It ought further to be understood, that among those who espouse the Episcopal side in this controversy, there are three classes.

The first consists of those who believe that nei. ther Christ nor his apostles laid down any particular form of ecclesiastical government, to which the Church is bound to adhere in all ages.

That

every Church is free, consistently with the divine will, to frame her constitution agreeably to her own views, to the state of society, and to the exigencies of particular times. These prefer the Episcopal government, and some of them believe that it was the primitive form ; but they consider it as resting on the ground of human expediency alone, and not of divine appointment. This is well known to have been the opinion of Archbishops Cranmer, Grindal, and Whitgift; of Bishop Leighton, of Bishop Jewel, of Dr. Whitaker, of Bishop Reynolds, of Archbishop Tillotson, of Bishop Burnet, of Bishop Croft, of Dr. Stilling fleet, and of a long list of the most learned and pious divines of the Church of England, from the reformation down to the present day.

Another class of Episcopalians go further. They suppose that the government of the Church by Bishops, as a superior order to Presbyters, was sanctioned by apostolic example, and that it is the duty of all Churches to imitate this example. But while they consider episcopacy as necessary to the perfection of the Church, they grant that it is by no means necessary to her existence ; and accordingly, without hesitation, acknowledge as true Churches

of Christ, many in which the Episcopal doctrine is rejected, and Presbyterian principles made the basis of ecclesiastical government. The advocates of this opinion, also, have been numerous and respectable, both among the clerical and lay members of the Episcopal Churches in England, and the United States. In this list appear

the venerable names of Bishop Hall, Bishop Downham, Bishop Bancroft, Bishop Andrews, Archbishop Usher, Bishop Forbes, the learned Chillingworth, Archbishop Wake, Bishop Hoadly, and many more, whose declarations on the subject will be more particularly detailed in another place. A third class go much beyond either of the for

While they grant that God has left men at liberty to modify every other kind of government according to circumstances, they contend that one form of government for the Church is unalterably fixed by divine appointment ; that this form is Episcopal ; that it is absolutely essential to the existence of the Church; that, of course, wherever it is wanting, there is no Church, no regular ministry, no valid ordinances ; and that all who are united with religious societies, not conforming to this order, are “ aliens from Christ,” “ out of the ap

” pointed road to heaven,” and have no hope but in

uncovenanted mercies of God.” It is confidently believed that the two former classes taken together, embrace at least nineteen parts out of twenty of all the Episcopalians in

mer.

the "

B

1

Great-Britain and the United States ; while, so far as can be learned from the most respectable writings, and other authentic sources of information, it is only the small remaining proportion who hold the extravagant opinions assigned to the third and last of these classes.

Against these exorbitant claims there is, prior to all inquiry into their evidence, a strong general presumption, for the following reasons:

First-It is placing a point of external order on a par with the essence of religion. I readily. grant, that every observance which the great Head of the Church enjoins by express precept, is indispensably binding. But it is certainly contrary to the genius of the Gospel dispensation, which is pre-eminently distinguished from the Mosaic economy by its simplicity and spirituality, to place forms of outward order among those things which are essential to the very existence of the Church. We know from scripture, that the visible form of the Church has been repeatedly altered, without affecting her essence.

Secondly—Against this doctrine there is another ground of presumption ; because it represents the rite of ordination as of superior importance to the whole system of divine truth and ordinances, which it is the duty of Christian ministers to dispense. According to this doctrine, Presbyters are fully authorized to preach that Gospel which is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth ; to

admit members into the Church by baptism ; to administer the Lord's supper; and, in short, to engage in all those ministrations which are necessary to edify the body of Christ : but to the regular introduction of a minister into office, by the imposition of hands, they are not competent. Is not this, in other words, maintaining, that the Gospel is inferior to its ministers ; that the sacraments are less solemn and elevated ordinances than a rite, which

all Protestants allow not to be a sacrament ; that the dispensation of God's truth is a less dig. nified function, than selecting and setting apart a servant of the truth ; that the means are more important than the end? If so, then every man of sound mind will pronounce, that, against such a doctrine, there is, antecedent to all inquiry, a reasonable and strong presumption.

Thirdly-If it be admitted, that there are no true ministers but those who are episcopally ore dained ; and that nonc are in communion with Christ, excepting those who receive the ordinances of his Church from the hands of ministers thus ordained ; then Christian character, and all the marks by which we are to judge of it, will be placed on new ground; ground of which the scriptures say nothing ; and which it is impossible for one Christian in a thousand to investigate. When the word of God describes a real Christian, it is in such language as this—He is born of the Spirit ; he is a new creature ; old things are passed away ;

a

behold, all things are become new.

He believes in Christ and repents of all sin. He crucifies the flesh with the affections and lusts : he delights in the law of the Lord after the inward man :-he strives against sin : he is meek, humble, full of mercy and good fruits: he loves his brethren whom he hath seen, as well as God whom he hath not seen : he is zealous of good works : and makes it his constant study to imbibe the Spirit, and to imitate the cxample of the Redeemer. These are the evidences of Christian character which fill the New Testament, and which meet us wherever the subject is discussed. According to this representation, the only essential pre-requisite to holding communion with Christ, is being united to him by a living faith ; that faith which purifies the heart, and is productive of good works. But if the extravagant doctrine which we oppose be admitted; then no man, however abundantly he may possess all these characteristics, can be in communion with Christ, unless he is also in communion with the Episcopal Church. That is, his claim to the Christian character cannot be established by exhibit. ing a holy temper and life ; but depends on his being in the line of a certain ecclesiastical de.

In other words, the inquiry whether he is in covenant with Christ, is not to be answered by evidences of personal sanctification ; but resolves itself into a question of clerical genealogy, which few Christians in the world are capable of exam.