among them when thus admitted by the regular use of another visible sacrament. Moreover, the church is compared to a city built on a hill, and is said to be the light of the world. But, if it is invisible, how can it resemble the city, whose spires and towers, reaching as unto the clouds, greet the eye of the whole surrounding country! If invisible, how can it be the light of the world? The light of the world, and yet not seen by the world! The very idea is absurd! Nor are the reasons less satisfactory that the church is a divine institution. Its very name, independent of the circumstances connected with its original formation and whole history, denotes it to be so. The word from which its name is taken signifies called or chosen. By whom, then, it may be asked, was the church called or chosen? Not certainly by the world; for it is called or chosen out of the world; and the whole tenour of scripture represents the world as opposed to the church; opposed to it, because it is not of the world. Nor could the church have called itself into existence. To suppose this, would be comparatively as irrational as to suppose that man is the author of his own existence. It is therefore concluded, that the church is a divine institution; or that our Christian calling or election is truly a work of God independent of ourselves.

of

But if the church is a visible body or society, it must have laws by which to be governed. How else could it maintain its social state? If it has laws, by whom were they made? is a natural and important inquiry. Who but the divine Founder of the church could know what laws would be suitable, and who but he could have any right to make them? Many regulations of minor importance may be adopted as a matter of expediency, by the individual members of the church; but it must be evident, that its fundamental laws, those necessary to its very existence, proceed from its spiritual Head alone. Moreover, if the church has laws, it must have also governours or officers to administer them, or they will be useless; a mere dead letter. And this suggests another inquiry equally important, namely, by whom are these governours or officers appointed? In reference to this inquiry it should be observed, that whenever a person is appointed to any fice, he receives authority to perform the duties of it, or his appointment is of no value; and this authority too must be received from those who possessed a right to confer it. It is an immutable principle, and of invariable application, that a person cannot give to another what he does not possess himself. In civil society of what value would be a commission to exercise the duties of a justice of peace, or of a military officer, if it was given by a common citizen, who possessed no power to grant such commissions? It would evidently be of no value at all; no better than a piece of clean paper, notwithstanding it might have been made out in the regular form prescribed for such commissions; and for this obvious reason, that the person who gave it, had no power himself to give it. It is the same in the Christian church. Individual Christians may associate together, form rules for the government of their conduct, may agree to read the

scriptures to each other, to watch over, counsel, exhort, and admonish each other; or they may delegate the exercise of such rights to a single individual of their number; but this by no means makes that individual a minister of the church of Christ. For,if Christ be the founder of the Christian church; if he has chosen persons out of the world, and constituted them a regular society; if he has made laws and given ordinances for the government and perpetuity of this society or church, as we have supposed, it would be difficult to tell on what principle the power to appoint officers to execute these laws, and to administer these ordinances, exists with any one else than himself. Nor can it be conceived how Christ, as spiritual head of the church, can exercise his authority over it, except through the agency of the Christian ministry.

Another intimately connected with the preceding ones now suggests itself. In what manner does Christ confer authority to minister in his church? As the church of Christ is visible; as the members of it are admitted through the use of a visible sacrament; as fellowship is maintained among the members by the habitual use of another visible sacrament, as already noticed; and as the supremacy of Christ over the church is exercised through visible agents; so it is concluded, that his authority to exercise this agency or to minister in the church, is conveyed by visible instruments. Hence, in agreement with this presumption, just before his ascension into heaven, Christ said to his apostles, "Go ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 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."

That this commission was not designed for themselves only, is clear from the concluding part of it, that he would be with them alway, even unto the end of the world. If it only had reference to the apostles personally, the promise, to be with them to the end of the world, would be without meaning. It is therefore concluded, that this commission was designed for the successors of the apostles even unto the end of the world, as well as for the apostles themselves; and that it is, by ordination, in uninterrupted succession from the apostles, that the authority of Christ to minister in his church is perpetuated; and it is where this succession exists, that the gracious promise under consideration comes to the support and encouragement of the Christian minister. It is a principle with Episcopalians, probably too well understood to need being mentioned, that a regular uninterrupted succession in the ministry is at the very foundation of the Christian church; for the reasons offered, and many others that might be given, they can conceive of no regular church and ministry without this succession; they even view it as the bulwark to which the church is indebted for existence; and they would, therefore, with all becoming earnestness, declare this truth to the rising generation, that when called to occupy the places now filled by their fathers, they may preserve inviolate a doctrine so intimately connected with their dearest hopes as Christians. Episcopalians also believe, as their very name might lead one to suppose, that

39

GOSPEL ADVOCATE, VOL. III.

this succession is continued through the bishops of the church, who are the successors of the apostles; that there are in a regularly constituted church three orders in the ministry, namely, bishops, priests, and deacons; and, moreover, that these orders have always been in the Christian church, without exception, till within a few hundred years. In a discourse of ordinary length, it could not be expected that any thing like a complete view of the arguments used on this subject can be exhibited, since volumes have been written on it, and still without exhausting it. But there is one fact never to be passed over without notice, in a controversy concerning the Christian ministry, which, in my mind, is of itself sufficient proof in favour of the three orders of ministers recognised in the Episcopal church, and to which I will now call your attention. It is believed, that Christians generally adınit, there were three orders in the ministry, for ten or twelve hundred years prior to the reformation begun under Luther. But those who now believe in ministerial parity maintain, that these orders with distinct and separate powers, as they existed during the period named, and as they still exist in the Episcopal church, were the result of a com plete revolution in the polity of the Christian church. Now the fact to which I alluded is this: the advocates of ministerial parity cannot tell when this complete revolution in the polity of the church, this Episcopal usurpation, as they term the prerogatives of diocesan bishops, took place. They cannot even agree among themselves when it took place! Baxter and others have placed it in the latter part of the first century, and of course before the death of St. John; Doddridge and others in the beginning of the second century; the Westminster divines in the middle of the second century; Campbell and Chauncy in the latter part of the second century. Some have placed it in the third century, and others, of whom is Dr. Miller, the living champion of ministerial parity, have placed it in the fourth century. It is now asked, what natural and unavoidable inference is to be drawn from this discordancy of opinion among the advocates of ministerial parity? It is this, that no satisfactory evidence exists in favour of the change in the polity of the church that has been supposed, because 'the same evidence which would prove that such a change took place, would show also when it took place. There may, indeed, be events recorded in history, concerning the truth of which no doubt should exist, although their precise chronology has not been determined; but the supposed change in the polity of the Christian church is of a widely different character. It was a change that would deeply af fect every individual member of that church. Can it be supposed that a few aspiring ambitious metropolitans could erect a spiritual hierarchy that would level with the very dust the dearest rights of their brethren, without causing a solitary whisper of complaint? Is it not known, that we relinquish our religious privileges with the greatest reluctance? Do we not hang to them as to life itself? Whenever has there been an important change in matters of religion, without producing the most severe conflict? and, had the supposed change actually taken place, numberless pens would have been employed in

contesting its progress; we should have numberless remonstrances, denunciations, and decrees of councils against the usurpation! But as there is no such thing, it is concluded that this change in the church never took place; that from the time of the apostles, there have been in it bishops, priests, and deacons; and that this allotment in the church is one of the bulwarks to which she is, as at first stated, indebted for existence.

The articles of faith recognised in the Episcopal church are next in order to come under consideration; and they are worthy of notice in two points of view. First, as embracing all those great truths deemed, by Christians generally, necessary to salvation; and, secondly, as being exempt from that technical phraseology and those metaphysical subtilties in matters not clearly revealed, which so much divide the Christian world. In relation to the former of these points, it is ever to be kept in mind, that although revelation inculcates the same moral precepts as taught by heathen philosophers, only in a more clear, pure, and forcible manner, it still makes known a system of the most interesting truths; truths, of which the world would have remained essentially ignorant for ever, had not God made a special communication of them to his creatures. The light of nature may teach us the existence of God, give us some faint conceptions of his providence, and impress us even deeply with his wisdom, his power, and his goodness; and the deductions from the operations of the human mind; and also, from the phenomena in the material creation, might lead us to expect an existence beyond the grave; but the history of the world, exhibiting as it does, but little else than a mass of moral corruption and crime would compel us to view such an existence as a curse rather than a blessing. Existence, to be desirable, must be made happy; but the evils amidst such a perversion of nature and such a desolation of moral principle as are found in the heart of man, may be reckoned more than to balance all the good he can possibly enjoy. And what discoveries has reason, unassisted by revelation, ever made concerning the particular destiny of man, although it might be conjectured he is to have an eternal existence; and what remedy has it ever proposed to reclaim him from a state of depravity to a state of virtue, which could alone make him truly happy? None at all. The labour of ages has been spent in vain on these momentous subjects. The wisdom of philosophy was accounted foolishness concerning these things, as soon as the light of revealed truth dawned upon the world. Then was declared, in language of verity, the original apostacy of man and its wide spread ruin; then it became manifest, that there is to be a resurrection from the dead, a day of final judgment, and a state of eternal retribution; and then it was made known, that God can be just in extending mercy through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and that his spirit is given to transform the heart of moral defilement into its native beauty and virtue.These are the great and peculiar doctrines of revelation; and these doctrines, in connexion with others that are collateral, are embraced in our creeds and articles of faith. The Church throughout evidently

views man as in a depraved and lost condition, and the gospel as a plan of salvation, by which he is to be restored to his primeval innocence and blessedness; and it holds up to her members faith in Christ, repentance toward God, and a regular attendance upon the appointments of Christianity, as the only condition of attaining to the life brought to light in the gospel. The faith, however, inculcated by our Church, is not, it should be distinctly noted, a faith without works, or a dead faith, which, though it might remove mountains, would be as the sounding brass or the tinkling cymbal! No, it is a principle so deeply rooted in the heart and so powerful in its operations, as to produce the most perfect display of all that is amiable and lovely in the human character. Nor is the repentance inculcated by the Church a mere dread of the consequences of sin, which is well characterized as being the sorrow of the world, which needeth to be repented of, and is unto death; but it is an invincible hatred of sin because of its own evil nature, being opposed to God and the happiness of the universe; it is a sorrow for sin that will lead one to forsake it. Nor, moreover, is the regular outward attendance upon the appointments of Christianity inculcated by our Church a mere shadow of religiona lifeless routine of external duties, which afford no pleasure to those who perform them, and which the heart neither loves nor approves ; but it is a service that engages all the best feelings of the soul; a service which assimilates man to those sinless spirits that surround the throne of God; a service which even gives him an earnest of the bliss and glory reserved in heaven for the righteous.

In reference to the second point of view, in which it was proposed to consider our articles of faith, namely, as being destitute of that technical phraseology and those metaphysical subtilties in matters not clearly revealed, which so much divide the Christian world; it may be observed, that Christianity is chiefly of a practical tendency; that it is designed to influence the heart and mend the life. For, was man sunk in a deep abyss of moral ruin? Had he lost the moral image of God, and become obnoxious to the sanctions of the Divine law? Was he, by disobedience, cut off from the hope of heaven? He was; but the gospel is designed to restore him to the blessings he had forfeited; to raise him from a death of sin to a life of holiness, from the abodes of despair to the heavenly paradise; it is designed to make man happy by making him good. The religion, therefore, which consists much in abstruse and philosophical speculations, or indeed in any doctrines which do not materially improve the moral condition of man, by reclaiming him from the paths of sin, and leading him to the practice of goodness, is not the religion of the scriptures. /Christianity was never intended to make her disciples philosophers; it calls into action no intellectual powers, not possessed by persons in the most humble spheres of mental improvement; and the truths, moreover, of scripture, the belief of which is reckoned necessary to salvation, are few in number, and are so clearly revealed, that they cannot well be misapprehended; they are so plain that he who runs may read, and way-faring men, although comparatively fools, need not err therein."