tion 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 dignified 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 ordained; and that none 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; 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 example 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 commu. nion with Christ, unless he is also in communion with the Episcopal church. That is, his claim to the Christian character cannot be esta blished by exhibiting a holy temper and life; but depends on his being in the line of a certain ecclesiasti cal descent. 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 examining, and which no mortal can certainly establish.* There is no possibility of avoiding this conclusion on the principle assumed. And I appeal to you, my brethren, whether a principle which involves such consequences, has not strong presumption against it. Fourthly-If the doctrine in question be admitted, then we vir * Several distinguished writers in Great Britain, who have lately espoused, with much warmth, the exclusive Episcopal notions under consideration, do not scruple to adopt and avow this inference, at least in substance. They assert, that all who "are in communion with the Epis copal church, are in communion with Christ," and in the "sure road to salvation." They deny that there is any 66 pledged" or "covenanted mercy;" in other words, that there are any promises given in the gospel to persons who are not in communion with that church, however sincere their faith and repentance, and however ardent their piety. And, accordingly, they turn into ridicule every attempt to distinguish between a professing Episcopalian, and a real Christian. It is scarcely necessary to add, that many of the divines of their own church reject this doctrine with abhorrence, and have publicly pronounced it to be as repugnant to scripture, as it is dangerous to the souls of men. tually pronounce nine-tenths of the whole Protestant world to be in a state of excommunication from Christ. I know it has been often said, by zealous writers on this subject, that the great body of the Protestant churches are Episcopal; and that those who adopt the Presbyterian government make but a very small portion of the whole number. But I need not tell those who are acquainted with the history of the church since the reformation, and with the present state of the Christian world, that this representation is wholly incorrect. The very reverse is true; as I shall more fully show in a subsequent letter. Are we then prepared to adopt a principle which cuts off so large a portion of the Protestant world from the visible church, and represents it as in a state in some respects worse than that of the heathen? It is to be presumed that every considerate man will require the most pointed evidence of divine warrant, before he admits a principle so tremendous in its consequences. It is not asserted that these considerations prove the extravagant Episcopal doctrine from which they flow, to be false. A doctrine may be unpalatable, and yet true. Whatever is plainly revealed in scripture, we are to receive without any regard to consequences. But when a principle is repugnant to reason, contradicts the analogy of faith, and involves consequences deeply wounding to the bosom of charity, we may safely pronounce that there is a presumption against it, antecedent to all inquiry; and that before we embrace such a principle, the evidence of its divine warrant ought to be more than commonly clear and decisive.* We are not prepared to subscribe exactly to the statement made in the preceding paragraph. Believing, as we do, that the scriptures are the infallible word of God, we receive, without hesitation, every thing that they clearly reveal; and wo have never been friendly to the prac. With the great body of Episcopalians in this country, and elsewhere, it is extremely easy to live on the most friendly terms. Though attached to the peculiarities of their own denomination, they extend the language and the spirit of charity to other churches. We, of course, think them in error, because we are persuaded that Episcopacy, in the form for which they contend, is an innovation. Yet as long as they keep within the bounds of that liberal preference and zeal for their own forms, both of government and worship, which every man ought to cherish for the church with which he connects himself, we must approve of their sincerity, while we cannot unite with them in opinion. But with those (and we have reason to be thankful that the number is very small) who make exclusive claims, of a nature nearly allied to the doctrine of Popish infallibility; who declare that their own, and the Roman Catholick, are the only churches of Christ among us; who embrace every opportunity of de tice of saying that if this or that position We have no relish for making such were found in the Bible, we would reject specifications. But we do say, that when a "specified principle is repugnant to reason, contradicts the analogy of faith, and involves consequences deeply wounding to the bosom of charity," we think there is more than a presumption against it. If the premises be made good, we think there can be no conclusion, but either that such a principle is absolutely false, or that the scriptures cannot rationally be believed. The latter alternative we re ject with abhorrence; and must therefore adopt the former. In reference to the dogma under consideration, we do sincerely believe, that it is as much at war with every principle of reason and common sense, and with innumerable plain declarations of scripture, as is the doctrine of transubstantiation. Nay, we verily think that the scriptures may be, and really are, more speciously perverted, so as to favour transubstantiation, than they can be, in favour of the exclusive doctrine in question. They both and equally belong to the Romanists; and for ourselves, we could more easily swallow the former than the latter.-ED. nouncing all other ministers, as presumptuous intruders into the sacred office, their ministrations a nullity, and those who attend on them as aliens from the covenant of grace; with these it is not so easy to live in that harmonious and affectionate intercourse which is highly desirable among Christians of different denominations." The preceding extract will give our readers a distinct view of the difference of opinion among Episcopalians themselves, in relation to their church order; and it also affords a more particular explanation, than we could give in our first number, of the precise object of the series of papers which we have commenced. With the first class of Episcopalians mentioned in the extract, we bave no controversy; because it is not our purpose to agitate the question, at present, whether a specifick form of church government, of any kind, is Jure divino; that is, whether such a form of ecclesiastical order, in all its parts; or as some have expressed it, "whether every pin of the tabernacle," be, or be not, exhibited as a model in the New Testament? Neither is it our wish, if we can avoid it, to have any dispute with the second class mentioned in the extract; and for this good reason, that they view us, only in the same light in which we view them. They think that a perfect church requires diocesan bishops; but that a true although imperfect church may exist without them. We think that a perfect church must exclude diocesan bishops, but that a true yet imperfect church may include them. We are willing to grant freely, and without controversy, the privilege which we claim Hanc veniam petimusque damusque vicissim. If we could get fairly at our opponents, and could give to the members of the Presbyterian church the information which we think they urgently need, relative to the nature of the episcopal office as it is taught in the New Testament, that thus they may be guarded against error and seduction-if we could do this, without interfering at all with the opinion of Episcopalians of the second class, it would give us unfeigned pleasure to avoid all collision. But if with them a debate must arise, it shall be on our part, while we are treated courteously, a very friendly debate. we It is the third class of Prelatists that has called us into the polemick field. Against their claims mean to contend, their arrogance we mean to expose, as strenuously and pointedly as truth and our measure of ability will permit. Still we do not mean to treat them as they treat us-We do not mean to say that they have no hope but in the uncovenanted mercies of God. We regard them as we regard the Papists-We were on the point of saying other Papists; for quo ad hoc, they are as real Papists as any in the world. We have no doubt that there are some genuine Christians, some individuals truly sanctified, in the Romish church; and we have marked a spirit of seriousness, in some of the writings both of Bishop Hobart and Bishop Ravenscroft, which gave us real pleasure. We do not however mean to call Episcopalians of this class, as our friend Dr. Miller often calls them, "brethren." We never could bring ourselves to claim kindred with any body whom we knew or suspected to be disposed to reject the claim; and we think that the principle of Christian charity rather forbids than requires this. But if, through the covenanted mercy of God our Saviour, we shall reach, as we hope to do, the heavenly mansions, we trust we shall there meet with some whose miserable bigotry on earth, would have excluded us from those blest abodes. Review. A Short Catechism on the Duty of conforming to the Established Church. By the Right Rev. Thomas Burgess, D.D. Lord Bishop of Salisbury. pp. 12. A review of the foregoing article, extending through more than twenty-five octavo pages, appears in the Eclectic Review for October last. The Right Reverend author of the Catechism, a highly distinguished scholar as he is, the reviewers handle without ceremony; notwithstanding he belongs to a church established by law, and they are dissenters By the way, who gave the exclusionists in our country, the right to call us, and all other denominations but their own, "dissenters?" Have not we just as good a right, and indeed a little better, to call them dissenters? They, we find the writers of the Christian Observer remark, belong to a denomination that forms but a small fraction of the religious community of the United States; and we hope they have not yet gone the length of denying that, in civil privileges, we are all on a footing. Yes, they are dissenters from us, and we from them. But when people have been accustomed to cant, it is not easy for them to break the habit. as The Review, from which we are about to make two extracts, is largely occupied in castigating Bishop Burgess, for grounding a considerable part of his claims, on the fact that the English Episcopal Church is legally established. This part has certainly no applicability to our country. Even Bishop Hobart has represented his church, as freed from a serious objection, by being separated from all legal or merely secular influence. In this we agree with him unreservedly, and think he deserves commendation, for the explicitness with which he has spoken on this topick. We fear, however, that he will reckon our commendation, if he should ever hear of it, of small account, in counterbalancing that weighty cen sure which he has suffered from his own party in England, for daring to say any thing in derogation of the "Church and State" of mother Britain. Yet he still holds, in common with all who adopt his system, that by a higher authority than any that is human, his is the only true church. To this point the extracts we make refer, with only a glance at Bishop Burgess' other claim; and we avow it distinctly, that we publish this part of the Review, in consequence of the controversy in which we have engaged; and to show our readers how indignantly the most distinguished exclusionists are treated, even in Britain. "In Section II. On the origin and constitution of the Church,' the Author has given a defective answer to the question, Who were appointed by Christ to preach and baptize?'-The Seventy disciples were sent out to preach, and they were empowered to work miracles, and though we are not informed that their commission included 'to baptize,' we can scarcely hesitate to believe that this administration was comprised in their official investiture. The disciples of Jesus, we know, baptized before the date of the commission, Matt. xxviii. 19; and as in that charge to baptize' is conjoined with teaching, it is altogether probable that the Seventy both preached and baptized. But the answer furnished in the Catechism' the Apostles,' was most suitable to the purpose of its Au thor, and serves most admirably to introduce the following question and answer. Q. What were the persons called, whom the Apostles appointed to govern the Church and administer its ordinances? A. They were called Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.' "Bishops, Priests, and Deacons! -Yes, there they are, all in regular order and gradation. And where did the learned Bishop of Salisbury find these names and titles? Not, certainly, where all names and titles which belong to Christian churches and to Christian ministers, according to the appointment of the Saviour and Lord of Christians, should be found. Let us be directed to the book, and chapter, and verse, of a Gospel, or an Epistle, where we may read Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,' and then we shall duly honour, as of Apostolick origin, these names and offices. But to no such Biblical passages can we be directed, either by the Author of the Catechism, or by any other patron of the graduated ecclesiastical scale of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.' Bishops (we shall soon see what this term imports) and Deacons, may be found in the New Testament; and unless we are prepared to impugn the Divine wisdom which has ordained this diversity of ministry in the Christian church, these two classes must be sufficient for the accomplishment of every purpose of order and discipline. We shall not treat so lightly either the wisdom of the supreme Legislator of the church, or the inspired records which comprise the only authoritative details of the primitive churches, as to conclude, that if Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,' had been either necessary to the order of Christian churches, or known as existing ministers of them at the time when so many epistles were addressed to them by the Apostles, distinct and regular mention of them would have been, 6 if not of frequent, of at least occasional occurrence. But the whole evidence of the evangelical records negatives the assumed enumeration. Let one single passage be produced from the New Testament, of any address to a primitive church with its Bishops, and Priests, and Deacons,' and there is an end of the question. Will any reasonable man, qualified to give judgment in the case, pronounce that this threefold distribution could be known. by the Apostle, when he addressed the Epistle to the Saints at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons ?' It is altogether curious to notice the perplexities and expedients which are to be found in the attempts of party writers, to evade the plain testimony of passages opposed, as this is, to their purposes. An unprejudiced reader can be at no difficulty in determining the sense which lies before him, in the definite expressions which the sacred writers have used. There was no Christian church,' says Dr. Burgess, without a bishop." We will not quarrel on this point with the learned Catechist. Let him have the consent of all Christians to this proposition, that there was no Christian church without a bishop. But what will this avail him The word bishop means overseer. If our readers will look into the New Testament, they will see this, the proper meaning of the word, fully established, and at the same time detect the ecclesiastical artifice of King James's translators. The word overseer occurs but once in the New Testament, Acts xx. 28, and it is there a version of the Greek word soos, which occurs in several other passages, and in all of them is rendered by the ecclesiastical term bishop. Why was not the word translated bishops in the passage in Acts? Because it would then have been plain to unlearned readers, that elders and bishops are the same. Paul called for the elders of the church, and when they |