Albinus. . 42. Nothelm, “Brees TOD: 
 15. Martin. 43. Cuthbert, Rs 742. 
 16. Antiochus. 44. Bregwin, MES 759. 
 17. Elpidius. _ | 45. Lambert, n 763. 
 18. Sicarius. é . | 46. Athelred, 1. “ 793. 
 19. Eucherius, 1. 47. Wulfred, : f+ BOS. 
 20. Patiens._ . 48. Theogild or Feogild, ‘ 830. 
 21. Lupieuug. > -  Consecrated June 5th, and 
 22. Rusticus. died Sept. 3rd. 
 23. Stephanus. 49. Ceolnoth, Sept, Tl. “830. 
 24. Viventiolus. P 50.. Aethelred, 2. “ 871. 
 25. Eucherius, 2 a 51. Phlegmund, “ 891. 
 26. Lupus. : . 52. Anthelm bs hak 923 
 27. Licontius. Adelm, : . 
 28. Sacerdos. 53. Wulfelm, ‘ es 928. 
 29. Nicetus. 4 54. Odo Severus, ss 941. 
 30. Priscus. 55. Dunstan, & 959. 
 
 31. Attherius, A. D. 589.. 56. Althelgar, As: 988. 
 
8] 
 
 67. Siricus, “ 989.) 90. Wm. Courtney, “ © 1381. 
 58. Aluricus or “|. gag 91. Thos, Arundle, at 1396. 
 - Alfricus, : 92. Henry Chichely, ‘“ 1414, 
 59. Elphege, “1005. | 93. John Stafford, tit, 1443. 
 60, Living or 94. Jonn Kemp, ad EA 5D. 
 -  Leoning or _ 1013. | 95. Thos. Bourcher, ‘“ 1454. 
 Elkskan, 96. John Morton, ‘6 1486. 
 
 61. Agelnoth or Aithelst, “ 1020. 97. Henry Dean, v6 1501. 
 62. Edsin or Elsin, vs 1038. 98. Wm. Wareham, ‘“ 1503. 
 63. Robert Gemeticensis, “ 1050. | 99. THos. Cranmer, » 1538. 
 64. Stigand, —  .° 1052. | 100, Reginald Pole, Pig L555." 
 65. Lanfranc, i 1077. | 101. Matthew Parker, ‘ 1559. 
 66. Anselm, “ 1093. |.102. Ed. Grindall, Dec. ‘* ° 1573. 
 67. Rodulph, “ 1114. | 103. John Whitgift, >“ 1583. 
 68. Wm. Corboil, y- 46 1122. | 104. Richard Bancroft, “ +1604. 
 69. Theobold, ‘**  °1138. | 105. George Abbott, is 1611. 
 70. ‘Thomas a Becket, “ ‘°1162..| 106. Wm. Land, © co SE 1Gaos 
 71. Richard, at 1174. | 107. Wm. Juxon, ‘6 1660. 
 72. Baldwin Fordensis, “ . 1184. | 108. Gilbert Sheldon, ‘ — 1663. 
 73. Reginald Fitz Joceline, | 1191. | 109.. Wm. Sancroft, 66 1677. 
 74. Hubert Walten, * 1193. | 110. John Tillotson, 6 1691. 
 75. Stephen Langton, “ 1207. | 111. ‘Thos. Tennison, ‘“ 1694 
 -76.. Richard Wethersfield, 1229, | 112. Wm. Wake, corey Tee 
 77..Edmund, w& =. 1234. 1°113. John Potter, Ot aT wed 7 
 78. Boniface, 4 1245, | 114. Thos, Secker, 6s 1738. 
 79. Rob. Kilwarby, ©1272. |. 115; Thos, Herrind, bs 1747. 
 80. John Peckham, =“ 1278. | 116. Matthew Hutton, “ 1757. 
 81. Rob. Winchesly, + 1294. | 117. Frederick Cornwallis, 1768. 
 ‘82. Walter Regnold, “ — - 1313. | 118. John Moore, ae 1783. 
 83. Simon Mepham. ‘« 1328. | 119. from. St. John is Winiam 
 #4. John Startford, ts 1333. | Waite of Pennsylvania, consecrated 
 85. Thos. Bradwardine, ‘ 1348. | February the 4th, 1787, by John 
 86. Simon Islip, iy 1349. | Moore, Archbishop ef Canterbury, 
 
 87. Simon Langham, <‘“ 1366. | assisted by the Archbishop of York, 
 88. Wm. Whittlesey, .“‘ 1368. |the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and 
 89. Simeon Sudbury, a pees. the Bishop of Peterborough. 
 
 The compilers of the ‘lists from which the above was taken 
 have consulted the best authorities, and no more doubt of its 
 authenticity can be entertained, than’ of any chronological table 
 of historical events, or list of the sovereigns of any country, 
 drawn from its’ bincial registers and archives. ‘The dates: at- 
 tached to the names of the Archbishops of Canterbury, indi- | 
 cate, in several instances, not the time of their consecration but 
 of their translation to that see.” Rev. Dr. Hansiaw. 
 
 ie p. 69. The: fojtowrtngs! exttacts will. not. be without initer- 
 
 est to those concerned to investigate the claims of Methodist 
 Episcopacy. ' | 
 
 “To all {toy whom these presents shall come, John Wesley, 
 
 od Eas 
 
#4 
 
 82 
 
 late fellow of Lincoln College in Oxford, Presbyter~of the 
 Church of England, sendeth greeting: Whereas many of the 
 people in the southern provinces in North America, who desire 
 to continue under my care, and still adhere to the doctrine and 
 discipline of the Church of England, are greatly distressed 
 for want of ministers to administer the sacraments of baptism 
 and the Lord’s supper according to the usage of the same 
 church; and whereas there does not appear to be any other 
 way of supplying them with ministers— | 
 Know all men, that I, John Wesley, think myself to be 
 providentially galled at this time to set apart some persons for 
 the work of the ministry in America. And therefore, under 
 the protection of Almighty God, and with a single eye to -his 
 glory, | have this day set apart as a superintendent, by, the 
 imposition’ of my hands and prayer, being assisted by other 
 ordained ministers, Thomas Coke, doctor of civil law, a pres- 
 byter of the Church of England, and aman whom I judge 
 to be well qualified for that great work. And I do hereby 
 recommend him to all whom it may concern as a fit person 
 to preside over the flock of Christ. In testimony whereof, I 
 have hereunto set my hand and seal, this second day of Sep- 
 tember 1784. JOHN WESLEY. 
 
 Mr. Wesley being only a Presbyter, and ‘Thomas Coke being 
 also a Presbyter of the Church of England, we may surely 
 with reason ask, what additional power or authority could 
 Wesley’s imposition of hands ¢onfer on Coke? Might not 
 Coke, being a Presbyter, just with the same propriety have 
 
 laid handé on Wesley? If presbyter and bishop, be the same 
 
 order, as is contended, then what use or reason was there Yor 
 ordaining Coke? If piesbyat and bishop be not the same, 
 
 then Wesley being no bishop could not confer the episcopal 
 
 office on Coke. 
 
 Under the commission of Wesley as above, Dr. Coke came 
 to America and met the Methodist conference at Baltimore. 
 In the space of forty-eight hours. he ordained Mr. Asbury dea- 
 
 ‘con, presbyter and ‘bishop, and afterwards united with him in 
 
 an address to General Washingianccniiis and Asbury signing 
 the address as bishops. 
 In what light Mr..Wesley regarded this assumption of the 
 
83 
 
 title of bishop by his superintendents may be seen from the 
 following extract of a letter addressed by him to Mr. Asbury, 
 under date of September 20th, 1788. 
 
 “One instance of this, your greatness, has given me great 
 concern. How can you, how dare you suffer yourself to be 
 ealled bishop? I shudder and start at the very thought. 
 For my sake, for God’s sake, for Christ’s sake, pu a fuil end 
 to this.” 
 
 Let us now see what estimate Dr. Coke hitnself put upon 
 
 his ordination as a Bishop. In a letter addressed to Bishop 
 
 White of Pennsylvania, dated April 24, 1791, nearly two 
 months after the death of Mr. Wesley, an event ‘of which he 
 had not then heard, he proposes a reunion of the Methodists 
 with the church, and says “I do not think that the generality 
 of them, (the Methodist Ministers) perhaps none of them would 
 refuse to submit to a re-ordination, if other hindrances were 
 
 removed out of the way.” If Dr. Coke thought that he was 
 
 really invested with power to ordain ministers in the church. 
 of God and had so ordained them, how could he for a moment 
 tolerate, the idea of a re-ordination 2? In a letter addressed to 
 Bishop Seabury of Connecticut, dated May 14, 1791—only 
 three weeks after that t6 Bishop White, he is more full and 
 explicit. He says, “for five or six years after my union with 
 Mr. Wesley, I remained fixed in my attachments to the Church 
 of England: but afterwards for many reasons which it would 
 be tedious and useless to mention, I changed my sentiments, 
 and promoted a separation from it as far as my influence 
 
 - reached. Within these two years I am come back again: 
 
 my love for the Church of England has returned. I think 1 
 am attached to it on a ground much more rational, and con- 
 sequently much less likely to be shaken than formerly. I have 
 many a time run into error; but to be ashamed of confessiig 
 
 my error when convinced. of it, has never been one of my de- 
 
 fects. Therefore when I was fully convinced of my error in 
 the steps I took to bring about a separation from the Church of 
 
 England, in Europe, I delivered before a congregation of about 
 three thousand people, in our largest chapel in Dublin, on a 
 ‘Sunday evening, after preaching, an exhortation, which, in fact, 
 
 amounted to a recantation of my error. Sometime afterward, 
 I repeated the same in our largest chapels in London, and in 
 
 4 
 
84. 
 
 several other parts of England and Ireland: and I have reason 
 to believe that my proceedings in this respect have given a 
 death blow to all the hopes of a separation which may exist 
 in the minds of any in those kingdoms. 7 
 
 On the same principles I most cordially wish for a reunion 
 
 of Protestant Episcopal and the Methodist Churches in these 
 States. * * * How great, then, would be the strength. of 
 our church (will you give me leave to call itso? I mean the 
 Protestant Episcopal!) if the two sticks were made one? * * 
 * * Now, on a reunion taking place, our ministers both elders 
 and femeone would expect to have, and ought to have, the 
 same authority they have at present, of administering the 
 ordinances according to the respective powers already invested 
 in them for.this purpose. f well know that they must submit 
 to a re-ordination which I believe might be easily brought 
 about if every other hindrance was removed out of the way. 
 But the grand objection would arise from-the want of.confi- 
 dence which the deacons and wnordained preachers would 
 experience.” ' 
 
 ‘The Dr’s. plan for removing this objection is seen, in the fol- 
 lowing: “ But if the two houses of the Convention (he refers 
 to the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church) 
 of the clergy would consent to your consecration of Mr. As- 
 bury and me as bishops. of the Methodist Society in the. Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Church in these United States, (or by any 
 other title, if that be not proper,) on the supposition of the re- 
 union of the two churches under proper mutual stipulations; 
 and engage that the Methodist Society shall have a regular 
 supply, on the death of their Bishops, and so, ad perpetwum, 
 the grand difficulty in respect to the preachers would be re- 
 
 moved—they would have the same men to confide in whom: 
 
 they have at present, and all other mutual stipulations would — 
 
 soon. be settled.” So. Churchman, June 9, 1843. 
 
 ‘We offer but one more extract. In a letter addressed to 
 Mr. Wilberforce, he says, * * “if his Royal Highness, the 
 Prince Regent and the government should think: ‘proper to ap- 
 point me their Bishop in India, I should most cheerfully and 
 most gratefully accept of the offer. *“ * * * * In my 
 letter to Lord Liverpool I observed that I should, in case of my 
 
 Jai 
 
85 
 
 appointment to the E'piscopacy of India, return most fully 
 and faithfully into the bosom. of the Established Church, and 
 do every thing in my power to promote its interests; and 
 would submit to all such restrictions in the fulfilment of my 
 office, as the Epvenniment and the Bench of Bishops at home 
 should think necessary.” —Eid. Rev., No. cxlv. 1840. 
 
 The preceding requires no comment. Conclusions against 
 Dr. Coke’s Episcopal authority or character are inevitable and 
 irresistible. 
 
 D.’p. 72. The subjoined: extracts from a sermon preached 
 by Mr. Wesley, May 4th, 1789, less than two years before his 
 death, will show in any fete he regarded. the claim of his 
 preachers to administer sacraments. The text is Heb. v. 4. 
 
 “In 1744, all the Methodist preachers had their first confer- 
 ence. But none of them dreamed that the being called to 
 preach, gave them any right to administer sacraments. And 
 when that question was proposed, in what light are we to con- 
 sider ourselves? it was answered, as extraordinary messen- 
 gers, vaised-up to provoke the ordinary ones to jealousy. In 
 order hereto, one of our first rules was given to each preacher, 
 you are to do that part of the work which we appoint. But 
 what work was this? Did we ever appoint you to administer 
 sacraments? to exercise the priestly office? Such a design 
 never ehtered into our mind; it was the farthest from our 
 thoughts: and if any preacher had taken such a-step, we 
 should have looked upon it as a palpable breach of this rule 
 
 - and consequently a recantation of our connexion. 
 
 For supposing (what I utterly deny,) that the receiving you 
 as a preacher at the same time gave an authority to administer 
 the sacraments, yet it gave you no other authority than to do 
 it, or any thing else, where Lappoint. But when did I appoint 
 you to do this? No where at all. Therefore by this very rule 
 you are excluded from doing it, and in doing it, you renounce 
 the very first principle of Methodism, which was wholly and 
 solely to preach the gospel. I wish all of you who are vulgarly 
 termed Methodists would seriously “consider what has been 
 said. And particularly you whom God hath commissioned to 
 call sinners to repentance. It does by no means follow from 
 hence, that ye are commissioned to baptize or administer the 
 
86 
 
 Lord’s supper. Ye never dreamed of this, for ten or twenty 
 years after ye began to preach. Ye did not then like Korah, 
 Dathan and Abiram, “seek the priesthood also.” Ye knew 
 “no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called 
 of God as was Aaron!” © contain yourselves within your own 
 bounds, be content with preaching the Gospel; “do the work 
 of Evangelists,” proclaim to all the world the loving kindness 
 of God our Saviour; declare to all, “'The kingdom of Heaven 
 is at hand: repent ye and believe the Gospel!” I earnestly 
 advise you, abide in your place; keep your own station. Ye 
 were, fifty years ago, those of you that were then Methodist 
 preachers, extraordinary messengers of God, not going in your 
 own will, but thrust out, not to supersede, but to provoke to 
 jealousy the ordinary messengers. In God’s name, stop there !” 
 
 Alas! this voice of warning and remonstrance was uttered 
 in vain. The Methodists have long since, in this country at 
 least, completed their schism, and though professing to derive 
 ministerial authority from Wesley, and to be but slightly re- 
 moved from the doctrine and government of the church, yet 
 few others are found to manifest a more determined spirit of 
 hostility to the prevalence of her worship, the spread of her 
 principles. and the increase of her members.