which constitutes it a truly apostolick service. Dr. Clarke, himself, bears testimony to this fact: "Deacon, Presbyter, and Bishop, existed in the apostolick church; and may, therefore, be considered of Divine origin." Note on 1 Tim iii. 13. Dr. Clarke was too wise a man not to know the extent to which his remarks would lead, when he declared this service to be truly apostolick. He knew the service to be Episcopal. He knew that the validity of orders in the Church of England depended upon their uninterrupted succession from the apostles, through the line of bishops, and he knew that these circumstances constituted an authorized ministry, and commissioned ambassadors of Christ. Does it not, then, appear somewhat strange, and inconsistent in the learned commentator, to remain a preaching layman, when a valid, and a truly apostolick ordination can be obtained? The description given by St. Paul of the qualifications of a bishop, in 1 Tim. iii. had reference, I believe, to the order of presbyters, and not to bishops, as the term now implies.* These directions were given to Timothy for his government, in the exercise of the ordaining power with which he had been invested by St Paul. Dr. Clarke, in his commentary on this epistle, makes the following remarks on bishops, properly so called, as the term is now universally understood:

"A good work.] A work it then was; heavy, incessant, and painful. There were no unpreaching prelates in those days; and should be none now. Episcopacy in the church of God, is of Divine appointment; and should be maintained and respected. Under God, there should be supreme governours in the church, as well as in the state. The state has its monarch; the church has its bishop: one should govern according to the laws of the land; the other, according to the word of God." Note on 1 Tim. iii 1.

"A Christian bishop," says Dr. Clarke, "professing love to God, and all mankind; preaching a religion, one half of the morality of which was included in, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, would naturally be sought to by those who were in distress, and destitute of friends. To enable them to entertain such, the church, over which they presided, must have furnished them with the means. Such a bishop as St. Paul, who was often obliged to labour with his hands for his own support, could have little to give away. But there is a considerable difference between an apostolical bishop and an ecclesiastical bishop; the one was generally itinerant, the other comparatively local: the former had neither house nor home; the latter had both. The apostolical bishop had charge of the church of Christ universally; the ecclesiastical bishop, of the churches in a particular district." Note on 1 Tim. iii. 2.

"In former times, bishops wrote much, and preached much; and their labours were greatly owned of God. No church, since the apostles' days, has been more honoured in this way, than the British Church. And although bishops are here, as elsewhere, appointed by

* See Whitby in loc.

+ See 1 Tim. v. 1, 19-23. 2 Tim. i. 6.

the state,* yet we cannot help adoring the good providence of God, that taken as a body, they have been an honour to their function. And, since the reformation of religion in these lands, the bishops have in general been men of great learning and probity, and the ablest advocates of the Christian system, both as to its authenticity, and the purity and excellence of its doctrines and morality. Note, ibidem. "It seems to have been a practice dictated by common sense, that the most grave and steady of the believers should be employed as deacons: the most experienced and zealous of the deacons, should be raised to the rank of elders: and the most able and pious of the elders, be consecrated bishops. As to a bishop of bishops, that age did not know such. The pope of Rome was the first who took this title. But DEACON, PRESBYTER, and BISHOP, existed in the apostolick church; and may therefore be considered of DIVINE ORIGIN." Note on

1 Tim. iii. 13.

These quotations prove, that Dr. Clarke, in declaring the ordination service of the Church of England to be an apostolick service, was well aware that, by that service, no ordination is deemed valid, that is not Episcopal; and no ministry legitimate, that does not consist of the three orders, bishop, presbyter, and deacon. This is explicitly stated in the following extract from the preface to that service:

"It is evident unto all men, diligently reading holy scripture, and ancient authors, that from the apostles' time there have been these' orders of ministers in Christ's church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, which offices were evermore had in such reverend estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same; and also by publick prayer, with imposition of hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful authority. And therefore to the intent that these orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England, no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in the Church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the form hereafter following, or hath had formerly Episcopal consecration or ordination."

What Dr. Clarke intends by "men-made ministers," in the paragraph at the beginning of these remarks, may readily be understood. And here, I go with him hand in hand. But as my intention was

solely to make some few remarks on the concluding passage of the quotation, I shall dismiss the subject with expressing my regret, that he does not furnish us with an example of consistency, in his conformity to a service, he so highly commends.

A PRESBYTER.

The

*This remark is too general, and does not apply to the United States. American bishops are not appointed by the stale, but by a convention of clerical and lay delegates from the several churches in a diocese. But in whatever manner they may by law, or ecclesiastical usage, be appointed, yet none but bishops The can consecrate, or ordain, to the Episcopal, or any other spiritual office. remark, likewise, will not apply to the Episcopal Church of Scotland.

SERMON.-No. XXIV.

ROMANS ix. 30-32 -What shall we say then? That the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith: but Israel which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefor? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law; for they stumbled at that stumbling stone.

THIS is the conclusion which St. Paul makes from his arguments through the preceding part of this chapter, and it shows, what indeedis evident to all who read the chapter, that the apostle is discoursing of the Jews and Gentiles, and justifying the dealings of God, in rejecting from his church the unbelieving Jews, and admitting converts from other nations to a full participation of all the privileges of his chosen people.

In the first sixteen verses of this chapter, the apostle, after stating the blessings and privileges by which God had distinguished the descendants of Abraham, shows that the Divine promise to his posterity would not be frustrated, though the Jews, through unbelief, should be cut off from the church; because there was a spiritual Israel, including all who bad the faith of Abraham, in whom the promise would be, according to its true sense, fulfilled. As Ishmael and Esau, the first-born among Abraham's descendants, were rejected, and their younger brethren, Isaac and Jacob, received as the true seed, so God might extend the blessings of the gospel dispensation to whom he pleased; even to all who believe: and make all who would submit to the righteousness of Jesus Christ, heirs according to promise. And he brings that part of his argument to this conclusion : "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?" Is it unjust in him thus to extend his salvation to the nations of the earth?" God forbid." Long before, as the Jews must well know from the holy scriptures, God had expressly declared his sovereign right to dispense his blessings: "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." No promise made to Abraham, or to any one, is to be construed as restraining his power and just right to be merciful to any people. "So then (concludes the apostle, 16,) it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth; but of God that showeth mercy." He elected whom he would to be the patriarchs of the holy family. The favour was not from their will or their works, but from God alone. Isaac willed that Esau should have the blessing: but God, who is wiser, bestowed it on Jacob. It is indeed to the Christian a great consolation that this mercy is bestowed on whom the Lord will. what other hands could our salvation safely be reposed? To whom else can we with such confidence look for mercy, as to that God whe so loved the world, as to give his only Son, to be our Saviour?

In

But if it is offensive to the pride of man, that mercy should be at God's sovereign disposal; much more is it offensive that justice should also rest with him. The apostle has shown in the first sixteen verses of this chapter, that God is good and merciful in admitting the Gentiles to a participation in the gospel privileges, and faithful in keeping his promise to the seed of Abraham He proceeds in the 17th and following verses, to justify the rejection of those Jews who believed not in Jesus Christ. If they were offended at the former part -that the unclean nations of the sinful world should share with them, God's chosen people, in the blessings of his covenant and religion, much more did it displease and exasperate these self-righteous sons of Jacob to be told that they who would not receive Jesus as the Christ, should be wholly cut off from these great privileges, and become outcasts from the Divine favour. But this was the revealed truth of God, and by his minister faithfully to be declared. The apostle calls their attention to God's former dealings with the king of Egypt. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, even for this purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name night be declared throughout all the earth." The wickedness of that monarch, in opposing the word of God, and refusing to let his people depart, that they might serve him in the wilderness, merited the immediate vengeance of the Almighty; but his life was prolonged, and the judgment reserved to a more fit period. "For this cause, saith the Lord, have I raised thee up." He was exalted and preserved in that lofty station that God's providential power might be rendered conspicuous in the sight of the world. He first exhibited the great wickedness of Pharaoh to publick view; and then, when the full time of vengeance came, so ordered the circumstances of his tremendous destruction in the Red Sea, that God's name was “declared throughout all the earth." It remains still, even at this remote day, one of the most signal, and fearful instances of Divine judgment to be found in the pages of histo

ry.

66

The inference from the case of Pharaoh. as applied to the apostle's argument, was this: that God's upholding the Jews as he then did, was no proof that he would not, or that he might not justly cast them off. On the contrary, in doing it, he would deal with them in like manner as he had done with Pharaoh. They also, like him, were reserved for a more fit day of vengeance when the manner and circumstances of their destruction should declare, as it has done, God's name and glory “ throughout all the earth." "Therefore," adds the apostle," hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. His sovereign right to show mercy, appeared in his choice of Isaac and Jacob: his right to harden the wicked, to withdraw his grace from impenitent transgressors, to prolong their lives for a season, and make their perverseness subserve some purpose of his providence, is also shown, in the case of Pharaoh. And still it is true, (though the apostle has not so applied it,) that God may govern his church as he pleaseth. He may send his gospel to whatever nation it seemeth to him good. To him it appertains to pre

scribe the means and terms of salvation, whether faith or works. He could once make it necessary to be circumcised and keep the law; and he can as justly make it our indispensable duty now to ་་ repent and believe the gospel." The Christian will most cheerfully acquiesce in this part of the chapter. That "God hath mercy on whom he will" is our best hope and consolation. That "whom he will he hardeneth," every pious soul must feel is most awfully just It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed. Should he take from us the strivings of that grace, which we so often receive in vain, who could justly reply against him?

The apostle, however, supposes that some of the Jews might be so unreasonable: "Thou wilt say then unto me, why doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted his will ?" This objection, St. Paul first answers by showing its presumption. "Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God?" What impiety must it be in us, frail, blind, and sinful creatures, to object and murmur against the wise, the good, the just, and almighty Ruler of the universe! Are we wiser than he? Can we convict him of folly or injustice? Let us remember that we are but dust;-that he is in heaven and we upon earth. In the five last chapters of Job, the presumption of replying against God, is exposed at large, and it ought to make us, as it did him, abhor ourselves, and repent in dust and ashes. "Shall the thing formed, say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus ?" We are the workmanship of God. He has a better right and greater power to dispose of us, than the potter has over the clay, who yet of the ductile material makes whatever vessel it pleaseth him.

:

The apostle, having returned this reproof to the petulance of the murmuring Jew, meets his objection with other arguments. It was founded on mistake of God's dealings, as though, because his power is uncontrolled, its exercise were arbitrary and unjust as though it were possible that the Judge of all the earth would not do right: as though men were punished for that which they are compelled to do, or cannot avoid doing. This was perverting the apostle's doctrine. Pharaoh was not hardened till he had first opposed the word of God. The things which belonged to the peace of the Jews were not hid from their eyes, till they had first closed their ears, shut their eyes, and hardened their own hearts against the truth. Jesus wept over their perverseness, and lamented that they had not, in that their day of grace, learned wisdom. "What if God," says the apostle," willing to show his wrath," for the abuse of such great privileges, as they had enjoyed," and to make his power known," in the punishment of their perverseness, "endured with much long-suffering, the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction?" What if God continued Pharaoh's life, after it was forfeited by his wickedness? What if he upheld the Jews for some time after they had rejected the gospel of peace, crucified the Lord of glory, and persecuted his disciples even unto death? Does it offend, that God is patient and long-suffering? Will the criminal complain that execution is delayed?