66

poor Mephibosheth concerning an unjust accuser, yea, let him take all," yet far from disclaiming any just ground which can be laid for peace, I cherish a persuasion that an earnest wish for union in one flock and one pasture, does keep its place in our hearts, and is not cast out from the hearts of many who are still unhappily divided from us.

In regarding, then, the ground of union with relation to external discipline, my thoughts turn very naturally to the bond of Apostolical Episcopacy. To that ground the reformed Church in the Northern States of Europe adhered, and do so to this day, and they who took another course, lamented the necessity by which they were constrained, declaring with one voice, that it was their hearts' desire to have kept the same form of government had they been able, judging those to be most happy who, in the good work of reform where it was most needful, were joined by their prelates, as the Church of England was in her well-ordered reformation.

Well, then, may I take this for a ground of union and regard it as the nearest and most practicable step to good agreement, since it was owned, in fact, on both sides, when common terms seemed likely to procure compliance and consent.

Without attempting to traverse the wide field of controversy, for which this season of assembly furnishes no sufficient leisure, my aim will be to

touch some chief points with relation to this kind of discipline which have been defended evermore against assumptions which never could be proved. The changes once wrought in those respects in this land were the growth of a late age, and, as was before remarked, prevailed only when the arm of force prevailed.

The twin branches of civil and religious government, have one sanction in the will of God; and it is no bad omen where an union upon common terms is still desired, that the main ground is in some particulars allowed on either part. Thus it is confessed very generally, that the powers of ordination and of jurisdiction by the keys left by Christ in his Church, are of Divine Institution. They who question this, must forget our Lord's words, "as my Father sent me, so send I you ;" and, "lo, I am with you always to the end of the world." That these powers must also be administered by some who in all times have received their commission for that end, is also acknowledged generally to be matter of Divine appointment. I shall only add here, before I come to the chief particulars which I have in view, that the subsistence of a national Church where the Christian faith is entertained in any land, can, we think, be plainly traced to the provisions made to that end by the Divine word and promise, as well as to inherent rights in sovereign powers. Certain

it is that the national form of planting churches gives the best security for stability in faith and worship. The churches thus united in one confession and one mode of ministration for the word and sacraments, and for the public ceremonies of religion, do thus prescribe one rule for all.

But in pursuing my design with reference to Apostolical Episcopacy, I shall remark first, that although the subject be of such importance, and such as once brought us nearest to the point of union in matters of external government after days of contest and disaster, yet was it left entangled with perplexities which have not vanished in the days which have succeeded. In order to get clear of some of these perplexities, and to confine them, at least, to their proper limits in this controversy, I shall observe next, that from the main particulars of which I have to treat, the pleas for separation which respected ceremonies, vestments, liturgies, and oaths, or declarations of engagement, stand apart, as do several other things by which the subject has been puzzled, and contention kept alive.

With respect to ceremonies and things of that nature, I must remind you that the foreign churches of the reformation gave also a decisive judgment in our favour on this head, and have left it upon record under their own hands.

Thus from the main particulars to which I

shall crave your attention, the question concerning the compass and extent of dioceses in the first age, likewise stands apart. It has been indeed very strangely made the last retreat of many, who though contesting other points with us, concurred however in referring Episcopacy to an apostolic origin, and offered once more to accept it, if we would permit them to restrain the boundaries of each diocese to a single flock.

As foreign to the main point I have in view, is the question whether the Bishop and the Presbyter differ as several orders, or as several degrees.

As little also to the purpose, is the strife raised upon the promiscuous use of titles and denominations in the first age, and in the language of the New Testament. The point which I have to establish was plain enough amidst all that interchange of names.

Nor more decisive of the main point, though caught at so eagerly, was the singular opinion of St. Jerome.

To each of these busy questions, I shall find occasion to advert as we pass on; when I trust it will appear that they do not touch the main particular which I have to defend. It is briefly this -that we have firm footing in the sacred Scriptures, and the pattern of the apostolic age, attested by the earliest writers of the Church, that the first grant of power to His Apostles by our blessed

Lord, and their conveyance and distribution of it in several measures to others in their own age, in virtue of their own commission-most distinctly shows, that there were always some who were invested with especial powers, to whom the Presbyters were subject, both before and after the titles once used interchangeably became fixed. There were always some to govern and ordain; to reprove, correct, to set in order, to receive complaints against those below them of what rank soever. The proofs of this in the Acts of the Apostles, the epistles of St. Paul, and the word addressed to the angels of the Churches at a later day, are so well known and have been so successfully maintained, that they need no recital at this time; they show assuredly that from the first, those powers were restrained to some superiors, and were exercised in the Apostles' days, either by themselves or by others to whom they were entrusted. The true question is, whether all those who were at first called by common ministerial names, as the Apostles themselves were, ever exercised those powers in common, and had not some acts appropriated to them according to their several commissions. If the latter mode obtained in the Apostolical Church, without doubt it should do so now, for we cannot have a better pattern. In vain has this point been entangled with the interchange of names before alluded to, as at first

7