those who do not see it clearly.

This will be sufficient to show, that whoever desires no more than to worship God with zeal and knowledge, spirit and truth, purity and sincerity, may do it by these devout forms. And to this end may the God of peace give us all meek hearts, quiet spirits, and devout affections; free us from all sloth and prejudice, that we may have full churches, frequent prayers, and fervent charity; that, uniting in our prayers here, we may all join in his praises hereafter, for the sake of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

CHAPTER IV.

Consideration of the Claims of Episcopacy.

I HAVE hitherto left untouched this question, which is generally made first and principal in public discussions-I dislike the word controversy-between Episcopalians and those who differ from them-I have an equal aversion to the word opponents. Both these terms, which I thoroughly eschew, are bad in the religious world, or anywhere else. The bare use of them tends to conjure up the very spirit, which they involve and represent. I am clearly of opinion, not only, that we have come to a time and to a state of society, when the public will refuse to tolerate the sharpness of religious controversy, and the bitterness of religious opponents, when indulged in after the manner and to the extent that have characterized so many ages, and from which I would fain hope the present age is being redeemed, first by a general aversion in the moral sense of the community, and next through the influence of Christian courtesy and of more bland religious affections;-but I believe also, that all differences in religion, whether they relate to doctrine, or practice, or ecclesiastical polity, may be discussed in perfect good temper, so as not to disturb personal feeling, or public tranquillity. I believe, moreover, that such discussion is both necessary and good, so long as those who differ from us are treated with a kindness and respect, which would entitle us to meet them as personal friends, if otherwise convenient; and which could never create in our bosoms a conscience to make us reluctant to meet them, or in any degree to diminish or mar the cheerfulness of our intercourse. The fact, that differences as to the doctrine and general economy of Christianity are more or less prevalent, even among those who are worthy of

the greatest respect for their piety, their learning, and Christian zeal, is proof, that truth on these points is not yet so clearly and fully developed, as to supercede the necessity of discussion. There is nothing required to render it salutary and useful, but a suitable exemplification of Christian courtesy and kindness in the manner of conducting it. No matter how much of the fortiter in re, if it be adequately tempered with the suaviter in modo. The former may give dignity and manliness to him who displays it, and augment the respect in which he shall be held by the public; while the latter, infused throughout and pervading this adjunct quality, and imparting to it the charm of loveliness, will secure for him the favourable regard and kind affections, even of those who maintain an opposite opinion.

As an interesting exemplification of this spirit, I may refer to the late public discussion of the claims of Episcopacy between Bishop Onderdonk, of Philadelphia, and the Rev. Albert Barnes, of the same city. So entirely satisfied are Episcopalians with Mr. Barnes's spirit-and his known ability may vouch for the fact of his having made the best of the argument-that they have published the entire discussion on both sides, in connexion with some other papers, under the title of EPISCOPACY EXAMINED AND RE-EXAMINED, having issued it from the Protestant Episcopal Press at New-York. This is as it should be; it is pleasant-it is delightful to contemplate. It shows in the first place, that Episcopalians are not unwilling to have the best argument that can be made against them brought side by side with their own statements, to be laid before their own people, if it be done in good temper; and next, that we have come to a state of society, when all religious differences may be managed in this way-when it may be done not only with impunity to personal and public feeling, but for the general interests of truth.

But for all I have to say, or desire to say, on the claims of Episcopacy, I beg leave to premise, that I do not purpose to undertake a task which has been so well and so thoroughly done by others-by those, who were

far better qualified, than I can pretend to be. It has long been a principle with me, that a writer is not wise in presuming to claim the attention of the public on an exhausted and threadbare topic, unless in some peculiar exigence of the times he may hope to be able to bring it out in some new light. The argument for the claims of Episcopacy has been so well done and is so complete, that it would be high presumption in me to imagine, that I can add to its light or force. For common and popular reading, I know not, that I can refer to anything more succinct, lucid, and satisfactory, than the work above mentioned, as embracing the discussion between Bishop Onderdonk and the Rev. Mr. Barnes. For the scholar and the more learned, who may wish and who have leisure to extend these investigations further, I may mention Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Potter on Church Government, Slater's Original Draft, Skinner on Episcopacy, Works on Episcopacy, (the last being a collection of tracts in two volumes.)

But my own purpose in coming to this topic is to make a few general and comprehensive statements of certain prominent considerations and facts, which, I must confess, have had force in my own mind, and which, perhaps, may have some weight with others. It will doubtless be deemed proper-probably it will be expected— that in presenting to the public REASONS FOR PREFERRING EPISCOPACY, in my circumstances, I should not altogether pass over this material point. But I hope I shall be excused-and I am inclined to think the patience of my readers will gladly excuse me- -from undertaking to support in detail all those parts of the argument, which some of these statements will necessarily indicate and involve. I propose rather to suggest, than to construct an argument; rather to refer to considerations and facts, that have had an influence with me, than to array them in the order and form of a demonstration. The common reading on this subject is within everybody's reach, who may desire to examine it for himself.

The simple statement for the claims of Episcopacy is,

first, that the Bible indicates and by fair inference authorizes and requires a ministry over the Christian church, which, in the structure of its economy, and in its design, shall involve and support in its purity the principle of Episcopacy, in some such definite form, as is generally maintained under this name; and next, that the history of the church corroborates and establishes the same position.

I have purposely left out of this statement the common denominations of this ministry, for the purpose of coming at and exposing the principle in its naked form. The moment we invest with an array of terms a principle, which has been held by one party and rejected by another under these terms, we necessarily prejudice an argument with those, who have been always accustomed to look at it through the medium of this palpable form.

I assume, that Christ intended office in the ministrations of his earthly kingdom. This will doubtless be granted by the majority of those who may differ from me, as to the character of that office-or of those offices. The idea of office is primary, radical, important—so important that I cannot conceive it possible for the objects of this kingdom to be attained without it. I have already betrayed an opinion in another place, that office is the hinge of Christ's visible kingdom; that the entire fabric hangs and turns upon it; that it is through the ministry, and through them alone, that all the members have their visible connexion with the Head. But although so much as this may not be conceded to me by those with whom I have to do, yet doubtless they will allow great importance to office; and that it must have authority in it. I need not affirm, that authority is an inseparable attribute of office; and that it is its essence, the form and admin

istration thereof being accidents. But it will be seen,

that the accident of form in this case is of most material importance, that the public, the world, may know beyond a doubt what and whom to respect as invested with this authority. The form is the only visible sign—the only palpable badge of authority; and if that cannot be determined, then clearly, all is loose, all uncertain-the king