HINTS, &c.

LETTER I.

DESIGN OF WRITING MODE OF TREATING THE SUBJECT THE END OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT-HOW BEST ATTAINED-EPISCOPACY-ITS LEADING FEA

TURE-APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION

THE GENERAL

CHARACTER OF THE SYSTEM-THE MANY EXCELLENT MEN CONNECTED WITH IT.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

WHILE We are daily hearing lamentations over the divisions that exist among professing Christians of different denominations, I was much pleased with your remark, that as it was probable there was a certain portion of truth, and also a portion of error in each system of church polity, you thought it was desirable that a few temperate persons belonging to different denominations could meet and calmly discuss the points in which they differ that by carefully comparing these with Scripture, each might discover something in the system of another which he might with advantage adopt, and some things in his

own which with equal advantage he might drop. In prosecution of this thought I now address you, and will be happy to receive such suggestions as may occur to you.

Most writers on church government avowedly write in support of a particular form, Episcopacy, Presbytery, or Independency. It is now, I think, very generally acknowledged, except by those of very high church principles, that being now under the dispensation of the Spirit, and not of the letter, there are no such minute rules regarding the modes of Divine worship in the New Testament as those under the law.

I would here, then, approach the subject in a different way from that usually adopted. First, I ask what are the designs of church government, or of Christians associating in the worship of God. They are two, mutual edification and the conversion of the world. Secondly,-What are some of the great general principles for regulating our conduct in our individual and social character. I mention the following :"Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind," Rom. xiv. 8. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin," ver. 23. "Forbearing one another in love," 1 Cor. xiv. 26. "Let all things be done unto edifying," 1 Cor. xiv. 26. Now the problem to be solved is, how the objects of church go

vernment, in connexion with the full operation of these principles, are most effectually secured. In the absence of any very specific direction in many points, we may fairly conclude that that system is most in conformity to the will of God, by which these ends are attained.

The Episcopal form first attracts our notice. This vests the whole power of ruling the Church in a class of office-bearers, with the distinctive name of bishops, constituting a higher order of officers than the ordinary clergy, and vested with superior authority. The priest may read prayers, preach, &c., but he has no power of government.

Here the unlimited power of the bishop, enabling him to enforce obedience where there is no conviction, seems directly opposed to the great principle above mentioned, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

On this subject, Dr. Arnold thus writes, "The highest truth if professed by one who believes it not in his own heart, is to him a lie, and he sins greatly in professing it. Let us try as much as we can to convince our neighbours, but let us beware of influencing their conduct, when we fail to influence their convictions."— Whatley's charge on the right use of national afflictions.

The same sentiment is thus stated by my es

B

6

teemed friend, the Rev. Dr. John Brown of this city, in his very valuable Expository Discourses on the First Epistle of the Apostle Peter. "The command submit yourselves one to another,' does not enjoin anything that in any degree involves in it a compromise of conscientious conviction, respecting truth or duty. Christians

must not submit to each other by taking each other's conscience as a guide in matters of faith and duty. Every man must give an account of himself to God; and so far as fellow-men or fellow-Christians are concerned, every man must think, enquire, judge, and act for himself. One is your Master, even Christ.' If these principles be just, any system which directly violates them, must stand self-condemned.

The distinguishing feature of Episcopacy, common to the Church of England and the Church of Rome, is Apostolical succession, or that bishops are successors of the Apostles, and that no man is divinely authorized to preach the Gospel or administer baptism or the Lord's Supper, if he has not been ordained by a bishop. I have had the privilege of knowing some of the most eminently spiritual men in the English Church, and it may be viewed as a specimen of the powerful effect of early association, that they so decidedly hold a doctrine in support of which,

others can see no evidence whatever. Here then I demur at this first assumption, as the foundation on which the whole system rests. From the peculiar character of the Apostolic office, it appears evident they could have no successors. They were constituted witnesses of the resurrection of Christ, and in order to be so, they must have seen him after that event. That this was the nature of their office is clearly indicated in the final commission they received from their Divine Master when the work of the atonement was finished, and he was about to leave them, Luke xxiv. 46-48, "And he said unto them, thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day. And ye are witnesses of these things." The object of their peculiar appointment was, that they should be witnesses to all nations, Mat. xxviii. 19; the things of which they were to bear witness he mentions distinctly, these were his sufferings in accordance with the predictions of the prophets," Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer," and his resurrection from the dead, "and to rise from the dead the third day." It was to bear witness to these points they were selected, and it is on these they insisted in their ministry.

The same truth is confirmed in the account