he serves, well pleased to meet, in his cause, either good or evil report. more favourable opportunity will be afforded for an enlightened decision in the premises. This is a field in which The reader will perceive that the so direct an appeal is made to the above remarks qualify in some meahearers themselves, that, although it sure our adoption of one or two points cannot be denied that in the use of the in the following extract, of which the same privilege, sophistry and false excellence will be a sufficient answer to reasoning may sometimes deceive, yet any objection to its length. When it is it is obvious that there is much less risk fairly understood that we are no advo of it than in the mere finding of reasons cates for constantly preaching down the for a given point, and that it affords a erroneous sentiments of any of our tenfold advantage to the advocate for fellow Christians, but only for not altothe truth. What appeared very speci- gether excluding the refutation of them ous, when left in undisputed possession from public ministerial instructions, of its assumed ground of argument, but allowing it such a share of his atwill be placed in its true colours, when tention as every clergyman's prudence, made to pass the ordeal of a thorough sense of duty, and knowledge of the investigation of its claims. The un- peculiar situation of his flock may sugsettled mind will perceive that although gest, we think the candid reader will arguments may be found in favour of acquit us of any departure from the certain views different from those he is Christian charity and moderation so accustomed to have presented in his strongly and properly recommended by own church, yet there are also argu- our author. We should have been ments against them more than sufficient glad if a "direct attack," and a "gross for a full counterbalance. attack upon the sentiments of other religious denominations," had not been so nearly connected in expression, as if there were any necessary connexion in fact. In this view of the subject, there is perceived a motive for confronting and attacking errors openly and directly, independently of any expectation of confuting the decidedly erroneous, or indulging any approach to "a proselyting spirit." It is essential to the guarding of the flock against the counteracting influence of the specious errors whose arguments are almost daily sounding in their ears, and thus to the banishing and driving away from the Church of erroneous and strange doctrines, and the allowing of no place among the people for error in religion With regard to any offence which may be given, or any popularity which may be lost, by this honest, upright, and conscientious course, all fear of it should be banished from the breast of the faithful minister. Let him govern himself by the dictates of sound prudence, distinguished from pusillanimity and a time-serving and popularity-seeking policy, on the one hand, and an undiscriminating love of controversy, on the other; and be ever careful to maintain, through the influence of the Spirit of grace, the true temper and chastened zeal of the Gospel; and then leave all consequences to the Master whom "In this spirit, my brethren, and on these principles, it will be your duty, on all proper occasions, to hold up to view the distinctive principles of your Churchother denominations of Christians; and This is a privilege freely exercised by one which we freely concede to them. It is not unreasonable then, that we require the like privilege in return. Indeed, it is only by a free declaration of the truth, and be propagated, or even maintained. a zealous defence of it, that it can ever "It is by these means that the Episcopal Church in Connecticut has acquired her growth. A century ago, she numbered not more than eighty families within the state. She can now count as many reguing this time she has had almost every larly organized congregations. And dur thing to retard her prosperity, and no single circumstance to advance it, except the excellency of her principles, and the frank avowal, and firm support of them. Were she is in the midst of a respectable, and she to cease from this course, situated as much larger denomination of Christians, she would soon cease to exist. Her Clergy, as well as the Laity, would soon become ignorant of her peculiar doctrines, and then indifferent to her distinctive character.Under these cirucmstances, there would be nothing to counteract that universal law of nature by which smaller bodies gravi→ tate towards larger ones, and the Church would soon be merged in those religious communities with which she is surrounded. "Loving your Church, then, my brethren, and attached to her distinctive principles from a conscientious conviction of their excellency and importance, you will not think you have faithfully discharged your duties to your flocks, unless they are fully instructed in them. Nor will you be deterred by any false delicacy from publicly avowing, and firmly defending, these distinctive principles, whenever it may be done with propriety and advantage. In pursuing this course, you will not be led of necessity to make any direct and gross attack upon the sentiments of other religious denominations: the simple display of truth is generally the best antidote to error. Much less will you feel yourselves called upon to impugn the motives-the sincerity or the piety-of those who may conscientiously differ from you. By the manifestation of a Christian temper, and the exercise of a judicious moderation, you will evince to the world that you are not merely contending for the dog. mas of a sect, but for essential doctrines of that faith once delivered to the saints.' "Liberality of sentiment, upon religious subjects, is amiable and commendable in the sight of all men; and is moreover a high Christian duty. But there is an erroneous principle which usurps its name, and which would confound all distinction between truth and error. This spurious liberality pretends to consider as of no importance all those varieties of opinion which prevail among different religious denominations, and seems to demand that we should regard with equal estimation the widely differing creeds of all who profess the Christian name. Such a latitudinarian principle, if carried to its full extent, would go to the utter destruction of Christianity itself. There is one denomination which rejects its external ordinances; and another which obliterates its most distinctive features the divinity and atonement of the Saviour. Deprive Christianity of these characteristics, and there is but little to distinguish it from modern Deism. "This false liberality arises, in a great degree, from a mistaken application of Christian charity-from extending to errors themselves, that indulgence which belongs of right only to the persons who have unwarily and honestly fallen into them. Some very pious men have leaned too much towards this mistaken charity, from a vain desire of abolishing sectarian distinctions, and producing a greater harmony among the various denominations who profess a common Christianity. But many of those who declaim most loudly in praise of liberality, and are the most zealous advocates of union, entertain no thought of giving up their own peculiar sentiments-they merely wish others to adopt them. When brought to the test, it will appear that they expect all the concession from others, and consider the ground on which they stand themselves as the only proper basis for a union. 66 It were much to be wished, indeed, that there might be no diversity in the faith of Christians; since there is but one Gospel, and one Saviour. But while men remain fallible and erring, as they are at present, such a consummation is not to be expected. An enlightened charity, therefore, will not exhaust itself in futile attempts to abolish the differences of opinion which prevail among the different denominations of Christians, but will ra ther direct its efforts to the promotion of a true and legitimate liberality of sentiment. It will seek to make them 'kindly affectioned one towards another,' and incite them to a mutual toleration of each others peculiar opinions. In the spirit of that law which requires us to 'do unto others whatsoever we would that they should do to us,' it will call upon every man freely to concede to others all that liberty of conscience which he requires for himself. Such long-suffering and forbearing one another in love,' will have a surer tendency to unite Christians together in the bond of peace,' than any hasty combinations of discordant ele ments. In this temper, we shall not be disposed to magnify trivial distinctions among Christians; and earnestly endeavouring ourselves 'to keep the unity of the Spirit,' shall grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love."-P. 16—20. ་ We are happy to find, in this extract, full confirmation of the sentiment we have expressed, that the qualifications under which we have taken the liberty of assenting to some points in this excellent Charge, are not inconsistent with its general spirit and tenour. For besides that there is here an open and direct attack upon two large and respectable denominations of professing Christians, there is also one, not less direct and open, upon the distinguishing principles and views of a class of Christian brethren, which, though not known by any particular title, commands all the respect and all the charitable construction that can be claimed by its embracing very extensive numbers, and great eminence of respectability, talents, and piety. We refer to that numerous body which is actuated by the common motive of endeavouring to break down the distinctions which sever the various communions professing the Christian name, by making them appear of little or no importance, and substituting other bonds of Christian unity than those of ministry, doctrine, and worship, which we believe to be established by the word of God. For the effecting of this common design, besides a studious avoiding of dwelling on distinctive principles, there is drawn in the agency of promiscuous associations, formed, indeed, for other professed objects, but the obvious, and allowed, and, indeed, boasted tendency, and in the estimation of many of their warmest friends, and most able advocates, prominent advantage of which, is their producing of an oblivion of the distinctive principles of their members, and the sacrifice of them to the cause of what is termed their common Christianity. Now, looking at the materials of which these associations are composed, we are authorized in regarding them as tending to represent as of little moment, the distinctions which sever from each other professors of the Roman, and of the Protestant faiththe maintainers and the impugners of the doctrines of the Trinity, the Atonement, the influences of the Holy Spirit, human depravity, and final accountability-those who deny the possibility of salvation to any but a few eternally elected, and uphold the consequent damnation of even infants who are not of the elected number; and those who receive the evangelical doctrine of the equal offer to all of salvation, and the means of attaining to it, and the consequent certainty of it to all who do not wilfully refuse it-those who mock at every species of ministerial commission; and those who maintain that the only true criterion by which to judge of possessing it, is a sense of duty and of an inward call; and those who believe it must be given by the members of the Church; and those who maintain its regular trans mission from Christ himself through the presbytery of the Church; and those who hold to the like transmission only through the first of three divinely appointed ministerial grades ; and those who deny its validity except sanctioned by the one supreme visible head of the Catholic Church—those who discard all sacraments; and those who maintain two, as of divine ap pointment; and those who contend for seven, as of equal authority-in fact, all the distinctions which exist among those who form this union on catholic principles.-Let this union have its wonted effect, let the wishes and views of many of its prominent advocates be successful, and we hesitate not to say, that "there is but little left to distinguish" this exquisitely refined "Christianity from modern Deism." With all charitable allowance for those who do not see the probability of this issue of the misnamed liberality of the day-and we declare that we most sincerely cherish it—we still regard it as a sacred duty, imposed by our own honest convictions on the subject, to bear our decided testimony against it; and we rejoice to find opposition to it so prominent a feature in Bishop Brownell's Charge. He makes, indeed, upon these "sentiments" of professing Christians, a "direct attack," but no one, we apprehend, will charge it with being "gross." Intimately connected with this subject, is the very judicious ground taken in the following paragraph: "With regard, then, to our union with other religious denominations, we may cordially associate and co-operate with them in all secular affairs-in all humane, literary, and charitable objects: nor should differences of faith create any difficulties in the way of social intercourse and good neighbourhood; but in objects purely religious, we can form no union with other denominations with which we are surrounded, without either abandoning adhere to them, the imputation of sectaimportant principles, or incurring, if we rian bigotry. While, therefore, we concede to others the same right, let us pur sue our religious and ecclesiastical affairs tions of our Church; without any mistaken according to the regulations and institu attempts to compromise in matters of conscience. Nor let us think that we are violating any principle of Christian cha rity when we freely avow and firmly maintain our distinctive principles."—P. 20. There is here a very just discrimination. We would shrink from the narrow-mindedness which, in matters of civil concern, or of charitable or literary co-operation, or in the courte sies and friendly intercourse of life, would sever from each other members of different religious communions. "But in objects purely religious," the case is essentially altered.-Here we fully believe that it is our duty to adhere to the divine plan, revealed in the Scripture, whereby religion and the Church are connected, and all the affairs of the former should be under the direction of the latter. We are persuaded that the best possible way of advancing the interests of the Gospel, is to promote the enlargement and prosperity of the Church which the Deity has established, for securing, by the means of instruction and grace which are entrusted to it, the progress of religion in the world, and the spiritual and eternal welfare of the sons of men. We believe that in order to the existence of this Church, there must be the ministry which was at first directly commissioned by the divine Saviour himself, and has been perpetuated to the present day, by a regular and uninterrupted transmission of the authority thus imparted. This ministry we believe our Church possesses; and are compelled, also, to believe that it is not possessed by the greater part of professing Christians by whom she is surrounded. Hence the conclusion that if the members of our communion would retain the prosecution of religious objects in its divinely appointed connexion with the Church, they must attend to it by themselves. To these reasons are to be added those which flow from the above noticed tendency of promiscuous associations for religious purposes, to remove all the distinctive features of the Church, and even of the Gospel. We know that this is unpopular doctrine, and perhaps, to no inconsider able extent, odious. But what does that matter, if it is the truth? We remember that the Church itself was once a" sect every where spoken against."* * Acts xxviii. 22. VOL. V. We remember that the glorious cause of the Reformation once brought odium on a few who presumed to differ from the many. We know that the assertion of the truth has often brought railings and false accusations upon its advocates. We know, moreover, that our responsibility is to but One, even God, and therefore esteem it but a light thing to be judged of man's judgment. Among the "distinctive principles" of the Church, which the Bishop states to be the duty of the clergy "freely" to "avow, and firmly" to "maintain," he justly observes that- "the first and most essential is, that there were instituted in the Church, by Christ and the Apostles, three distinct grades of ministers, with the exclusive power of ordination in the first grade; that the ministry thus constituted has been continued, by succession, to the present day; and that no man or body of men possess the right to alter what was thus established. With regard to this principle there can be no compromise. It must be inscribed on the banners under which you are enrolled, and maintained by an appeal to those passages of Scripture, and a reference to those historical authorities by which it is so fully established. The support of this principle is at all times important, but you are more especially called upon to maintain it at the present period, when the errors and extravagan. cies of ignorant and self-appointed teachers, threaten to destroy all reverence and regard for the sanctity of the ministerial office."-P 20, 21. no man That this should be considered so fundamental a principle, and one to be so jealously and boldly defended, must appear most proper, when we reflect upon the cardinal truth here advanced, that "the exclusive power of ordina tion" was vested in the first" of the "three distinct grades of ministers, instituted in the Church by Christ and the Apostles." For surely, 66 or body of men possesses the right to alter what was thus established." And it may be farther added, if any man or body of men, at any period of the Church, does alter this constitution of things, the ministry of Christ must, by him or them, be changed into a ministry of human invention, and, of course, deprived of its divine appointment. Christ, according to the principles of the Church, in proof of which she re 40 fers to Holy Scripture, and ancient authors, lodged the power of ordination in the Apostles,who committed it to an order of men, holding the first of three grades of the ministry. Now, if, in the Apostles' day, any other person had presumed to ordain, can it be a question whether that was Christian ordination, and consequently a promotion to the Christian ministry? And if in the next age, any other than persons commis sioned by them should ordain, can there be any question whether that would convey the Christian ministry? If at any time, the conferring of orders be taken out of the line in which it was placed by Christ, and left by the Apostles, is not the divine commission necessarily lost? Do the orders thus given confer any power above what man, by his own mere authority, can give? By such a train of argument, we think that our Church may be fully justified in the sentiment she has solemnly advanced, of the invalidity of orders conferred by other than Episcopal hands. We know that her lan guage in the preface to her ordinal, has been supposed to imply nothing more than a strong and decided prefer- . ence on her part, and an unwillingness to receive any ministers within her pale who have not had Episcopal orders, without making any decision on the abstract question of validity. We believe the sentiment to be generally the result of an amiable desire to shield the Church from the charge of uncharitableness towards other denominations. We humbly conceive, however, that its proper effect is the very reverse. It supposes the Church to grant the validity of other orders, or at least not to believe them invalid, and yet to refuse their subjects the right of ministering within her pale. They may have been for years most eminent and successful preachers of the Gospel; may be gladly received into almost every other Protestant communion; may be perfectly sound in the faith, and willing to conform to all the rules and usages of the Church; and have no possible objection lying against their characters, or qualifications; but without laying down all pretence to the ministerial commission, and coming, as laymen, and soliciting orders from our Bishops, we cannot admit them to minister to our flocks: and yet we pretend not to deny that they are truly commissioned ambassadors of heaven. Now this appears to us to be the height of intolerance; nay worse, the making of a most solemn rite of the Church, a mere show-a mere nugatory and idle repetition of that conferring of holy orders, which once done, is done for ever. How can our Church authorize the form of imparting the celestial commission, when she even doubts whether or not it has been before conferred? Did she believe orders to be received by the imposition of other hands than those of Bishops, could we imagine she would sanction, much more require, so useless a repetition? Would it not be little else than a solemn mockery? If she doubted, there was the obvious expedient to which she directs in cases of doubtful baptism, an hypothetical service. If, however, the Church is deliberately convinced, upon diligent study of Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that none but Episcopal orders are valid, there is no uncharitableness in saying so, and in acting on the principle. It is an honest and sincere conviction, the unavoidable result of a full and fair view of the subject, in which her will has nothing to do, and which cannot, therefore, have the least connexion with liberality or illiberality of sentiment. Is, however, the accustomed charge of uncharitableness still brought against such doctrine? Who brings it? The Congregationalist? He will not admit the validity of a commission to preach the Gospel, of which he who supposes himself vested with it, has no other proof to no other proof to give than a declaration of having received an inward call. Is he, therefore, justly thought uncharitable by the Quaker?-the Presbyterian? He will not admit the validity of orders conferred by the people of a congregation, or their representatives. Is he, therefore, justly thought uncharitable by the consistent Congregationalist? Or is this charge of uncharitableness brought by the latitudinarian, who requires no other evidence of a |