LECTURE I.

INTRODUCTION.

JOB Xxxii. 10.-"I also will show mine opinion."

CONTROVERSY, in itself considered, and especially about mere externals, is a thing to be lamented in the church of God. But there are times when men are unavoidably placed upon the defensive; when, to keep silence would be weak not only, but culpable in the extreme. We, my brethren, have arrived at such a crisis in our history; and I am reluctantly compelled, by the force of circumstances, to enter upon a series of Lectures in defence of the ministry, the ordinances, and the government of our church, in opposition to the exclusive claims set up by a portion of the Episcopal communion. I said "reluctantly compelled"-not because I have any fears as to the result of such a controversy, but because it would be much more consonant with my feelings to preach repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; thus endeavouring to benefit the heart, and cultivate the Christian graces, than to be contending about the beauty and order of that external drapery which Christ has thrown over his church. I said "by a portion of the Episcopal communion "—because the Episcopal church in England, and, to a greater or less extent, in this country, has ever been divided into three distinct classes upon this subject; of which the "exclusive right" class are (or, if they are not now, have been until very lately) by far the smallest. The first class are those who believe that the New Testament does not prescribe any particular form of government as binding upon the church; but that it

was left with her members to adopt such a form as they, under all the circumstances of the case, should deem most expedient. They prefer Episcopacy because they believe it to be the most perfect form of government; but they deny that it has been established jure divino. Among this class we find the names of Archbishops Cranmer, Grindal, Whitgift, and Tillotson; Bishops Leighton, Jewel, Reynolds, Burnet, and Croft; Doctors Whittaker and Stillingfleet, and a multitude of others too numerous to mention. The second class are those who believe that Episcopacy was sanctioned by the Apostles, and that it is necessary to the perfection of the church, but deny that it is necessary to her existence: and they acknowledge other evangelical denominations to be true churches, although deprived of the perfect polity preferred and adopted by the apostles. We find numbered with this class, among many other distinguished names, Archbishops Usher and Wake: Bishops Hall, Dounham, Bancroft, Andrews, Forbes, Chillingworth, Hoadly, &c. The third class comprises those who, following the illustrious example of the papal hierarchy, unchurch everybody but themselves, and thunder out their bull of excommunication against the ministry and ordinances of every other denomination, declaring them invalid and of no effect. We are gratified to be able to state, for the honor of the Episcopal church, that this third class has, from the Reformation until very lately, been comparatively small. How the matter stands at present, we are unable definitely to say; we trust they are still in the minority, although we have reason to fear that they are on the increase.

To show that this is not a mistaken statement, let a few quotations from Episcopal writers suffice. The unhappy Charles I., when urged to consent to a proposed act of Parliament for abolishing Episcopacy, wrote upon the subject to his tried Episcopal friends and counsellors-Lord Jermyn, Lord Culpepper, and Mr. Ashburnham-as follows :

"Show me any precedent wherever Presbyterial government and regal was together without perpetual rebellions; which was the cause that necessitated the king my father to change that government in Scotland. And even in France, where they are upon tolerance, (which in likelihood should cause moderation,) did they ever sit still so long as they had power to rebel? And it cannot be otherwise; for the ground of their doctrine is anti-monarchical. I will say, without hyperbole, that there was not a wiser man since Solomon than he who said, 'no Bishop, no King." His majesty likewise stated that to consent to the proposed abolition was against his "conscience." To all of which they reply—“ If, by conscience, your meaning is, that you are obliged to do all in your power to support and maintain the functions of Bishops, as that which is the most ancient, reverend, and pious government of the church, we fully and heartily concur with you therein. But if, by conscience is intended to assert that Episcopacy is jure divino exclusive, whereby no Protestant (or rather Christian) church can be acknowledged for such without a bishop, we must, therein, crave leave wholly to differ. And if we be not in error, we are in good company; there not being (as we have cause to believe) six persons of the Protestant religion of the other opinion. Thus much we can add, that, at the treaty of Uxbridge, none of your divines then present (though much provoked thereunto) would maintain that (we might say uncharitable) opinion; no, not privately among your commissioners." It is worthy of remark, that these counsellors of King Charles were entirely opposed to the abolition of Episcopacy, and in favor of maintaining the functions of the bishops, as "the most ancient, reverend, and pious government of the church;" still, they did not hold, and they had reason to believe that there were "not six persons of the Protestant religion," who held that Episcopacy was "jure divino exclusive," in such a sense that no Protestant

denomination without bishops could be called a church. This uncharitable sentiment, for themselves and the whole English church, they entirely repudiate. Bishop Hall, an eminent English prelate who flourished about the middle of the seventeenth century, and who did as much as any other man of that age to advance the cause of Episcopacy, published a work which he called Irenicum, (or Peacemaker,) from which we extract the following passage: "Blessed be God, there is no difference, in any essential point, between the church of England, and her sister-reformed churches. We unite in every article of Christian doctrine, without the least variation, as full and absolute agreement between their public confessions and ours testifies. The only difference between us consists in our mode of constituting the external ministry; and even with respect to this, we are of one mind, because we all profess to believe that it is not an essential of the church, (though, in the opinion of many, it is a matter of importance to her well-being;) and we all retain a respectful and friendly opinion of each other, not seeing any reason why so small a disagreement should produce any alienation of affection among us."

In a pamphlet recently published in this village, entitled "An inquiry into the ministerial commission, by Rev. Lloyd Windsor, M. A.," (to which pamphlet, as we proceed, we shall now and then pay our respects,) we find a long catalogue of Popes and Bishops, through which the author pretends to trace a regular succession of Apostles, from the Apostles Peter and Paul to Apostle White of Pennsylvania; who, it would seem from the author's showing, was the first Apostle to the Gentiles beyond the Great Waters: for in 1787, William Markrun, the arch-Apostle of York, in connection with other Apostles of the Episcopal church, constituted this William White apostle of Pennsylvania. Now, as he was the father of the Episcopal church in the United States, and the medium through which they trace their

Apostolic succession up to the churches of the seven-hilled city, his opinions should have great weight with the sons of the prelacy. This same Bishop White published a pamphlet, entitled "The Case of the Episcopal Church in the United States considered," from which we extract the following: "Now if even those who hold Episcopacy to be of divine right conceive the obligation to it not to be binding, when that idea would be destructive of public worship; much more must they think so, who indeed venerate and prefer that form as the most ancient and eligible, but without any idea of divine right in the case. This the author believes to be the sentiment of the great body of Episcopalians in America; in which respect, they have in their favor unquestionably the sense of the church of England; and, as he believes, the opinions of her most distinguished prelates for piety, virtue, and abilities." see from this extract,

We

1. That in the days of Bishop White, those who believed in the divine right of Episcopacy did not consider it absolutely necessary to the existence of a church; they

CONCEIVED THE OBLIGATION OF IT NOT ΤΟ BE BINDING WHEN THAT IDEA WOULD BE DESTRUCTIVE OF PUBLIC WORSHIP."

2. That, much as Bishop White venerated Episcopacy, he did not believe in its divine right.

3. That the great body of Episcopalians in America were of the same opinion; and,

4. That this was the sense of the English church, sustained by her most distinguished prelates.

With Episcopalians of this stamp we have no controversy. We love them as brethren, and are more than willing that they should enjoy the form of government which they so much venerate. It is not the Episcopal church against which we contend: it is not their form of government, their liturgy, their creed. To be sure we think them all, in many