position in reference to the visible kingdom of the Redeemer on earth. Furthermore, the great majority of the dissenting body of christians are unconsciously in error. They need to be informed. The church hath failed in no part of her duties and obligations so much as in this, the maintenance of unity in her communion. For fear of wounding the feelings of respected members of other denominations, and from a mistaken motive that the subject itself was a mere external, a subordinate matter, too many, whose duty it was to have proclaimed the truth from the very house tops, have suppressed that truth, or maintained a reserved silence in regard to it. Let the objection have what weight it may, it is one of that nature which inquirers after truth, the pure truth of God, on this subject, will not and ought not to regard. For when the mind is engaged in search of absolute truth, the consequences that may flow from that truth, are no objections against it. Expediency, not truth, is concerned for consequences. But in the case under consideration, the objection does not necessarily involve the salvation of those who compose the body of non-episcopal associations. We say not necessarily, because we believe that indirectly, and in part, the salvation of tens of thousands is involved. By reason of the divisions which are constantly going on, (as if by the operation of some fixed law,) by the confusion of creeds, the irregularity or rather annihilation of discipline, (for all is voluntary) by violent ruptures, which set all the individuals of a religi ous association loose from one another, like the disbanding of an army; in a wreck such as this, which has more than once occurred as the result of schism from the church, thousands of individuals become wanderers from the fold of Christ, lose their interest in religion, their minds unsettled, their hearts alienated, till at last they settle down in sceptical indifference, if not positive unbelief. If many of these are parents, then in just such proportion the spiritual condition of the rising generation is also involved. The evils of schism are cumulative, no man can estimate the entire range of consequences. The false principles are laid down as truth by one generation, partially carried out by the next, and found, by experience, to be a badly working system, producing immense and uncontrollable evils; consummated by a third in one universal choas of independent and adverse sects, and endless changes of religious creeds, wherein, as in a labyrinth, the mind is utterly lost. Thus are souls lost all along in this sad line of dangerous experiments, till, in the final and general failure of the system, a whole generation of souls perish. II. It is objected, that the doctrine of Episcopacy is an arrogant assumption of power, exclusive, tyrannical, a preistly domination; and many other like mild and charitable epithets, have been resorted to with the view of prejudicing the mind, and giving currency to otherwise weak objections. To all this there is but one reply: our aim is truth-the divine will in regard to the Saviour's church. Now, if Episcopacy be the doctrine of scripture, a positive and ever-binding institution of Christ in his commission for a ministry-if it be the will of God-here is the end of the matter. This answers all objections. As to Episcopacy being exclusive, all truth is, by its nature, exclusive. Christianity itself is exclusive. The doctrines of our blessed Redeemer are, by the objectors to the atonement and eternal punishment, regarded as exclusive. THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. We have before proved that the Apostolic ministry was designed by its Divine Founder to be perpetual to the end of the world, and was, in fact, transmitted to Timothy, Titus, and others, even in the life-times of the original Apostles. Thus the beginning of this succession is taught us in holy scripture. But some satisfactory proof is demanded that this succession has continued unbroken through all the ages of the Church, down to the present time. Now, this point may be established by the most indubitable evidences, such as may safely challenge the belief of every christian. In the first place, if the Apostolic ministry was set up by the Saviour in his church, to manage its affairs in his name and by his authority for all time, it follows that the institution is divine, and being divine, no human authority can supplant it; no changes of time or fortune can destroy it. If it is God's own work, He surely has both the will and the power to preserve it. And confidence in Him requires that we believe in the unbroken succession of His ministry, and the consequent preservation of His church. Christ having sent forth his disciples to act as His ambassadors till the end of time, and having promised to be with them always; the succession is a subject for our christian faith. It is not possible to escape this reasoning, except by denying the fact, that Christ ever gave a perpetual commission.. And this compels us to regard the ministry as an institution of human origin, which may have had one or five hundred different sources; which may be started anew by any one to-day; and which, consequently, can have no specific authority, only such as men choose to give it from time to time. Such an institution may wholly perish. With persons who en tertain such sentiments we shall not here enter into a discussion. Our concern is with those who believe, what the scripture so plainly teaches, that Christ did establish a church and a ministry in the world. From this fact the argument for the succession is clear and unanswerable, viz. the Apostolic ministry, being divine, never can have perished; it has always had the protection of God. Let us now suppose that it were required to show that our present copies of the Bible are the pure, unadulterated word of God. How can this be done? The question is not whether the Bible be the word of God; that is admitted; but whether our present Bibles are pure. Numerous comparisons of different manuscripts, careful and critical examinations, may help to this; but do these means infallibly insure accuracy? It cannot be said that they do. We must resort to the doctrine of divine protection. The Bible is confessedly the work of the Holy spirit-the inspired word of God. This is and ever has been the belief of all christians. That same spirit, therefore, who is the author, is also the preserver of the Bible. Thus it is with the ministry; once admit that Christ ordained and commissioned a ministry in His Church, and we cannot question the fact of its unbroken succession. Otherwise the authority which Christ once gave is lost; the office which he created has ceased to be. Now, no christian, with the record of the commission open before him in the Bible, can entertain such a sentiment. The second proof for the succession is the well-known law and practice of the Church in all ages, in respect to consecrating Bishops. It was always a public act, done in the presence of a sufficient number of witnesses. In the earliest ages of which we have any account, it was the law of the Church, that three or not less than two Bishops should be present and take part in the consecration of a Bishop; besides these, there were necessarily many other official witnesses to the fact. In confirmation of this, we may cite the first of the "Apostolic canons," which enacts, that "A Bishop be ordained by two or three Bishops, a Priest by one Bishop, and so, likewise, a Deacon." Now, inasmuch as these canons are referred to by Athanasius, who was These Bishop of Alexandria, A. D., 326, and by St. Basil, who was Bishop of Cæsarea, A. D., 340, under the title of "ancient ecclesiastical canons," we must place them somewhere in the second century; if not earlier. Moreover, the "Great Synod" of Nice, held, A. D., 325, in their thirteenth act, say: "The old canonical law shall be observed," obviously meaning the Apostolic canons. Other references to this ancient code occur in the enactments of this council. The Synod held at Antioch, A. D., 341, also recognize, "the ancient canon which was in force in the age of our Fathers," which can mean only the Apostolic canons. So, too, the Synod of Constantinople, in the case of Agapius and Bagadius, A. D., 394, appeal to "the Apostolic canons" by that name. Apostolic canons, therefore, were ancient even in the early part of the third century; and were held in universal esteem, both in the Eastern and Western churches*their ecclesiastical legislation, as we have seen, being based upon them, and formally allowing their authority. Accordingly, the first and chief provision of the Apostolic canons, respecting the consecration of Bishops, was adopted into all the churches. Now, was this sufficient : but it was strengthened by additional enactments in the various churches, even more strict than the original. Thus the Synod of Antioch ruled that "No Bishop be ordained without a Synod, and the presence of the Metropolitan, who is to call all his fellow-bishops to the Metropolis by letter; and it is best that all meet; but, if this be not practicable, yet a majority at least ought to be present, or to give their consent by letter, and then let the ordination be performed with the presence or suffrage of the majority: but if they proceed contrary to the Decrees, let the ordination be of no force: but if some contradict, out of an affectation of dispute, let the majority of voices prevail." The Synod of Nice, also, enacted: "A Bishop ought to be constituted by all the Bishops that belong to the province; but if this be not practicable, by reason of urgent necessity, or the length of the way, three must by all means meet together, and when they have the consent of those who are absent, *The church of Rome adopted the greater part, though not all, of the ancient code. |