DUKE 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
\ i" 
 a er 
 ORI ey 
 
 ye 
 9 TO 
 
 se 
 se 
 
 = 
 
 ae 
 
. r ‘ ty i 
 SAN ll Wm Ky 
 Pt LX CEASE RE ESD . 
 ae yt AUN uy 
 t i“ i ‘© a 1 
 (~ ‘ ¥ N , v 
 ot \ alg en Be 
 t ; &S : 
 Lay iy N Rpt 
 v4 $, \ > ‘ . 
 aS ty 7 \ 7 i 
 Wy : 4% k y 
 t, ri < A 
 , : 
 "ae 
 
 ANAL 
 
Epifcopal Churches 
 
 TaN T HE 
 
 U'N'LT ED. ST AT Be 
 
 CGN Sob DERE D, 
 
 eae 
 
 Ruebep UWdliow lus Pte: 
 
 To make new articles of faith and do&rine, no man 
 thinketh it lawful ; new laws of government, what 
 commonwealth or church is there which maketh nit at 
 one time or another ? 
 
 Hooker, 
 
 PHAL AD EL PA Te 
 PRINTED ny DAVID C. CLAYPOOQOLE. 
 
 M,DCC,LXXXII- 
 
 V2 
 
fa | 
 
 CIC’ 
 ae 
 
2 7 
 Pic GLtv ) Bae she me A 
 , Bdine Je 
 
 Va vA 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 I T may be prefumed, that the members of 
 - the epifcopal churches, fome from con- 
 viction, and others from the influence of anci- 
 ent habits, entertain a preference for their own 
 communion; and that accordingly they are not 
 a little anxious, to fee fome fpeedy and deci- 
 five meafures adopted for its continuance, 
 The author believes, therefore, that his under- 
 taking needs no applogy to the puolic; and 
 that thofe for whom itis defigned will give him 
 credit for his good intentions, 
 
 Nothing is farther froni his wifhes, than the 
 reviving ot fuch controverfies as have been 
 found deftructive of good neighbourhood and 
 the chriftian temper; efpecially as he con- 
 ceives them to be unconnected with the pecu- 
 liar fituation of the churches in queftion. He 
 has, for this reafon, avoided the difcuffion of. 
 fubjeéts, on which epifcopalians differ from 
 their fellow chriitians ; and even of thofe, con- 
 cerning which a latitude of fentiment has pre~ 
 vailed among themielves. 
 
 He thinks his defign is fubfervient to the 
 general caule of religion and virtue ; for a nu- 
 merous fociety, lofing the benefit of the ftat- 
 
 ed 
 
 po Sad 
 
iv 
 
 ed ordinances within itfelf, cannot but feverely 
 feel the effect of {uch a change, onthe piety and 
 morals of its members. In this point of view, 
 all good men muft lament that ceffation of 
 public worfhip, which has happened to many 
 of the epifcopal churches, and threatens to be- 
 come univertfal. 
 
 The prefent work he alfo believes to be con- 
 nected with the civil happinefs of the communi- 
 ty. A prejudice has prevailed with many, that 
 the epifcopal churches cannot otherwile ex- 
 ift than under the dominion of Great-Britain. 
 A church government that pay contain the 
 conftituent principles of the church of Eng- 
 land, and yet be independent of foreign ju- 
 rifdiction or influence, would remove that anx- 
 iety which at prefent hangs heavy on the minds 
 of many fincere perfons. 
 
 Such is the natural tendency of this perform- 
 ance. If it fhould fail of effect on account of 
 the infufficiency of the author, it may never- 
 thelefs be of advantage, by drawing to the 
 fabject the attention of others, better qualified 
 for the undertaking. 
 
Epifcopal Churches, &c. 
 
 Se AtRe ES ER ioe 
 
 © form an idea of the fituation of the 
 *epifcopal churches in the prefent crifis, we 
 mutt oblerve tne change their religious fyf- 
 tem has undergone in the late revolution, 
 
 On whatever principles the independence of the 
 united ftates may be fuppofed to reft; whether 
 merely on eftablifhments which have very probable 
 appearances of being permanent, or on withdraw- 
 ing the protection of the former fovereign, or (as 
 the author of thefe fheets believes) on the inherent 
 right of the community to refift and effectually to 
 exclude unconftitutional and oppreffive claims, there 
 refult from it the reciprocal duties of protection and 
 
 allegiance, 
 
 * The GENERAL term “ epifcopal”’ is ufually applied, 
 among us, to the churches profeffing the religious princi- 
 ples of the church of England. It is thought by the au- 
 thor to be fufficiently defcriptive, becaufe the other epifco- 
 pal churches in America are known by names PECULIAR 
 TO THEMSELVES. 
 
[ Sia 
 
 allegiance, enforced by the moft powerful fanétions 
 
 of natura) and revealed religion. 
 
 It may reafonably be prefumed, that, in general, 
 the members of the epifcopal churches are friendly 
 to the principles, on which the prefent governments 
 were formed; a fa& particularly obvious in the 
 fouthern ftates, where the epifcopalians, who area 
 
 Majority of the citizens, have engaged ‘and perfe- 
 vered in the war, withas much ardor and conftan- 
 cy as their neighbours. Many even of thofe whofe 
 fentiments were at firft unfavorable to the revolue 
 tion, now wifh for its final efrablifhment, as a moft 
 happy event ; fome from an earnett defire of peace, 
 and others from the undiftinguifhing oppreflions and 
 ravages of the Britifharmies. Such perfons accord- 
 ingly acknowlege allegiance, and pay obedience 
 to the fovereignty of the ftates. 
 
 Inconfiftent with the duties refulting from this 
 allegiance, would be their fubjection to any {piritu- 
 al jurifdiction, connected with the temporal autho- 
 rity of a foreign ftate. Such a dependence is con- 
 trary to the fundamental principles of civil fociety, 
 
 and therefore cannot be required by the {criptures ; ° 
 which, being accommodated to the civil policy of 
 
 the world ac large, neither interfered with the 
 conftitution of {tates as found eftablifhed at the 
 time of their promulgation, nor handed down to 
 fucceeding ages any injunctions of fuch a tenden- 
 cy. 
 _ To apply thefe obfervations to the cafe of the 
 epifcopal churches in the united ftates. They have 
 been heretofore fubject to the ecclefiaftical autho. 
 rity of the Bifhop of London. This authority was 
 derived under acommiffiou from the crown ; which, 
 though deftirure of legal operation, found a ge- 
 neral acquiefcence on the part of the churehes ; be- 
 ing exercifed no farther than to the neceflary pur- 
 pofes of ordaining and licenfing minifters Here- 
 by a connection was formed, between the fpiritual 
 authority in England and the epifcopal churches 
 in 
 
Lees 
 
 in America, the latter conftituting a part of the 
 Bifhop of London’s «iocefe. 
 
 But this connection is diflolved by the revolution. 
 Had it been matter of right, it would have ceafed 
 with the authority of the crown; being founded on 
 confent, and the ground changed, it cannot be al- 
 lowed of in future, confiftently with the duties re- 
 fulting from onr allegiance*. Even fuppofe the 
 Bifkop of London hereafter exempted, by Act of 
 Parliament, from the neceflity of exacting the 
 oaths, a dependence on his Lordihip and his fuc- 
 ceffors in that See would be liable to the reproach 
 of foreign influence, and render epifcopalians lefs 
 qualified than thofe of other communions, to be 
 entrufted by their country; neither (as may be pre- 
 fumed) will it be claimed after the acknowlege- 
 ment of the civil independence, being contrary to 
 a principle clearly implied in many of the initiru- 
 tions of the church of England, particularly inthe 
 34th article of religion; which aflerts, that “ every 
 «© particular or national church hath authority to 
 ** ordain, change and abolith ceremonies or rites of 
 ** the church, ordained only by Man’s authority, 
 ** fo that all things be done to edifying.” Though 
 the epifcopal churches in thefe ftates will not be 
 national or legal eftablifhments, the fame princi- 
 ple applies, being the danger of foreign jurifdic- 
 tion. 
 
 The ecclefiaftical power over the greater num- 
 ber of the churches, formerly fubfifting in fome le- 
 giflative bodies on this continent, is alfo abrogated 
 by the revolution. In the fouthern ftates, where 
 the epifcopal churches were maintained by law, the 
 aflemblies might well have been fuppofed empow- 
 ered, in conjunction with the other branches oF le- 
 giflation, to regulate their external government ; 
 
 but 
 
 _* Were the Britith colonies independent of their parent 
 kingdom, the epifcopalians in this country would bea fo- 
 ciety independent of the national church. 
 
 Dr. Chandler’s Appeal farther defended. Page 1*>- 
 
Lied 
 
 but now, when the eftablifhments sare overturned, 
 it would ill become thofe bodies, compofed of men 
 of various denominations (however refpectable col= 
 leétively and as individuals) to ena& laws for the 
 epifcopal churches, which will no doubt, in com- 
 mon with others, claim and exercife the privilege 
 of governing themfelves. 
 
 All former jurifdiction over the churches being 
 thus withdrawn, and the chain which held them 
 together broken, it wouid feem, that their future 
 continuance can be provided for only by volunta- 
 ry aflociations for union and good government. It 
 is therefore of the utmott confequence, to difcover 
 and afcertain the principles, on which fuch afloci- 
 ations fhould be framed. 
 
 C _H APs Tie ii 
 
 WHOEVER hhould confider the fubject be- 
 fore us as merely fpeculative, and propofe the fug- 
 geftions of his own judgment or fancy, without at- 
 tention to the fentiments, habits, and circumftances 
 of the people interefted, would probably have little 
 weight, and would unqueftionably not be ufeful. In 
 the prefenc inveftigation, therefore, it will be pro- 
 per to keep in view the particular fituation of the 
 churches in queftion. © 
 
 In moft cafes where fpiritual jurifdiction has been 
 eftablithed or defined, fuch has been the connection 
 between church and ftate, that it was fcarcely pofli- 
 ble to adopt meafures, which did not thew fome 
 traces of accommodation to political views; but 
 this may be avoided in the prefent inftance, where 
 all denominations of chriftians are on a level, and 
 no church is farther known to the public, than as 
 a voluntary affociation of individuals, for a lawful 
 and ufeful purpofe. The effect of this thould be 
 the avoiding of whatever may give the churches the 
 appearance of being fabfervient to party, or tend 
 to unite their members on queftions of a civil nature, 
 
 This 
 
[99a 
 
 This is unqeeftionably agreeable to the fimplicity 
 of the gofpel ; it is conceived to be alfo, under the 
 prefent circumftances, agreeable to good policy; for 
 whatever church fhall aim at fuch objects, unlefs on 
 account of an invafion of their religious privileges, 
 will be fufpected by all others, as aiming at the ex- 
 clufive government of the country. 
 
 In the parent church, though whatever regards 
 religion may be enacted by the clergy in convoca- 
 tion, it maft afterwards: have the fanction of all 
 other orders of men, comprehended in the parlia- 
 ment. It will be neceflary to deviate from the prac- 
 tice (though not from the principles) of that church, 
 by convening the clergy and laity in one body. 
 The former will no doubt have an influence propor- 
 tioved to the opinion entertained of their piety 
 ard learning; but will never (it is prelumed) with 
 to ufurp an exclufive right of regulation ; a fenti- 
 ment which cannot more properly be exprefled than 
 in the following words of that great defender of 
 the church of England Mr. Hooker ; “¢ The moft na- 
 “ tural and religious courfe of making laws, is that 
 ‘the matter of them be taken from the judgment 
 “of the wifeft in thefe things which they are 
 “to concern. In matters of God, to fer downa 
 ‘¢ form of prayer, a folemn confedilion of the arti- 
 «© cles of the chriftian faith and ceremonies meet for 
 ‘« the exercife of our religion, it weve upnatural not 
 “to think the paftors and bifhops of our fouls, a 
 *‘ great deal more fit than men of fecular trades and 
 ee callings howbeit, when all that the wif 
 “¢ dom of a! forts can do is done for the devifing of 
 “ laws in the church, it is the general con fent of al! 
 « that giveth them the form and vigor of laws *.’ 
 And in another p!ace “ but were it ‘fo that the clei 
 “ gy migit give laws to all the reft, forafmuci as 
 * every eftate doth defire to enlarge the bounds of 
 *¢ their own liberties, it is eafy to fee how injurious 
 “this would prove to men of other conditionst.” 
 
 B The 
 * Ecclefiaftical Polity. Page 4 + Ibid. Page 437: 
 
L Joga 
 
 The power of electing a fuperior order of mini- 
 {ters ought to be in the clergy and laity together, 
 they being both interefted in the choice, In Eng- 
 land, the bifhops are appointed by the civil autho- 
 riry; which was an ufurpation of the crown at the 
 Norman conque(lt, but fince confirmed by acts of 
 parliameut. The primitive churches were general- 
 ly fupplied by popular elections; even in the city 
 of Rome, the privilege of electing the bifhop con- 
 tinued with the people to the tenth or eleventh 
 century ; aud near thofe times there are refolves of 
 councils, that none fhould be promoted to ecclefi- 
 altical dignities, but by election of the clergy and 
 people. It cannot be denied that this right vetted 
 in numerous bodies, occafioned great diforders ; 
 which itis expected wil] be avoided, when the peo- 
 ple thall exercife the right by reprefentation. 
 
 Deprivation of the fuperior order of clergy 
 fhould alfo be inthe church at large. In England, 
 it has been fometimes done by the civil authority; 
 particularly in the inftances of Queen Mary’s roman- 
 catholic bifhops by Queen Elizabeth, and of the 
 non-juring bifhops at the revolution ; which laft 
 occafioned a feparation from the national church, 
 Sancroft. and the others being ftill confidered by 
 their advocates as bifhops of their refpective fees, 
 and jTillotfon and his aflociates reprobated by them 
 as {cifmatics. So far is the civil policy of England 
 from permitting an entire feparation of ecclefiafti- 
 cal authority, that in Queen Ann’s reign, when Bi- 
 fhop Watfon was deprived for immorality, it was 
 allowed, that as a peer he might have objected to 
 the arch-bifhop’s jurifdiction, provided he had 
 pleaded his privilege in time. It is well known, 
 that the interference of the civil authority in fuch 
 inftances as the preceding has been confidered by 
 many as inconfiftent with ecclefiaftical principles ; 
 an objection which will be avoided, when depriva- 
 tion can only be under regulations enacted by a 
 fair reprefentation of the churches, and by an au- 
 
 thority 
 
vi 
 thority entirely ecclefiaflical. It is prefumed, that 
 none will fo far mitlake the principles of the 
 church of England, as to talk of the impoflibility of 
 depriving a bifhop. 
 
 In England, diocefes having been formed before 
 parifhes, a church fuppofes one common fleck, fub- 
 ject to a bifhop and fundry collegiate prefbycers; 
 without the idea of its being neceflarily divided 
 into fmaller eommunities, connected with their re- 
 fpective parochial clergy; the latter having been / 
 introduced fome confiderable time after the conven< 
 aion of the nation to the chrifliap faith. One naé 
 tural confequence of this difrinGiion, will be to re- 
 tain in each church every power that need not be 
 delegated for the good af whale, Another, will be 
 an equality of the churches ; and not, as i Enp- 
 jand, the fubjection of al! parifh churches to their 
 re(pective cathedrals. 
 
 The laft circumftance to be here mentioned, is 
 the impoffibility that the churches fhould provide a 
 fupport for that fuperior order of clergy, to which 
 their acknowleged principles point; of confe- 
 quence, the duty afligned to that order ought not 
 materially to interfere with their employments, in 
 the {tation of parochial clergy ; the fuperintend- 
 ence of each will therefore be Confined to a fmall 
 diftric& ; a favorite idea with all moderate epif- 
 
 copalians. 
 It is prop to offer the outlines of a frame of 
 
 church governihent, founded on the preceding fen- 
 timents, 
 
 CHS PT ERS 
 
 THE author offers the following fetch of a 
 frame of government, thougt, he is far from think- 
 ing it complete; to make ir io even according to 
 his own ideas, would carry him beyond the com- 
 pafe intended in this eflay. 
 
 As 
 
[.-tegeg 
 
 ~ As the churches in queftion extend over an im- 
 menfe fpace of country, it can never be expected, 
 that reprefentatives from each church fould affem- 
 ble in one place; it will be more convenient fur 
 them to-afluciate in {mall diftricts, from which re- 
 prefentatives may be fent to three different bodies, 
 the continent being fuppofed divided into that num- 
 ber of larger diftricts. From thefe may be elected 
 a body reprefenting the whole. 
 
 In each fmaller diftrict, there fhould be elected a 
 general veftry or convention, confifling of a conve- 
 nient number (the minifter to be one) from the vef- 
 try or congregation of each church, or of every 
 two or more churches, according to their re{pective 
 ability of fupporting a minifter. They fhould ele& 
 a clergyman their permanent prefident ; who, in 
 conjunction with other clergymento be alfo appoint- 
 ed by the body, may exercife fuch powers'as are 
 parely fpiritual, particularly that of admitting to 
 the miniftry ; the prefiding clergyman and others 
 to be liable to be deprived for jult caufes, by a fair 
 procefs,and under reaf»nable laws ; meetings to be 
 held as often as occafion may require. 
 
 The affemblies in the three larger diftridts may 
 confift of a convenient number of members, fent 
 from each of the fmaller diftriéts feverally within 
 their bounds, equally compofed of clergy and laity, 
 and voted for by thofe orders pramjfcuoufly; the 
 prefiding clergyman to be alesys ie and thefe 
 bodies to meet once in every year. 
 
 The continental reprefentative body may confift 
 of a convenient number from each of the larger 
 diftricts, formed equally of clergy and laity, and 
 among the clergy, formed equally of prefiding mi- 
 nifters and others ; to meet ftatedly oncé in three 
 years. The ufe of this and the preceding reprefen- 
 tative bodies is to make fuch regulations, and re- 
 ceive appeals in fuch matters only, as fhall be judg- 
 ed neceflary for their continuing one religious. com- 
 mynion, 
 
 Thefe 
 
fag 23 
 
 Thefe are (what was promifed) no more than 
 outlines; which it wil] not be proper to difmifs, 
 without a few obfervations on the degree of power 
 to be exercifed, in matters of faith, worfhip, and 
 government. 
 
 For the doérinal part, in would perhaps be fuf- 
 ficient to demand of al] admitted to the miniftry, 
 or engaged in ecclefiaftical legiflation, the quetfti- 
 ons contained in the took of ordination ; which ex- 
 tend no farther than an acknowlegement of the 
 {criptures, asa rule of faith and life; yet fome ge- 
 nera) fan¢tion may be piven to the thirty-nine arti- 
 cles of religion, fo as to adopt their leading fenfe * ; 
 which is here propofed rather as a chain of union, 
 than for exa¢tiug entire uniformity of fentiment. 
 If the laft be confidered as a defireable object, the 
 articles have undeniably been found infufficient for 
 the purpofe ; which is not here faid from an opinion 
 that fuch was the intention of the compilers, but ra- 
 ther with a conviction, that they defignedly Jeft room 
 for a confiderable latitude of fentimeot; if to the 
 above there be objecied rhe danger of a public op- 
 pofition between minifters, this obvious anfwer 
 may be made ; that the ftricteit refts ever devifed 
 cannot be fo effectual to prevent fuch condug, as 
 the regulation contained in the 53d cannon; 
 
 which 
 
 * Suppofe, for inance, a formPESFMBLING that which 
 Dr. Ferdinando Warner, a late ecclefiaftical Hiftorian of 
 the epifcopal church, fays (Book 16) was propofed in the 
 reign of Charles II. by the Lord Keeper Bridgman, Bi- 
 fhop Wilkins and Chiet Juftice Hale, ‘* to ferve inftead of 
 © all former fubfcriptions.’? The form was this, ‘‘ I do 
 hereby profefs and declare, that I approve the doétrine, 
 worfhip and government eftablifhed in the church of 
 England, as c. ntaining al! things neceflary to falvation, 
 and that I will not endeavour by myfelf or avy other, 
 dire€tly or indireétly, to bring in any doftrine contrary 
 *« to that which is fo efiablifhed ; and I do hereby promife 
 
 that I will continue in the communion of the church of 
 
 England, and will not do any thing to diflurb the peace 
 “ thereof.’? 
 
 “e 
 
 aii 
 
[i Rag 
 
 which confiders jt as indecent and punifhable, inde- 
 pendently of the merits of the doctrines litigated. 
 
 As to divine worfhip, there muft no doubt be 
 fomewhere the power of making neceflary and con- 
 venient alterations in the fervice of the church. 
 But it ought to be ufed with great moderation ; 
 otherwife the communion will become divided into 
 an infinite number of fmaller ones, all differing 
 from one another and from that in England; from 
 whence we may expect confiderable numbers to mi- 
 grate hereafter to this country; who, if they find 
 too wide a deviation from the ancient practice, will 
 probably form an independent communion of their 
 own. Whatever may in other refpecis be deter- 
 mined on this head, it is prefumed the epifcopali- 
 ans are generally attached to that characteriftic of 
 their communion, which prefcribes a fettled form of 
 prayer. 
 
 On the fubject of government, whether civil or 
 ecclefiaftical, there is great truth and beauty in the 
 following obfervation of the prefent Bifhop of St. 
 Afaph, “ the great art of governing confifts in not go- 
 *¢ verning too much.” Perhaps it would be fufficient, 
 if an immoral life were followed by exclufion from 
 the facrament and ecclefiaftical employment; depri- 
 vation from church benefices following of courfe. 
 The above is not to be underftood as excluding the 
 enforcing fuch rules, as are neceflary to preferve de- 
 cency and order. Astoexcommunication or an en- 
 tire feparation from the church, however neceflary 
 it was in the primitive ages, when chriftianity ir- 
 felf, being not generally known, and mifreprefented 
 as a fanction for lewdnefs, treafon aud clandeftine 
 murders, muft have been effentially wounded by the 
 immoralities of any of its profeflors ; there is great 
 room todoubt of there being the fame ufe in it at 
 prefent, when the vices of a profefling chriftian are 
 univerfally known to be oppofite to the precepts of 
 his religion. Such are the tyranny and hypocrify 
 
 too 
 
ae 
 
 too frequently arifing from the exercife of this pow- 
 er, that ir may be thought fafeit to leave men to 
 thofe great fanctions of duty, the will of God and a 
 future retribution ; attended as they will generally 
 be with a fenfe of fhame, diffuading from actions fo 
 notorioufly feandalous, as to be a foundation for 
 church cenfures. : 
 
 In the preceding pages, the idea of fuperintend- 
 ing minifters has been introduced ; but not a word 
 has been faid of the fucceflion fuppofetl neceflary 
 to conftitute the epifcopal character ; and this has 
 been on purpofe poftponed, as demanding a more 
 minate difcuffion. 
 
 Coa-A“P T Beee ety: 
 
 ON the fubject of epifcopacy, the general opi- 
 nion of thechurches in queftion is of peculiar con- 
 fequence; yet it can be collected only from circum- 
 flances; to affift in afcertaining it, the two follow- 
 ing facts are ftated. 
 
 Wherever thefe churches have been erected, the 
 ecclefiaftical povernment of the church of England 
 has been adhered to; they have depended on the 
 englifh bifhops for ordination of their clergy, and 
 
 on no occafion expretied a diflatisfaction with epif- , 
 
 copacy. This, confidering the liberty they enjoyed 
 in common with others, of forming their churches 
 on whatever plan they liked beft, is a prefumptive 
 proof of their preferring the epifcopal government ; 
 
 efpecially as it fubjected them under the former 
 
 connection to many inconveniences, fuch as fending * 
 
 to the diftance of three thoufand miles for ordinati- 
 on, the fcandal fometimes brought on the church by 
 the ordination of low and vicious perfons*, the dif- 
 ficulty of getting rid of immoral minifters, and that 
 feveral of the clergy formed attachments of which 
 this country has been always jealous, and which 
 have 
 
 * Generally by deceptions on the Bifhop of London. 
 
 ~~ 
 
fei 18," 
 
 have at laft proved extremely prejudicial to -her ine 
 terefts, 
 
 On the other hand, there cannot be produced an 
 inftance of Jay-men in America, unlefs in the very 
 infancy of the fettlements, foliciting the introduc- 
 tion of a bifhop* ; it was probably by a great majo- 
 rity of them thought an hazardous experiment. 
 How far the prerogative of the king as head of the 
 church might be conftrued to extend: over the co- 
 lonies, whether a bifhop woold bring with him 
 that part of the law which refpects ecclefiaftical 
 matters, and whether the civil powers velted in bi- 
 fhops in England would accompany that order to 
 America, were queftions which for ought they knew 
 would include principles and produce confequen- 
 ces, dangerous and deftructive to their civil rights}. 
 
 From thefe two facts it may fairly be inferred, 
 that the epifcopalians on this continent will with to 
 inftitute among themfelves an epifcopal government, 
 as foon as it shall appear practicable, and that this 
 government will not be attended with the danger of 
 tyranny, either temporal or fpiritual. 
 
 But ic is generally underftood, that the fucceffion 
 cannot at prefent be obtained. From the parent 
 
 church 
 
 * If there has been any, it muft have been from fofew, 
 as rather to corroborate than weaken the fentiment con- . 
 veyed. 
 
 + Whether the above appendages would have accompa» 
 nied an Englifh bifhop to America, the author is no judge. 
 That they were generally feared by the epifcopalian laity, 
 he thinks the only way of accounting for the cold recep- 
 tion they gave (a fa& univerfally known) to every propo- 
 fal for the introdu€tion of a bifhop. Thofe who pleaded 
 for the meafure on a plan purely fpirirual, thought he 
 would not be invefted, by the laws of England, with fuch 
 powers ; but in cafe it had provéd otherwife, thry propof- 
 ed the limiting him by a€t of parliament. What the peo- 
 ple would have thought of meafures, which muff hace re- 
 quired an a@ of that body to render them harmlefs, no 
 perfon formerly acquainted with their-temper and fenti- _ 
 ments neéd be told ; and whether they juged right or not, 
 recent events have abundantly fhewn. 
 
C7 4d 
 
 church moft unqueftionably it cannot; whether from 
 any is prefumed to be more than we can at prefentbe 
 informed. But the propofal to conftitute a frame 
 
 of government, the éxecution of which fhall depend | 
 
 on the pleafure of perfons unknown, differing from 
 
 us inlanguage, habits, and perhaps in religious pring | 
 
 ciples, bas too Judicrous an appearance to deferve 
 confideration ; the peculiar circumftances of the war 
 in which our country is engaged preclude us from 
 procuring the fucceflion in thofe quarters, to which 
 alone application could confiftently be made; the 
 danger of offending the Britith government con- 
 {training (perhaps) a refulal of what, it would of 
 courfe be indelicate in us to afk. Now, onthe one 
 hand, to depart from epifcopacy, would be giving 
 up a leading characteriftic of the communion ; 
 which, however indifferently confidered asto divine 
 appointment, might be productive of all the evils 
 genérally attending changes of this fort, On the 
 other hand, by delaying co adopt meafures for the 
 continuance of the miiniftry, the very exiltence of 
 the churches is hazarded, and duties of pofitive and 
 indifpenfable obligation are neglected. 
 
 Phe conduct meant to be recommended, as found- 
 ed on the preceding fentiments, is to include in 
 the propoted frame of governthent a gene- 
 ral approbation of epifctopacy, and a de- 
 claration of an intention to procure the fuc- 
 ceffion as foon as conveniently may be; but 
 in the mean time to carry the plan into effect 
 without waiting for the fucceffioti. 
 
 The firft part of this propofal is concéived to be 
 founded on the plain dictates of propriety, prudence, 
 and mederation; for if the pile iW alga te 
 on acknowleged principles, theré will be far lefs 
 fhock to ancient habits, and lefs caufé of inteftine 
 divifions, than if new principlés are to be fought 
 for and eftablifhed, To illultrare this by at allafi- 
 on ; had eur old governments been fo adjulted to tie 
 
 Cc genius 
 
C 38 J 
 
 genius of the people and their prefent circumftan- 
 ces, as at the revolution to have required no farther 
 change than what neceflarily arofe from the extinc: 
 tion of royal authority, it is obvious, that many 
 pernicious controverfies would have been prevented. 
 - Such, however, except in a few inftances, was not 
 the happinefs of the colonies, But it is precifely 
 the firuation of the epifcopal churches in their re- 
 ligious concerns ; none of their conftituent princi- 
 ples being thereby changed, but what were found- 
 ed on the authority of the king. 
 
 In the minds ef fome, the idea of epifcopacy 
 will be conne&ed with that of immoderate pow- 
 er; to which it may be anfwered, that power be- 
 comes dangerous, not from the precedency of one 
 man, but from his being independent. Had Rome 
 been governed Ly a prefbytery inftead of a bifhop ; 
 and had that prefbytery been invefted with the in- 
 dependent riches and dominion of the papal fee ; 
 it is eafy to conceive, of their acquiring as much 
 power over the chriftian world, as was ever known 
 in a Gregory or a Paul. 
 
 It may be further objected, that epifcopacy is an- 
 ti-republican ; and therefore oppofed to thofe ideas 
 which all good citizens ought to promote, for fecur- 
 ing the peace and happinefs of the community. 
 Bat this fuppofed relation between epifcopacy and 
 monarchy arifes from confounding englifh epifcopa- 
 cy, with the fubject at large. In the early ages of 
 the church, it was cuftomary to debate and deter- 
 mine in a general concourfe of all chriftians in the 
 fame city; among whom the bifhop was no more 
 than prefident. Matters were indeed tuo often con- 
 ducted tumultuonfly, and after a manner which no 
 prudent and peaceable man would wifh to fee imi- 
 tated ; but the churches were not the lefs epifcopal 
 on that account. Very few fyftems of religious 
 difcipline on this continent are equally republican 
 with that propofed in the preceding pages. The 
 adage of King James 1. “ No bithop no King, andno , 
 “ King no bifhop,” ought onlyto be underftood con- 
 
 ecrning 
 
tw 
 
 ’ eerning that degree of epifcopal power together with 
 its civil appendages, of which he certainly meant it. 
 
 But it will be alfo faid, that the very name of 
 “ Bithop” is offenfive ; if fo, change it for another ; 
 let the fuperior clergyman be a prefident, a fuper- 
 intendant, or in plain eng)ifh, and, according to 
 the literal tranflation of the original, an overfeer. 
 * However, if names are to be reprobated, becaufe 
 the powers annexed to them have been abufed, there 
 are few appropriated to either civil or ecclefiaftical 
 diftinctions, which would retain their places in 
 our catalogne, 
 
 The other part of the propofal was an imme- 
 diate execution of the plan, without waiting for 
 
 the epifcopal fucceffion. This is founded on the 
 prefumption, that the worfhip of God and the inftruc- 
 tion and reformation of the people are the princie 
 pal objects of ecclefiaftical difcipline ; if fo, to re- 
 linguifh them from a ferupulons adherence to epif- 
 copacy, is facrificing. the {ubftance to the ceremony. 
 It will be faid, we ought to continue as we are, 
 with the hope of obtaining, it hereafter. But are. 
 the acknowleged ordinances of Chrift’s holy reli- 
 gion to be fufpended for years, perhaps as long as 
 the prefent gencration. fhall.continue, out of deli- 
 cacy to a difputed point, and that relating only to’ 
 externals?*Ic is fabmitted, bow far fuch ideas en- 
 courage the fufpicion of want of attachment to 
 any particular church, except fo far as is fubfervi- 
 ent to fome civil fyftem. All the obligations of 
 conformity to the divine ordinances, all: the argu- 
 ments which prove the connection between public 
 worfhipand the morals of a people, combine to urge 
 the adopting fome fpeedy meafures, to provide for 
 the public miniftry in thefe churches ;. if fach as 
 have been above recommended fhould be adopted,’ 
 and the epifcopal fucceflion afterwards obtained, 
 any fuppefed imperfections of the intermediate or- 
 dinations might, if it were judged proper, be fup- 
 plied 
 
 a a 
 
C 20 J 
 
 plicd without acknowleging their nullity, by a 
 seniitiongl ordination refembling that of conditional 
 baptifm in the liturgy ; the above was an expedient 
 propofed by Arch bifhop Tillotfon, Bifhops Patrick, 
 Stillingfleet and others at the revolution, and had 
 been actually practifed in Ireland by Arch-bifhop 
 Bramhall*. 
 
 But it will be faid, the dropping the fucceflion 
 even for a time would be a departure trom the 
 principles of the churchof England. This preju- 
 dice is too common, not to deferve particular at. 
 tention. 
 
 Ci... ABS ee ree... Vx 
 
 IT would be to the greateft degree furprifing, 
 if the church of England, acknowleged by all 
 proteftant churches to lay a fufficient ftrefs on the 
 effential doctrines and doties of the gofpel, fhould 
 be found fo immoderately attached to a matter of 
 external order, as mult in fome cafes be ruinous to 
 her communion. But, far from this, it will not be 
 difticult to prove, thata temporary departure from 
 epifcopacy in the prefent inftance would be war- 
 ranted by her doctrines, by her practice, and by 
 the principles on which epifcopal government is 
 afferted. 
 
 Whatever that chureh holds muft be included in 
 the * thirty-nine articles of religion ;” which were 
 evidently intended for a comprehenfive fyftem of 
 neceflary do@rirve. But what fay thefe articles on 
 the prefent fubject ? Simply, that “ the book of 
 “* confecration of arch-bifhops and bifhops and the 
 ‘‘ ordering of priefts and deacons, doth contain 
 «¢ all things neceflary thereunto; neither hath it any 
 “‘ thing that of itfelf is fuperftitious and ungodly +.” 
 The Sa fpeak the fame fenfe, cenfuring thofe 
 who fhall “ affirm that the government of the 
 
 *« church 
 
 * Nichols’s Defence of the church of England, Intro- 
 dudion,. t+ Article 36. 
 
C2 J 
 ‘¢ church of England. by arch-bifhops, bithops, &e. 
 
 ‘‘is antichriftian or repugnant to the word of 
 ““God}.” And thofe who “ fhall affirm that the 
 “ form and manner of making and confecrating bi- 
 “< fhops, prieftsand deacons, containeth any.thing in 
 ‘« jt that is repugnant to the word of God, or that 
 “ that they who are thus made bifhops, &c, are not 
 ‘“* lawfully made, Xc ||.” 
 
 How can fuch moderation of fentiment and ex- 
 preffion be juflified, if the epifcopal fucceffion be fo 
 binding, as ta allow no deviation in a cafe of ex- 
 treme neceffity? Had the church of England de- 
 creed concerning baptifm and the Lord’s fupper, 
 only that they were “not repugnant tothe word of 
 “ God,” and that her offices for thofe facraments, 
 were “ not fuperftitious.and ungodly,” would the. 
 not be cenfured by almoft all chriltendom, as. re- 
 nouncing the obligation of thofe facraments? Equal. 
 ly improper would be the application of fuch:mo- 
 derate expreffions to epifcopaey, if (as fome ima- 
 gine) the confiders it to be asmuch binding as bap- 
 tifm and the Lord’s fupper. 
 
 The book of confecration and ordination carries 
 the idea no farther, except that the preface as al- 
 tered at the reftoration (for it was not fo in, the 
 old preface) affirms that “ from the apofiles times 
 “ there have been thefe orders in Chrift’s church, 
 ‘*€ bifhops, priefts and deacons.” But there is an 
 evident difference between this and the’ afferting 
 the unlawfulnefs of deviating from that practice in 
 an inftance, extraordinary and anpkavided for. 
 
 Next to the doctrine of the church, let us enquire, 
 whether her practice: will furnifh us with a prece- 
 dent to juitify the liberty we plead. 
 
 Many of the Engtifh proteflants, during the pers: 
 fecution by Queen Mary, took refuge in foreign 
 countries, particularly in. Germany. and Geneva, 
 When proteftaniifin revived at the, aufpicious ac- 
 
 . ' ceflion 
 
 ft Canon 7. .} Canon 8. 
 
£ 22 Jj 
 
 eeflion of Queen Elizabeth, and at the fame time 
 a cloud was gathering on the continent in confe- 
 quence of the emperor’s victories over the princes 
 of the Smalcaldic league, many of the exiles re- 
 turned to their native land ; fome of whom, during 
 their abfence, had been ordained according to the 
 cuftoms of the eountries where they had refided ; 
 thefe were admitted without re-ordination topreach 
 and hold benefices ; ene of them* was promoted to 
 adean’ry; but at the fame time, as feveral of them 
 were endeavouring to make innovations in the efta- 
 blithed church, it was provided in a law (13th Eli- 
 zabeth 12.) that “ whoever fhall pretend to be a 
 «© prieft or minifter of God’s holy word, by reafon 
 s¢ of any other form of inftitution, confecration 
 ‘¢ or ordering, than the form fet forth by act of 
 “¢ parliament, before the feaft of the nativity of 
 ¢¢ Chrift next enfuing, fhall in the prefence of the 
 ** bifhop declare his aflent and {ubf{cribe to all 
 *¢ the articles of religion agreed on, &ct.” Here 
 exifted an extraordinary occafion, not provided for 
 in the inftitutions for common ufe ; the exigency 
 of the cafe feems to ,have been confidered ; and 
 there followed a toleration, if not implied appro- 
 bation, of a departure in that inflance from epif- 
 copal ordination. There cannot be expected ano- 
 : ther 
 
 ® Whittingham. 
 
 + Bifhop Burnet fays (Hiftory of his own times, anno 
 1661) that until the a& of uniformity, paffed foon after 
 the reftoration, ‘‘ thofe who came to England from the 
 foreign churches had not been required to be ordained 
 among us.”? If fo, the argument founded on praétice 
 extends farther than it has been here urged, The a@& of 
 Elizabeth, however, had no operation beyond the Chrift- 
 mas next enfuing ; neither indeed did it pronounce that 
 a good ordination which would have been otherwife de- 
 feGtive; but its being meant to comprehend thofe who 
 were AT THAT TIME invetted with foreign non-epifcopa- 
 lian ordination, is evident from their being a€tually al- 
 lowed to preach and hold benefices, on the condition of 
 their fubfcribing the thirty-nine articles. 
 
~~ oad 
 
 ther example, becaufe no fimilar inftance of ne- 
 ceffiry has happened ; unlefs that at the reftoration 
 be confidered as fuch ; bur, it is prefumed, no ftrefs 
 will be Jaid on the omiffion of the like indulgence 
 at that period ; whenthe minds of the ruling epi 
 copalians, irritated by recent fufferings, were lefs 
 intent on conciliation than on retaliation*. 
 
 Let us next take a view of the grounds on which 
 the authority of epifcopacy is aflerted. 
 
 The advocates for this form maintain, that there 
 having been an epifcopal power originally lodged 
 by Jefus Chrift with bis apoftles, and by them ex- 
 ercifed generally in perfon, but fometimes by de- 
 legation (asin the inftances of Timothy and Titus) 
 the fame was conveyed by them before their de- 
 ceafe to one paftor in each church, which general- 
 ly comprehended all the Chriftians in a city anda 
 convenient furrounding diftrict. Thus were cre- 
 ated the apoftolic fucceffors, who, on account of 
 their fettled refidence are called bithops by reffraint; 
 whereas phe apofiles themfelves were bifhops at 
 large, exercifing e¢pifcopal power over all the 
 churches, except in the cafe of St. James, who 
 from the beginning was bifhop of Jerufalem. From 
 this time the word “ epifcopos,” ufed in the new 
 teftament indifcrimisately with the word « pref- 
 buteros,” (particularly in the 20th chapter of the 
 acts where the fame perfous are called “ epifcopoi” 
 and ‘ prefbuteroi,”) became appropriated to the 
 {uperior order of minifters. That the apoftles 
 were thus fucceeded by an order of minifters fupe- 
 rior to paftors in general, epifcepalians think they. 
 prove by the teftimonies of the ancient fathers, and 
 
 _from the improbability that fo great an innovati- 
 
 on 
 
 __ © Bithop Burnet affigns a reafon ftill lefs excufeable ; 
 that many great preferments were in the hands of ob. 
 noxious perfons, who, on account of their fervices to- 
 wards the refloration, could not otherwife be ejeéted, 
 than by making the terms of conformity difficuli.  Hif- 
 tory of his own times, anno 1661. 
 
[ 24 1 
 
 on (as fome conceive it) could have found general 
 and peaceable poffeffion in the 2d or 3d century, 
 when epifcopacy is on both fides acknowleged 1 
 have been prevalent*. The argument is here con- 
 cifely ftated, but (as is believed) impartially ; the 
 manner iu which the fubject is handled by Mr. 
 Hooker and Bifhop Hoadly being particularly kepr 
 in view. 
 
 Can any reafonable rule of conftruction make 
 this amount to more than ancient and apoftolic 
 practice? That the apoftles adopted any particu- 
 lar form, affords a prefumption of its being the beft, 
 all circumftances at that time confidered; but to 
 make it unalterably binding, it mut be fhewn en- 
 joined in pofitive precept. Bifhop Hoadly clearly 
 points out this deftinction in his anfwer to Dr. 
 Calamy. The latter having confidered it as the 
 fenfe of the Church, in the preface to the ordinal, 
 that the three orders were of divine appointment, 
 and urged it as areafon for non-conformity ; the 
 bifhop, with evident propriety, remarks that the 
 fervice pronounces no fuch thing ; and that there- 
 fore Dr. Calamy created a difficulty, where the 
 church had made none; there being ‘‘ fome differ- 
 ‘* ence (fays he) between thefe two fentences—bi- 
 « fhops, priefts and deacons are three diftinct orders 
 “in the church by divine appointment—and—frem 
 “ the apo(tles time there have been in Chrift’s charch 
 
 “* bifhops, priefts and deaconst*.” 
 ; ’ Now, 
 
 * The original of the order of bifhops was from the 
 refbyters choofing one from among themfelves to be a 
 Rated prefident in their affemblies, in the 2d or 3d cen- 
 tury. Smectymnuan divines, as quoted in Neal’s hifto- 
 ry of the Puritans, anno 1640. 
 + Reafonablenefs of conformity ; part I, 
 * The fame diftin&tion is accurately drawn and fully 
 “aa by Stillingfleet in ** the Irenicum.’? But as that 
 earned prelate was afterwards diffatished with his work 
 (the moft probably not with that part of it which would 
 have been toour purpofe) it might feem uncandid fo cite 
 the 
 
i 25-4 
 
 Now, i: the form of church government reft on 
 no other foundation, than ancient and apoftolic 
 prattice ; itis humbly faubmitted to confideration, 
 whether epifcopalians will not be thought fcarcely 
 deferving the name of chriftians, fhould they, rather 
 than confent to a temporary deviation, abandon 
 every ordinance of pofitive and divine appointment. 
 
 Any perfon, reading what fome divines of the 
 church of England have written againft diflenr. 
 ers, would in general widely miltake their mean- 
 ing, fhould he apply to the fubject before us, the 
 cenfures he will fometimes meet with, which have 
 in view, not merely the merits of the queftion, but 
 the duty of conforming to the eftablithed churck, 
 in all things not contrary to the law of God. Thus 
 Bifhop Stillingfleet, who at the reftoration had writ- 
 ten with great tendernefs towards the diflenters, and 
 many years afterwards preached a fermon ona pub- 
 lic occafion containing fevere animadverfions on 
 their feparation ; on being accufed of inconfifter- 
 cy, replies (in the preface to his treatife on the 
 unlawfulnefs of feparation) that the former was 
 ** before the Jaws were eftablifhed ;” meaning prin- 
 cipally the act of uniformity. So alfo Bifhop Hoad- 
 ly fays, the acceptance of re-ordination by the dif 
 fenting miniiters, would not be a denial of that 
 right, which (as they conceived) prefbyters had to 
 ordain ; but a confeffion that their former ordipa- 
 tion was “ fo far null and void, that God did not 
 “« approve the exercife of that right in oppofition 
 
 D ‘6 to 
 
 the authority of his opxnroN. Burnet, his cotemporary & 
 friend, fays (Hiftory of his own times, anno 1661) << to 
 «¢ avoid the imputation that book brought on him, he 
 ¢¢ went into the humours of an high fort of people be- 
 *¢ yond what became him, perhaps beyond his own fenfe 
 of things.”? The book, however, was it feems eafier 
 RETRACTED than REFUTED ; for tho’ offenfive to many 
 of both parties, it was managed (fays the fame author) 
 with fo much learning and fkill, that none of cither fide 
 ever undertook to anfwer it.’? 
 
{[ 26 J 
 
 “ to the lawful fettled method* ” Dr. Henry Mau- 
 rice alfo, who has written with great learning and 
 reputation in defence of epifcopacy, makes the fame 
 difttinGion ; obferving that the * diffenters do for 
 “ reign churches great injuftice when they concern 
 *¢ them in their quarrel,” the ordination of the lat. 
 ter being “‘ not only without, but in oppofition to 
 “ bifhops, againft all the eftablithed laws of ‘this 
 *€ church, &c}.” Even where the fame diftin&ion is 
 not expreiled, it is generally implicd. Whether 
 the above cenfures are well or ill founded, is a 
 queftion that has no coanection with out fubject ; 
 they cannot be thought applicable to the liberty 
 here pleadedf. 
 
 Again, it cannot be denied, that fome writers of 
 the church of England apply very {trong expreffi- 
 ons to epifcopacy, calling it a divine wppointment, 
 the ordinance of Chrift, and the law of God, and 
 pronounce it to be of divine right. Yer, in reafon 
 they ought to be underftood only as afferting it to 
 be binding, whereverit can conveniently be hads 
 not that law and gofpel are to ceafe rather than 
 epifcopacy, Mr. Hooker, who ufes fuch ftrong 
 expreffions, makes neverthelefs a clear diftinction 
 between matters of neceflity and thofe of ecclefiaf- 
 tical polity ; as may be feen at large in his third 
 
 and 
 
 * Reply to objeftions againft epifcopal ordination, 
 
 + Maurice againft Clarkfon, page 453. 
 
 Tt In England, the members of the eftablifhed church 
 confider the diffenters as blameable in net conforming 
 to it as fuch, there being nothing required contrary 
 to the law of God. Thefe, on the other hand biame 
 the members of the eftablifhment, for not yielding to 
 their confcientious feruples, which thus exclude them 
 from public offices, and fubje&t them to confiderable bur- 
 thens. Such were the principal fources of the animof- 
 ties which have fubfifted between the two parties ; and 
 hence arifes an argument forcharity and mutual forbear- 
 ance among religious focieties in America, with whom 
 the fame caufes of contention and mutual cenfure have 
 no place, and with whom of courfe the fame degree of 
 bitternefs would be lefs excufeable than in England. 
 
Ff Mey ee 
 
 and fourth books. Evea Arch-bifhop Whitgift, faid 
 by fome* to have heen the firft in his high ftation, 
 under whofe patronage fuch pretenfions were an- 
 nexed to epifeopacy, and whofe zeal for that form 
 and the other rig f of the eburch, made him ve- 
 rily believe in the famous conference at Hampton 
 court, that “ the king fpoke by the fpirit of God,” 
 is quoted by Rifhop Stillingfleet, as afferting that 
 “no kind of government is expreffed in the word 
 “ orean necellarily be concluded from rhencet.” 
 In fhort, particular expreffious which writers ufe 
 from zeal for that form they endeavour to eftablith, 
 are not te be given in proof of their opinions, con- 
 cerning the conduc fuited to extraordinary eccafi- 
 ons. Many inftances to the fame purpofe might 
 be produced of engliih divines qualifying fuch high 
 exprefiions and guarding againft feeming confe- 
 quences ; but this part of the fubject thall conclude 
 with the authority of a clergyman of this country, 
 whoa few years ago wrote on epifcopal government. 
 He infis on it as of divine right, aflerts that “ the 
 “ Jaws relating toit bind as ftrongly as the laws 
 « which oblige us to receive baptifm or the holy 
 « eucharifit,” and that “ if the fucceffion be once 
 ** broken, not all the men on earth, not all the an- 
 « pele of heaven, without an immediate commiffi- 
 “on from Chrift, ean reftore it§ ;" Neverthelefs, 
 he acknowleges “ the neceflity of bifhops is no 
 s¢ more than a general neceflity, or in other words, 
 *¢ bifheps according to the belief of the church of 
 s* England, are neceflary only where they can be 
 “‘ had]. He then diftinguifhes between cafes where 
 the 
 
 #* Dr. Warner fays (Book 14.) that ‘¢ Arch-bifhop 
 «¢ Bancroft was the firf{ man who had preached up the 
 «¢ divine right of epifcopacy in the churea of England.’? 
 The firft occafion of his doing this, is faid by others to 
 have been when he was Whitgift’s chaplain. 
 
 + Irenicum, chapter 38. 
 
 {¢.Dr.Chandler’s appeal, page 7. § Ibid, page 4. 
 
 {| Chandler’s appeal defended, page 68. 
 
 % 
 
Cc 2 | 
 
 the neceffity is real, and thofe where epifcopacy 
 had been willingly and expreflly rejected, as by the 
 people of Scotland and the englihh diffenters. 
 
 Now if even thofe who hold epifcopacy to be of 
 divine right, conceive the obligation to it to be not 
 binding when that idea would be deftructive of 
 public worfhip, much more moft fey think fo, 
 who indeed venerate and prefer that form as the 
 moft ancient and eligible, but without any idea of 
 divine right in the cafe. Thisthe author believes 
 to be the fentiment of the great body of epifcopa- 
 lians in America; in which refpect they have in 
 their favour unqueftionably the fenfe of the church of 
 England. and, as he believes the opinions of her moit 
 diftinguifhed prelates fer piety, virtue and abilities. 
 
 C. H. A’ PB) Tieye oe VE 
 
 1T isto be expected, that the far greater number 
 of writers in defence of epifcopal government con- 
 fine their obfervations to the ordinary ftate of the 
 church, without giving their opinions on fuppofed 
 cafes of neceflity. Yet, if it were required to mul- 
 tiply authorities, and writers were confulted with 
 that view, itis probable that many more than the 
 following might be produced. But, as the lawful- 
 
 er. His books on ecclefiaftical polity are univerfal- 
 ly allowed to be a work of mafterly judgment, and 
 deep erudition ; they are frequently fpoken of, as 
 containing the moft rational and complete defence 
 of the church of England ; and were recommend- 
 ed by King Charles I. (whofe attachment to epif- 
 copacy will not be doubted) as the beft for fixing 
 the principles of his.children, on thofe queftions 
 which had diftracted the nation, - This accomplifh- 
 ed 
 
 a = ‘ = ——— 
 
~ 
 
 a 
 
 ed writer, after aflerting with great zeal the autho~ 
 rity of epifcopal government, makes the following 
 exception; ‘ when the exigence of necefity doth con- 
 “ ftrain to leave the ufual ways of the church, 
 ‘¢ which otherwife we would willingly keep; when 
 “the church mufl needs have fome ordained and 
 « neither hath nor can have poflibly a bifhop to or- 
 “‘dain; in cafe of fuch necefity the law of God 
 ‘hath oftentimes and may give place ; and there- 
 ‘* fore we are not, fimply and without exception, 
 “ to urge a linea! defcent of power from the apof- 
 “ tles, by continued fucceflion, in every effectual 
 * ordination*.” 
 
 The fame great man, fpeaking in another place 
 of fome churches not epifcopal, fays, ‘* this their 
 “ defed and imperfection, I had rather lament in 
 *fuch a cafe than exaggerate; confidering that 
 ‘ men often-times, without any fault of their own, 
 ‘¢ may be driven to want that kind of polity or — 
 regiment, which is beft; and to content themfelves 
 « with that which either the irremediable error of 
 ‘“‘ furmer times, or the zecefity of the prefent hath 
 « caft upon them+.” 
 
 Had Mr. Hocker been afked to define * the 
 “ exigence of necefity,” conld he have imagined 
 any more urgent than the cafe in queftion? Or had 
 he been enguired of concerning ‘* the necefities of 
 
 €e prefent tines,’ could he have mentioned any in 
 the cafesto which he alludes (thofe of Seotland and 
 Geneva,) fo ftrangly pleading for the liberty heal- 
 lows, as thafe now exiting in America? 
 
 The name of Bifhop Hoadly wil! probably be as 
 long remembered, as any on the Jift of britith wor- 
 thies; and will never be mentioned without vener- 
 ation of the ftrength of bis abilities, the liberality 
 of his fentiments, and his enlightened zeal for civil 
 liberty. He has written in defence of epifcopal 
 
 government, 
 
 a 
 
 we 
 . 
 
 * Ecclefieftical Polity, Book 7, Seftion 14. 
 + Ibid, Book 3, Seflion 11. 
 
fr ll 1attt 
 
 [ 30 } 
 
 government, with more argument and better tems 
 per, than js commonly to be met with in coniro- 
 verfial writings. This amiable prelate exprefles 
 himfelf as follows, “as to the credit of the re- 
 “ formed churches abroad, we think ic no prefump- 
 ‘** tion, as we cenfure them not, who ix a cafe of 
 “ necefity went out of the ordinary method, fo to 
 “ expect they will not cenfure us for not approving 
 ** fuch irregularities, where there is no /uch neceffity 
 “* for them*.” In another place he fays,:‘* for my 
 ** own part I cannot argue that epifcopacy is ef/enti- 
 “‘ gltoa chriftian church, becaufeit is of apoftolical 
 *¢ jnftitution ; and on the other hand, I do argue, 
 “ that we are obliged to the utmoft of our know- 
 ** lege, to conform ourfelves to the apoftolical mo- 
 ** del,’ unlefs in fuch where the imitation is ##prac- 
 ‘* ticable or would manifeftly do more hurt than 
 “ good to the church of Chrift ; neither of which 
 *€ can poflibly be affirmed in the ordinary flate of the 
 *¢ churcht.” 
 
 What neceflity. was there of the ‘* reformed 
 « churches abroad” equal toours? Is not an im- 
 mediate imitation of the ancient ufage “ imprac?i- 
 cable 2” Would not fuch a plan as has been propof- 
 ed be conforming (as far as circumftances allow) 
 to our ideas of ‘* the apoftolic model ?” 
 
 The character of Arch-bifhop Uther for extenfive 
 learning and fervent piety is generally known ; 
 and is diflinguifhed both by his great moderation on 
 the fubject of epifcopacy, and by the fervice it has 
 received from his indefatigable refearches. In a 
 letter to Dr. Bernard he writes thus “ in places 
 “< where bifhops cannot be bad, the ordination of 
 “ prefbyters ftands valid}.” What part of the chrif- 
 tian world could the learned primate havenamed, 
 of which it could have been fo properly faid as it 
 
 may 
 
 * Reafonablenefs of conformity, part I. 
 + Defence of epifcopal ordination, conclufien. 
 } Quoted from Neale’s Hiftory. 
 
[--3t 3 
 
 may be of ours, that ‘‘ ordination by bifheps cax- 
 ‘6 not be bad ?” 
 
 The great reformer and martyr Areh-bifhop 
 Cranmer was one of the firft characters of the age 
 in which he lived, for learning, piety and virtue; 
 and is fuppofed to have done mere than any 
 other towards compiling the liturgy of the church 
 of England; “ His equal (fays Dr. Warner) was 
 * never yer feen in the fee of Cantecbury, and I 
 «« will take upon me to fay, tnat his fuperior never 
 “will.” In the reign of Heary VIII. according to 
 Bifhop Burnet *, there were propofed by the King, 
 to this great man, in conjunction with other learn- 
 ed divines, certain queftions, among which are the 
 two following, with sie Arch-bihop’s anfwersan- 
 nexed: 
 
 Queftion. Whether if it fortuned a Prince chrifti- 
 an, to conquer certain deminiens of infidels, hav- 
 ing none but the temporal Jearned men with him, 
 it be defended by God's law, that he and they 
 fhould preach the word of God there or no, and al- 
 fo make and conttitute priefts there or no? ; 
 
 Anfwer. It is not againfi God’s law; but con- 
 trariwife they ought indeed foro do; and there 
 be hiftories that witnefs, that fome chriltian ° 
 princes and other laymen have done the fame. 
 
 Queftion. Whether it be defended by God’s law, 
 that if it fo fortaned that all the bifhops and priefts 
 of a region were dead; and that the word of God 
 fhould remain there uvpreached, and the facra- 
 ment of baptifm and others unminiftered ; that the 
 King of that region fhouid make bifheps and priefts 
 to fupply the fame or no? 
 
 Anfwer, It is noc forbidden by God’s law. 
 
 The above may be offered as the opinions of not 
 only Cranmer, but alfo of moft ef the eminent bi- 
 
 fhops 
 
 * Hiftory of the reformation, anno r649. Stilling- 
 fleet, with lefs appearance of authenticity, faysit wes 
 jn the reign of Edward VI. 
 
UC gatd 
 
 fhops and other clergy of that pericd; for who- 
 ever will attend to all the queftions with the feve- 
 ral anfwers as recorded by Burnet*, will find, that 
 altho’ the arch-bifhop feems fingular in his fenti- 
 ments as to the original inftitution of bifhops and 
 priefts, they generally agree with him on the fup- 
 pofed occafions of neceflity. On the former fub- 
 ject, the learned hiftorian believes, that Cranmer 
 foon afterwards changed his opinion; but, the 
 reafon afligned for that belief, if it be well found- 
 edt, does not extend to the pupofe for which his 
 authority is here cited. 
 
 Now every circumftance in the cafes fuppofed 
 makes the principle apply, with the grearer force, 
 to that now under confideration. If a chriftian 
 King may on an emergency conftituce a bifhop, 
 much more may the whole body of the churches in- 
 terefted; efpecially when they interfere not there- 
 by with the civil magiftrate. If a Prince would be 
 juftifiable in taking foch a ftep, rather than have 
 recourfe to the fpiritual authority of fome nejgh- 
 bouring and allied kingdom, much more Would 
 we, who labor under peculiar political difficulties, 
 If it were commendable on the meer hope of con- 
 
 . verting 
 
 * Tiftory of the reformation, appendix to vol. I. 
 
 + The reafon is Cranmer’s figning the book called ‘‘ the 
 erudition of a chriftian man.?? This book has led fome 
 to believe that the arch-bifhop’s principles on church go- 
 vernment were unfettled et the time of its publication. 
 That it contradicts itfelf on that fubje&t, is certain; but 
 this was owning not toCranmer’s inconfiftency, but that 
 of the King. In the anfwers of the former as given by 
 Burnet, his fentiments feem fully fixed, and (perhaps) 
 are reconcileable with the epifcopal plan, according to the 
 diftin€tion taken between theaPPROPRIATED and LARGER 
 meanings of the word ** Bifhop.” As to “ the erudition,”? 
 Guthrie fays (hiftory of England, vol. 3, page 597.) 
 ‘‘the writings were modelled by the King, as he wanted 
 *¢ them to appear before the parliament and public ;”’ and 
 Dr. Warner fays (Book 11) ‘‘ it was more probably a 
 * declaration of the king’s religion, than of any other 
 ¢¢ man’s in the kingdom.”” 
 
aes 
 
 verting infidels to the chriftian faith, it would be 
 more fo, for the purpofe of maintaining the princi- 
 ples of chriftian knowlege and practice, among 
 thofe who are already of the number of it’s profef- 
 fors, Ifa prince ought to do this from concern 
 for the fpiritual welfare of his fubjects, much ra- 
 ther ought we, for that of ourfelves and our chil- 
 dren, 
 
 Qn the credit of the preceding names, the an- 
 thor refts this the laft part of his fubject ; and if his 
 fentiments fhould meet with an unfavorable re- 
 ception, he will find no fmall confolation from be- 
 ing in a company fo refpectable. 
 
 Perhaps, however, there would be little room 
 for difference of fentiment among the well inform- 
 ed, if the matter were generally takew up with fe- 
 rioufnefs and moderatien, and were to reft on re- 
 ligious principles alone. But unhappily there are 
 ’ fome, in whofe ideas the exiftence of their church 
 is fo connected with that of the civil government 
 of Britain, as to preclude their concurrence in any 
 fyftem, formed on a’ prefumed final feparation of 
 the two countries. Prejudices of this fort will ad- 
 mit of no conviction but fuch as may arife from fu- 
 ture events; and are therefore no farther confider- 
 ed in this performance, than with a fincere forrow, 
 that any perfons, |profefling to be of the communi- 
 on of the church of England, fhould fo far miflake 
 the principles of that church, as to imagine them 
 widely different from what form the religion of 
 the {criptures ; which, as Bithop Sherlock obferves, 
 * ftand clear of all difputes about the rights of 
 « princes and fubjedts ; fo that fuch difputes muft 
 ‘* be left to be decided by principles of natural 
 ‘* equity and the conftitution of the country*.” 
 
 As 
 
 * Vol. 4. Difcourfe 13th. 
 
 Fhe indefeafible right of Kings is pretended to be founded 
 on certain paffages of fcripture. The author takes the 
 liberty of referring to the very fenfible fermon above 
 
 quoted 
 
E94 
 
 As for thofe who are convinced that the “ United 
 Srates,” have rifen to an independent rank among 
 the nations, or who even think that fuch may prow 
 bably be the event of the war, they are Joudly cal- 
 Jed on to adopt meafures for the continuance of 
 their churches, as they regard the public worthip of 
 God, the foundation of which is immutabJe; as 
 they elteem the benefit of the facraments, which 
 were inflituted by the fupreme bifhop of the church ; 
 and as they are bound to obey the feriptures, which 
 enjoin us“ not to forfake the aflembling of ourfelves 
 * together, as the manner of fome is.” ; 
 
 More efpecially is this their duty, if they enter 
 tain a peculiar preference for the principles and wor- 
 fhip of their own communion, from a perfuafion of 
 their fuperior excellence. That the church of Eng: 
 land is a creature of the ftate, an engine of civil poli- 
 cy, and no otherwife to be maintained than by human 
 Jaws, has been {aid by fome, asa reafon for their dif- 
 fenting from her. If the fame prejuilice has been 
 with others areafon for conformity,it is to be hoped 
 they are comparatively few, and thatthe great ma- 
 jority of epi(copalians,believing that their faith and 
 worthip arg rational and feriptural, have no doubt 
 of their being fupported, independent of ftate efta- 
 blifhments; nay, it is prefunved there are many, 
 who, while they fincerely love their fellow. chrif- 
 tians of every denomination, knowing (as one of 
 their prayers exprefles) that the ** body of Chrift” 
 comprehends ‘* the blefled company of all faithful 
 “« people,”’ are more efpecially attached to their 
 
 own 
 
 quoted, for an eafy and natural explanation of the paf- 
 figes alluded to : whereby they are vindicated from a fenfe 
 woich makes the Gofpel an engine of defpotifm and op- 
 preflion, and which, howewér ffocerely Believed by fome 
 js with others a mere trick of ftate. Although Bithop 
 Sherlock’s reputation in the church of England is general- 
 ly Known, it may be proper to mention, that his fermons 
 are among the books formerly.fent out by the honourable 
 *¢ Society for propagating the’Gofpel,”? to be diffributed 
 
 by their mifficnaries. 
 
ye 
 
 Co sha 
 
 own mode of worhhip, perhaps from ed ucation, but . 
 as they conceive, from its being moft apre eable to rea- 
 fon and fcripture, and its moft nearly refembling 
 the pattern of the pureft ages of the church. On 
 the confciences of fuch, above all others, may be 
 prefled the obligation of adopting Speedy and de- 
 cifive meafures, to prevent their being fcattered 
 «¢ like fheep without a fhepherd,” and to continue 
 the ufe of that form of divine fervice, which they 
 believe to be ** worfhipping the Lord in the beauty 
 “ of holinefs.” 
 
 Tae. END, 
 
 ” gen ewe 
 
JAN26 '52 
 
 Form 335. 45M 8-37. 
 
; si 
 Sch.R. 285.75 W589C 3557859 
 
wu 
 
 yoa6acs Tad 
 
 ii 
 
 ni 
 
 4-3