The passage which you produce from Whitgift is nothing to the purpose. He is merely confuting the Puritanic notion that "God hath delivered in scripture a complete, particular, immutable form of church polity." This absurd idea Episcopalians have ever opposed. The single thing, contended for, is, that there are, by divine institution, three distinct grades of ministers, with appropriate authorities. As to the rites and ceremonies of public worship, the forms of discipline, and the particular organization of that author. ity by which canons are passed for the government of the church, the scriptures prescribe no model; leaving the matter to the exercise of human discretion. Even the laity may be, and, in this country, are associated in the manage ment of ecclesiastical affairs; and, in England, there are various officers, for the same purpose, which the scriptures, no where, either prohibit or enjoin. But none of these can touch the sacerdotal authorities of preaching, of baptizing, of administring the Eucharist, of confirming, of ordaining; such authorities being reserved to an order of men expressly set apart as ministers of Christ; empowered to act as his ambassadors, to sign and seal in his name. A divine commission is necessary to qualify them for their work; it being no other than that of taking men into covenant with God by administring to them the appointed seals. ministry cannot be changed. Why? Because it is a divine institution; being established as the mean of visible intercourse between God and man. God acts by his agent, and thus takes man into covenant with himself. It is the divine commission that gives validiy to the act performed; rendering it the act of God. If, then, you take the priesthood from the order of men to whom the great Head of the church has given it, and place in the hands of a different order, it ceases to rest upon a divine foundation. The sacerdotal powers are exercised by the agents of men; not by the ministers of Christ.

The

This mode of reasoning is equally conclusive to prove that laymen cannot baptize, and that Presbyters cannot ordain. And it is just as ridiculous to inveigh against the arrogance of Episcopalians for insisting upon the necessity of Episcopal ordination, as it would be to inveigh against the arrogance of Presbyterians for insisting upon the necessity of clerical baptism. Both equally believe in a priesthood; differing only as to the manner of its constitution. And why there should be more bigotry in thinking that the

priesthood is established upon the principle of subordiñation, than upon that of equality, I am utterly at a loss to comprehend.

Thus, then, the Episcopal church simply contends for a ministry, as of divine institution; which ministry she believes to consist of distinct orders, with appropriate powers. The arrangement of these powers, being made by God, cannot, she holds, be altered by any human authority. But as to the ceremonies of public worship, the forms of discipline, the particular organization by which authority is exercised in passing canons for regulating the affairs of the church, she believes, in opposition to the Puritans, that no precise model is laid down, and that man is left to exercise a sound discretion; provided, always, that nothing be done contrary 'to the word, or the spirit, of the sacred oracles.

A very striking difference, for example, exists between the church of England, and the Protestant Episcopal church of this country; there being many offices, in the former, not at all known in the latter. But these are not pretended to be of divine right; being mere human establishments for the more convenient management of ecclesiastical affairs. "As for Deans, Prebendaries, Parsons, Vicars, Curates, Archdeacons, Chancellors, Officials, Commissaries, and such other like names, which being not found in holy scripture, we have been thereby, through some men's error, thought to allow of ecclesiastical degrees not known, nor ever heard of in the better ages of former times; all these are, in truth, but titles of office, whereunto partly ecclesiastical persons, and partly others are, in sundry forms and conditions, admitted, as the state of the church doth need." Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, book v, sec. 78.

* Deans, Prebendaries, Parsons, Vicars, Curates, Archdeacons are of the order of Priests; and, considered in reference to the sacerdotal powers, are upon a perfect level. "The distinction of a Parson and Vicar is this: the Parson has, for the most part, the whole right to all the ecclesiastical dues in his parish; but a Vicar has, generally, an appropriator over him, entitled to the best part of the profits, to whom he is, in effect, perpetual Curate with a standing salary."

"A Curate is in the same state that a Vicar was formerly, an of ficiating temporary minister, instead of the proper incumbent."

Still, the church of England, and the Episcopal church of this country are constructed, as to essentials, upon precisely the same plan. In neither can any one execute the sacerdotal functions without a divine commission. In both there are three distinct grades of ministers, with appropriate powers. Other things are of human regulation; and must vary with the state of the church, and the circumstances of the times.

This view of the subject shews the fallacy of the argument, against Episcopacy, grounded on the assertion, that no form of government could be adopted that would suit the infinite variety of circumstances in which the church may be placed. The argument, indeed, is as good against Presbytery as against Episcopacy; but, in truth, it is, entirely, without force. For the state of ecclesiastical organization may be infinitely varied without breaking in upon the Episcopal constitution of the priesthood. That consti

These different names, then, arise out of a difference of situation with respect to temporalties.

“A Dean and Chapter are the council of the Bishop, to assist him with their advice in affairs of religion, and also in the temporal concerns of his see.. When the rest of the clergy were settled in the several parishes of each diocese, these were reserved for the celebration of divine service in the Bishop's own cathedral.” They are, then, of the order of Priests, receiving their particular names, simply, from the situation in which they stand with the Bishop.

The Chancellor is a civil officer, appointed to assist the Bishop in matters of ecclesiastical law. Suppose the general assembly of the Presbyterian society should take the opinion of a counsel. lor, relative to some principle of law, in which the interests of the society might happen to be concerned. He would be, as to such matter, their Chancellor.

The Presbyterians have a regularly constituted form of church government, consisting of a train of subordinate tribunals; as the church sessions, the presbyterial assembly, the synodical assembly, and the general assembly. And these different tribunals have their particular officers.

Blackstone's Com. 405, 404. t ibid. 403.

tution may be adapted to every possible form of civil association, and to all the situations in which the church can be placed; being capable of corresponding equally with monarchical, and with republican forms of government. For example-The manner of electing Bishops is not prescribed in scripture. In England they are appointed by the King; In the United States, by the clergy and laity. This is a ve ry important distinction, under which, the Episcopal constitution of the priesthood remains, in both countries, precisely the same. Again-The ministry may be rendered more or less dependent on the people. They may be surrounded, more or less, with wealth and power. The civil govern ment, for example, may appoint ministers to particular livings; or, the appointment may be made by the Bishop; or it may be made by the people, as among us. This is a point not fixed in scripture; and, therefore, man is left to pursue such course as the state of things may render advisable. Further-The clergy may be made to depend on the voluntary contribution of the people for support; or they may be rendered independent by a legal provision. Thus we see how easily the condition of the church may be brought to correspond with the condition of the state.

We contend, simply, that there is a priesthood, by divine right, whose business it is to transact on the part of God, administring the sealing ordinances of the covenant of grace, and exercising the other sacerdotal powers; that this priesthood is in distinct and subordinate grades; and that, being established by God, it cannot be changed by man. The foregoing observations have been rendered necessary by the advantage which the advocates of ministerial parity have taken of certain general expressions used by Episco pal writers. For example, Whitgift says, "there is no certain kind of government or discipline prescribed to the church; but the same may be altered as the profit of the churches requires. I do deny that the scriptures do set down any one certain kind of government in the church to be perpetual for all times, places, and persons, without alteration." The same language is used by Hooker; but it is in opposition to the rigid notion of the Puritans, as I have before observed, who would have it that there is a complete and perfect form of polity for the church, sketched out in all its parts in scripture, from which it is not lawful to deviate. Accordingly they declaimed against kneeling at the eucharist, against bowing at the name of Jesus, against the

sign of the cross in baptism, the use of the ring in marriage, the particular vestments of the clergy, and many other such matters, as not specifically commanded in scripture; and, therefore, refused to submit to them as inconsistent with their Christian liberty. In opposition to such wild notions Hooker, Whitgift, and many others contended that "there is no certain kind of government, or discipline, prescribed to the church." But did these venerable men deny the divine institution of the priesthood, or its divine establishment in distinct grades of ministers? Far from it. The express language of Whitgift has been quoted; and it may be well to produce a passage or two from Hooker. "And shall we think that James was made Bishop of Jerusalem, Evodius Bishop of the church of Antioch, the Angels in the churches of Asia Bishops; that Bishops were every where appointed to take away factious contentions and schisms, without some like divine instigation and direction of the Holy Ghost? Wherefore let us not fear to be herein bold and peremptory; that if anything in the church's regiment, surely the first institution of Bishops was from heaven, was even of God; the Holy Ghost was the author of it." Again, "I may securely, therefore, conclude that there are, in this day, in the church of England, no other than the same degrees of ecclesiastical orders, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, which had their beginning from Christ and his blessed Apostles themselves.”+ "So the ancient Fathers did think of Episcopal regiment; they held this order as a thing received from the blessed Apostles them. selves, and authorized even from heaven."

1

In these passages Hooker expressly places Episcopacy upon the footing of divine institution; and yet, incredible as it may appear, even Hooker has been cited as favoring the Presbyterian cause, And in what way? Precisely in the way in which you, sir, have acted; by seizing a few general expressions, and torturing them to mean what the author never intended them to mean; forgetting, at the same time, every other syllable of his writings.

You place Bishop Burnet, also, among those who consider Episcopacy as a mere human institution; giving up, altogether, the idea of divine appointment. Take the following passage. "Christ appointed a succession of Pastors,