f

CHAPTER VI.

MOSHEIM'S AUTHORITY.

Prelatists often quote the Ecc. Hist. Mosheim to prove that there are three classes of officers in the Church. They scarce ever allude however, to his description of Bishops as they were in the first two centuries. If he is good authority for the one so he is for the other. The following is his language: "The rulers of the Church were called either Presbyters or Bishops, which two titles are in the New Testament undoubtedly applied to the same order of men. Let none, however, confound the Bishops of this primitive and golden period of the Church with those of whom we read in the following ages. * * A Bishop during the first and second century was a person who had the care of one Christian assembly. * * In this assembly he acted not so much with the authority of a master as with the zeal and diligence of a faithful servant. He instructed the people, performed the several parts of Divine worship, attended the sick, inspected into the circumstances and supplies of the poor. He charged indeed the Presbyters" (or Elders) "with the performance of those duties and services which the multiplicity of his engagements rendered it impossible for him to fulfil; but had not the power to decide or enact anything without the consent of the Presbyters" (or elders) " and people." * The obligations of the Church were to "be divided between the Bishops, Presbyters," (or elders)" and deacons." Where is Prelacy in the golden age of the Church?

*

CHAPTER VII.

THE AGE OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

The Episcopal Church in England is about 300 years old, being founded by Henry VIII, several years after the commencement of the Reformation by Luther.

The Episcopal Church in this country did not exist with full power to propagate itself till 1790, which makes her now about 58 years old! How venerable she is!! The four men who first exercised prelatical functions in this country were Seabury, White, Madison, and Provoost, consecrated abroad and under conditions and provisos from the King and Parliament of England, which ought to bring down upon them the indignation and contempt of all mankind! How striking is the difference between the commission of Christ to his ministry, and that of George III. to his ministry. Our Saviour said:"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." George III. and his Parliament said :-Go ye into all the world except the British dominions." These king-shackled prelates having finally obtained license and been consecrated to preach, set up their Church in this country. And now, forsooth, after half a century, Prelacy, younger by several years than the Shakers or Universalists, pretends to exalt herself and talk of antiquity! Her youngness affords no obstacle to her impertinence.

CHAPTER VIII.

PRELACY NOT REPUBLICAN BUT MONARCHICAL.

We have already seen how kings regard it. It is a system in its own nature opposed to such a government as ours. Republicanism places the power to govern primarily in the people, makes its officers but the servants and administrators of the interests of the people, confers on them the functions of office by the authority of the people, and arranges the frequent reversions of power to its original possessors. Prelacy on the other hand places the power to govern in the Bishop, irrespective of the people, asserts that the Church cannot exist without a Prelate,-that the Prelate is the head and the laity the body, and that the latter is defunct without the former. Hence monarchs have always preferred the Prelatical form of government in the Church, because it is not only

similar in its principles to their views of the State, but also tends to preserve and disseminate the idea that a few are born to power and the masses to subjection. The Divine right of Kings stands on the same foundation with the Divine right of Prelates. James I. revealed the whole secret of this matter at the Hampton Court conference, where he so often repeated that remarkable epigram, "no Bishop, no King !"— the principle of which in its application to the Church has recently been revived by the ingenious Dr. Wainwright, of New York. Let republicans then take care how they receive to their bosoms in religion a doctrine which strikes at the very root of their civil liberty.

CHAPTER IX.

ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE.

Prelatists cannot avoid the adulterous connection of religion with politics. In England these are united. Nor have any of the officers of the Church any permission, license, or liberty to ordain or consecrate or in any way perpetuate their own orders, without the consent and approval of the Sovereign, who in this relation sustains the character of a kind of Pope.. At this day the Romanists sneer at the English Church for having a woman at their head! Thus in a measure they return the compliment which was long ago paid them in the tale of Pope Joan, successor of Leo IV. When the first Prelates for this country were consecrated, the English Prelates dare not move a finger towards it till an Act of Parliament was passed upon the subject, which act provides that a license signed and sealed shall be obtained from the King before the consecration shall take place, that no person so ordained or any of his successors shall exercise his or their offices in His Majesty's dominions, and that a certificate of such consecration shall in due form be preserved. How foul and dishonorable is such a subjection of the Church and her ministry to the domination of civil rulers. The national Council

legislating upon the right to preach salvation to perishing men! The Episcopal Church in this country owes its existence to the King and Parliament of Great Britain, and not to the Word of God, or Christ the only Head of the Church, recognized by them as such. Such paternity may well shame the advocates of Prelacy in this land, and call out, as in Dr. DeLancey's Address, an unqualified rebuke upon the attainted and illegitimate connection,

CHAPTER X.

A BEAUTIFUL ILLUSTRATION.

Prelatists sometimes bring up the manuscripts of the Bible, as exemplifying their doctrine of the "Apostolic Succession." They say for example, we all believe that we have the veritable gospel of St. Matthew, although we are not able to trace the manuscripts of this gospel step by step back to the original one. And so they say it is with the Prelatical ministry. We ought all to believe that this ministry now is the same as it was in the days of the Apostles, although we are not able to trace the succession of it up to the Apostles, step by step! There never was a more unfortunate illustration for the claims of Prelacy. For

1. It denies the very thing for which Prelatists contend, namely, that the succession can be traced. Why then do Prelatists fill their books with lines and catalogues of names? This illustration adduced by them renders their labors in this quarter completely futile. Their chapters on genealogy should begin somewhat in this way :-"It is just as much impossible to trace the succession of ordainers in our Church as it is to trace the succession of the manuscripts of the Bible. Still we shall go on and put down a list of names which will show pretty well to the eye!"

2. It shows the tracing of a lineal succession to be completely unnecessary for the settling of the question whether the Christian ministry now is the same that it was in primitive

times. Is my Bible now like the Bible written by the Apostles? By a comparison of the two I determine the fact. And one manuscript between, or one thousand or one million, alters not the question of identity a single hair. A succession of manuscripts proves nothing for the identity or sameness of the first and last manuscripts. And so it is with the lineal succession of the ministry; it proves nothing because alterations may have been made in successive ages. The only true method in the light of this illustration, of settling the authority of the Christian ministry, is for Prelatists to take the type of it as at the present day and compare with it the type of the ministry in apostolic times. Let them do this, and they will soon be compelled to put aside not only every pretension to an apostolical succession, but also every particle of support for their peculiar system.

CHAPTER XI.

MOTIVES FOR PREFERRING EPISCOPACY.

It is believed that the great mass of the people in this country who are attached to the Episcopal Church have chosen this connection on almost any other ground than a persuasion of its exclusive divine right. Some prefer this denomination as a matter of taste, others on account of family relations, others from the force of circumstances too pointed to be here detailed, and indeed there are many reasons which persons assign for their preference of Episcopacy, aside from its being in their view exclusively of Divine right. And I suppose I may say that the great majority of Episcopalians never have for themselves given the subject a thorough examination. They receive what their ministers tell them, conscientiously believing it to be true. And this would not be so very bad if it did not make them so very bigoted. Here is the great trouble of the case: the people are taught to deny fellowship to other Christian denominations, while yet they know scarcely anything as they should know it of the first