The Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to Timothy and Titus, gives a very particular description of what he regards as essential qualifications of a bishop. But he makes no mention of the circumstance of his being duly ordained. Had he attached such consequence to this circumstance, as many do at this day, it is not probable he would have passed it in silence. In this and in every other instance he showed, that his mind was intent upon important realities, and not upon outward forms. It is indeed said, in order to show the importance of outward, visible forms and rites, that man must have a body as well as a spirit. I agree to this. But we must take care to let the body be as God has made it, never attempting to add to it, or in any way to alter it. If true spiritual religion is to be embodied in outward forms and ceremonies, let those forms and ceremonies be as God in the New Testament appointed them to be. This visible body of internal, invisible Christianity, when not misshapen or made monstrous by man's contrivances, is a fit companion and help to the spirit. I must now refer this doctrine of apostolical succession to your own free consideration; only expressing my conviction, that the doctrine understood in that high and exclusive sense in which I have here considered it, though held very tenaciously by many at the present time, will, by its extravagance and uncharitableness, occasion reproach and injury to the cause of Episcopacy, and will, for that and other reasons, be gradually, and in the end, entirely abandoned by Protestant Episcopalians, — retaining its seat only where it properly belongs, that is, in the Catholic church. I cannot leave the present topic without adverting to the general question of divine appointment and divine authority, in regard to the gospel ministry. Presbyterians and Congregationalists hold as much as Episcopalians, that the gospel ministry is appointed of God, and derives all its authority ultimately from God, not from But it is here, as in other cases, that God's appointment is ordinarily carried into effect and his government administered, through the agency of man. But it would be culpable presumption in us to decide, that the manner in which God executes his appointments is and must be always the same. In his infinite man. wisdom, he chooses a variety of methods, always adapting them to circumstances, and to the ends which he has in view. Under the former dispensation, he gave prophets to his people, in ways suited to the purposes intended. At the beginning of the new dispensation, he gave apostles to be witnesses of the miracles of Christ, preachers of his gospel, the first founders of Christian churches, etc., and he gave them in a manner adapted to those objects. But even here, the manner was not the same. Matthias was chosen in a way different from the other eleven, and Paul in a way different from any of the twelve. But the age of miracles has ceased, and the divine appointment is now executed in the ordinary course of providence. The essential qualifications of ministers are pointed out by an inspired Apostle, but not the particular manner in which they shall come into the sacred office. If ministers possess the qualifications required, and are inducted into the ministry in a regular and becoming manner, and do the duties of the office faithfully, they are God's ministers, and he truly gives them for the good of his church, whether he brings them into the office in one way or another. Faithful ministers in the Episcopal church are God's gift, and Christians should receive them as such. And many and precious have been these gifts. And are not ministers in evangelical churches of other names equally God's gift? And should not Christians, particularly those who have received spiritual profit under their ministry, thank God for them, and for all the blessings resulting from their labors? Whatever may be the particular mode of proceeding among men in introducing well qualified and faithful ministers into the sacred office, they are there by divine appointment. They are God's ministers; and he owns them and blesses them as such. And they have equally a divine right to perform all the duties of the ministerial office. The principle which I maintain may be illustrated by a reference to civil government. The Bible teaches as plainly and expressly, that civil rulers are ministers of God, and divinely appointed, as that preachers of the gospel and pastors of churches are so. Moses, and Samuel, and Saul, and David, were set apart to their office as rulers, by a special and miraculous divine interposition. Afterwards the office of chief ruler or king became hereditary; and those who held the office on the ground of hereditary right were lawful kings, and were divinely appointed. But observe, that when Nebuchadnezzar conquered the Jews, and acquired dominion over them, Jeremiah exhorted and commanded them to "serve the king of Babylon," and rebuked the false prophets who endeavored to persuade them not to serve him. Nebuchadnezzar was then the divinely appointed ruler of the Jews; God sent him to reign over them, and it was their duty to submit to him as "the ordinance of God;" and obedience to him became obedience to God. Even when the Jews returned from their captivity, their rulers were indebted for their authority to Cyrus and his successors. Come now to the time of Christ and the apostles. Through the arrangements of providence, the supreme government had passed into the hands of the Romans, and Cæsar was the king of the Jewish nation. But he came to be so, not by any supernatural or special divine designation, but by the very ambiguous right of conquest and superior power. It was however a wise and righteous God that shaped the concerns of both these nations, and, by his overruling Providence, subjected the Jews to the Roman power. And whatever may be said of the means by which the Romans brought the Jews into subjection, or of the way in which Cæsar came to have authority over them; yet as, under divine providence, he actually possessed that authority, and was the king of the Jews, Jesus recognized that authority and submitted to it, and inculcated the duty of obedience upon his disciples. The apostles did the same. The rulers whom they acknowledged as the ministers of God, and whom Christians were to honor and obey, were generally tyrannical and cruel men. But the apostles considered them as appointed and sent of God to fill the office of rulers. The language of Paul, Rom. xiii, is very plain. He calls rulers, such as were then in - office," the higher powers;" and says they are "of God," "ordained of God,"-" the ordinance of God," and "ministers of God;" and requires Christians to be subject to them. Follow now the history of the Roman Empire. See how it was rent asunder by factions and revolutions, and divided and subdivided into a great number of smaller kingdoms, each one having its own ruler, and generally on the ground of hereditary right. Come at length to the British nation. Whoever was the king, and however he came to be so, he was "the minister of God," and was made so by the arrangements of providence; and he was divinely designated to his office, as really, though not in the same manner, as David was. You finally reach our own country. Casting off the British authority, we established a government and elected rulers in our own way. But our Governors, and Presidents, and Judges are all "ministers of God;" and government in our Republican form is as much a divine institution, as in the Kingly or Imperial form. Episcopalians fully recognize this principle, and, in their 37th Article, expressly affirm the duty of "a respectful obedience to the civil authority, regularly and legitimately constituted." They do not mean that a civil authority must be monarchical, or hereditary, or be constituted in any one particular way. They acknowledge the legitimate authority of our Republican rulers, just as they are, and have altered the English prayer for the King into an American prayer for the President; and in all respects they conduct themselves as faithful subjects of our Republican government. And if our government should again be changed, and go back to what it was; if it should come to pass, that the King of Great Britain should be our King, and we should be under a hereditary Monarch, American Episcopalians would readily submit to that government, and would restore the Liturgy to its original form, so that they might offer up prayer for the King and Queen and the Royal Family. And if after a while there should be still another revolution, and another Oliver Cromwell should come to be established as our chief ruler and Protector; I suppose Episcopalians would still be subject to "the powers that be," and would pray for the LORD PROTECTOR, just as they now do for the PRESIDENT. Episcopalians are good citizens, and hold to sound principles in regard to civil government;—which is as truly an ordinance of God as the gospel ministry. In this way we may get a just idea of the principle of succession, succession not as an abstract thing, but as a reality, a matter of fact. There has been a succession of rulers in the different nations of Europe, how many soever may have been the interruptions and changes in the order of that succession. So in these United States. Have we not, from the beginning had a succession of rulers? For a long time our chief ruler was the King of Great Britain. GEORGE THE THIRD was the last. He was the predecessor of GEORGE WASHINGTON. There was indeed a time when no one man was chief ruler of all these States, although they were in some respects, under the authority of the Old Congress. But at length Washington became our Chief Magistrate, as truly as George the Third had been before. Accordingly, as chief ruler of all these States, WASHINGTON was the successor of GEORGE THE THIRD. Thus these American States have had from the beginning a succession of rulers, — a real succession, though not an unvaried or unbroken succession; a succession of rulers invested with their office in different ways, but all ordained of God." No man in our Republic can be President, Governor or Judge, unless he is regularly brought into office according to our Republican Constitution and Laws. But when he is thus regularly brought into office, is he not invested with a just authority? And does not God give rulers in this way as truly as in any other? Is not a Republican government founded on divine right, as much as an hereditary monarchy ? Does the King of Great Britain or any of the governments of Europe refuse to acknowledge our government, and deny the validity of its acts, because it is Republican? And do we refuse fellowship with the governments of Europe, because they are Monarchical or Imperial? No. Men have sense enough to manage these matters properly in civil concerns. And I verily think that Christian ministers and churches of different countries, and different forms of government, should have as much good sense and enlargedness of mind, as the officers and members of civil communities. The different denominations of Christians have their order, their rules of proceeding, in regard to |