The Christian Bishop approving himself unto God, in reference to the present state of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America: A Sermon preached in Christ's Church in the city of Philadelphia, on Thursday, the 25th day of October, A. D. 1827, at the Consecration of the Right Rev. Henry U. Onderdonk, D. D. as Assistant Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of Pennsylvania. By JOHN HENRY HOBART, D. D. Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New-York. Philadelphia, 1927, 8vo. pp. 36.

Rev. Mr. M'Ilvaine in Answer to the Rev. Henry U. Onderdonk D. D. Philadelphia, 1827. 8vo. pp. 43.

It is known to our readers that for many years past there has been among the Episcopalians of this country a serious difference of opinion and of feeling. Two opposing parties have been gradual ly formed corresponding in most points with the two great parties which divide the established church of England. The "High church" party, with Arminian views of Christian doctrine, with Roman Catholic notions of the efficacy of sacraments administered by proper hands, and with the exclusiveness of feeling which constrains them most devoutly to eschew the contamination of any contact with "dissenters," constitute probably a considerable majority among the Episcopalians of both countries. The "Low church" or Evangelical" party on the other hand, with a theology conformed to the thirty-nine articles, with more protestant opinions about the nature of church ordinances, and with more

liberality in regard to Christian intercourse with other denominations, make up, to some extent, in effort what they want in numbers and in the means of influence.

It is known too that within a few months the difference between these parties, has broken out into an open and earnest controversy. In the election of an Assistant Bishop for the Diocese of Pennsylvania, the Convention was equally divided, and after a long course of electioneering and management (which each party we believe ascribes wholly to the other) the HighChurchmen carried the day, and the Rev. Henry U. Onderdonk of Brooklyn in New-York was chosen by a bare majority over the Rev. William Meade of Virginia. successive steps of this affair appear to have occasioned a great many pamphlets on both sides of the question, only a few of which have fallen under our immediate inspection.

The

But we have seen

enough and heard enough to concircumstances of this controversy vince our minds that the peculiar seem to bear inauspiciously not only on the sectarian interests of that particular denomination but also on the cause of truth and god

liness.

Let not this language be quoted the course adopted by the evangelas implying any disapprobation of ical Episcopalians of Pennsylvania. All our feelings and prepossessions in this matter are with them, and we have known nothing which ought to impair our confidence in their Christian spirit or their Christian discretion. We mean only that the controversy is too local and occasional and personal. into exercise every dangerous feelSuch a dispute necessarily calls ing, and the longer it is continued,

unless it passes to the discussion of abstract principles, the more fierce and loud and fiery will it become. The questions, whether Dr. Onderdonk was lawfully elected bishop-whether the Rev. Mr. Carter had a right to vote in the convention-whether Bishop Hobart is more aspiring or more lordly than becomes a prelate-whether the Rev. Mr. Allen is uncourteous in his attacks upon the diocesan of New-York ;-may be disputed always and never be any nearer to a conclusion than at the beginning. But the uselessness of such a controversy is the least evil attending it. Such a controversy almost necessarily becomes a quarrel, beget ting hard names, and bitterness and wrath and clamour, till the enemies of God and of his church take up the shout of exultation.

But the questions whether the native moral corruption of man is partial or entire-whether the purposes of God extend to all events, or only to now and then a particular occurrencewhether regeneration is a change of the inmost heart wrought by the Spirit, or only a change of visible relations effected by baptismwhether a revival of religion is an unhallowed and ungodly human artifice, or an outpouring of celestial influences-whether to join with Christians of various names in efforts for a common Christian object is right or wrong-are questions of another sort. These ques. tions are of wide and permanent importance; they are connected with all the vital interests of Christianity; and a controversy on such points might easily be so conducted as to confirm the truth and to force it on the conviction of the public mind.

And therefore it is that we regret the necessity which has given the controversy its present shape, bringing forward so many personal and occasional questions, and more than half diverting the public attention from those far greater

questions which constitute the original ground of variance.

The pamphlet of Mr. M'Ilvaine affords a fair illustration of our meaning. This pamphlet is a personal vindication of the author from certain charges preferred against him by the gentleman who is now co-bishop of Pennsylvania. A new episcopal congregation had been formed in Rochester, and had made overtures to Mr. M'Ilvaine to become their pastor. This proposed arrangement Dr. Onderdonk was desirous of defeating; and therefore wrote a letter half-private and half-public to a gentleman of his acquaintance in that village, putting the people on their guard "respecting that gentleman"-as "one of the most decided of low, or rather half-churchmen"-as " great opponent of Bishop Hobart" -as "a zealous promoter of the schemes that would blend" Episcopalians "with Presbyterians"as having been "educated at the Presbyterian Seminary at Princeton"-as having "worn out his popularity" at both the places at which he has heretofore labored in the ministry-as being according to the "current idea" "the reverse of pleasing in his general and pastoral intercourse"-and as having in his sermons, notwithstanding his high reputation, more show than substance." This letter, though addressed in form to an individual, was of course considered as designed to enlighten the minds and to direct the proceedings of the vestry of the newly organized congregation, and was therefore communicated to the members of that body. It thus became a matter of considerable notoriety; it found its way into the public journals; it was circulated far and near; and finally, as we gather from Mr. M.'s reply, a pamphlet was published in defence of Dr. O.'s proceeding as an act entirely proper. In these circumstances Mr. M. felt that by

46

a regard for his own character and usefulness he was compelled to vindicate himself from the charges which had been urged against him so seriously, which were sustained by the authority of so great a dignitary, and which had gained so wide a circulation. And while he has vindicated himself most triumphantly, he has done it-we are happy to say with a meekness and kindness of spirit which few men would be able to exhibit under such provocation. We must go to the region of political electioneering to find an instance in which a man claiming to be respectable has descended to a course of conduct parallel to the part which Dr. O. has sustained in this history, as it appears in detail. For the details we refer our readers to the statement in the pamphlet. The conduct of the bishop elect taken together, seems to be very much like what the Bible calls " back-biting ;" and if we are not much imposed upon, it affords a striking and rath er singular illustration of Dr. Hobart's strong language where he speaks of men who, with all their religious professions, "shun not those artifices which even the world loathes and reprobates." But triumphant as Mr. M'Ilvaine's effort at self-vindication proves to be, and Christian-like as is the spirit with which he has borne himself in this matter, we read his performance not without a deep regret that instead of seeing him thus engaged in a mere skirmish, warding off the shafts hurled at him from a petty ambuscade, we do not see him contending with the enemy upon the open field of argument for the great truths and principles which are in fact at issue. And this regret is heightened when, as we read the few pages where he treats of the difference in principle between the parties, we see the ability with which he might quit himself in such a conflict.

Bishop Hobart being invited to preach at the "consecration" of Dr. Onderdonk, felt himself called-and indeed it would be difficult to specify the occasion when he has not felt himself called-to set forth and defend the peculiarities of his sect; not merely the peculiarities of his church, but the peculiarities of the "high-church" party in the Episcopal communion. The Sermon has obtained no inconsiderable notoriety in consequence of its having been regarded as an unkind, and, in view of the circumstances in which it was delivered, an outrageous attack upon those who, in the exercise of their Christian and ecclesiastical rights, had opposed the election, and had protested against the consecration of the man whom at that time and in that place the preacher was investing with authority over them. But it is not on that account that we have chosen to notice it on our pages; for, as we have already hinted, we deem it inexpedient for us to enter minutely into that controversy. We notice it only because it contains a more summary and on most points a more explicit exposure of high-church principles than we remember to have seen in any other publication.

Dr. Hobart's text is "Study to show thyself approved unto God." After a brief and appropriate introduction, he announces his subject thus.

"Study to show thyself approved unto God, in the faithful discharge of duty, as demanded by the particular circumstances and exigencies of our church." p. 8.

Under this general subject the preacher has thirteen specifications of the duty of a Bishop in the present circumstances and exigencies of the Episcopal church. Of these specifications, our limits and a due regard to the patience of our readers will permit us to notice only a few.

The first head of the discourse treats of the duty of "faithfully preaching the distinguishing doctrines of the gospel." "A failure in so doing," says Dr. H. " is one of those charges which, from whatever motive, is [query are ?] often urged against a portion, at least, of the bishops and clergy of our church. Wo, indeed, be to them if they thus neglect to teach and to enforce those vital doctrines, which alone can give efficacy to the Gospel." Then, after remarking that in determining how he shall preach the distinguishing doctrines of the gospel he must study to approve himself unto God rather than to secure the good opinion of men, our author proceeds as follows.

No love of applause, as the advocate of what is miscalled liberal and rational Christianity; and no fear of censure for opposing what, by a strange anomaly, are sometimes distinguished as the doctrines of grace; will prompt him, on the one hand, to make man, the gold of whose nature has become dim, as bright and pure as when his maker's image was impressed on his soul; nor, on the other, to degrade that image, in native hatred of God and goodness, to the likeness of a fiend, and so to bind man in the chains of his corrupt passions, as to fix his crimes and his final perdition on the God of purity and boundless goodness. On the one hand, he will not wrest from the divine justice its sceptre, and from the divine government its sanctions, by extending pardon to sin without the vindication of that offended justice, or reparation to that insulted government; nor, on the other, limit that atonement to God's violated justice and sovreignty, which is more than of value for the salvation of millions of worlds, to but a small portion of the ruined race who require it. On the one hand, he will not represent man's powers and affections as standing in no need of the invisible and incompre hensible but transforming power of supernatural grace; nor, on the other, will he exhibit this spiritual death unto sin, and new birth unto righteousVOL. II.--No. JI.

19

ness, as effected but by the application of human reason and human resolution, guided and sanctified by the influence of the divine spirit secretly but powerfully dispensed in the use of moral means and external pledges. pp. 8, 9. 8,9.

We would hope the Bishop's meaning is not so bad as his lanObguage seems to represent it. viously he does mean first, that the bishops and inferior ministers of the Episcopal Church must not inculcate Unitarianism; and secondly, that they must not preach what are called "the doctrines of grace.' And we would gladly believe if we could-that this is all which he means. But he says much more than this. Let us look at his language.

1. His language means that the advocates of what is miscalled liberal and rational Christianity"that is the Unitarians-" make man, the gold of whose nature has become dim, as bright and pure as when his Maker's image was impressed on his soul." Now we are no friends to Unitarianism; but upon the principle of giving to all their due, we must say that we doubt whether any one of them will acknowledge this as a just description of their opinion. They hold-as we understand themthat man has by nature no character at all that each human being forms a character for himself-and that, without any man's being entirely bad or entirely "bright and pure," some men are better and others are worse. If it can be proved that any respectable Unitarian in this country-respectable we mean among his own friendsbelieves and preaches that man is thus "bright and pure,' "" we will acknowledge that we have been over-charitable in forming our judgment of their opinions.

"doctrine

2. The only positive of original corruption" which is

hinted at as true, is that "the gold of man's nature has become dim." Without showing how far short this is of that fearful energy of ex pression with which the Bible speaks of human depravity; we would only ask whether there is in fact any desperate discrepancy between this doctrine and the corresponding doctrine in the system of "liberal and rational Christianity." 3. The language which the bishop uses means that those who hold what are "distinguished as the doctrines of grace" are guilty of injustice towards the image of God which is impressed on the native character of man ;-that they" degrade that image, in native hatred of God and goodness, to the likeness of a fiend, and so bind man in the chains of his corrupt passions as to fix his crimes and his final perdition on the God of purity and boundless goodness." Whom he intends to designate, when he thus speaks of "the doctrines of grace" is as evident and unquestionable as it is whom he intends to point out by the periphrasis-" advocates of what is miscalled liberal and rational Christianity." The phrase" doctrines of grace" has acquired a meaning distinctive of a certain system of opinions-a meaning which, unless it be explained and guarded, it conveys to every mind. It means what is called the "Evangelical system" of opinions and of preaching. It means not only the views of the "Low-church" party in Bishop Hobart's own denomination, but the views of the great body of the Presbyterian Congregational and Baptist churches in these United States. All these Christians, constituting the vast majority of the professed disciples of our Lord in this land, are thus charged, in one sweeping sentence with degrading God's image in the human heart to the likeness of a fiend, and with so binding man in the chains of his corrupt passions as to fix his

crimes and bis final perdition upon God.

This representation we deem worthy of a little attention. If it were a solitary charge uttered by a single individual, it might be worthy of notice as proceeding from the great leader of Episcopal Arminianism in this country, and as having been given to the public on an occasion not only of great solemnity in itself, but made more solemn by the interest of peculiar circumstances. It is not, however, a solitary charge. It is connected with an extended system of misrepresentation. And it is in this light— as a specimen of the mode in which the evangelical doctrine of human corruption is very widely treated by men who dare not meet it fairly and fairly contradict it as a specimen sanctioned by a Right Reverend name and gaining circulation, if not currency, from the interest of a great occasion-that we deem it worthy of a little attention. In just this way, the Orthodox, the Presbyterian, the Congregational, the Evangelical doctrine of depravity is represented by a multitude of tongues and pens on all occasions. And by such representations so often repeated the minds of many, particularly the undiscriminating and unthinking, are seriously prejudiced against the truth. Misrepresentation and declamation are not unfrequently successful where no honest argument could be constructed.

Now what is the doctrine which the Bishop of New-York thus denounces? What is the "doctrine of grace" on the subject of human depravity? It is simply this-the doctrine that man is by nature the subject of an entire moral corruption. This is the doctrine of depravity which is preached from evangelical pulpits, which is set forth and vindicated in evangelical publications, and which mingles itself with all the prayers and confes