mme-f^^tSlU'.'i. ■i^ L I B K ^ 1^ Y OF THE 1 Theological Seminar y- ! PRTNCETON, N. J. ' 1' 1 Case, ^^^^^^-X^ P.ivis-on Shelf, iRjJ Seotien 1 r j Boon, ^^:.-. 1 1 - ^: - . . ..^-- ■- ;..iJt ■ . ' . : . : ... , .^ '-,;;^-\ A DONATION FROM Keoeiwed / -/ y ^ ^ / *' m^^m. COLLECTION OF THE ESSAYS ON THE SUBJECT OIT EPISCOPACY, Which originally appeared in tlie Albany Centinel, And which are ascribed principally to THE REV. DR. LIKN, THE REV. MR. BEASLEY, AND THOMAS Y. HOW, ESQ. With additional Notes and Remarks. Printed by T. ^ J. Swords, No. 160 Pearl-Street. 1806. PREFACE. In the course of the last summer, a writer appeared in the Albany Centinel, who devoted a series of essays, which he entitled " Miscellanies," to the discussion of miscellaneous topics. Strictures on the subject of Church Government appeared in his 9th number. The very pointed remarks which he made on the Episcopal Church, and on Episcopal principles, accompanied with the avowdl that the subject was to be continued in future numbers, rendered necessary a defence of those principles and that Church which were thus assailed. The friends of the Church and of Episcopacy, however reluctant to discuss an important religious topic in a public paper, were thus compelled to resort to the same mode, for defence, which the author of Miscellanies had chosen for his attack. Accordingly " A Layman" commenced a defence of the Church, and was followed by " Cyprian," and others: ^vhile the author of Miscellanies was not backward in fol- lowing up the assault and in repelling his opponents. The numbers entitled Miscellanies^ and the other pro- , to the subject of Church Government. Some may thmk that this promises little entertainment ; that it has been, in former times, amply discussed ; and that no doubt can remain in the minds of any who are at the pains to read and to judge for themselves, But^ from the different forms which are found in this country, and from publications which have been lately made, it seems that a diversity of opinion still exists. Bigotry, superstition, and old prejudices are not easily and suddenly destroyed. If no benefit should arise from a few strictures, no evil is foreseen, and no good reason can be given, why " the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace" may not be preserved. As the Classical or Presbyterial form of Church Government is -the true and only one which Christ hath prescribed in his word,*" so it is the best adapted to the temper of the people of the United States, and the most conformable to their institutions of civil go- vernment. The Episcopahans appear to have been sensible of this in arranging their ecclesiastical code.f In the preface to the book of Common Prayer, which was ratified by a convention in 1789, they point out the necessary alterations made in their public ser- vice, and declare as follows : " When in the course of divine Pro- vidence, these American States became independent with respect to civil government, their Ecclesiastical Independence was neces- sarily included, and the different religious denominations of Chris- tians in these States vv^ere left at full and equal liberty to model and organize their respective Churches and forms of v/orship and dis- cipline, in such manner as they might judge most convenient for their future prosperity, consistently with the constitution and laws of their country." Episcopacy here is not such as is established in Great-Britain, but approaches a little nearer to what has the fairest claim to a di- * Let the reader take particular notice of this assertion with which the Author of Miscellanies commences his attack upon Episcopacy. He does not hesitate to assert, that '* the Classical or Presbyterial form of Church Government is the true and only one which Christ hath prescribed in his word." And yet the reader will soon find that it is the subject of bitter complaint, that some Episcopnlians, in .unison with the faith of pri- mitive ages, have presumed to think that Episcopacy was instituted by Christ and his Apostles. Editor. ■ t Episcopalians were Indeed fully sensible that a jbn?7iz>k'e Episcopacy, stripped of thooe adventitious appendages which in some nations are con- nected witli it, was not only " adapted to the temper of the people of the United States," but " the most conformable to their institutions of dvii government." And the reader will sec this point ably proved by Cyprian, and bv ti'c Layman. ' ' ' Ed. B 2 MISCELLANIES. Ko. IX. vine right. The formerly pretended uninterrufited line of sueces-* sion from the Apostles, the pompous array of dignitaries in the Church, and the conferring upon them civil offices, serve their pur- poses under Monarchies : in this country they have passed, except •with a few fanatics, as a tale that has been told, or like " a vapour they have vanished away." There is not one spiritual lord in the United States resembling those in the British empire.* By Episcopalians I mean those who sprung from the established Church in England, and have formed their constitution on that mo- del. They have assumed here the title of " the Protestant Episco- pal Church," and are thus distinguished from the other sects of Christians, particularly from the Roman Episcopal Church. By Presb)i:erians I mean those who, in their Church Government, follow the plan of the Church of Scotland, of Holland, and of almost all the foreign Protestant Churches. Were the derivation of the word Efiiscofialian explained, it would be seen that it belongs as much to others as those who have assumed it; but it is used, at pre- sent, for the sake of distinction. While the greater part of pro- fessing Christians are known by the term Presbyterian,! the Churches of Rome and of England arc as well known by the term Episcopalian. Some of the points of difference are more in name than in reality. The Presbyterians have their Sessiojis or Con^ sistorie-'i^ their Presbyteries or Classes^ their particular Synods, their General Syncd or General Assembly, The Episcopalians have their Church Wardens,, their Vestries^ their State Convene tions^ and their General ConvenHon, The Presbyterians have their Standards of Doctrine and Directories for public worship, the Episcopalians their Articles and Liturgy. The Presbyterians hav^ their Bishops, commonly called Pastors or Ministers of the word, and their candidates ; to the former of the two orders, Bishops, and Presbyters or Priests or Ministers, correspond among the Episco- palians, and to the latter their Deacons. In both Churches, the former have full power to administer the sacraments; and in both, the latter have not, being considered only as Probationer s,\ • How unworthy of a candid writer is this attempt, at the outset of his remarks, to prejudice the minds of his readers against Episcopacy, by connecting it with the cause of monarchy. Does not this writer know- that the temporal and spiritual powers of the English Bishops are totally distinct, and are in no respect necessarily connected ? Does he not know that a primitive Episcopacy, such as now exists in the United States, flourished for three hundred years under the frowns of the civil power ; when the Bishops, so far from enjoying temporal honours, were the constant marks for the arrows of bitter and vengeful persecution ? Ed. f So far from the greater part of professing Christians being Presbyte- rian, the Presbyterians, in proportion to those who are Episcopal, form but a small number. The whole eastern C/Jurcb is Episcopal, and by far the greater part of the ivestern. The Presbyterians sprung up at Geneva in tlie sixteenth century, and constitute the inferior number among Protest- ants. Ed. \ Deacons in the Episcopal Church are more than Probationers. They are, in a qualified sense, Ministers of the word and sacraments. They have the power of administering baptism, and are allowed to preach. Ac- cordingly, as Ministers, they are ordained by imposition of hands. They MISCELLANIES. No. IX. 3 Tliere are, however, some things in which the Episcopalians have deviated from the exact classical form, either through inat- tention to the scriptures, the only sure guide, or (what charity is unAvilling to suppose) through a fondness of singularity, and of su- periority over their brethren.* The latter cause is tlie less to be suspected, because they declare, in Article XX. " It is not lawful for the Church to order any thing that is contrary to God's word writ- ten." Here they profess to take the written word of God for their rule. In this the Presbyterians heartily agree with them, and the only difference is, that one denomination have found what the other, after the most diligent research, have never been able to discover.! The Episcopalians apply the name Bishofi exclusively to certain persons, and hold the office to be superior to that of other Ministers of the word, having peculiar privileges and duties annexed to it. This distinction is prominent in their government, and in their Liturgy. W'hen they meet in General Convention, there is the -*' House of Bishops" distinct from the " House of Clerical and Lay Deputies." Canon I. passed 1789, runs thus: "In this Church there shall always be three orders in the Ministry, viz. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons." Their prayers are for " Bishops and other Clergy" — for " Bishops, Priests, and Deacons" — and some parts of the ser- vice may not be performed by a Priest, if the Bishop be present. All the Clergy in a diocese or district are subordinate to him. He is, from his ofiice. President of the State Convention ; dispenses solely what they call *' the Apostolic Rite of Confirmation ;" con- secrates Churches; administers censures; and there can be no or- dination without him. To make one of these diocesan Bishops, is deemed to be a work of such magnitude, as to require the presence and exertion of three others. The Presbyterians cannot see where these things are written ; and the Episcopalians, in order mercifully to open the eyes of the blind, rejfect Presbyterian ordination, so that whoever would join the Episcopal Church must be anointed from the horn of their Bishop, though he had received before a sort of ordination by " the laying oil of the hands of the Presbytery." Examples of this have occurred in the State of New- York. In one case, a Minister was persuaded not only to renounce his former ordination, but to be- lieve that the baptism of his children was invalid : he v/as re-or- dained by a Bishop of the Episcopal Church, and his children were re-baptized. I mention this fact to show the sentiments which are held by the Episcopalians and the Roman Catholics. The latter of these sects, though consistent, yet may be thought unneighbourly; for they would in no wise admit even an Archbishop of the Pro- testant Episcopal Church into theirs, until they had placed a mitre of their own upon his head, cannot indeed exercise the full power of the Priesthood, the consscratiott of the elements in the Holy Eucharist, and the pronouncing of the declara- tion of absolution, and the authoritative benediction. Ed. * Charity v/ould have spared this uncharitable insinuation. Ed, f Might it not with more propriety have been said, that Episcopalians happily retained at the Reformation th'^t a])ostolic and primitive form of j^hur^b Government which sjoiirie Protestants unhappily disc*iidcd ? Ed* ( 4 ) For the Albany CentineL The « LAYMAN'S" Defence of the Church, No. I. I^HURCH government is certainly a subject of deep importance- It has received the merited attention of the most enliglitened scho- lars. There is nothing new to be said upon it at tliis day. At the same time I know not that those are to be censured who direct their thoughts to this subject, with the view of submitting them to public examination. I much doubt, however, the propriety of discussing such matters in the newspapers of the day. It was with no little surprise, therefore, that I read the strictures of a late writer who has devoted one of his miscellaneous essays to the nature and origin of ecclesiastical authority. The preceding piece being on the sub- ject of demagogues, who could have supposed that the affair of Church Government would so soon be brought up? Between such a topic and the marks by which a demagogue may be known, there seems to be no very intimate connection. The author of the stric- tures under consideration has certainly given a very appropriate title to his lucrubations. He is undoubtedly a miscellaneous %vriter. If the subject of ecclesiastical authority is to be brought before the public, let it be done in a dispassionate and systematic man- ner. Can it be proper to introduce it into a series of fugitive essays on the topics of the day, or to mingle it with loose, political discussions ? This, certainly, is the way to deprive the subject of that high dignity which it undoubtedly possesses, and to excite feel- ings little favourable to the discovery of truth. After the regular and profound investigation which the question of ecclesiastical au- thority has received, can a loose inquiry of diis kind shed any light upon it, or conduct the lovers of truth to a just decision ? Surely not. Impressed as I am with the truth of the preceding reflections, I should, nevertheless, feel myself deficient in duty in suffering such an attack upon the Episcopal Church to pass without notice; It is calculated to operate on the minds of the ignorant. I believe the motives of the writer to have been pure. I have long known him, and have long felt for him sincere respect and esteem. I lament that he has imbibed so strong a prepossession against the Church ; still more that he has permitted himself to attack it in a manner which v/ill not, I presume, be justified by his warmest friends. Many will, doubtless, read his piece who have never seen any thing on the subject of ecciesiafitical government. It is this consideration alone tiiat induces me to enter upon the disagreeable task of addressing the public in a way so little consistent with what I have thought the proper mode of calling the attention of men to matters of this nature. The Episcopal Church asks only a dispassionate hearing. She invites those who are so strongly opposed to her, to lay aside pre- conceived opinions for a moniciit, and to inquire into her govern- ment, her worship, and her discipline, apart, as much as possible, from that dislike to her which education may have implanted in LAYMAN. Ko. I. 5 their minds. The zeal against her she sincerely believes to be the lesult of a want of aco^uamtance with her institutions and services. Could this difficulty be removed, she fondly indulges the belief that multitudes would flock to her communion, and that tho-e v/ho oui^ht never to have been separated from her would return with joy to her bosom. • • r It is by no means my design to go into a regular exammation ot the subject in question. This is far from being the proper mode; B.or do I feel mvself competent to the undertaking. Be it my task to notice, as briefly as possible, the observations under con:: dera- tion presenting simply those ideas that may be necessary to correct the errors into which (what I sincerely think) a most partial and unfair view of the subject seems calculated to lead. The Episcopal Church has a right to complain of the uncha- ritable manner in which this writer treats her. She perceives in his piece a style and a spirit that appear to her little conge- nial with a sincere desire of appealing only to the understanding of his readers. If on any question the judgment alone ouj^ht to be addressed, this sureiy is that question. Any remarks calcu- lated' to excite animosity should be most carefully avoided. Has tue writer under consideration conducted in this manner ? Why does he attribute the attachment of Episcopalians to the princi- ples which distinguish their Church to prejudice^ superstition,^ and bigotry ? Why does he represent the important doctrine of an uninterrupted succession from the Apostles to which the Epis- copal Church subscribes, as a tale in which none but a few fana- tics believe? Why does he talk of the necessity cf anoliilmg Ministers from the horn of the Bishop^ or represent Episcopa- lians as PROFESSING to take the written word of God for their rule ? Such language is surely unjustifiable. The writer in ques- tion cannot subscribe to the doctrines and government of the Episcopal Church. She has the misfortune to difl'er from him in opinion. But has he any right to ridicule her institutions, or to charge her with fanaticism and bigotry ? Is it in this way that a love of truth is to be excited, or the minds of men prepared to dis- cover or embrace it? No. Whatever may have been the intention of the writer, such language is calculated only to sour the feelings, and to pervert the judgment. It is unworthy of the cause of truth, and every friend of virtue ought to set on it the stamp of his most decided reprobation. I have too good an opinion of the writer to believe that he cherishes in his heart those feelings that his language is calculated to inspire in the hearts of others. He ^las expressed himself inad^-ertcntiy, and I persuade myself he vail, in his cool moments, regret wiiat he has done. Let us proceed to notice the matter of this address. " Wliile the greater part of professing Christians are known by the term Presbyterian, the Churches of Rome and England are as well known by the term Episcopalian." I must be permitted to sa/ that this is a wide departure from fact. By Episcofiacy is meant the necessity of distinct orders in tlie Ministry ; the highest order possessing a'lone that power of ordination by whicli the sacerdotal authority is conveyed. Now, the whole Christian world is Epis« copul, except a fevr dissenters, who, within t^vo or three hundred * LAYMAN. No. I. years, have arisen in the western Church. There are supposed to be two hundred and twenty millions of Christians in the world ; of which fifty millions are Protestants, eighty millions are of the Greek and Armenian Churches, ninety millions of the Romish communion. The Greek and Armenian Churches are entirely Episcopal ; so also are those of the Romish persuasion. The Pro- testants are very much divided. Episcopacy exists in the Pro- testant Church in Denmark, Pinissia, Sweden, Norway, and, with a little exception, in Great-Britain and Ireland. All the Lutheran Churches in Germany are Episcopal.* The dissenters from Episcopacy bear no sort of proportion to those who adhere to it. They are confined to the western Church, and there their number is comparatix^ely very small. Will it be said we ought not to cal- culate on the Romish Church, since she asserts the supremacy of the Pope ? Nevertheless that Church contends for distinct orders in the Ministry, and admits the validity of Episcopal ordination. But let the Roman Catholics be struck entirely out of the calcula- tion. The advocates of parity constitute but a very trifling propor- tion of the remaining part of the Christian world. These are facts. I cannot help taking notice, also, of the manner in which this "writer makes use of a passage of scripture, upon which the advo- cates of parity place much reliance. In the first Epistle to Timothy, fourth chapter, and fourteenth verse, St. Paul says, *' Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which v/as given thee by prophecy, WITH the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." It is to the passage which follows that I object. " The Presbyterians cannot see where these things are v^ritten ; and the Episcopalians, in order mercifully to open the eyes of the blind, reject Presbyterian ordination ; so that whoever would join the Episcopal Church, must be anointed from the horn of their Bishop, though he had received before a sort of ordination BY the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." The passage of scripture, correctly stated, is " WITH the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." Our author has it, " BY the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery," The important word WITH is entirely omitted, and the word BY substituted in its place. True, the word BY is not included in the crotchets ; but the word WITH is omitted, and the word BY placed immediately before the pas- sage, so as materially to affect the sense. Of this I complain. In order to show the unfairness of the thing, I must beg the attention of the reader to a few observations. " Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, WITH the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." So says St. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy—" Wherefore I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, B\^ the putting on of my hands." Such is the language of the second Epistle to Timothy. If we would arrive at a'just interpretation of scripture, we must view all the parts of it in connection. This is a dictate of commoi^ sense. The two passages in the Epistles to Timothy must, therefore, be taken together ; and such a construction given them that both may stand, * But few of the Protestants of Prussia and Germany are Episcopal. JSd. LAYMAN. No. I. 7 ** The gift of God which is in thee, BY the putting on of my hands." St. Paul, then, imposed hands on Timothy ; and by this imposition Timothy received his power. The Greek word here used, is dia ; and it signifies the means by which authority was con- veyed. " The gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, WITH the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." Here the mode of expression is different. Timothy received his power BY the laying on of Paul's hands, WITH the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. St. Paul conveyed the power, while the Presby- tery expressed approbation. — The Greek word here used is rnetay which sig-nifies nothing more than concurrence, not at all designating the conveyance of authority. What is the practice of the Episco- pal Church ? The Presbyters lay their hands on with the Bishop ; so that every Minister receives his ordination by the ia)^ing on of the hands of the Bishop, ivith the laying on of the hands of Pres- byters. The reader is, I trust, convinced of the importance of the words by and wzM, in this case. Was it fair, then, to give the passage from the first Epistle to Timothy in a mutilated state ? Ought the word nvith to have been omitted, and the word by so situated as to •give a sense to the passage which it will not bear ? True, the re- mark is made in an incidental way ; but that does not exonerate the writer from the obligation of a strict adherence to accuracy. It is to be recollected, too, that the passage of scripture thus dealt with, is one on which the advocates of parity have relied. I com- plain then here of unjust treatment ; and I feel strongly disposed to suspect weakness in a cause wlien I find such expedients em- ployed to defend it. Thus much I have thought proper to say, for the purpose of placing the passage from the first Epistle to Timothy in its true light. But it may not be unprofitable, before dismissing this part of the subject, to make such further observations as may be appli- cable to the v/ords of St. Paul, although not particularly called for by any thing in the strictures which have given rise to tliis address. « By the putting on of my hands." " With the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." These are the two passages. It is not at all improbable that the Presbytery here spoken of, were some of the Apostles themselves, v/ho laid their hands on Timothy, in connection with Paul. I'he term Presbuteros, in its general im- port, signifies a Church Governor; and, of course, although or- dinarily appropriated in the New Testament to the second grade of Ministers, it is capable of being applied to all the grades. The Apostles call themselves Presbyters. Well, then, the term Pres^ buteros being applicable to all the orders, and the Apostles occa- sionally applying it to themselves, it is at least probable that the Presbytery spoken of by Paul were Apostles. At all events, it cannot be proved that they were mere Elders. And when we go to ecclesiastical history, we find that the practice of Presbyters uniting with Bishops in the imposition of hands, was not introduced until the latter part of the fourth century. In the Greek Church, indeed, it has never prevailed. These circumstances render it ex- tremely probable that the Presbyters, who, with Paul, imposed hands upon Timothy, were really and truly Apostles. But let it 8 LAYMAN. No. 1. be conceded t6 the enemies of Episcopacy, that they \terc nothing: jpore than Elders. The concession will avail them nothing ; foi* P?,ul was an Apostle, and superior to the order of mere Presbyters, ■He imposed hands on Timothy, and by such imposition, the sacer- dotal power was conveyed. Elders alone, therefore, upon the most indulgent supposition, cannot ordain. The presence of a superior order is necessary. In what then does this passage avail the ad>* vacates of parity? Here the subject seems naturally to call for a few observations on tliat promiscuous use of the terms Elder ^ Bishop^ Presbyter^ on which the cpposers of Episcopacy place so much reliance. The fair inquiry, certainly, is as to the orders of Ministers which ex* isted in the Chvnxh in the Apostolic age, and the ages immedi-- ately succeeding ; not as to the particular titles of ofRce that were used at different periods. Names frequently change their signifi- cation ; and, even in the same period are sometimes used to de- note one thing, and sometimes another, according to the manner in which they are applied. Prcsbuteros signifies a Church Governor, or it signifies an Elder or grave man. Accordingly, as has been remarked above, the Apostles applied the name occasionally to themselves. -E///sX:o/?as' signifies an overseer. Every Bishop is over- seer of his diocese, and every Presbyter of his particular flock. The Apostles then are called Presbyters. This proves conclu- sively that no argument can be drawn by the advocates of parity, from the promiscuous use of the terms Presl^yter, Bishop, in the sacred writings. If it proves that there is now but one order in the Ministry, it proves equally that Paul was upon a perfect level with tlie Elders of Ephesus. In Roman history we find the term Imperator at one period ap- plied to designate a General of an army ; at another, a Magistrate clothed v/ith unlimited civil and military authority. Suppose we should be told that every General of an army v/as Emperor of •Rome, and that the Emperor of Rome was merely General of an army; what would be the reply? That the term Imperator had changed its signification. And how would this be proved ? By the Roman history, which shows us, that the Emperors had Generals under them, over whom they exercised authority. Apply this rea- soning to the case under consideration. The terms Bishop, Presby- ter, are used promiscuously in the New Testament, Therefore, say the advocates of parity, they designated the same office in the ages subsequent to the age of the Apostles. Is this a logical con- clusion ? Surely not. Names change their signification. Ecclesi- astical history tells us, and the most learned advocates of parity have admitted the fact, that the order of Bishops existed in the Church as distinct from, and superior to the order of Presbyters, within forty or fifty years after the last of the Apostles. The Bi- shops then had Presbyters under them, over whom they exercised authority. The offices were distinct from the beginning ; Bishops being the successors, not of those who are promiscuously called Bishopry Presbyters^ Elders^ in the New Testament, but of the Apostles themselves. Tlieodoret tells us expressly, " that in pro- cess of time those who succeeded to the Apostolic office left the name of Apostle to the Apostles, strictly so called, and ga^'e the LAYMAN. No. I. 9 name of Bishop to those who succeeded to the Apostolic office." No firgument then can be founded on the promiscuous use of names. This mode of reasoning proves too much, destroying itself by the extent of the consequences which it draws after it. If it deprive the Bishops of their superiority over Presbyters, it equally deprives the Apostles of their superiority over Elders. Ah argument which leads to false conclusions, must itself be false. I have said that the question is as to the orders of Ministers which were established in the Church. Let this question be deter- mined by the sacred writings. The case of the seven Angels of Asia, the case of Timothy, the case of Titus, the case of Epaphroditus, the case of St. James, Bishop of Jerusalem, all show that distinct orders of Ministers were established in the Church by the Apostles them- selves. I should trespass too long on the patience of the reader in going through these cases. Let it suffice to examine the situation of the Church of Ephesus. Of this Church Timothy was the Governor. Both Clergy and Laity were subject to his spiritual jurisdiction. *' Against an Elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses." " And I besought t^hec to abide still at Ephesus, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no strange doc- trines." Did the Presbyterian plan of government exist then in the Church of Ephesus ? Surely not. Was Timothy on a perfect level with the Elders or Presbyters ? No. He exercised authority over them. They were subject to his control. I have sometimes heai'd it said that Timothy was only primus inter pares* Very- well — Give our Bishop the same power over the other Clergy that was exercised by Timothy, and we shall not contend about a word. Let him be C2i\\&(\ primus inter pares, or by any other name. The writer in question ridicules the idea of an uninterrupted suc^ cession from the Apostles, calling it a tale Vv'hich obtains currency only among fanatics. Tliis is strange language to apply to a prin- ciple susceptible of the strictest demonstration. All power in the Church is derived from Christ. The Apostles received their com- mission from him immediately. He delivered it to them in person. But this was the case with the Apostles alone. How, then, did the succeeding Clergy obtain their authority? They derived it from Christ. But our Saviour did not personally give it to them. He sent the Apostles with power to send others, and thus an uninter- rupted succession has been kept up. All succeeding Clergymen then derived their authority from Christ through the medium of others. In fact, it is impossible that there should be any power, ex- cept that of the Apostles, which has not been transmitted through the medium of men authorized to qualify others. The truth is, this idea of uninterrupted succession is as necessary to the Presbyte- rians as to us. Why then are they so opposed to it ? It is, that not a single Presbyter in the world can trace his succession up to the Apostles ; while, among Bishops, it is a very common and easy thing. The chronology of the Church has been computed, in the succession of the Bishops, its chief officers; not in that of Presby- ters, who are of a subordinate grade: Just as the chronology of a city is computed by the succession of its Mayors ; not by that of its Bailiffs. Nothing improper is intended by this comparison. It is purelv for the sake of illustration. C 10 LAYMAN. No. L This writer declaims on the subject of the civil dignities, con^ nected with the Church of England, and attempts to confound them with Efiiscopacy, This really appears to me to be uncandid ; nor can it, I think, promote those dispositions in the public mind which are most favourable to the discovery of truth. Kjiiscofiacy is here precisely what it is in Great-Britain ; that is, in the Church of England, and in the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, there are three distinct orders in the Ministry, the highest of these alone possessing the power of ordination. The only differ- ence is, that in Great-Britain the Episcopal Church is established, and its prelates rendered important members of the State. Into the wisdom of all this I shall not pretend to inquire. The civil dig- nities constitute no part of the government of the Church. They are a mere adjunct which has existed in particular ages and coun- tries. If the author had been treating on the subject of religious to- leration, it might have been expected that he would detail these circumstances ; but what connection they have with the question, ■whether the Apostles established distinct orders in the Ministry, or instituted the plan of parity, I confess myself utterly at a loss to com- prehend. Popery is brought forward on this occasion. This is a common practice. It is certainly high time that it should cease. The Pro- testant Episcopal Church is now, and ever has been, the firmest bulwark of the cause of the Reformation. The sacerdotal authority is not impaired by having descended through the Romish Church. If it is, the scriptures are equally aifected, for we derive them from the same source. Episcopacy was no part of the corruptions of Popery. Our Church reformed the abuses which had been intro-* duced, but she pretended not to create a new priesthood any more -than nev; sacraments. Notwithstanding the length to which this piece has been ex- tended, I cannot help introducing here the testimony of that great man, whom the Presbyterians so highly admire, in favour of Epis- copacy. I mean Calvin. He strongly declared his attachment to Episcopacy ; but pleaded the necessity of his situation, alleging -that he must have gone for it to the Roman Hierarchy. He ap- plauded most highly the Episcopal Hierarchy of the Church of England. " If they would give us," says he, " such an Hierarchy, in which the Bishops should so excel as that they did not refuse to be subject to Christ, and to depend upon him as their only head, and refer all to him, then I will confess that they are worthy of all anathemas, if any such shall be found, who will not reverence it, and submit themselves to it with the utmost obedience." Such is the language of Calvin. He appears to have differed very widely in opinion Avith some of his modern admirers. I took up my pen in this business with great reluctance ; and, if I know my own heart, from a conviction of duty. It appeared to me entirely improper, that a representation which I think so very erroneous, should go forth without correction, to operate on the minds of those who may not have had it in their power to give attention to the subject of ecclesiastical government. I have no disposition to ^embark in controversy ; nor do I believe I shall again come forward in reply to what may possibly be called forth by this address. The mode of comraunication too I ^slike extremely. MISCELLANIES. No. X. 11 1 can truly say, that I feel much respect for the gentleman ^n whose production I have been commenting, and that 1 wish well to the denomination of Christians of which he is a member, I most sincerely bless my God, however, that he has led me to the Epis- copal Church, I love her worship. Her liturgy is most precious to my heart. Of her authority there is no doubt. The Presbyte- rians in denying it, would destroy themselves; for they derive ulti- mately from Bishops, This is an all-important consideration. The members of the Episcopal Church are certain that the priesthood, at whose hands they receive the ordinances of the gospel, have a real authority from God. The authority of the priesthood being of divine origin, can be preserved only by adhering to the mode established for its transmission. If that mode be departed from, all authority ceases. We bless God that he has given our Church a priesthood, whose authority is so unquestionable, and we under- take not to judge those who have departed from what we conceive the only mode of conveying the sacerdotal power. wf Layman of the Efiiscofial Church, For the Albany Centinel. MISCELLANIES. No. X, JLt may be asked, Do we not read of Bishops ? Is it not proper then to have such an order In the Church ? It is answered, Presby- terians believe that such an order is instituted, but not such as the Episcopalians maintain. They contend that the word explained and understood, does not authorize the pre-eminence of one Minister above another ; that all are equals ; and that the custom of having diocesan Bishops is cor- rupt and injurious. It is not uncommon for a word, through length of time, to be misapplied and misunderstood. To determine the true meaning in this, and similar cases, we must always resort to the original. The English word charity is now limited in its sig- nification ; but in 1 Cor. xiii, it means love, in an extensive sense. The Greek word efiiskofios occurs five times in the New Testament, and signifies an overseer or insfiector. It is translated in four places hishofi, which comes from the Saxon word bischofi, and in one place overseer. The words episkofiees and episkofiountes are also found j the one translated " the oifice of a bishop," and the other " taking the oversight," If these places be examined, it will be clearly seen that Bishops and Presbyters are not distinct orders ; that the same name, office, and work belong to both ; and that a Bishop, such as is asserted by the Episcopal Church, receives no countenance. In Titus i. 5 — 7, the Apostle says, " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest ordain Elders in every city. If any be blameless," £cc, " For a Bishop [episkopon] must be blameless,'* &c. The connection here shows beyond contradiction, that Elders or Presbyters are also Bishops, They are called by the one name and by the other. See also Acts -s^, 28, Paul having assembled i2 MISCELLANIES. No. X. the Elders or Presbyters [presbuterous] of the Church at Ephesus, addressed them thus : " Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers" [episkopous]. Take one instance farther in 1 Peter v, 1, 2. " The Elders or Presbyters [presbuterous] which are among you I exhort, who am also an Elder," Sec. Here the Apostle Pe- ter, from whom the Romish and the Protestant Episcopal Church pretend to have derived their authority, calls himself not a Bishop, but an Elder ; claims no pre-eminence over his brethren. He styles himself sumjircsbuterosy a fellow Elder, or an Elder with them.* He adds, *' Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof," &c. or as the word might be rendered agreea- bh' to our translation in other places, performing the office of Bi- sliofis, Peter asserts, that himself was an Elder, and that the El- ders were Bishops. The Pope, notwithstanding, in process of time took to himself the title of Vicar of Christy and there was mar- shalled a sacred regiment of Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Arch-Bi- shops, Bishops, Arch-Deacons, Deacons, Scc.f Peter signifies a rock^ and upon a rock is the Church built ; but alas, some may be " likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand." It must be evident that the pretensions of either the Romish or the Protestant Episcopal Church to their order of Bishops from the name,| is utterly vain. Every Presbyter, Priest, or Minister of the word, is a Bishop in the sense of the New Testament. To speak of the Bishop by way of pointing him cut of superior rank and power to the other Clergy, is improper, and is a proof of v/ords being sometimes perverted. No one is entitled to the appellation as the Episcopalians use it. They would discover more understand- ing, more regard to the sentiments of their fellow Christians, more of the spirit of the Apostles, and more unlimited obedience to the injunctions of their divine Master, did they dismiss such aspiring and uncharitable conduct. Jesus Christ alone is " the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls." |J Memorable was the occasion on which he * By the same mode of argument could It not be proved, that cur blessed Lord, who is called both a Deacon and a Bishop, was in no respects su- perior to them ? Ed. t Does this author here mean to insinuate that the Bishops date their origin at the time of the Papal usurpation ? Ought he not to have known that the most learned opponents of Episcopacy date its origin within forty years of the Apostles ? Ed. \ Episcopalians never pretended to rest their cause on the precarious and changeable application of 7iames. They assert, that it appears from the facts and dedaratio7is of scripture, that the Apostles communicated their Episcopal power to an order of men distinct from, and superior to those c'SiWQ'X Presbyters and Elders; and sometimes in reference merely to their overseeing the Church, Bishops. And that to this order the name of Bi- shop became appropriate after the death of the Apostles. EJ. 11 But even on the principles of this author, is not every Pastor " tbe Bishop" of his congregation ? Was not this title lately bestowed in the most solemn manner upon a Minister of New-York at his installation to the charge of a single congregation ? If the miscellaneous author is con- sistent, he will not fail immediately to chide his brethren for this " aspir- ing conduct.'^ . Ed. MISCELLANIES. No. X. 13 gave a solemn and affectionate charge to his disciples. " Grant,'* said the mother of Zebedee's children, " that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom." She wished her sons to be promoted to places above the rest of the disciples, and to be consecrated Archbishops at least. " But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you." The Episcopalians not having the semblance of an excuse for their practice from the term- Bishop, let us consider next some pas- sages of scripture which they labour to introduce as pleading for them. Because we read of the ordination of Deacons, of Elders^ and of Timathxj and Titus being appointed to officiate in certain churches, it has been inferred, that from the beginning there were three dis- tinct orders of Ministers. Let it be observed that the Presbyterians do not deny that there arc three orders of officers in the Church ; they only deny that there is any divine authority for an order supe- rior to Presbyters or Ministers of the word. A plain distinction is made in 1 Timothy v. 17. between a ruling Elder and one who also teaches.'* Timothy and Titus were, no doubt. Bishops ; and so is every one v/ho is set apart to the ministry of the gospel. f They collected churches, and organized them by ordaining Elders, and those helps, govermncnts ^Yhich are insthutcd; and so does every * Let Dr. Campbell, the mcst zealous opponent of Episcopacy in modem times, show the futility of this distinction between a niluig and a ieuckiug Elder, " Some keen advocates for Presbytery, as the word is now under- stood, on the model of John Calvin, have imagined they discovered this distinction in these w^ords of Paul to Timothy, (1 Tim. v. 17.) ' Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of doulile honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.' Here, say they, is a two-fold par- tition of the officers comprised under the same name, into those ^vho rule, and those who labour in the word and doctrine, that is, into ruling Elders and teaching Elders. To this it is replied on the other side, that the espe- dally is not intended to indicate a different office, but to distinguish from others those who assiduously apply themselves to the most important as well as the most difficult part of their office, public teaching ; that the distinc- tion intended is therefore not official hut personal ; that it does not relate to a difference in the powers conferred, but sole!} to a difference in their ap- plicatioix. It is not to the persons who have the charge, but to those v. ho labour in it, 04 KOTCiuwio-. And to this exposition, as the far more natural, I entirely agree." See Dr. Campbell's Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 178. Zd. •)• Why then do those denominations who maintain that all Ministers are Bishops and on an equality, retain the subordinate orders of Church officers, Elders and De?.cons ? The Elders of scripture we know preached and administered the sacraments. But on the Presbyterian plan Elders are confined to assisting the Minister in ruling the Church. The Dea- cons in scripture both preached and baptised. Presbyterian Deacons are stripped of these pow-ers. The fact is, that the distinction of three crdcrs is so apparent in scripture, that those denominations who rejected Episcopacy found it necessary to keep up at least the semblance of tl^e primitive plan, . ^d. 14 MISCELLANIES. No. XI. Presbyterian Minister. In conjunction with the Elders he admits to communion, inflicts censures, and manages the spiritual concerns of that church of which he has the oversight ; he forms new con- gregations, and organizes them in places which have never enjoyed the ordinances of the gospel ; he is an equal with the other Minis- ters, and so far from being " a Lord in God's heritage," he is sub- ject to his brethren; he, in conjunction with his brethren, licenses persons to preach, and ordains by '' the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery;"* he believes that he derives his commission for these things from Christ, f and that, therefore, his acts are valid; and though he pretends not to be a successor of the Apostles, who were extraordinary officers, qualified and appointed to establish the Church; yet his office is divine, instituted by the Apostles, who knew the mind of the great Head and Lawgiver.:}: The consider- ation of some other passages of scripture must be deferred until a future number. POSTSCRIPT TO MISCELLANIES No. XL Which was on political topics, A HE v/riter who has attacked me on the subject of Church Go= vernment, will see that I still act according to the title of " Mis- cellanies." He professes to " have long known me, and to have long felt for me sincere respect and esteem." I have not the happi- ness to know him ; but nothing appears, at present, why the " re- spect and esteem" may not be mutual. It is a rule with me never to ask a printer who the author of a piece is. He has thought pro- per to complain of " the uncharitable manner" in which I have attacked his Church. Has he read two late publications ; the one entitled, " A Companion for the Festivals and Fasts," 8cc. and the other " A Companion for the Altar," &c ? Does he know that the Bishop of the Episcopal Church in this State acts upon these principles? That he holds no ordination, and no administration of ordinances to be valid, but those of the Episcopal Church ? If he is acquainted with these things, the charge against me of uncharita- bleness is made v/ith an extremely ill grace. Quotations from the performances alluded to will, in due time, appear. To others I may owe some apology, to him none. * This v;riter is exceedingly averse to quoting this text accurately. It is, " w/f^ the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." Ed. t How can he derive his commission from Clirist, if, according to this writer, there is no succession of peisons appointed to convey this commis- tion from the Apostles, on whom it was conferred by Jesus Christ ? Ed. \ This author here very properly admits that the ministerial office is of d'rcine, because it is of apostolical institution. When, therefore, we prove that the Apostles instituted an order of men with superior powers to those called Presbyters and Deacons, we have a right to conclude that their office is divine, because " instituted by the Apostles, who knew the mind *f the great Jlead and Lavvgiver." Let this be remembered. Ed.. CYPRIAN. No. I. IS I am astonished at his assertions, that " the dissenters from Epis- copacy bear no sort of proportion to those who adhere to it" — that *' now, the whole Christian world is Episcopal, except a few dissen- ters, who, within two or three hundred years, have arisen in the western Church" — that if " the Roman Catholics be struck en- tirely out of the calculation, the advocates of parity constitute but a very trifling proportion of the remaining part of the Christian world." I deny the facts, and shall show hereafter that they do not exist.* As to my using dy instead of with, I am not conscious of any *' unfairness." It is not included in the quotations, and I laid no weight upon it. When the ordination of Timothy is discussed, it will, indeed, appear that WITH is an important word. Both it and BY will be allowed their due force ; and I trust that it will be evi- dent that Timothy was not ordained after the Episcopal, but after the Presbyterian mode. If the writer will only patiently indulge me in my miscellaiieous course, I promise him all proper atten- tion. I For the Albany Centiiiel. CYPRIAN. No. I. AM extremely sorry to find that your Miscellaneous author still continues his dissertations upon Church Government, or rather his animadvertions upon the Episcopal Church. The revival of reli- gious controversies is always dangerous, is seldom if ever produc- tive of any good.f On all points connected with religion, especi- ally on so important and fundamental a one as that of Church Go- vernment, the feelings of men are peculiarly delicate. It is ex- tremely difficult, if not impossible, to avoid, in the discussion of them, wounding the feelings of some. This writer himself (whose good sense and ingenuity I do not hesitate to acknowledge) affords us an additional proof of the correctness of this observation. Although he commences his strictures with the fairest promises, and, no doubt, with the most sincere desire, to preserve the " unity * This promise has never been performed. Ed. I And yet controversy, if properly managed, is certainly favourable to the discovery of truth. While error exists, it must be a sacred duty to expose it, and to contend against it. And thus controversy, in the present imper- fection of human nature, appears unavoidable. Evils no doubt attend it ; and yet these will generally be counterbalanced by the advantages that result from it. Experience proves, that at those periods, and in those places where reli- gion is made a subject of discussion, its truths are more generally dissemi- nated and understood. Where a spirit of false liberality places ail opinions upon a level, and reprobates the divine injunction of " contending earnestly for the faith," there it has always been found that the essential characteris- tics of the faith are soon totally forgotten, neglected, or despised. Cyprian has proved himself so candid and so able a controversialist, that !ms readers will not regret the occasion which called forth his pen. Ed. 15 CYPRIAN. No. I. of the spirit in the bond of peace," yet his warmest friends must admit, that before h.e arrives at the conclusion of those he hath already presented to the public inspection, he indulges himself in representations of the Episcopal Church and her tenets by no means rcconcileable with Christian charity or candour. His disingenuous- ness and illiberality have been already amply exposed in the an- swer he has received from a judicious layman : And I must be per- mitted to remark, that however deep may be the sentiments of respect and good will which I entertain for this gentleman, I find some difficulty in excusing him for the liberties he hath taken with the principles of that denomination of Christians to which I profess myself to belong. How shall I excuse him for bestowing upon Episcopalians the opprobrious epithets of prejudiced, of bigotted, of superstitious ? These are hard names. They merit the sever- est reprehension. An attack so violent upon a large and respecta- ble denomination of Christians, when unprovoked* too, caji by no considerations be justified or palliated. Yes, if to hold in endear- ing estimation the memory of our blessed Saviour and all those ■words of eternal truth he hath delivered to us — if to pay an invio- lable regard to all his sacred institutions be prejudice, be bigotry, be superstition — then do Episcopalians merit these opprobrious epi- thets. If to look to their Lord as the only legitimate source of all power and authority in his Church — if to adhere inflexibly to that ibrm of government he hath transmitted to them through the hands of his Apostles, by an uninterrupted succession of Church officers to the present day — if to estimate as worthy of credit the testimony of the Universal Church for 1500 years — if these things be preju- dice, be bigotry, be superstition, then Episcopalians claim these reproachful epithets. If to adhere to Episcopacy be prejudice, be bigotry, be superstition, then is Christianity a venerable error, a system of bigotry, a prejudice, a superstition. But this writer asserts that '' the Classical or Presbyterial form of Church GoTernment is the true and only one which Christ hath prescribed in his word, and is best adapted to the people of the United States, and most conformable to their institutions of civil government." in the first part of this proposition, our antagonist takes possession, to be sure, of a broad and elevated ground. From this ground, however, he may be assured, had he an able adver- sary to contend with, he would soon find himself obliged to retreat with precipitation. Methinks he had better chosen at once, as * I say this attack is unprovoked — 'for although I have read the pub- lications tp which this gentleman alludes when he endeavours to justify himself, yet I am by no means of opinion that they exculpate him for hav- ing recourse to this mode of assailing the Episcopal Church, of retortmg -ivha.t he, it seems, has consideied as an injury. I beg this writer to re- ir.embev, that the Comjjaviion for the Altar, and the Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, are intended solely for the use cf Episcopalians. Surely we have a right to instruct our people in what we esteem as the whole counsel of God. While we are tolerated, this privilege will not be denied us. As to the Bishop of this State, I know him to be warmly attached lo the T)rinciples of his Church, and dvrays competent to the task of defending them. CYPRIAN. No. I. i? some of the ablest champions of his cause have done, a more li- mited and a more tenable situation. Instead of rushing thus 'mpe- tuousiy into the field, he had better retired at once into the citadel. Should he and his adherents meet with a defeat m the open field of argument, they may possibly find themselves too much weakened and exhausted to defend, at last, the citadel it5-elf. Of the last part of this proposition, as proceeding from that gentle- man, I confess I do not knov/ what opinion to entertain. C'n it be the deliberate intention of this writer, by representing the Episcouai form of Church Government as hostile to the civil institutions of :his coun- try, to excite an illiberal, an uncharitable, and an unfounded prej-i- dice against her ? And who could have anticipated an iubinuation of this kind from the writer of a preceding number on the subject of Demagogues— a writer who had given to the malignant some colour for suspecting that he does not entertain sentiments of very high admiration for a form of civil government which gives so loose a rein to these turbulent and mischievous members of society ? I candidly confess tha:t this is a part of his production which I do not comprehend. I will not ascribe to him unworthy motives — I am sure he is above them. Episcopalians feel an attachment as sin- cere and ardent as the rest of their fellow-citizens to the politi- cal institutions of their country. They are grateful to the Author of all good for that inestimable blessing of civil liberty v>^hich we enjoy. One of the wishes nearest to their hearts is, that their civit and religious liberties may be long preserved. They admire that form of government sketched out in the constitution of their coun- try. They would use any exertions to preserve it in its puritv and vigour. The only apprehension some of them entertain on the subject is, that the materials of which it is composed are not suffij ciently durable. They fear that it will fall into too speedy decay and dissolution. All that they exact of their rulers is, to impart to it in their administration, that stability and energy, which are essen- tial to the promulgation of its existence, which are essential to the happiness and prosperity of the nation. All that they would warn them against, is, any attempt at touching \vith a rude and sacrilegious hand, that sacred instrument, our constitution, the pal- ladium of our rights, our ark of safety. These are the sentiments of perhaps most of us on political subjects. We perceive not, that an adherence to our ecclesiastical institutions tends, in the smallest degree, to diminish our attachment to onr civil. We feel not the justness of this writer's observations, that the Presbyterial form of Church Government is more conformable than our own to our in-i stitutions of civil government. In fact, what incongruity can subsist between the Episcopal form of Church Government and our institutions of civil poli- ty ? Is there not, on the contrary, a striking analogy 'between them ? Does not the elevation of the order of Bishops to su- preme authority in the Church strikingly correspond to the political arrangements of our country ? Have not the United States — has not every State in this union, a supreme magistrate, possessed of high and peculiar prerogatives <* Have notthese magistrates the power of com- missioning subordinate officers to aid them in the administration of government ? And witlv what powers of any importance arc our Bi- D 18 CYPRIAN. No. I. shops entrusted, but the power of commissioning subordinate officers of the Church ? They can obtain no undue influence over their Pres- bytei-s, their Deacons, or their people. They can establish no spi- ritual tyranny ; their Presbyters, their Deacons, even the delegates of the people must co-operate with them in all measures of sacred legislation. Where, then, is this formidable authority of our Bishops with which some gentlemen Avould frighten the good people of this country ? Where is that terrible power lodged in the hands of our highest oi'der of Ministers which this gentleman, imitating some of the principal abettors of the same cause, has, very disingenuously endeavoured to represent as the first step, which was taken by the primitive rulers of the Church in their ascent towards the chair of papal supremacy ? And here, I trust I shall be indulged in remarking, that it is much too common, and, unfortunately for us, much too po- pular an artifice made use of by our enemies, to endeavour to cre- ate a prejudice amongst Protestants against the Episcopal Church, by connecting her cause with that of Roman Catholics, by repre- senting her as allied in her structure to the Church of Rome. What artifice could be more unfair, more illiberal, more unwarrantable ? Upon Episcopacy, it is true, that pure, and simple, and primitive form of Church Government was constructed, in process of time, the gigantic, the gloomy, and tremendous despotism of the Pope. But what has this form of government, organized by Christ and his Apostles, to do with the corruptions of the Church of Rome ? Shall the Episcopal authority be thought to have been impaired by that immense pile of extraneous matter which was heaped upou'it dur- ing the dark ages ? Shall Christianity be made accountable for those enormities that, at different periods of the world, have been perpe- trated under her hallowed name ? Shall she be made to answer for that blood with which her misg-uided sons have stained her sacred standard ? Shall the constitution of England be thought accountable for those usurpations of authority that were witnessed during the reigns of her arbitrary princes ? Neither should we feel ourselves justified in abolishing those authorities Christ has constituted in his Church, because at some periods they have been instrumental to evil purposes. As well might we overturn all civil government, because sometimes it has been known to degenerate into tyrann}'. No, Episcopacy, pure as the sacred fountain from which it flows, has never been contaminated by any admixtures with the im- purities of papal Rome. And what have the dignities and emolu. ments which, in some countries, where an alliance between Church and State is estimated as sound policy, are connected to the Bishop's office, to do with his ecclesiastical pre-eminence ? These are only the habiliments with which Episcopacy is cloathed — they are by no means essentially connected with it. Episcopacy, as the judicious *' Layman" has remarked, is the same in this country and in Eng- land. It is the same throughout Christendom. It was the same durin^ the time of the Apostles and their immediate successors, as it was during the most splendid eras of papal power, when the pretended Vicar of Christ extended his sceptre over the world. It v/as the same during those gloomy seasons in which the Church, like her blessed Head and Founder in Gethsemane was made t» MISCELLANIES, No. XII. Id .sweat blood under the agony inflicted on her by the fury of her per- secutors, and during her triumphant progress through the Roman empire, under the auspices of Constantine, sheltered by the sword of civil and military power. Episcopacy has been the same through all ages, in every nation. The Reformers of the Episcopal Church did not think proper to reject the whole of Christianity, because it •was found blended with unnumbered superstitions in the Church of Rome. They did not renounce the Sacrament because the mon- strous doctrine of transubstantiation was grafted on it. They did not reject the inspiration of the scriptures, because the mischievous belief of the Pope's infallibility had arisen out of it. Neither did they think proper to renounce Episcopacy because it had been the ladder by which the Bishop of Rome ascended the throne of Papal dominion. They carefully separated the liindamentals of Christi- anity which were always contained in the Church of Rome from those additions which had been made to them by the hands of men. They endeavoured to re-^organize the Church of Christ upon the primitive model. They endeavoured to restore her to her primi- tive simplicity and beauty. And with triumph we avov>^ that they have been successful in the efforts which they made. They have restored to us in the Episcopal, the Church of Christ in her primi- tive organization, in her primitive simplicity and beauty. Shall we then still be accused of being too much assimilated in our structure to the Roman Catholic Church, of having imbibed too much of her spirit and temperament ? Shall that Church which at every period has made the most bold and successful stand against the assaults of Papal power ; that Church, which, in every age of her existence, has nourished and matured in her bosom, as her pride and ornament, those sons that have proved the ablest champions of the Reformation ? Shall she be accused of having imbibed the corruptions of the Church of Rome ? What ! shall that Church which has passed through the furnace enkindled by the breath of persecuting Rome, be accused of retain- ing her corruptions, her impurities ? Shall not the blood of Cran- raer, of Ridley, of Latimer, her illustrious Reformers, wash her from the stain of so unjust and foul an imputation ? But on these preliminary points of this writer I have done. Perhaps I have already said more than is necessary. I was afraid that some im- proper impressions might be made on the public mind by his piece, and I have undertaken to remove them. CYPRIAN. For the Albany CentineU MISCELLANIES. No. XH. I CONSIDER these strictures on Church Government as n» more than necessary self-defence. If any thing appears like an attack upon Episcopacy, and if its friends are alarmed lest its strong holds be demolished or taken, the war on my part is still purely defensive, and the laws of nations justify my conduct. They 2.0 MISCELLANIES. No. XIL are to blame who gave wanton provocation,* by setting up their own . Church as the only true one upon earth, and attempting to batter dowi) all others. Could not the Episcopalians be contented with fraiHJng a constitution according to their own mind, and peaceably enjoying it, without insulting other denominations, treating them as ii" they were " aliens from the commonwealth of Isreal," and a'^sumlng airs of dignity and superiority ?t Who was calling in ques- tion the vahdity of their administration of ordinances ? Why not allow others the same privilege which they have taken to them- selves ?| is it not wonderful that they reckon all out of the Episco- pal Church no better than Heathen men and Publicans, and call this charii y ; and then brand all who resist their pretensions, with iin- charitablen'^ss? Be it known, that if the fortress of Episcopacy be stormed ; if mitres stcew the ground, andif their affrighted votaries fly in confusion and dismay, the evil has been of their own seeking. As soon as ♦:hey will cease to annoy their neighbours, and will mind their own business, the s\yord which is drawn in self-defence, will return to its scabbard. To show that my strictures are not unprovoked and useless, I might have sooner referred the reader particularly to two publica» tions made, during the last year, by a Minister in the communion of tlie Protestant Episcopal Church. The one is entitled, " A Com- panion for the Festivals and Fasts," Sec. the other " A Companion for the Altar," SccJI The writer asserts, that those who officiate, not being Episcopally ordained, are guilty of " sacrilege" — thai Bishops " succeeded to the Apostolic office,'' and that this succes- sion is " uninterrupted" — that Bishops " are at the head of the Church," and that " through them ministerial authority is convey- ed" — that " nvithout povjer derived from him^ (the Bishop) it is not * This *' wanton provocation" was an attempt to explain, in books de- signed for Episcopalians, the principles of their Church, and to pomt out to them the danger of leaving it! £d. t The Episcopalians have " framed a constitution," and wish " peacea- bly to enjoy it." But they are not to be allowed to explain and defend this €onst!tut:.>n from scriptui^e and primitive writers I This v/ould be " insult- ing o:her denominations !" £c!. I When have they denied to other denominations the privilege of adopt- ing whatever mode of church government they may deem proper ? When have they denied to other denominations the privilege of defending and in^ cuhating their own principles, and opposing those opinions they may deem erroneous ? No, it is the author of Miscellanies who would deny this pri- vilege to Episcopalians; thus verifying the maxim, that those who inveiglt most bitterly agains: bigotry, are themselves often the most bigoited. Ed. II The titles of these books are here more fully inserted, in order that the reader may see they were intended only for the use of Episcop?-iians- " A Companion for the Festivals and Fasts of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, &c. By John Henry Hobart, A. M. an as- slstant Minister of Triniiy Church, New-York." — *' A Companion for the Altar; consisting of a short explanation of the Lord's Supper, and Medi- tations and Prayers proper to be used before and during the receiving of the Holy Communion according ro the form prescribed by t\\& Protestant Epic- copal Church in the United States of America. By John Henry liobari, A. M. an assistant Minister of Trinity Church, New-York." Ed. MISCELLANIES. No. XH. 21 imi^ful to perform any ecclesiastical act" — that " in the primitive age every Bishop was the head of a diocese consisting of several separate congregations" — that " should Presbyters assume the power of or- dination, the authority of the persons ordained by them Avould rest on human instituiio7i^ and their acts would be nugatory and inva- lid" — that " Bishops were successorr to the Apostles," and that " it is only through a succession of Bishops as distinct from, and supe- rior to Presbyters, that authority to exercise the ministry can be derived from the divine Head of the Church'' — that "the unity of the Church is violated v/hen any presbyter separates from the com- munion of his Bishop^ and sets up an independent government in the Church, and when the people separate themselves from the communion of their duly authorized Ministers, and from the ^o- 'vernmeiit of the Church"-~-that this is " schism," and " answers to the sin of Korah"— that " sacraments not administered by the Bi- shop [of the Episcopal Church] or those commissioned by him, were not only ineffectual to the parties, but moreover, like the offerings of Korah, provocations against the Lord" — that " Presbyters ought not to baptise without the Bishop's allowance" — that " none but Bishops [of the Episcopal Church] have authority to ordain Mi- nisters in the Church, and none but those who are ordained by them can be truly said to have a divine commission^ or anxj authority to minister ia the Christian Chui'ch"— that " the merits and grace of the Redeemer are applied to the soul of the believer in devout and humble participation of the ordinances of the Church, administered |)y a priesthood [the Episcopal] who derive their authority by regu- lar transmission from Christ" — that it is " essential to the efficacy of the Lord's Supper to be administered by those [the Episcopal Priests] who have received lawful authority to administer it" — that not to maintain the necessity of Episcopal ordination is to " present salvation to men stripped of those conditions on which alone it is ^attainable"— that " every dispensation of divine grace has been confined to a part only of mankind" — that " the visible Church of Christ is known by adhenng to the government of the Church, by Bishops, Priests, &nd Deaco7is" — that it is " the sacred duty of ail Christians to preserve the unity of the Church, by continuing- iu the Church [Episcopal] if by God's grace it is our happy lot to be already in it ; or by coming into it, if it be our misfortune hitherto to have kept ourselves out of it." — Here let the reader take breath, and compose himself* ^ — — — — — I * The candid reader will be cautious of forming his opinion concerning these books from the above disjoined and mutilated extracts. The Lay- man, who in his third and fourth numbers ably defends these works, very justly observes concerning these extracts — " Deductions are separated from t\\e.\Y premises, opinions from \.\\t\x proofs, and consequences from their quali' Jications." How could the author of Miscellanies reconcile it with can- dour, with truth, with Christian justice, to withhold the important remark with which the author of the obnoxious works qualifies the opinions there advanced; that God will extend " mercy to all who labour under unavoid- able ignorance or involunfarv error P" — And surely error, which is the result of l-;onest conviction, and not of wilful prejudice, or of a neglect to search for the truth, is involuntary and excusable. Iri the works-in <]uestion; the author endeavours to prove from scripture. 22 MISCELLANIES. No. XIL could give many more quotations, and refer to the page ; but it Is unnecessary. Let any one only open " A Companion for the Festi- < ther in his epistle to the Smyrneans. " He that honours the Bishop shall be honoured of God; but he that does any thing without his knowledge, ministers unto the devil." This quotation is taken from the genuine epistles of Ignatius ; acknowledged as genuine by the generality of learned men, many of them (among whom the celebrated Dr. L,ardner, author of the Credibility of the Gospel History, ranks) not Episcopalians. Many other quotations equally strong might be adduced from the epistles of Ignatius, and the writings of the Fathers. Several of theobnoxious expressions also are quotations from the writings of some of the most pious and learned divines of the Church of England, The sentiments concerning episcopacy there advanced are supported, among many others, by the venerable names of Bishop Andrews, Bishop Sander-^ son. Bishop Hail, Bishop Taylor, Archbishop Potter, of Hooker, of Ham- tnond, of Leslie; and in more modern times, of Bishop Home, ^ones of Nayland, of the profoundly learned Horsely, of Daubeny, the al Je defender of primitive faitli and order. The piety and learning of Bishop Beveridge are universally acknowledg- ed. His works are held in high estimation by the pious of all denomina'- tions. Let the following quotation from his sermon, entitled, Christ's Pre- sence ivith his Ministers, be seriously perused. " And as for schism, they certainly hazard their salvation at a strange rate, who separate themselves from such a Church as ours is, wherein the apostolical succession, the root of all Christian comfiiunion, hath been so entirely preserved, and the word and sacraments are so eft'ectually administered; and all lo go into such assevi- blies and meetings as ha'oe no pretence to the great promise in my text, ' Lo I am with you alvvay,' &c. For it is manifest that this promise v«'as made only to the apostles and their successors to the end of the world. Whereas, in the private meetings, v/here their teachers have no apostolical or episco' pal itnpositian of hands, they have no ground to pretend to succeed the Apos- tles, nor by consequence anv right to the spirit which our Lord here promis- eth." Will the author of Miscellanies rank the pious Bishop Beveridge, and the other venerable divines above mentioned, among the " fanatics" who hold to the uninterrupted line of succession from the Apostles ; among the intolerant bigots who maintain the divine institution of Episcopacy ? If the author of " the Companion for the Altar" and for " the Festivals and Fasts'* is to be considered as ^fanatic, a narrow and intolerant bigot, it ought to be known that he stands in company whom indeed he resembles only in holding the same opinions, but with whom any divine, however superior his talents, his learning, or his piety, might be proud to be ranked. " The divine right of episcopacy" (to use the language of a Laytnan of the Church of England v/ho wrote in the last century) *• is plain from scripture, and was never called in «yje&tion by any considerable number of MISCELLANIES. No. XII. SS vals,'» 8cc. and read under the head of " Preliminary instructions concerning the Church," and he will be at no loss about pages. He should read the whole, in order to understand what Episcopacy would-be. in this country. In " A Companion for the Altar," kc. I would recommend a perusal of the extraordinary meditation for the " Saturday evening" immediately preceding the communion ; not indeed by way of preparation for that solemn business ; for I think that he ought to have other tilings in his head and heart, than what he will find there discussed.* A long quotation from it shall ap^ pear hereafter,^ — At present, I shall conclude with a few short remarks. 1. The sentiments quoted would be unfairly charged to Episcopa- lians, were they not advanced by one who is an assistant to his Bishop in the same congregation. Would he have published them without the advice, direction, or countenance of his Bishop ? Has he received any censure? Nay, the Bishop has confirmed eveiy sentiment by his own practice. He has re-ordained and even re- baptised. At the same time, I verily believe, that Episcopalians, in general, do not avow these principles, and that they are not aware of their being so diligently and solemnly propagated, t men till within these last two hundred years : and must we now lay it aside, for fear of opposing new upstart notions and opinions ? God forbid ! Must our holding fast the sound doctrine of Christ and his Apostles be called uncharitable and unkind, because it does not suit with the temper and dis- position of other people ? Cannot we still keep our charity for them by be- lieving that God will dispense with the very want of the Christian sacra- 'ments, and bestow even the supernatural graces of them, to those who labour under invincible ignorance or * involuntary error,' or else under an impossibility of receiving those sacraments, when they do all that lies in their power to fulfil his blessed will ? Certainly we may ; for God can dis- pense with his own institutes, and give the spiritual graces annexed to them to whom he pleases." (Laurence on Lay Baptism.) JEd. * The author of Miscellanies thinks that all inquiries concerning the au- thority of those who are to administer the holy communion are unnecessary and improper. Let the reader attend to the following extract from " the Christian Sacrifice," a work designed as a preparation for the Holy Com- munion, and written by the pious Nelson, a Layman of the Church of England. " And since we live in an age that is inclinable to make all th$ inhereiU pcnxers in the priesthood, to be the effects of priestcraft; and that others take upon them to sign arid seal covenants in God's name, viho have no comynission for the purpose ; it will be fit for any man that prepares him- self for this holy ordinance, to consider v^ho has the po^er of adtninisterit^ this holy sacrament ; whether laym.en as well as clergymen ij:ho have receivtd their commission from, the Apostles. This consideration, I am sure, will be of great comfort to the faithful members of the Church of Engla-jd, which has preserved the ancient apostolical go^^ernment, and the primitive orders in a due subordination, whereby they are secured of a right and truly canonical Tninistry." Ed. t If " Episcopalians in general do not avow these principles," it is cer- tainly the duty of the Clergy to inculcate them with the greater assiduity and earnestness. For the Episcopal Church, adopting the language of th« holy Ignatius, the contemporary of the Apostles — " that it is not lawful inithoiit the Bishop either to baptise or to celebrate the holy communion ;" and the language of the Cburcb Universal, maintains, in the preface to the ^i MISCELLANIES. No. Xll. 2. Tlie charge o^ uncharitableness lies wholly at the door of Epis- copalians. Brazen must be the front of that man who attempts to bring it against Presbyterians. 3. If the doctrines contained in the works quoted be true, then the first Bishop of the Episcopal Church in this State was never baptised. He never had any other baptism than what was admi- nistered by a Minister of the Reformed Dutch Church. This Mi- nister was not episcopaliy ordained — he was only a Dutch Presbif' ■ter^ or, if you please, a Dutch Bishops and, consequently, his act ■was " nugatory and invalid." The present Bishop has declared it to be so, by re-baptising children who had been baptised by a Lu- theran Minister.* ordination services, that no man is to be considered as a lav.ful Minister who hath not had Episcopal consecration or ordination. The Episcopal Minister who has provoked the unappeasable ire of the author of Miscellanies, inculcated these principles, not in nevospaper addresses, not in pamphlets inviting general perusal, but in books ad- dressed to Episcopalians. If, however, these principles are erroneous, let them be exposed ; if they are opposed to the tenets of other denorhinations-, let those denominations be warned against them ; but let this be done by fair argument, with decency and candour ; and not with the weapons of misrepresentation, ridicule, and invective. Ed. * As a general proposition it is true, that the administration of ordi- nances by those who have not received their commission through the regu- lar apostolical succession, is " nugatory and invalid." But certainly circum- £tances may sometimes qualify general truths. It may be presumed, that when a person who has received baptism from irregular authority, after- wards submits himself to the regular authority of the Church, by receiving confirmation or the holy eucharist, the deficiency of his baptism, in respect to the authority of those who administered it, is then supplied. This is the opinion of many divines of the Church of England, who deservedly rank high for their attachment to Episcopal principles; and particularly of the learned Bingham, the author of Ecclesiastical Antiquities. This class of divines, however, deny that any person has legitimate authority to admi- nister baptism, but those episcopaliy ordained. Accordingly their maxim is, fieri non debet, factwoi valet. It is 7iot la'v.ful to be done ,- 'v:hen done, it is valid. >• Another class of Episcopalians contend, that all baptisms administered by those who have never received a commission through the " originally constituted order" are invalid. This opinion is maintained with singular force and perspicuity of argument, in a treatise, entitled, " Lay Baptii^m Invalid," published by Pv. Laurence, A. M. a layman of the Church of England. He contends, that three things, ail instituted by Ciirist in his memorable commission to his Apostles, are necessary to a v?Jid baptism ; the matter, the fonn, and the authority. The matter, the name of tht Trinity; the form, water; and the authority, a comonissicn given to the Apostles and their successors — " Go ye, and baptise — Lo, lam "uith you alv:ay, even to the end of the world. These three things being insti- tuted by Christ, are equally and indispensably necessary; and the defici- ency of any one of them renders a baptism invalid. Hence it follov.s that a baptism administered by one who has not received a commission from those autliorised as the successors of the Apostles, is not a valid bajjtism. This tract, independendy of the important subject of which it treats, is well worthy of general perusal, on account of the singular ingenuity and MISCELLANIES. No. XIL 2^ 4. The writer quoted speaks of his being " humble lents ;" but I think he bids fair to rival if not eclipse A in attain- ments ;" but I think he bids fair to rival if not eclipse Archbishop Laud himself. force of its reasoning. On these principles, the Lutheran Minister acted in applying to the Bishop co baptise his children. The author of Miscellanies several tinaes insinuates, that some persons have been ordained Priests, and one a Bishop who had not Episcopal bap tism. Admitting the truth of his ?.ssertion, of what advantage is it to his cause ? Admitting that the seal of authority, in which alone their baptisni was deficient, was not supplied when they received confirmation, or the Holy Eucharist, from the hands of Christ's authorised Ministers; what in- superable impediment was there to their receiving the ministerial commis- sion I This commission, deriving all its eracacy from the power of Christ, is independent of the qualifiications of the Minister. Holiness of heart and life is certainly as indispensable a qualification in a Minister as a valid bap- tism,. And yet we find that Judas, who was " a traitor, and had a De» vil," was one of the highest order of Ministers. The author of Mis- cellanies, surely, will not maintain that the absence of 'uital holiness in SI Minister i-enders nugatory his administration of the ordinances. Neither can he contend that any defect in the baptism of a Minister fenders nu- gatory the exercise of a valid ministerial commission. The following extract from " Laurence on Lay Baptism," tne treatise above-mentioned, will set this subject in a just light. " Baptism itself be- ing no constituent essential part of his commission or ordination, he who js destitute of baptism is not, by reason of that want alone, destitute of Holy Orders. If it be objected, that while he is unbaptised, he is out of the Church ; and how can he who is not of the Church, admit anothet by baptism into the Church? lansv/erj though he is out of the Church with respect to any benefits himself, yet not with respect to the spiritual benefits which he has authority and commission mediately to convey to others. A man may be a true messenger to carry that good to another, v/hich he himself neither does, nor ever will enjoy, A master of a family- may send a neighbour, or a stranger v:ho is not of his family, and give him full power and authority to adopt into his family some poor destitute or- phan children whom he commiserates. And though that stranger be not of the family himself, yet his adopting those jKior children into that fa- mily, stands good ; because the master of the family sent and empir^ered him to do it. This I take to be very parallel to the case in hand ; and, there- fore, he who IS not of the Church, because unbaptised, may as truly ad- mit a person into the Church by baptism, as he, who, (though baptised) through his wickedness, is destitute of the Holy Ghost, can convey the gift of the Holy Ghost by his ministration of sacraments to others. For as it is not the persmial holiness of the administrator that conveys holiness to me in the ministration of any sacrament, so neither does his having received that sacrament signify any thing to me for the validity thereof, when he; administers it to me Oy virtue of a divine covi7nission explicitly given to him. This COMMISSION ALONE is that which makes the ministration not his, but God's own act; and, as such, v:ithoiU any other appe?idant cause, it is good and valid. Hence our blessed Lord called both unbaptised and wiholy men, viz. his Apostles, who cannot be proved to have been baptised in the 7iaine of the Trinity before his resurrection ; and one of them, yudas Iscariot, a thief, a devil in his disposition— to the administration of holy things ; as if he would thereby teach us to \ookviith faith on n\^ authority on^ly, without confiding in any of the best accompilishment.- of those on whom lie ha^ conferred it. And if we do but look back to the condition of th« E 2^ MISCELLANIES. No. Xll. POSTSCRIPT. Since the above was -written, I have read a continuation of the address by " A Layman of the Episcopal Church." I repeat the assurance that the word BY is not included by me in the quotation of the Apostle's words to Timothy, that the passage is not in " a mutilated state," and that it was far from my thoughts to substitute BY for WITH. This would defeat my own purpose, v/hen I come to explain the text. Upon this, and another in the second Epistle to Timothy, taken in connection with other parts of scripture, I am willing that the whole controversy should rest. I hope to give a more natural and just interpretation of them than he has given. I wish he had spared the following words : " I feel strongly disposed to suspect weakness in a cause, when I find such expedients em- ployed to defend it." I forbear any retort. If he be the person I suppose him, I love him too much readily to believe that he can be otherwise than ingenuous. I wish the Episcopal Church had many laymen and preachers of his talents and virtues. A great deal of what he says, is, no doubt, true ; but it is not properly applied, antf does not support his cause. All that is necessary by way of reply,- will be found in the course of my numbers, without a particular' reference to him. Let me add farther, that the reader will certainly justify much' greater severity than what I shall use. The provocation given to non-episcopalians has been wanton and great. There can be no ob» jection against the Episcopalians managing their own affairs in their own way. Had they not treated other churches with indignity and insult — had they maintained their Bisho/is^ Priests, and Deacons^ and /ilead divine authority^'* and not charged others with the sin of schism, and as having neither Ministers nor ordinances, I had never written a word on the subject. I wish them more hiiniility and cha- rity, as being the way to greater prosperity. Jewish Church, during their forty years sojourning in the ^vilderness, we shall find that none of them were circumcised m all that space of time- Though the uncircumcised were, by God's own appointment, to be cut off from amofig his people, yet the ministry of these priests and scribes who were born in the term of those forty years, was not annulled and made void for their want of circumcision; which, doubtless, was as much necessary to qualify them for holy orders, as baptism is now to qualify our Christian Priests." Ed. * How strangely inconsistent is this gentleman ! Though he here allows Episcopalians to plead " divine authority" for their order of Bishops; yet the moment they attempt to exercise the right which he grants them, to inculcate their principles, and to act upon them by o/daining those who have not been episcopally ordained, they are considered as treating other churches with " indignity and insult." Though he here allows Episcopa- lians to plead " divine authority" for Episcopacy; yet, at the close of his twenty -third number, he v/'armly censures them for offering this plea. This is his language in that number. " I have no objection to their pre- ferring Episcopal or^\wsi't\ow, provided that they •will cease to assert it un divine tight ,• for I think that this is untenable, offensive to their fellow Christians of other denominations, and injurious to themselves." This author fre- tjuently accitses the advocates of Episcopacy of having written incautiously and with precipitancy. He certainly affords many specimens of the care aiid' consideration' with which he has composed his Miscellanies. J^d. ( sr ) Fqt the Albany Centineh THE LAYMAN. No, II. AT was ray wish to have said nothing more on the subject of Ec- clesiastical Government. The circumstance, however, which led me to take up my pen continues to exist : I still feel it a duty to cor- rect such views of the Church, as appear to me to be inaccurate ; and to endeavour to prevent any improper impression which they may have a tendency to make on the public mind. The cause of religion has been deeply injured by the angry con- tests of its professors. If the friends of Christianity are occasion- ally involved in controversy, let not a spirit of bitterness in the ma- nagement of it give reason of triumph to their foes. The professions which I have made, of regard for the writer whom I oppose, are sincere. I have long been in the habit of ad- miring his talents, and revering his virtues. If I have said any thing that has wounded his feelings, or that may have appeared to him not perfectly consistent with delicacy, I entreat him to ascribe it to zeal in the support of a cause w^ich I deem important ; to any thing, rather than a want of that esteem and respect for his cha- racter which it is equally my happiness to feel and to express. When individuals or bodies of men get engaged in controversy, nothing is more common, or more natural, than for each to think the injury inflicted solely by the other, and to indulge his feelings, ex- cited and nourished by this partial view of things to which the human mind is so prone. When, therefore, I observe expressions in the numbers of this writer, which appear to me to be exceptionable, I recollect this quality in man, and find no difficulty in ascribing to honest zeal what, upon a more narrow view, I might consider as involving a departure from Christian charity. Let me entreat him to cherish a similar disposition towards the Episcopal Church. I sincerely believe she has never given the other denominations of Christians just cause of offence ; and, I even indulge the hope, that a dispassionate examination of the works against which he objects, will present them to his view in a point of light very different from that in which he has been accustomed to consider them. Upon thxa part of the subject I now enter ; begging leave, however, to take notice, in the first place, of a passage in the tenth number of the Miscellanies, which appeal's to me to call for some animadversion. *' The AtiQstle Peter ^ from whom the Romish and the Protestant Episcopal Church pretend to have derived their authority J' When did the Protestant Episcopal Church profess to derive her power from the ^/2o.v^/e Peter? Has she not invariably and strenu- ously opposed that imaginary distinction among the Apostles, upon vrhich the Church of Rome founded her usurped supremacy ? Pa~ t(icy and Episcopacy are as inconsistent as are Episcopacy and Parity, The Papists have departed on the one side ; the Presbyte- rians on the other. The supremacy of the Pope is supported by representing him as the successor of St. Peter, and by representing St. Peter as the Frincs of the Apostles, The passage of scripture relied upon for 28 LAYMAN. i:^o. 11. this, is that which contains the promise of the keys; but, it has bees thoroughly explained, by some of the ablest writers of our Church, as being a mere promise, not actually delegating any power at the time, but fulfilled, when our Savioi;r said to his Apostles, " As mj Father hath sent me, even so send I you. Receive ye the Holy- Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." This last de- claration was made to no one particularly, but to all generally. It placed the Apostles upon a perfect level with respect to each other. Beside, the whole history of the primitive Church bears equal testimony against the Papal supremacy and the Presbyterian parity. This reasoning is used by the writers of our Church. It will be found, if names ai-e necessary to be mentioned, in Chilling- •worth and Barrow. I cite these particularly, because they have urged it with peculiar force. No, the Protestant Episcopal Church waged open war with all the false doctrines, and all the corruptions of Popery. It is indeed strange, that such a charge should be brought against a Church so highly admired by the first reformers ; a Church reformed by CRANMER and RIDLEY, and cemented with their blood. Our Church, then, professes to derive her power from Christ, through the medium of the Apostles in general ; not through that of any one of them in particular. She rejects, utterly, the distinc- tion for which the Papists contend ; and, along with it, the senseless jargon Oii supremacy and i?ifaUibiliiyv/iih. which the Romish Church so long insulted the world. Episcopacy, indeed, she retained, be- cause she considered it as a divine institution ; and, on this point, was most cordially congratulated by Calvin, Beza, and other illus- trious reformers of the time. They prayed earnestly to God that it might be preserved in the Church of England ; lamenting the ne- cessity of their situation, which precluded them from it, as the greatest of their misfortunes. Strange that the ardent admirers of these men should condemn, as " corrupt and injurious^" an in- stitution which they viewed with so favourable an eye 1 Calvin de- clared, in strong terms, that he opposed not the Episcopal Hier- archy, but only the Papal, which, aspiring to an universal supre- macy, in the See of Rome, over the whole Christian world, usurped upon the prerogative of. Christ. And he anathematised all those ■who, having the Episcopal Hierarchy in their power, should refuse to reverence it, and submit themselves to it with the utmost obedi- ence. " If any such shall be found, si qui erunt" says he, " I will readily confess that they are worthy of all anathemas;" evidently declaring that he knew no such persons, and owned none such among his followers. How fatal is the influence of irregular example ! Calvin, and the reformers who acted with him, established Presby- terian Government, alleging the impossibility of doing otherwise, without going to the Church of Rome ; still, however, expressing the highest respect and reverence for the Episcopal authority. Those who profess to follow these men have departed entirely from their declarations ; renouncing the whole order of Episcopacy as a •" corrupt and injurious" innovation. Indeed, Calvin and his asso- ciates had no sufficient excuse ; for, although they could not procure Bishops in their own countries, vathout receiving them from tUe LAYMAN. No. II. 2? SlGmish Church, yet they might have gone to other places for them* And, if this had drawn upon them a more marked and severe per- secution, they would have suffered for what they acknowledged as a most important truth. This conduct, then, incorrect in itseif, laid the foundation of schism in the Church, which has been regularly producing the most bitter fruits from its origin to the present time. I have said that the Protestant Episcopal Church derives her au- thority from Christ, through the medium of the Apostles in general, placing them all upon a perfect level with respect to each other. Nor does this circumstance favour the idea of parity ; for still there were three orders, our Saviour, while he was on earth, the twelve Apostles, and the seventy Disciples. After the ascension of our Saviour, there were the Apostles, the Elders, and the Deacons : so that, in every period of the Church, distinct orders have existed in her ministry. Tliis remark is made incidentally here. Should circumstances render it proper to pursue the inquiry, this part of the subject shall receive a regular examination. The Episcopal Church, then, professes not to derive particu- larly from St. Peter. She ascribes to him no supremacy over the other Apostles. I have been more full, perhaps, than was neces- sary, on this point ; but it appeared to me important to show, at some length, the inaccuracy of such a charge, it being of a nature to operate strongly on the public mind,. There is another point of view in which the passage under consideration requires to be placed. " Here the AfiQstte Peter^ from ivhoin the Romish and the Protestant Efiiscofial Church jire- tend to have derived their authority, calls himself not a Bishop, but an Elder^ claims no fire -eminence over his brethren," Our author seems here to place Peter upon a perfect level with every Minister existing in the Church ; which, indeed, is only fol- lowing up the mode of reasoning, from the promiscuous use of names, to its true conclusion. Nevertheless, towards the close of the number, the apostolic office is represented asfiurely extraordi- nary, I wish, then, to understand him on this point. Does he maintain that the Apostles had no spiritual jurisdiction over the Clergy in general ? Does he maintain that they were upon a perfect level with the Elders of Ephesus, having no more power over those Elders than those Elders had over them ? Is he willing explicitly to avow, and decidedly to support this doctrine ? I cannot but thus understand him ; for he expressly tells us that Peter, addressing the Presbyters, claimed no pre-eminence whatever. And all this, least there should be " lords in God's heritage,'' This lofty hatred of subordination, ah ! how opposite is it to the humility of the gospel; what mischief hath it not operated both in Church and State! If you carry the principle of liberty so far as to make it inconsist- ent with the existence of a spiritual authority in the Apostles, and their successors the Bishops, over the other orders of the Clergy, you put into the hands of your adversaries a v/eapon, with which they will very easily demolish the whole order of the Priesthood. The wild plan of rendering every thing common in the Church, giving to any one who imagines himself qualified, the right of preaching, and of administering the ordinances of the gospel, with- iiut an external commissiouj tti the utter destruction of all regular so LAYMAN. No. III. and spiritual authority over the laity, in an order of men set apart for the purpose of officiating in holy things, is to be completely jus- tified by the language of our author ; and is, indeed, only pursu- ing the reasoning of the advocates of parity to its natural conclu- sion. The whole body of Christians are the heritage of God. And ?^hall there be a distinct set of men invested vyith authority to lord it over them ? This mode of speaking is just as applicable to the power of the Clergy over the laity, as to that superintending au- thority, with which the Bishops are invested, in relation to the subordinate orders of their brethren. If the idea of distinction and subordination among the Clergy be inconsistent with liberty, why is not the idea of distinction and subordination betw^een the Clergy and laity equally inconsistent ? Are there not distinct orders of civil magistrates in our country; and does this interfere with the rights of the people ? Why then should distinct orders among the Clergy, involve any such inter- ference ? Our author has no objection to subordinate offices in the state. He thinks it very proper that there should be a chief ma- gistrate of the Union, and chief magistrates of the individual com- munities. He sees nothing in this, or in the various grades of office, inconsistent with liberty. Why then is the idea of subordination, in the government of the Church, so very odious to him ? In opposition to the opinion of our author, I venture to say, that the constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church of this coun-r try is more congenial than the Presbyterian system, with its civil institutions. The first, certainly, bears most resemblance to a go- vernment composed of distinct branches ; the last, to one which concentrates all its authority in a single body. But, this is a sub- ordinate consideration. We are to inquire what form of govern- ment is prescribed in the scriptures of truth ; not what is most suited to the varying institutions of men. And I believe it can be inade to appear, that the constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church is equally founded in scripture, and in the nature of the human mind. The apology, founded on two publications that have recently appeared in the city of New-York, shall be particularly considered in my next address. A Layman of the Ep-iscopal Church. For the Albany CentineL THE LAYMAN. No. IH. i PROCEED to consider the charge brought against the Episco- pal Church founded, particularly, on two publications that have recently appeared in the city of New-York. Extracts from these publications are introduced in the twelfth number of the Miscel- lanies ; and in a way calculated, I fear, to excite the passions of the public. I think I have a right to find much fault with the Ian - guage employed in usliering the works, so severely complained of, into public notice. It is of a nature to kindle indignant feelings, and, of course, to preclude a dispassionate consideration of the case on which cur author founds the justification of his present con» LAYMAN. JTo.IIT. ^t duct. There is, also, too much, far too much of exultation, at least for so early a stage of the controversy. It might have been ■well to have postponed this to the moment of victory. At all events, it should have been deferred until something like a regular system of reasoning had been presented to the consideration of the public. Positive assertion is easily made. There is no difficulty until you enter upon the business of proof. When I see a man exult in the prospect of victory, almost before he has had time to arrange his force; or, represent the arguments of his opponents as '' scarcely deserving of an ansv:er," while he himself is dealing most largely in assertion, I feel strongly disposed to suspect weakness in his cause, and that he is endeavouring to compensate for the want of reasoning, by boldness of declaration, and confidence of manner. Let me be permitted to observe, that those arguments of which he speaks thus lightly, have been urged by men of the most distin- guished genius, and the most profound erudition ; men from whom he will never know too much to learn. Our author is quite deceived if he supposes the attack upon Epis- copacy to be alarming to its friends. While they court not contro- versy, I trust they will be ever ready to defend the rights and the doctrines of their Church. Mitres may strew the ground. They are no part of the Episcopal Hierarchy ; and it is much to be regretted that this writer will continue to confound things that are distinct ; or, in treating of the situation of the Episcopal Church here, will wander for ever to the Papacy of Rome. All this has certainly nothing to do with the question under discussion. The votaries of the Church are not filled with dismay. It will require much more powerful attacks to impress upon their hearts the sen- timent of fear. The fortress of Episcopacy has never yet been stormed ; ar^d I trust, it will prove impregnable to every assault of the foe. Let us proceed to consider the publications complained of, and see whether they offer any real injury or insult to other denomina- tions of Christians. In order to form a correct judgment on this point, it will be necessary to read the works themselves. The ex- tracts are very short, and it is impossible horn them alone ta arrive at a just conclusion. Deductions are separated from their premises^ ofiinions from their firoofs^ and consequences from their qualifications, I desire every one, therefore, who feels interested in this business, to give to the publications in question a dispassion- ate examination ; recollecting always, that Episcopalians are to- lerated equally with other denominations in our country, and have the same right of maintaining, in decent language, those doctrines which they believe to be taught by tlie oracles of truth. ^ Let it be recollected, then, in the first place, that the Compa- nion for the Altar, and the Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, are intended, solely, for the members of the Episcopal Church. They are not addressed to the public at large ; and but for the severe remarks which have been made upon them, it is probable they would have found their way into the hands of very few persons of other denominations. Besides, they are works which are very common in our Church, being designed as a preparation for, and as an illustration of her institutions and service^. In truth, the 5^ LAYMAN. No. HI. tvant of these publications in any country where our Church ejdst^ would be a great defect. E^/ery Episcopalian ought to possess them. Into these treatises, indeed, is incorporated a summary view of the Priesthood of the Christian Church, stating its powers, and tracing them to the source from which they are derived. In illustrating the Festivals and Fasts, what couid be more proper ihan to show the foundation of the authority that instituted them I In a work designed as preparatory to the most solemn ordinance of our religion, what more correct or more natural than to show the divine right of that Priesthood at whose hands it is received by the com- municant 1 And if it be particularly objected that the question of ecclesiastical authority is thrown into a meditation, let it be re- membered that, in the shape of a note or appendix, it would pro- bably have received but little attention, and that it is a subject of great moment, involving nothing less than the due performance of the highest acts of worship known to the Christian dispensation. Bread and wine have no intrinsic efficacy to convey the graces of the spirit. We see, in them, the appointment of God ; and it is from this that they derive all their value. The v/ater of Jordan had no peculiar virtue to cleanse the leprosy of Naaman. It was the Divine command, which he followed, that gave efficacy to the application. And, certainly, in the Holy Supper, k is necessary to adhere to the system which God has established. Man has as much right to change the Sacrament, as to change the Priesthood by whom it is to be administered. Both are of Divine appointment; and any reasoning which shall prove human authority to be compe- tent to an alteration of the one, will prove it to be no less competent to an alteration of the other. These opinions are most sincerely entertained by our Church ; and to refuse her the right of main- taining them, is to refuse her the common privileges of religious to- leration. In works, then, addressed to Episcopalians alone, the doctrine of their Church relative to the Christian Priesthood is illustrated and enforced. And can this, in justice, be made a ground of complaint ? While we are permitted to exist, the right cannot be called in question, and the decent exercise of an admit- ted right ought not, surely, to draw on us a vindictive attack. I observe, in the second place, that the discussions contained in the works under examination, are conducted in an unerxeptiona- ble style. There is nothing of abuse, of sneer, or of invective. The reader will not, I hope, form his judgment on this point from the short and unconnected extracts that have been laid b(ifore the public. Let any candid Presbyterian read the works themselves, and I will venture to "submit it to his decision, whether they contain any thing more than a decent illustration and support of the doc- trines of the Episcopal Church. It is not the mariner^ but thewa?- ter of these treatises that has given offence. And has the time ar- rived, when we are to be violently assailed for claiming and exer- cising the right of judgment on a subject the most interesting that can possibly engage the attention of the human mind ? I trust not. We believe that Episcopacy is an apostolic institution ; that it is the appointed mode of conveying the sacerdotal power; that this mode being established by God, can be changed only by God; and that all authority ceases the moment a departure takes place from the sys- LAYMAN. No. III. S3 tern ordained for its transmission. We consider Bishops as the suc- cessors of the Apostles, and as possessing alone that power of ordi- nation by which the ecclesiastical office is continued and preserved. These doctrines we maintain — we have a right to maintain them. And no reasonable man can consider such conduct as giving just cause of offence. How do Presbyterians themselves act in this particular ? Are they not in the continual practice of illustrating and enforcing their distinguishing tenets ? Take, as an example, the rigid doctrine of election and reprobation, which represents Christ as having died only for a particular number ; excluding the rest of mankind from even the possibility of salvation. This is as obnox- ious to us, as the doctrine of the divine right of Episcopacy can possibly be to our opponents. And if they claim the right of repre- senting us as having departed from the true faith, will they not allow us the right of representing them as having departed from the true Priesthood I Rut ycu unchurch us. This is the grievous com- plaint. It is this that raises all the difficulty, and kindles all the resentment. Attend now, for one moment, to the situation in which the Presbyterians would place us, and the most unreasonable de- mands which they make of us. They tell us, You believe it is true that a particular method of conveying the sacerdotal power was established by the Apostles, and that this, being a divine institution, can be changed only by that high authority which ordained it. You consider Episcopacy as the appointed plan, arid conformity to it as a duty incumbent upon all. These are your sincere opinions, and you have a right to entertain them ; (for, I trust, our sincerity and our right, in this case, will not be denied.) But pause — advance not one step further — let these opinions remain for ever dormant in your bosoms — presume not to publish them to the world, least the con- clusions which flow from them may affect, in public estimation, the basis on which we stand. Perform not the duty which you owe your people, by explaining to them what ycu deem an important part of the whole counsel of God, least you should offend us, in questioning the validity of Presbyterian ordination. What, then, does all this, in plain English, amount to ! Think not for yourselves — renounce your opinions. At all events, venture not, at the hazard of our "displeasure, to avow them to the world. Let us see, once more, how the Presbyterians act. They believe the Priesthood, and the ordinances of baptism, and the holy supper, to be essential parts of the Christian dispensation. They consider baptism as the only mode of initiation into the Church of Christ, and as, generally, necessary to salvation. But do you presume to unchurch us ? say the Quakers. Will the Presbyterian, then, give up the right of thinking for himself en the important subjects of the Priesthood, and the ordinances of the gospel ; or, of decently sup- porting the opinions which he conscientiously entertains ? Can he do so without debasing that rational faculty which God has given him, and neglecting the important duty of instructing his people in what he deems to be a most interesting branch of religious truth ? He would say to the Quakers, We sincerely believe the Priesthood, and the ordinances which you have discarded to be essential parts of the Christian dispensation. We esteem it a duty to maintain, in proper language, their neces-sity. It is far from our intention to S4 LAYMAN. No. HI. give you offence. We only claim that right of thinking for our-' selves, and of inculcating our opinions which we are in the constant habit of exercising. Why, then, may not our Church talk to the Presbyterians, as they would talk to the Quakers ? This is all that is contended for. The Presbyterians have departed from the divinely instituted Priesthood. The Quakers have gone a st»p further, and discarded the Priesthood altogether. In truth, we cannot maintain the divine right of Episcopacy, and admit the validity of ordination by Presbyters. The two things are utterly inconsistent Avich each other. To condemn us, then, for questioning the right of Presby- ters to ordain, is to attempt to terrify us into a renunciation of our^ principles. What is this but the very spirit of persecution ? To iidmit the validity of Presb} terian ordination is to abjure our faith ; for, we cannot admit it, and yet maintain the necessity of subor- dinate orders in the ministry, with distinct powers, the important prerogative of ordination being vested solely in the higher order. It is with real pain we find ourselves compelled to inculcate princi- ples leading to the conclusion, that dissenters from Episcopacy are without authority from the Great Head of the Church. But we can never consent to give up the right of judgment, or of enforcing what we suppose to be taught by the sacred volume. Let us follow the Presbyterians one step further, and see how they treat that Church, of whose want of charity, in persisting to think for herself, they so loudly complain. Take, as an example, the language of this very writer ; " The Classical or Presbyterial form of Church Government is the true and ojilij one which Christ hath prescribed in his word." " The custom of having diocesan Bis/io/is is corrufii and injurious,^' All distinction and subordination in the ministry are declared, in confessions of faith that might be men- tioned, to be imscrifitiiral 2.vA andchristian. And this, permit me to add, has been the habitual language of dissenters, in every pe- riod of their history. What think you, then, of this loud charge against the Episcopal Church for denying the validity of Presbyte- rial ordination ! The very men who thus reproach her hesitate not in representing her system of government as cerrupt^ as unscrifi- turaU ^s antichristian. Indeed, indeed, this is singular conduct ; presenting, certainly, one of the rarest specimens of contradiction that the annals of human inconsistency have ever exhibited. We will represent the Episcopal government as a corrupt and injurious innovation. We will set up our own system as the only one which is at all consistent with the revealed will of God; but, beware hovr you indulge in that liberty of speech which we exercise. Does not this look like intolerance of the most decided character ? But I attri- bute not this disposition to the writer v/hom I oppose. I sincerely believe him" to be free from the spirit of persecution, and I know not how to account for his conduct, but by referring it to the almost ir- resistible force of early habit and prepossession. To this we are all deeply subject ; and, while it should excite us seriously to examine our opinions, and conscientiously to seek for truth, it should read to us, at the same time, a lesson of forbearance and humility. The subject of this paper will be continued and concluded in my next address. ^ A Laij2?ian of the Episcopal Church. ( 35 :) For the Albany Centlnei. MISCELLANIES. No. XIIL X HE arguments which the sect of Episcopalians attempt to dra\7 from scripture, in support of their Bishop, scarcely deserve an an- swer. They deal chiefly in assertions, without producing one sub- stantial proof. It is presumed " that the Christian Priesthood is the completion and perfection of the Jewish ; and that as the latter subsisted under three orders, of High Priest, Priests, and Lerites, so the former is constitued under three orders resembling these." It is asserted " that what Aaron and his sons and the Levites were in the temple, such are the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in the Christian Church, These are appointed by God as those were, and therefore it can be no less sacrilege to usurp their office." Here is nothing but assertion of a very extraordinary nature. These are appointed, and those were appointed; but no proof is exhibited of these succeeding and resembling those. Nor is it said how far the model of the Jev/ish Church is to be followed, except in having three orders, and of their being appointed. No authority is quoted from the New Testament, no direction of Christ and his Apostles is mentioned.* This loose and wonderful argument is answered, merely by say- ing that the whole Jewish dispensation was typical, and was com- pletely fulfilled and abolished at the com.ingof Christ.f " The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father. The hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship -the Father in spirit and in truth ; for the Father seeketh such to worship him." The argument, however, being much relied upon by the Romish Church, and adopted by the Episcopalians, who have not dissented from her as to the article of orders and ordinations, there is a propriety in showing its absur- dity. The Pope finds here his own dignity. Will any dare to dis- pute the title of one who is both type and antetype — who was typi- fied by Aaron, the first High Priest among the Jews, and who was afterwards consecrated by Christ as his lawful successor? Will any one be so bold as to blame the splendour, pomp, and ceremonies of the Popish worship, or to blot one Saint or Holy day from the Calender, not excepting " Saint Michael and all Angels,' or " All Saints Day," when the whole rests on such a firm foundation ? If the Episcopalians would prove any thing in their favour, they must show not that there are three orders in the Christian Church, * The connection between the Jewish and the Christian Priesthood so generally acknowledged by Christian divines is ably expialued and defended by the Layman in his eighth, and by Cyprian in his fourth number. Ed. f How then was the Jewish Priesthood " fulfilled," but in the institution of the Christian ; which is, as the author of the Companion for the Altar observes, '• the completion sind pcrfecdon of the Jewish," and resemble* it in its tbrc« o^d^rsi Ed, 36 MISCELLANIES. No. XIIL which is not disputed;* but that there is such an ©fficer as the High Priest was in the Jewish Church, and that this officer is the order of their Bisliops. If they can do this they will have many High Priests. The Church of Rome is far more consistent. She has only one, as the Jewish nation had ; and I verily believe, that if such an officer be now necessary, the Pope has the fairest claim of all others.f Instead, then, of Presbyterians being charitably ex- horted to come into the Episcopal Church, v/e had all better return to the Mother Church. The truth is, the Jewish nation were one Church, under one government, civil and ecclesiastical. Such an officer as the High Priest was then necessary, and could exist ; but nov/, v.'hen the Church consists of all kindreds, tongues, and nations, it is impossible. The High Priest was a type of Jesus Christ, who, " by his ov/n blood entered in once into the holy place;" and who ^^ ever iiveth to make intercession." If there be a visible head upon earth, the Pope, as has been said, is the man, and no other. These words, *' No man taketh this honour unto himself but he that is called of God, as was Aaron," show only, that he who is an officer in the Church must derive his commission from divine institution. A Presbyterian Minister is a true Bishop, and is as much appointed by God as ever was Aaron.^ Among the Jews the High Priesthood was by succession in the line of the first born of Aaron, and the rest of his posterity were Priests. Where is the resemblance of the Episcopal Aarons r Do Bishops beget Bishops, or even the second order of Priests ? Do they resemble one another in their dress ? Where are nov/ the linen breeches, the embroidered girdle, the blue robe with seventy-two bells, the golden pomegranates, the golden ephod, the golden breast-plate with the engraved stones, the urira and thummim. Sec. I Are lawn sleeves, black govv'ns, and sui-plices to be compared with these ? The Episcopal Priests wear what is called a cassock ; but it is not made of linen, and is more like /letti coats than dreec/ies.\l A Jewish High Priest might not marry a widov/, while indulgence in this respect was granted to the other Priests. Is there any re- striction among the Episcopal orders? A Jewish Priest could not be * We have here another proof of the consistency of this author, and of the care and caution with which he writes. Does he not repeatedly assert, and constantly maintain, tliat all Alinisters are on an equality ? How then can there be three orders of the ministry ? Ed. f As Cyprian very properly observes in his fourth number, " Wherever there is a Bishop, Presbyters, Deacons, and a people ; there is also the Church of Christ." The comparison then is to be made between a Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons, who constitute the Priesthood of tlie Christian Church ; and the High Priest, Priests, and Levites, the Priest- hood of the Je\vish Church. Ed. I How can the Presbyterian Minister prove that he is " as much ap- pointed by God as ever Aaron was?" Surely he does not receive his commission, as Aaron did, immediately from God; and as to receiving it through regular succession from those on whom it Avas originally conferred by the divine Head of the Church, tliis the miscellaneous author repeatedly disclaims and ridicules I Ed. II What confidence can be placed in a writer, who, on sacred subjects, indulges in such low and indecent ridicule ! Ed. MISCELLA:^?IES> No. XIII . 37 consecrated, unless he was without bodily blemish. Has the "House of Bishops" in this country ordained an examination in this matter? The Roman Church is known to be careful ; and, in the article of marriage, has arrived at greater perfection than the Apostle Paul, for he indulged a Bishop with one wife. It is unnecessary to proceed in asking for the resemblance of the orders and their employments in the two Churches. Let me only- remark, 1. That surplices were garments worn by the Jewish singers. 2. That the Levites were consecrated by the imposition of the\hands of the children of Israel. 3. That the Kings of Israel directed the affairs both of Church and state. We read expressly of David making appointments and arrangements for the perfor- mance of divine worship, and of Josiah commanding the High Priest. I pray the reader to attend particularly to this remark. The government of the Church was constituted in a peculiar man- ner, and for a peculiar end. If then we follow the Jewish pattern, why not throughout ? Why not have Kings as well as High Priests ?* Why not have an alliance of Church and state ?t Why not the civil and ecclesiastical officers meet in the same council, or form one court as in ancient days ? Here is the fundamental error of the Church of Rome and of the Church of England, llie Pope is a temporal prince. The same person is both King and Priest. The King of England is the visible head of the Church established there. The High Priest and all the Priests are subordinate to him. The opinion is not without foundation, that the mitre and the crown are connected; nor is the proverb '* no King, no Bishop" without meaning.! In this country to copy after the constitution of the Church of England is unwise, and to defend this conduct, as has been done in the late publications of some Episcopal Ministers, de- serves a harsher name than I shall give it. Hear the words of the Apostle : " But now after that you have known God, or ratKfer are known of God, how turn ye against the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage. "j| * Because God has appointed only Priests under the Christian dispensa- tion. -Ed. f Because such an alliance is not necessary to the existence, nor, in all places or periods, to the prosperity of the Church. She subsisted, and even flourished for three hundred years, not only separate from the state, but persecuted by it. £d. I Are the mitre and the croxvn connected in Scotland ? Does the esta- blished Church there subscribe to the maxim " no Bishop, no King?'' Do not presbyterianism and monarchy there consort together ? Why does not the author of Miscellanies send, to his brother Presbyterians in Scotland, his solemn remonstrance against this unhallowed connection ? Ed. jj The reasoning in this number is most profound indeed ! Is the author of Miscellanies really ignorant of the nature of the types of scripture, or is he guilty of wilful misrepresentation ? The Jewish Priesthood is not typi- cal of the Christian, because the comparison will not in all respects hold good! So says this author, who pronounces his decisions with the authority of a "Master in Israel." Let us see now how his position will apply. The Lamb sacrificed in the Jewish Passover was a type of Jesus Christ, the true " Paschal Lamb." " Christ, our Passover, says the Aposde, is sacrificed for us." No, says the author of Miscellanies, th* inspired Apog- ( 33 ) JFor the Albany Centhtel, MISCELLANIES. No. XIV. X HE Apostle Paul, in 1 Tim. iv. 14. says, " Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying On of the hands of the Presbytery." In 2 Tim. i. 6. he says, ** Wherefore I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands." On these two texts the Episcopalians rely for a proof of their mode of ordi- nation;* and the Presbyterians rely with equal confidence on them for a proof that their mode is the only scriptural one. Let the pas- sages have a fair examination, in connection with some other parts of scripture. I have avoided reading any commentator or writer, in order that my judgment might be free from bias. I desire to have no other ob- ject in view than truth, and I pray that the same Spirit who indited the word, may lead me into its real meaning. In the first text the Greek words dia and ?}ieta are both used, the one translated by and the other 7wV/z. " By pi'ophecy, with the lay- ing on," &c. In the second text, dm alone is found. *' By the putting on," fee. Much depends on giving these words their due force. The Episcopalians allege either that the Presbytery which or- dained Timothy consisted of a number of Apostles, or that, if of Presbyters, they imposed hands with Paul, '' not to convey autho- rity^ but' merely to exfiress afiiirobation ; and that, " in the Church of England, the Presbyters lay on their hands with the Bishops in ordination, to denote their consent^" The latter is their stitong ground ; for they cannot prove that this Presbytery was an assembly of Apostles ;t and if they could, the consequence would be, tie Is sm-ely in an error; for who will presume to trace a resemblance itr the most minute points between a La^nb and the Saviour of the world ! How should the profane thank this sacred critic for the weapon with which he furnishes them, to turn the scicred writings into ridicule, and to destroy entirely all typical analogy ! The reader, in perusing the numbers of the Miscellanies, will often have occasion to inquire, where are the good sense, tbe accuracy, the Christian moderation, the manly dignity, the honest can- dour that should characterise one who discusses an important religious topic ? Surely the cause must be a bad one that cannot be defended but by weapons such as this author uses. Ed. * The Episcopalians do not rely on these two texts. They rely on the powers of ordination vested exclusively in Timothy and Titus, the Gover- nors of the Churches of Ephesus and Crete. Let any man, dismissing all prejudices and preconceived opinions, and attending not to names, but to facts and persons, read the Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, and jsee whether he docs not vest them, as a distinct order from the other Minis- ters.of the Church, with those powers which from them were handed down to their successors, called, after the Apostolic age. Bishops. Ed. f Neither can this author prove that this Presbytery was an assembly of Presbyters properly socalled ; for Presbytery, attending solely to the meaning of ths word, dcnolca an assembly q^ ol:.hncn; and, of course, may be van- MISCELLANIES. No. XIV. 59 that the Apostles called themselves Presbyters, and acted only as such m the ordination of Timothy. If Apostles, why was it necessary that more than one of them should lay on his hands?* Why does Paul particularize his onvn hands ? Had not all the Apostles equal authority and pov/er ? Since then it is certain that there were more hands imposed than those of Paul, the conclusion is natural, that if Apostles, they considered themselves in this transaction only as Presbyters, and therefore all of them laid on hands. The argu- ment then turns against Episcopalians, and in favour of Presby- terians. I apprehend that the obvious interpretation of the texts, and th© way in which they are easily reconciled is this ; that the imposition of hands to which the Apostle refers in his second Epistle, was at a different time from the ordination of Timothy, or if at the same time, was for a different purpose. The setting Timothy apart, or giving him authority to exercise the office of a Minister in the Church, was " the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery;" the gifts of the Holy Ghost were conferred upon him " by the putting on" of Paul's hands. This I verily believe to be the true meaning. It is very immaterial whether Paul put his hands twice upon Timothy ; once at his ordination, and again when the Holy Ghost was given him ; or whether both purposes were answered at the same time. The latter seems the more probable of the two from the words in the first Epistle — " The gift which was given thee by prophecy, ivith the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery ;" that is, together ivith, or at the time of thine ordination to the ministry. At least if this gift of prophecy was not conferred upon Timothy in the act of his ordination, it would appear to have been conferred immediately afterwards, by the imposition of Paul's hands alone. In this way the word meta has its just force. When it governs the genitive case, as in the place before us, it signifies together ivith^ and may be thus translated. See Matt. ii. 3 and 11. ''He was troubled, and all Jerusalem ivlth him'." They saw the young child %vith Mary his mother." In this sense it is used by the purest Greek writers. Take only one instance from Plato : " Geeras meta pe- nias;" that is, old age ivith, ov together ivith fioverty, A careful attention is to be paid to the word firofihecy, by which is to be understood one of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. " To another," says the Apostle, " the working of miracles ; to another prophecy ; to another discerning of spirits." This is the gift which the Apostle exhorts Timothy to exercise, as well as all the extraor- dinary gifts of the Spirit, and which were conferred upon him when he was set apart to be an officer in the Church. If any incline to think, that prophecy means here only authority to perform the ministerial office, and that this was conveyed by ously applied. The absurdity and fallacy of the singular interpretation which this author gives of these texts, are so ably exposed by the Layman in his fifth number, that any observations here are unnecessary. Ed. * As the Layman very properly observes, " One of them may have conveyed the sacerdotal authority, while the rest may have imposed hands to give additional solemnity to the transaction, and as an expression of torivurteucs in ihe selection of character." .Ed 40 LAYMAN. No. IV. *' the laying on of the hands of the Presbyteiy," the word meta wiil bear them fully out. It signifies not only ivith, but by, by means of^ and has the same sense as dla with the genitive case. It is thus used in Acts xiii. 17, " With an high arm brought he them out of it." Acts xiv. 27. " They rehearsed all that God had done with them." Who does not see that it signifies in these places by^ and might have been thus translated ? It could be shown that it is used in this way by Demosthenes, Thucydides, and Xenophon, who will surely be allowed to have understood Greek. The laying on of the hands of the Presbyters was more than concurrence^ than apjiro- bation^ or than consent. It v/as an actual conveyance of ministerial authority. So that in whatever way the text is explained, it does not serve tlie Episcopalians. To say that meta has never the same meaning with dia^ and that it may not, on examples from the New Testament, and from the greatest Grecian orators and histo- rians in the world, be construed as synonymous, is to show ignoi^'- ance of the nature of the language. ' I prefer, however, the interpretation which I have given, that by prophecy is meant an extraordinary gift, which was conferred upon Timothy at the time the Presbytery ordained him. This is the gift to which the Apostle refers in both texts. In his second Epistle, where he says, " by the putting on of my hands," he does not allude to the ordination at all. Let any one read the verses foregoing, and following the text, and he may see that ordination was not there in- tended. The Apostle had wholly a different object in view, as will be shown before this subject is dismissed. Indeed it appears to me, that he had the same object in viev/ in both places, and the manner of the ordination is mentioned to show the time when the gift was conferred, and to bring to remembrance a very solemn transaction. If the words are not taken in this sense, we cannot collect from them that Paul was even present at the ordination ©f Timothy, which will be still worse and worse for the Episcopalians. If they have no other proof than his saying, that h^e put his hands on Ti- mothy, it is not sufficient ; because this wa$ for a quite different purpose. Not to give them unnecessary trouble, I will admit, in the mean time, that he was present ; that he presided at the ordination ; that he laid on his hands as a Presbyter ; and his fello"V Presbyters laid on hands with him. This is exactly Presbyterian ordination. The subject will be continued in my next number. For the Albany Centinel, THE LAYMAN. No. IV. X HAVE said that the extracts from the works under examination are not given in such a manner as to present a fair view to the rea- der; and that the conclusion to which they are calculated to conduct him, is wide of the truth. The author of the Companion for the Altar, and of the Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, has only- exercised that right of judgment which the P,rcsbyterians take very good CLvre to exercise theiijiieives. It is not necessary to say any LAYMAN. No. IV, 41 ihing relative to the character of this gentleman, in reference to those who have the happiness of knowing him ; but I feel it to be a duty which I owe to the cause of truth, to observe, that he possesses qualifications both of mind and of heart that are rare indeed, and that cannot be too highly valued or admired. Far, very far from his temper is the spirit of censoi'iousness. To be acquainted witli him is always to esteem and love him.* Let his works be candidly examined, and it will be seen that, while he maintains the doc- trines of his Church, in their full extent, he undertakes not to judge the members of other denominations. In proof of this, I would beg leave to submit to the reader a few passages, which ought, in candour, indeed, to have been presented by the gentleman who has thought proper to complain in a style of so much bitter- ness. " The Judge of the ivhole earthy indeed^ will do right. The grace of God quickens and animates all the degenerate children of Adam. The mercy of the Saviour ?'.« co-extensive with the rum into which sin has filunged mankind, And^ in every nation^ he that feareth God^ arid worketh righteousness^ is accej'Ued ofhiin," Again, " Sefiaration from the firescribed government and regular Priesthood of the Churchy when it proceeda from involuntary and unavoidable ignorance or error^ we have reason to trusty will 7ict intercefit^ from the humble^ the fienitent^ and obedient^ the bles- sings of God's favour,'" Still further, " The important truth which the universal Church has uniformly maintained^ that, to e:v~ fierie nee the full and exalted efficacy of the sac7'a7nentSy wc micst receive their from a valid authority ^ is not inconsistent with that charity which extends 7nercy to all who labour wider iriVcluntai'y error," Once more, " But though we presume to judge no 7nans leaving all judg7nent to that Bci7ig who is alone qualified to 7nakc allowance for the ignorance, invi?:cible prejudices, impe7fect rea- soning, a7id 7ni3taken judgments of his f'all creatures ; yet, it must not from he7ice be cojicluded, that it is a 7natter of indiffer- ence, whether Christians communicate with the Church or 7iot ; or that there is a doubt upon the subject of schism, whether it be a sin or not.''^ Such is the language of the works under examination ; and such, also, is the language of the Episcopal Church. Will the w^riter iu question require more ? Is he ready to express sentiments of greater charity ? Will he admit that the grace necessary to repentance is given to all men ? and that even the virtuous' heathen t» ill be saved ? Are we to give dp the divinity of Jesus Christ because the Soci- nians have denied it ? Are Ave to lay aside baptism and the holy- supper because the Quakers have discarded them ? Are we to re- nounce the doctrine of the corruption of man, and of the absolute necessity of the operations of the divine Spirit to begin, to carry on, and to perfect the work of sanctification, because some of the followers of Arminius, departing from the tenets of their master, » These remarks appear evidently dictated by the too partial spirit of friendship. The author of the works in question however ought certainly to consider himself much indebted to the Layman for the able vindication cf those works from the charges brought against them. Ed. G 42 LAYMAN. No. IV. have denied the principle, asserting the capacity of man to turn, of himself, unto God, and be saved ? We shall continue to declare the necessity of receiving the ordinances of the gospel at the hands of a Priesthood, -which has derived authority from Christ by succession, in which way alone it can be derived, whatever abuse may be heaped upon us for so doing. While we undertake to judge no man, wc shall persist in thinking for ourselves, and in inculcat* ing, in decent language, whatever we suppose to be a part of the whole counsel of God. Let it be supposed, for one moment, that a secession should take place from the Presbyterians ; the Seceders setting up an adminis- tration of ordinances by mere laymen. Would not our author op- pose this, and represent it as a departure from the plan of salva- tion detailed in the scriptures of truth ? Would he not warn his people against being concerned in the schism ? Surely he would* It would be his duty to do so. And how unjustly would he think .himself treated, if assailed by a newspaper invective, for exercis- ing an undoubted right, or rather for discharging an important obligation? If this gentleman then considered it necessary to defend the opinion which he holds on the subject of ecclesiastical government, what course of conduct did propriety require him to pursue ? I answer ; he should have given the subject a regular ex- amination, respecting in others that right of judgment which he claims for himself. In this Episcopalians would have seen no cause of complaint ; but, in the place of this, he commences a vin- dictive attack in the public prints ; a measure that cai^ be defended on no principle either of policy or justice. From the way in which this writer speaks, a stranger would be lead to suppose that the doctrine maintained in the works under examination is perfectly novel. How great his surprise, upon being informed that the Church has contended for it in every period of her history ! This has been the case particularly in the Unitfd States, Let me beg leave here to refer the reader to a very instructive account of the life of Doctor Samuel Johnson, the first President of Columbia College, in New-York, written by the late worthy and learned Dr. Thomas B. Chandler, of New- Jersey.* In this work will be seen a most interesting exhibition of the effect produced by a regular investigation of the subject of Episcopacy, with a single view to the discovery of truth. Dr. Johnson was, perhaps, the most learned man that this country has produced. In him was eminently united profound genius, with the most laborious and persevering application to study. He was educated as a Con- gregational Minister, and officiated in that capacity for some time ; but his attention being called to the subject of ecclesiastical govern- ment, he entered upon it, under a deep conviction of duty, perse- vering in the inquiry until he had viewed the matter in every point of light, and had collected all the information which the scriptures or books could supply. The result was a most decided behef in the divine institution of Episcopacy, and of the consequent invalidity of Presbyterial ordination. Several other Congregational Clergy- men, of great talents^ and distinguished worth, were engaged in • This work was lately published by T. k J. Swords, New-York. LAYMAN. No. IV, 45 the investigation with Dr. Johnson. It terminated in the same way with them. They renounced their offices, went to England for holy orders, and continued, through life, most warmly attached to the Episcopal Church. Their example was afterwards followed by others; and I persuade myself that the same sincere investiga- tion would terminate in the conviction of almost all who shcuid engage in it. Would it have been just or decent to have commenced a bitter attack in the newspapers against these men, for renouncing, un- der a sense of duty, the ordination which they had received, and taking orders in the Episcopal Church ? Every correct and ingenu- ous mind must immediately perceive that such conduct would have been improper and violent in the extreme. And where is the dif- ference between this and the course which the writer in question has thought proper to pursue ? There is no difference, and the con- duct now is as intolerant and unjust as it would have been in the case I have mentioned. The divine institution of Episcopacy has been strenuously main- tained in this country, from the time of Dr. Johnson to the pre- sent day, by the most able writers of the Episcopal Church. In fact, the validity of Presbyterial ordination has been denied from its very origin. Calvin himself, the French Hugonots, and other reformers, justified their departure from Episcopacy on the prin- ciple of necessity alone. The primitive Fathers of the Church are most pointed and ex- press on this subject, and every reproach cast upon the author of the publications in question recoils with tenfold force upon these venerable men. Hear the ivords of Ignatius — " He that doeth any thing without the JSis/io/i^ and Presbyters^ and Deacons, is not pure in his conscience." " Therefore, as Christ did nothing without the Father, so neither do ye, whether Deacon, Presbyter, or Laick^ anything without the Bisho/i.'" " He that doeth aught without the Bishop, serves the devii." What says Irenseus, Bishop of Lyons, in the second century ? " We can reckon up those whom the Apostles ordained to be Bisho/is in the several Churches, and to v/hom they committed their own apostolic authority." Listen to TertuUian of the same age—" The power of baptising is lodged in the Bishofi, and it may also be exercised by Presbyters and Deacons, but not with- out the Bishop's commission." What says St. Cyprian of the third century ? — ■" The Church is built on the Bishops, and all the acts of the Church are governed and directed by them its Presidents." What will our author say to all this ? I am afraid, were he carefully TO go through the primitive Fathers, he would often find it neces- sary to pause, and compose himself, and " take breath." These considerations, then, I submit to an impartial public. I sub- mit them to the gentleman whom I oppose. If the Episcopal Church, in supporting doctrines which have ever distinguished her, and which never, as she thinks, were departed from, till the days of Galvin, is obliged to draw conclusions that nearly affect the mem- bers of other persuasions, she can only regret the consequence of what her convictions of duty command her most firmly to maintain, She wishes well to all men. She undertakes to judge none. Believing sincerely that Episcopacy is a divine institutionj and that all are bounci 4f ordination. We are assured that Paul was called to be the Apostle of the Gentiles, " Go thy way," ssaid the Lord unto Ananias, " for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles." When he was about to enter upon this mission, it seemed good to the Holy Ghost to have him and Barnabas set apart to it. This is the opinion of Dr. Taylor, a Bisliop of the Church of England. His words are, " He [Paul] had the special honour to be chosen in an extraordinary way : yet he had something of the ordinary too ; for in an extraordinary man- oer he was sent to be ordained in an ordinary ministry. His de- signation was as immediate as that of the eleven Apostles, though his ordination was not." It is not the practice in the Church, when an ordained Minister is about to be sent on a mission, to use the same ceremonies here mentioned; fasting, praying, and imposition of bands. These are used at ordination only ; and this is a proof that the passage is universally thus understood. Paul and Barnabas were set apart m the same manner in v/hich Timothy was ordained, and in which he and they ordained others. We must therefore con- clude with Dr. Lightfoot, that " no better reason can be given of this present action, than that tiie Lord did hereby set down a plat* form of ordaining Ministers to the Church of the Gentiles in future times." 3. The persons who were the ordainers were the officers of the Church of Antioch. Certain projihets and teachers. Their names are given, from whence it appears, tliat besides Paul and Barnabas, who'^were the persons ordained, there were three ; the ji umber •^vhich, according to the constitution of the Presbyterian Church, form a Presbytery. Whoever these prophets and teachers were, they were all equally concerned in the ordination.* 'The direction v/as given to ail, and all laid on their hands. If the prophets were superior to the teachers, it is evident that though Bishops in the scriptural sense, they could not have been Bishops after the fashion of the Church of England, or diocesan Bishops ; because there was a plurality of them. A diocesan Bishop is of such magTiitude that there is not room for more than one in a city ; and he often fills several v/ith a large extent of country. Let it be admitted that prophets are to be distinguibhed from teachers, does it follov/ that the former are a standing order in the Church ? We may understand by prophets in the primitive Church those who exercised extraordinary gifts, and the same persons were prophets and teachers. These extraordinary gifts have ceased. But if any will insist that prophets here mean a standing order in the Church, vjperior to teachers or presbyters, it is incumbent on them to prove ihat Simeon, or Lucius, or Manaen, was of this description. The * This trr.nsaction is •r^^ cnnsklpred by the most judicious commentators (some of them not Episcopalians) as an ordination, but as a solemn desig- nation of two of the Aposiies to the exercise of a particular mission. Sec this point proved by the Layman in his Sth, and by Cyprian in his 4th r . Uc-r. ' Ed. CYPRIAN. No. IT. 61 Episcopalians must have one Bishop of their sort ; and he ought to be a very conspicuous one too ; for the persons ordained -were no less than Paul and Barnabas, the predecessors (as they think) of all the Romish and English Bishops. Enough has been said to convince any candid mind, that the Episcopalians have no ground for their pretensions, and that Pres- byterian ordination is scriptural, safe and valid. Whenever I come to examine ecclesiastical history from the days of the Apostles do\yrt to the establishment of Episcopacy in the isles of South-Rritain and Ireland, the truth will shine with strong and irresistible light.* For the Albany CcntineU CYPRXAN. No. II. XIlFTER what has been already said, I trust we shall never agaiti hear the charge of popery either openly or covertly alleged against the Episcopal Church. I trust we shall no longer hear it insinuated, that our ecclesiastical institutions are not conformable, are not as conformable as those of any other denomination of Christians, to our institutions of civil government. If the public will now indulge me so far (and I am afraid its patience is nearly exhausted) I will enter on a very brief investigation of the subject of Church Go- vernment. I shall not follow the track of the Miscellaneous writer. This •would not be consistent with clearness or perspicuity of arrange- ment. I shall, however, touch on all the principal points that re- late to this subject, contained in those pieces he hath lately pub- lished, in which there appears even the semblance of argument. This writer seems to have formed a very exalted opinion of his own dialectic skill. He com.mences his attack on us quite in the gasconading style. Scarcely has he begun his hostile operations, when he beholds in imagination, " the outworks of Episcopacy demolished by him, her fortress stormed, mitres strewing the ground, and her affrighted votaries flying in dismay." Would it not have been as prudent to have v/aited until the period of victory before he claimed the privilege of a triumph ? Really he must excuse our want of discernment, when w^e avow that we have not as jxt been able to recognize in him the features of so formidable an antagonist. We perceive no just cause of apprehension or alarm. The friends of Episcopacy feel not the smallest propensity to fly before him in dismay. The arrows he hath hitherto directed against us, though empoisoned by much bitterness of sentiment, though levelled with his utmost force, have proved quite harmless weapons. They have scarcely reached the mark. No. This writer extremely mistakes if he imagines that his efforts have av/akened in the bosoms of Epis- copalians, any degree of apprehension for the fate of their Church. No, The fortress of Episcopacy is erected upon the same rock on * This review of ecclesiastical hislory the author cf IMiscellanies very prudently declined. Ed. 62 CYPRIAN. No. 11. ^vhich Christianity itself is founded. It has hitherto stood unshakeft by the attacks of the most powerful assailants. It will not now be demolished by his arm. Episcopacy rests upon Scri/iture, and upon the testimony of the firimitive Church, These are the two pillars that support its super- structure. We trust they are immovable. Episcopacy rests upon the strong foundation of the sacred Scrip- tures. It is an irrefragable truth, that the Episcopal form of Church Government is the only one Christ hath prescribed in his word ; is the only one which was known in the Universal Church for fifteen hundred years. Whilst our Saviour remained on earth, he, of course, held supreme authority in his Clmrch. The twelve were appointed by him as his subordinate officers. The seventy disciples constituted a still lower order. There existed, then, in the Church of Christ, at this time, three distinct grades of Minis- ters. When our Lord ascended into Heaven, when he breathed upon the twelve, and said, *' As my Father hath sent me, so send I you," he transmitted to them the same authority which he himself had retained during his continuance amongst them. The twelve commissioned their Presl^yters and Deacons to aid them in the administration of ecclesiastical government. Before their death they constituted an order of Ministers, to whom they conveyed that supreme authority in the Church which w^as lodged in their hand* during their lives. To this order of men who succeeded the Apos- tles in dignity and authority, the appellation of Bishops was, in process of time, peculiarly appropriated. Ever since the times of the Apostles, this order has always possessed prerogatives peculiar to itself. It has always held, exclusively, the power of ordination, the privilege of communicating the sacerdotal authority. These are positions which may be established by an accumulation of evi- dence from scripture and the testimony of ancient writers, that will defy all opposition. But before I proceed to bring forward this evidence, I must spend a few moments in refuting an objection of the Miscellaneous writer, which meets me in the threshold, and which, if it can be supported, •will render this controversy altogether useless, since it would at once strike away the foundation of all civil and ecclesiastical go-. Ternment. He thinks that the existence of an order of Bishops in the Church is incompatible with the spirit of the gospel. He thinks *^ we should discover more understanding, more regard to the sen-^ timents of our fellow Christians, more of the spirit of the Apostles, more unlimited obedience to the injunctions of our divine Master, did we dismiss such aspiring and uncharitable conduct. Memorable was the occasion, says he, on which he gave a solemn and aifec- tionate charge to his disciples. Grant, said the mother of Zebe- dee's children, that these my two sons may sit, the one on the right hand and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. She wished her two sons to be promoted to places above the rest of the disciples, and to be consecrated Archbishops at least. But Jesus called them unto him and said. Ye know that the princes of the gentiles exer^ else dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them, but it shall not be so among you." Such is the pas- sage tliis writer hath produced in order to sanction the idea that th^ CYPRIAN. No. 11. 63 elevation of our Bishops to their present pre-eminence in the'Ghurch; is a violation of the express and solemn injunction of our Saviour. Miserable subterfuge this, indeed, by which to evade the force ot- that evidence we derive from scripture 1 Is not this writer per» fectly aware that he is here endeavouring to mislead the under- standings of his readers ? Can he be otherwise than aware, that he is perverting the scriptures from their obvious signification, in order to answer his own purposes ? Does he not know that this portion of holy v/rit will not bCvar the interpretation he hath given it ? Does he not know, that to take it in so extensive a sense is to make it speak a language altogether inadmissible as the standard of truth ? What I would our author make our Saviour prohibit, amongst Christians, the control of any constituted authorities, ecclesiastical or civil ? Would he make Christ declare that amongst his followers there should be no distinctions of rank, no subordina- tion, no discipline ? This is precisely the interpretation that some Socinians have given to this passage ; and will he admit it to be a just one ? If it be admitted in this unlimited sense, demagogues and levellers may, in their most iniquitous transactions, fc,helter themselves from reproach under a solemn injunction of the Saviour* This gentleman is thus placing a dangerous weapon in the hands of his political adversaries. It is obvious that Jesus Christ, in this por- tion of his word, does not intend to interdict the institution of civil or ecclesiastical government amongst believers. Besides, if these expressions be taken in this wide sense, do they not operate as much against the Presbyterians as ourselves ? Against the existence of one order of Ministers as against the existence of three ? May not a single order obtain and exercise as much undue authority in Christ's Church as three ? May not the one become tyrants as v/ell as the others ? Is an aristocracy the most niild and the least odious of governments ? Is there more danger that a government will dege- nerate into tyranny, when there is a wise distribution of its powers into different departments, than Avhen there is no such distribu- tion, when all its powers are concentrated in a single department ? In short, may not Presbyterian Ministers as easily as Bishops be- come '^ lords in God's heritage ?" The meaning of our Saviour in the passage before us is as clear and unequivocal as in any other portion of sacred scripture. All commentators agree in their interpretation of it. The mother of Zebedee's children had mnbibed the sentiment prevalent amongst the Jews, that the Messiah would establish a temporal kingdom. She sought for her sons civil dignities and honours. Jesus Christ, in his answer, wishes to repress amongst his disciples this spirit of ambition and vain-glory. He teaches here what he inculcates in many other parts of his holy word, that his followers should noti covet the honours, the dignities, the empty distinctions of this world. Those who would merit his highest regard, who would be greatest in his kingdom, he tells them, must be most distinguished for acts of humility and condescension. He endeavours thus to im- press them with more just sentiments than they entertained con- cerning the nature of his kingdom. He tells them in the words following, that they must do " as the Son of man who came not to tie lamistered ivato, but to miniiitcr*" Docs not tiiis last ^icprcssioa ^4 CYPRIAN. No. II. ascertain the intention of our Saviour beyond all cavil or contra- diction ? His followers must imitate him in their meekness, their humility, their condescension. This is all that can be implied, for did our Saviour never assume or exercise any power in his Church ? But what places this point beyond all possible controversy, is the conduct of the Apostles, which must be admitted, on all hands, to be a good comment on the precepts of their Master. If Christ here intended to prohibit the exercise of all authority and power in his Church, how did they dare, in their intercourse with believers, violate the wishes of their Lord ? How did they dare outrage his solemn injunctions ? Did they not take upon themselves the power pf ordaining laws in the Church of Christ, of carrying their laws into execution ? Did they not reprove, rebuke, receive into com- munion, excommunicate with all authority? But the idea is too unfounded and absurd to be longer dwelt on. If our Saviour meant in this passage what this writer would have him mean, how dare the Presbyterian Ministers, at this time, assume any superiority over the rest of their brethren ? How dare they arrogate to them- selves the power of performing the sacerdotal functions ? How dare they exercise any ecclesiastical authority ? How dare they become *' lords in God's heritage r" After what has been said, it is possible that it may still be maintained that the " mitre and the crown are connected ;" but I trust it will appear that there is no foundation for the proverb, " No King, no Bishop." It seems there ■was once a time in this country when our enemies could effect their purposes by the use of such watch-words as these, that merit a harder name than I am disposed to give them ; but that time, hap- pily for us, has passed away. The good people of America are no longer to be duped and misled by such unworthy arts. I now dis- miss the objection, founded on this passage of scripture, I trust, amply refuted. I proceed to establish our first proposition. That the three or- ders of Ministers, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, the Bishops solely possessing the pov/er of ordination, are of apostolic original, is proved incontestably from the sacred Scriptures themselves. I shall first lay down our arguments, and then refute the objections that have been made to them. Let us examine the passages of scripture which the writer him- self hath produced, and see whether we cannot help him to more legitimate conclusions than those he hath thought proper to deduce from them. In Titus i. 5. it is said by the Apostle Paul, " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest ordain Elders in every city." Let us contemplate the circumstances that attended this transaction, and see what inferences we can draw from it. St. Paul had planted the gospel in the island of Crete. He had made proselytes in every city who stood in need of the ministrations of Presbyters. He speaks not to Titus as if he had left him in Crete to convert the cities to the faith. He speaks as if this work was al- ready accomplished, as if the way v/as paved for the establish- ment of the Church. These being the circumstances of the case, it appears to me that this transaction carries on its face a proof of superiority on the part of Titus to the Presbyters or Elders. Will it be imagined by any reasonable man, that St. Paul had converted LAYMAN. No. VI. 65 ao many cities on this island without having ordained any Elders amongst them ? What ! When it was his uniform and invariable practice to ordain Elders in every country in which he made prose- lytes ? What I Could he have neglected to ordain those amongst them who were absolutely necessary to transact the affairs of the Church during his absence ? Would he have left the work he had begun only half performed ? These considerations are sufficient to convince every unprejudiced mind that there were Elders or Presbyters in the Church of Crete at the time St. Paul left Titus on that island. And if there were Presbyters, and those Presbyters had the power of ordination, why was it necessary to leave Titus amongst them in order to perform SI task that might as well have been accomplished without him ? If the Presbyters possessed an authority equal to that of Titus, would not St. Paul, by leaving him amongst them, have taken the surest way to interrupt the peace of the Church, to engender jealousy, and strifes, and contentions? Again. Let us view this transaction ir* another point of light. St. Paul had made converts, as I have said, in every city of Crete. Titus had attended him on his last visit to that island. If Presbyters were at this time considered as com- petent to the task of ordaining others, why did he not ordain one at any rate during his stay amongst them, and commission him instead of detaining Titus, to ordain Elders in every city ? The efforts of Titus were as much wanted as his own, to carry the light of the gospel to other nations who had not received it. Why was it necessary that Titus should ordain Elders in every city ? After the ordination of 2ifeiVj would wf^lhis exertions have become useless, if they were able to complete the work which he had begun ? In short, Titus seems to be entrusted with all the authority of a supreme ruler of the Church. He is directed to ordain Presbyters — to rebuke with all authority — to admonish hereticks, and in case of obstinacy, to reject them from the communion of the Church. These circumstances infallibly designate the presence of a Bishop. Ac- cordingly we find that the united voice of ancient writers declares him to have been the first Bishop of Crete. Eusebius informs iis " that he received Episcopal authority over the Church of Crete.'* So also says Theodoret, St. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, If these considerations united do not show that Titus possessed in Ephesus powers superior to those which were held by the Presby- ters of those Churches, I know not what considerations would. I shall proceed with the proofs from scripture in my next number, CYPRIAN. For the Albany CentineU THE LAYMAN. No. VL X HAVE been occupied, thus far, in noticing the arguments by which the Miscellaneous writer attempts to support the Presbyte- rial system, and the objections with which he endeavours to assail the Episcopal Church. The facts, and the reasoning on which 66 LATMAN. No. VI. Episcopacy vests, have been only cursorily attended to ; but it h mf design, should not circumstances take off my attention, to present them in the course of these papers, as distinctly, and regularly as I am able, to the public consideration. The writer in question has brought forward nothing that has not been a thousand times advanced, and as often refuted ; except, in- deed, that rare interpretation oifirophecy, in the Epistle to Timo- thy, for which, I believe, the merit of originality may very safely be awarded to him.* I flatter myself that I have furnished a sufficient refutation of his reasoning, and a satisfactory answer to his objections. Nor can the charge of self complacency, I trust, be justly made against me for this observation ; for, indeed, the task of replying to aH that the gentleman has, thus far, produced, and, judging of the future from the pa^t, to all that he is capable of producing, can be a task of na very difficult execution. I think I may venture to pledge myself to expose, as he advances, all his errors, and to detect all his misre- presentations* There is one particular, however, in which I must be excused from following him. I can never permit myself to de- scend to personal attack* However desirous the gentleman may be ©f displaying wit, he would do well to recollect that the fame which even real wit might procure him, is too dearly purchased at the expense of those rules of delicacy, which every ingenuous mind pro« poses to itself as an inviolable law.f There is a passage of scripture relied upon in an early part of the Miscellanies, upon which I think it proper to bestow some little attention. Not, indeed, on account of any weight it can possibly possess in the controversy ; but because it is a passage that has been frequently brought forward, and that is capable, by plausible representation, of being made lo operate on the minds of those who have not given attention to the subject of ecclesiastical authority. " Gra7U,'' said the mother of Zebedee's children, " t/wt these my tivo sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left^ in thy kingdoin, A7id when the ten heard it, they were moved 'ivith indignation agai?2st the tivo brethren. But Jesus called them ' * Tke gentlemmi, it appears, has read cfeio booh lately ; and finds a very difftrent interpretation put upon tkevcordsfro-^Ti that ivhich he bad given. Still, however, he retains a parental affection for his offspring ,- being resoked, at all events, not to let it perish. Let us, then, paraphrase the passage accord- ing to this new idea. " Neglect not the gift of prophecy that is in thee, ivhich was given thee by the act that gave it to thee." The ivords, " by prophecy,"' onean, says our author, the gift of prophecy bestovied upon Timothy. Then Paul exhorted him to stir up the gift of prophecy that was given him by prophecy i or, in the xwrds of our author, by the act that conferred prophecy ; that is^ " Neglect not the gift of prophecy that is in thee, vchkh ivas given thee by the act by ivhich it v:as given thee." This is the champion who threatens tO: spread dismay throiigh the Episcopal ranks. f •* Another, residing either in the city of Schejiectady, or some 'oihere in the adjacent country, vcas made to strip off his viethodistical coat, and to do pen- ance, for several months, in aivhite shirt, before he could come near the altar io minister." This is the way in whicli he speaks of a most respectable and pious Clergyman of our Church. I refer it to the reader to decide how fr.r such conduct can entitk him to the esteem of good men. LAYMAN. No. VI. &7 mnfo him, nnd said. Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exeV" tise dominion over them^ and they that are great exercise author rity upon them. But it shall not be so among you : but luiiosoever tui/l be great among you^ let him be your Minister ; and whosoever tvill be chief among you, let him be your servant : JEven as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister,'* Mat. xx« 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. Desperate, indeed, must be the cause of pa- rity, when its advocates are driven to have recourse, for argument, to such passages as these. Does the gentleman really consider the above texts of scripture as militating against the principles of sub- ordination in the government of the Church ? Let it be remarked, in the first place, that they have no reference whatever to spiritual power. It had been the prevailing idea of the Jewish nation, that the Messiah would erect a temporal kingdom of great splendour. This was the expectation of the Apostles them- selves, and our Saviour frequently endeavoured, without eifect, to correct their views on the subject. All his efforts to give them a time idea of the nature of his kingdom had been unavailing. They still cherished the hope of being promoted to civil stations of great power and importance. " We trusted," said tv/o of his disciples, upon seeing their Master put to death, " that it had been he who should have redeemed Israeli*' After his resurrection, the same hopes of temporal consequence revived in their minds, and they ask- ed, '^ Lord, wilt thou, at this time, restore the kingdom to Israel ?'* It is perfectly clear that James and John, in desiring to sit, the one on the right hand, the other on the left of Jesus, aspired after civil importance. Our Saviour, after addressing his Apostles in the way just mentioned, immediately subjoins, " And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my leather hath appointed unto me ; that ye may eat and drink at 7ny table, in my kingdom, and sit on thrones Judging the twelve tribes of Israel," Luke xxii. 29, 30. This clearly shows the sense of the passages that go before, and that our Saviour had no design in them to deprive the Apostles of spiritual authority over theiV fellow Christians. But what does the writer mean to prove by this portion of scripture ? Is it his intention to show that the Apostles were upon a level with respect to each other? This is a principle for which the Episcopal Church has invari- ably contended, although it certainly cannot be derived from the passage cited by the writer on this occasion. No; the design of the gentleman is to prove that no such thing as subordination, in the ministry, was ever intended by Christ. Let us, then, trace the reasoning, and test it by the conclusion to which it leads. If these passages prove that there v/as no superiority in the Apostles, over the other Ministers of the word, they equally prove that there was no such superiority in Jesus Christ himself. Any thing which may be here commanded to the Apostles is illustrated and enforced by the example of our Saviour. " Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to 7ninister," Matt. xx. 28. Or in the parallel language of St. Luke, " I am among you ashe thatserveth." xxiii. 27. If, then, these passages prove that the Apostles were to have no spiritual control over the other Clergy, they equally prove that our Saviour had no spiritual control over tiie Apostles. This conclusion necessarily follows, and it shows^ 68 LAYMAN. No. VI. most clearly^ that the passage has nothing to do with the govern- nient of the Church, being designed merely as a lesson of humility to those to whom it Avas addressed. Again, this writer is completely at variance with himself; for in a late number he admits that the Apostles were superior to other Ministers of the word, and yet he brings this passage to destroy all idea of such superiority. In fact, trace this reasoning to its true consequences, and it puts down all kind of authority in the Church ; placing every individual upon a level with every other individual ; thus annihilating the priesthood altogether. And indeed it has been applied, by those who first brought it forward, to show that our Saviour never designed to invest one member of his Church with power over any other member. The Miscellaneous writer is certainly one of the most danger- ous champions that ever defended a cause ; for he constantly adopts a mode of reasoning that involves both his friends and enemies in promiscuous ruin. If the weapons with which he fights be keen enough to wound his adversary, they may be immediately turned to his own destruction. Those general passages of scripture that recommend humility and lowliness, commanding us to prefer others to ourselves, with the texts reproving the ambition of the Pharisees, in affecting to have the chief places in the synagogues, and to be called masters, and fathers, have been applied to the subversion of all authority in the state : and this by the very- same sort of logic that the Miscellaneous writer so' frequently employs. It is forgotten that the whole scripture is to be taken to^ gether, and that a consistent interpretation is to be put upon its several parts, so that nothing may be destroyed. Thus, the licen- tious opposer of all subordination in civil society fastens his atten- tion upon particular passages, wherein the ambition of rulers is condemned, forgetting those places in which obedience to the ma- gistrate is enjoined. And so this writer, in his rage to destroy all subordination in the Church, directs the view of his readers to a passage designed simply to reprove an inordinate love of temporal consequence in the Apostles, forgetting those high powers with ■which Jesus invested them, before his ascension, and which were constantly exercised by them and those whom they appointed, as their successors, in particular places, over all other members, both clergy and laity, of his Church. I proceed to consider that passage of scripture, in which certain prophets and teachers of Antioch are represented as laying their hands on Paul and Barnabas, This is greatly relied on by the Mis- cellaneous writer, who ventures to speak of it as universally con- sidered to refer to ordination. What shall we think of this, when it is observed that the most respectable commentators regard it as not referring to ordination at all. Take, as an example, the inter- pretation of Doctor Doddridge,' an eminent dissenter from the Church of England. " If there be any reference to a past fact in these nvorda^ it is firobably to iome revelatioji made to Paul and Barnabas, to sign/fy that they should take a journey into several countries of Mia Mi'nor, to preach the Gospel there, Bui that they were now invested with the apostolic office by these inferior Ministers, is a thing neither credible in itself nor consistent with, lobat Baul himself says, Galatians i. 1. Artd that they now LAYMAN. No. VI. 6^ received a flower^ before unknown in the Churchy of preaching to the idof citrous Gentiles^ is inconditent with Acts xi. 20, 21 ; and ufion many other consideratioyis^ to be proposed elsewhere^ af-ifieart to me absolutely incredible,''* (Doddridge's Family Exposition, iii. 181.) Such is the language of the learned and pious Dr. Doddridge ; and such, let me add, is the language of the most judicious com- mentators. They view the thing as a solemn recommendation of Paul and Barnabas, to the grace of God, upon their entering on a temporary mission. This, then, is one of the numerous examples of the boldness -vrith which the Miscellaneous writer asserts^ and of the weakness with which he argues. And, indeed, if the passage in question refers to an ordination of Paul and Barnabas, to what office, let it be asked, were they ordained ? Not to that of pro- phets and teachers ; for prophets and teachers, according to the very passage itself, they were already. Paul, it is well known, had been preaching and acting as a Minister of Christ long before this event. So also had Barnabas. Was it to the apostolic office that they were called by the imposition of hands of these subordi- nate officers of the Church ? This, as Dr. Doddridge says, is truly incredible, and is altogether inconsistent with what Paul says of himself. He expressly calls himself " an Apostle^ not of'man^ neither by man^ but by Jesus Christ," Galatians i, 1. Here he expressly speaks of himself as commissioned to the apostolic office by our Saviour, without the intervention of man. Well might Dr. Doddridge represent this as inconsistent with the idea of his being ordained to that high office by the prophets or teachers of Antioch. Paul received his commission of Apostle from Jesus Christ, with- out the intervention of man ; in other words, without any ordination from human hands. In what point of view then is this transaction to be considered ? Simply in the light of a solemn benediction on the ministry of Paul and Barnabas, in preaching the gospel to a particular district ; and, in the utmost latitude of construction, can be carried no further than a designation of these men to a special mission. Imposition of hands was not always for ordination. It was frequently by way of conveying or of imploring a blessing. In this manner was it com- monly used by the Jews and primitive Christians. Jacob put his hands on the heads of Ephraim and Manasseh when he blessed them. And thus did our Saviour act in relation to the little chil- dren who were brought to him. In the case under consideration, Paul and Barnabas were plainly not invested with any office ; for whatever omce they held after the transaction, they had held before ; but a benediction was bestowed on their labours, in the circuit to which they were directed to go by the Holy Spirit. The transaction invested them with no new au- thority. It made them nothing that they were not before ; which circumstance is utterly inconsistent with the idea of ordination, that being the mode of delegating power not previously possessed. This matter, however, is put out of all doubt by referring to other passa- ges of scripture relating to the same event. In the very next chap- ter, Paul and Barnabas are represented as \i-A.x\n^fulfill(^d thepar^ ticular mission to which they had been designated, by the transac- tion at Antioch, and as returning to give an account of the same. ro LAYMAN. No. VT. *' .4nd thfnce. sailed to Ant'ioch^ from whence they had been. RECOMMENDED TO THE GRACE OF GOD FOR THE WORK V\^HICH THEY FULFILLED." Now, take these two parts of scripture, and compare them together, and all doubt about the nature of this transaction will immediately vanish. Paul and Barnabas fullilled all that the transaction at Antioch related to. rCan any thing more clearly show that it was not the afiostolic office, but a temjiorarxj mission to which they had been set apart? The latter they might well represent themselves as having fulfilled ; but not, surely, the former, it being an office that continued through life- We are here, also, let into the true meaning of the laying on of hands in this particular case. " jlnd hence sailed to Antioch, FRO?»l WHENCE THEY HAD BEEN RECOMMENDED TO THE GRACE OF GOD, FOR THE WORK WHICH THEY FULFILLED." Acts xiv. 26. The imposition of hands then, had been merely a solemn benediction by which Paul and Barnabas had been recommended to the grace of God, in the particular mis- sion to which they were set apart by the Holy Spirit. When all the circumstances of the transaction, as recorded in the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of the Acts, are fairly considered, there Can be no sort of colour for representing Paul and Barnabas as or« dained to any office, much less to the apostolic office, in this case. No. Whatever office they had afterwards they had before. They were merely " recommended to the grace of God," on being sent upon a particular mission ; after fulfilling which they returned to Antioch, and gave an account of such fulfilment. They had fulfilled the particidar mission^ not the ajiostolic office. The imposition of glands was not, then, an ordination to office, but a solemn recom- mendation of them to the grace of God, in the mission which they were about to undertake. The writer then is very welcome to call this a Presbyterial ordination ; for, according to Dr. Doddridge himself, it was 720 ordinaHon at alh And here let it be remarked, that the advocates of parity ground their mode of ordination on the two cases of Timothy, and of Barnabas and Paul. There is not another case v/hich they have even a pretext for representing as a Presbyterial ordination. Now, jn respect to the passages concerning Timothy, and Barnabas, and Paul, the utmost that can possibly be contended for, is that they are dispMtable passages. And is it in any point of view correct or safe to build up a mode of ordination, unknown to the Church for fifteen hundred years, and expressly contradicted i^y the constant exercise of the power of commissioning by an order of men supe- rior to the Elders of Ephesus, upon two cases of douhtfid con- struction ? Surely not. All the other acts of ordination, recorded in scripture, were performed by the Apostles alone, and not a sin- gle example of ordination by Presbyters can be produced front ecclesiastical history for the first fifteen hundred years of the Church. And, if John Calvin had happened to be a Bishop when he entered upon the business of reformation, Presbyterial ordina-. tion would have been as unknown to us as it confessedly was to the Christians of the primitive times. But T forbear to go into this mat- tci' here ; intending to consider it more distinctly in a future address^ A LayvAan of the £pi2cof.al Churchy ( ri ) For the Albany Centinch CYPRIAN. No. III. Xf from Crete we pass to Jerusalem, we shall there discover equally striking evidence that St. James, the brother of our Lord,, possessed in that place the pre-eminence of a Bishop in the Church. In the first council that was held there, in order to determine the controversy which had arisen in regard to the circumcision of Gentile converts, we find him prorK)uncing an authoritative sen- tence. His sentence, we may remark also, determined tiie contro- versy, '' Wherefore my sentence is, says lie, that we trouble not those who from among the Gentiles are turned unto God." In Acts xxi. 17 and 18, we are told " that when St. Paul and his com- pany were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received him gladly; and that the next day following, Paul went in with them unto James, and all the Elders or Presbyters were present." Acts xii. 17, it is said, that " Peter, after he had declared to the Christians to whom he went, his miraculous deliverance, bade them go and show these things to James and to the brethren." In Galatians ii, 12, St. Paul says, " that certain came from James," that is, from the Church of Jerusalem to the Church of Antioch. Surelv these passages strongly indicate that James held the highest dignity in the Church of Jerusalem. The brethren carry Paul and his com- pany to him as to a supreme officer. He has Presbyters and Dea- cons in subordination to him. When messengers are sent from Jerusalem to other Churches, it is not done in the name of the Presbyters and Deacons, or of the Church of this place ; it is done in the name of James, Do not these considerations prove thafc James was the supreme ruler of this Church? If, however, any one shall think these considerations not satis- factory in proof of the point in question, when we add to them the testimony of ancient v/riters, the subject, I trust, will no longer ad- mit of a reasonable doubt. According to Eusebius, Hegesippus, who lived near the times of the Apostles, tells us that James, the brother of our Lord, received the Church of Jerusalem from the Apostles. Clement also, as he is quoted by the same author, tells us, " that Peter, James, and John, after the ascension of Christ, chose James the just to be Bishop of Jerusalem." And in the Apos- tolical constitutions, the Apostles are introduced as speaking thus: «' Concerning those that were ordained by us Bishops in our life time^ we signified to you that they were these, James the brother of our Lord was ordained by us. Bishop of Jerusalem, Sec." St. Jerome also says " that St, James, immediately after the passion of our Lord, was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles." And Cyril, who. was afterv/ards Bishop of the same Church, and whose testi- mony, therefore, has peculiar weight, calls St. James the first Bishop of that diocese. To all this evidence we may add the testimonies of St. Austin, of St. Ciirysostom, of Epiphanius, of St. Ambrose. And even Ignatius himself, who lived in the Apostolic age, makes St. Stephen the Deacon of St. James. I trust it will no longer be doubted that James was the first Bishop of J^rusa^em. r3 CYPRIAN. Ko. III. The Apostolic authority was also manifestly communicated to» Epaphrcditus. St. Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians ii. 25, calls him the Apostle to the Philippians. " But I supposed it neces. sary to send to you, Epaphroditus, my brother and companion in labor and fellow-soldier, but your Apostle, ' ' Accordingly St. Jerome observes, " by degrees, in process of time, others were ordained Apostles by those whom our Lord had chosen" — as that passage to the Philippians shows ; " I supposed it necessary to send unto you Epaphroditus, your Apostle." And Theodoret, upon this place, gives this reason why Epaphroditus is called the Apostle to the Philip- pians. " He was intrusted with the Episcopal government, as being their Bishop." But these are parts of scripture on which the ad- vocates of Episcopacy place the least reliance. In the three first chapters of the Revelations of St. John, we find absolute demonstration of the existence of the Episcopal dignity and authority, at the time in which this work was written. In these chapters, St. John gives us a description of the seven Bishops, who superintended the interests of the Church in the seven principal cities in the Pro-Consular Asia. Our Lord is represented as send- ing seven Epistles to the seven Churches of these cities, directed to the seven Angels of the Churches, whom he calls the " seven stars in his right hand." From all the circumstances that are mentioned, it undeniably appears that these seven Angels were so many single persons, invested with supreme authority in the Churches} that is to say, they were the Bishops of those Churches. I say it manifestly appears, that these seven Angels of the Churches, whom the Lord calls the " seven stars" in his right hand, v/ere single persons. They were not the whole Church or collective body of Christians. This is proved incontestably from these considerations. The whole Cliurches, or collective body of Christians, are represented by " seven candlesticks," which are distinguished from the " seven stars," that are emblems of the Angels, the Bishops. They are constantly mentioned in the singu- lar number. '^ Tiie Angel of the Church of Ephesus." The Angel of the Church of Smyrna," and so of the rest. And in the Epistle to Thyatira it is said, " I know thy works." " I have a few things agahist thee." " Remember how thou hast heard." " Thou hast kept the word of my patience." This is the st3^1e which is used when the Angel or Bishop of the Church is addressed. But when what is said relates to the people, the style is altered, the plural number is then used. " The devil shall cast some of you into pri- son." *' I will rev/ard every one of yoii according to your works. That which ye have, hold fast till I come." And this variation in the number, proves that some parts of these Epistles relate to the whole Church, and others only to the Angels. But what places this subject beyond all reasonable doubt is this circumstance : The titles of Angels and stars are constantly applied in the book of Re- velation to single men, and never to a society or number of men. Our Lord is called the '* morning star and the sun," and the twelve Apostles are called " twelve stars," and " twelve Angels." It is evident, therefore, that the seven stars or Angels in the boc^- of Revelation are single persons. That these persons possessed supreme authority in the ChurcheSj is also demonstrated from these CYPRIAN. Ko.ltt 73 tcmsiderationS. These Epistles are addressed to them alone. The Churches are called candlesticks, and they the stars that give light to the candlesticks. The seven Angels are praised for all the good which they had done, and blamed for all the evil which hap- pened in the Churches. The Angel of Ephesus is commended be> cause " he could not bear them that were evil, and had tried those who called themselves Apostles, and were not so," which seems to imply that he had convicted them cf imposture. The Angel of Per- games is reproved for having them " who hold the doctrine of Ba- laam, and he is severely threatened unless he repented." This shows that he possessed authority to correct these disorders, or he could not justly be menaced with punishment for permitting them. The Angel of Thyatira also is blamed for suffering " Jezebel," who called herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce the people. And the Angel of Sardis is commanded " to be watchful, and to strengthen those who are ready to die," otherwise our Lord threatens to come ©n him " as a thief; at an hour which he should not know." These circumstances demonstrate, that under the appellation of Angelsy and also under the emblems oi stars, are represented, in the Revela- tions of St. John, the Bishofis of the Churches, as the ancient Fathers also imagined. It appears, then, that at the time St. John wrote this book, which closes the canon of scripture, there were seven supreme rubers of the Churches, or, in other words. Bishops in the Pro-Consular Asia. If, however, we are able to prove from the most early accounts of the primitive Church, that there were Bishops settled in these Churches at or near the time when this Epistle was sent to them, the subject will no longer bear a controversy. Let us see how this point stands. The book of Revelations was written, according to the testimony of ancient writers, towards the end of the reign of the Emperor Domitian. We are told, that in a short time after the death of Domitian, St. John, being recalled from banishment by Serva, went to Ephesus, and took upon him the care of the Church in that city, in the presence of seven Bishops. Is it not more than probable that these are the seven Bishops alluded to in -the three first chapters of the Apocalypse. The numbers are the same, and all the Churches were included in the Pro-Consular Asia, of which Ephesus was the metropolis. But if this cannot be absolutely de- monstrated, yet without the aid of this circumstance, we can prove as much as we wish on the present subject. We know that about this very time Ignatius tells us that Onesimus was Bishop of Ephe- sus. We know from the scriptures themselves, that some time be- fore this, Timothy had been made Bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul, We know that there was an unhiteriupted succession of twenty- seven Bishops, from his time to the period in which the great coun- cil of Chalcedon was held in the fourth century. There was then, undoubtedly, a Bishop of Ephesus, the metropolis of the Pro-Con- sular Asia, at the time in which the Apocalypse was written. We know also, that not long after the time of St, John, Sagaris was Bishop of Laodicea. The Philadelphians had a Bishop amongst them when Ignatius wrote his Epistle to them. He exhorts them to be dutiful to him. Polycarp, v/e are sure, was also about this time Bishop of Smyrna. Do -yve jiot derive from thes.e fsicts that are well n CYPRIAN. No. in. attested, sufficient evidence to convince us that there were seven men entrusted with the dignity and power of Bishops of the Church- in this part of Asia, at the time that St. John sent these Epistles to them ? Have v/e not sufficient proof that the seven Angels, emblem- atically represented by the seven stars in the candlesticks the Churches, were seven Bishops ? But let us bring this part of the subject to a conclusion. The case of Timothy alone, had we no other evidence from scripture, v/ouid, when taken in connection with the testimony of ancient writers, be perfectly satisfactory to me. This alone de- monstrates all that v/e can desire. He was placed by St. Paul to superintend the Church of Ephesus. This case is even stronger than was that of Titus in Crete, It cannot be denied that there had long been Presbyters in the Church of Ephesus. Listen then, to the language which St. Paul speaks in his Epistles to him, and see if it is possible that he possessed no superiority over the Pres- byters of that Church. " I besought thee," says he to Timothy, " to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that thou might- cst charge some that they teach no other doctrine." Would Timo- thy have been commissioned to charge the Presbyters to te ach no other doctrine had he possessed no superiority over them ? Would they not have had a right to resist any attempts at a control of this kind as an encroachment on their privileges? Again, Timothy is directed to try and examine the Deacons, whether they be blameless or not. If they prove themselves worthy, he is to admit them into the office of a Deacon ; and upon a faithful dis- charge of that office, they are to be elevated to a higher station-. " Likewise," says he, " must the Deacons be grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre, holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience." *'Let these also be fir.st proved, and then let them use the office of a Deacon, being found blameless." Plere we find no mention made of the Presbyters of Ephesus, in the ordination of Deacons. They are not associated -writh him at all in the work. Does not this indicate, does it not demonstrate a superiority of power on the part of Timothy? Timothy is also exhorted to lay " hands suddenly on no man.'* There is no such thing as a recognition even of the co-operation of Presbyters with him. He seems to be the sujireme and the onli^ agent in the transaction of these affairs. NoAv, I appeal to the common sense of mankind, had the Pres- byters of Ephesus possessed an authority equal to that of Timothy ; had they, like him, possessed the pov/er of ordination, would not St. Paul have recognized their agency in connection with his? Would it not have been to treat them with improper neglect not to mention them ? But what consummates our evidence on this point, and places the subject beyond all doubt, is the charge which St. Paul gives to Timothy in relation to the penal discipline he was to exercise over his Presbyters. Timothy is required to " receive aa accusation against an Elder or Presbyter, only before two or three witnesses." " Them (that is, those amongst the Presbyters) that sin, rebuke before all, that others also may fear." Can any one imagine that Timothy would have been commissioned to listen to accu^atlo7is mads against Prssbyters^ openly to rebuke theniy had CLEMENS. No. I. fJ not his authority transcended theirs ? Does not this single circum- stance unquestionably establish the point of his superiority ? " The man," says a learned and ingenious writer of our country, " who shall not find a Bishop in Ephesus, will be puzzled to find one hi England."* I cannot conceive of a case that could be more clear and unequi- vocal, that could speak more loudly to the common sense of man- kind, than the case of Timothy in Ephesus. He is obviously in- trusted with apostolic authority. Every thing which the Apostle could do in his own person, he commissions Timothy to perform during his absence. He is to adjust the affairs of the Church; he is to prove and examine Deacons ; he alone is to ordain them ; he alone is recognized in the performance of the task of ordaining JElders or Presbyters ; he possesses perfect control over these Pres- byters. If they are guilty of any offences or misdemeanors, he is to infiict punishment upon them, I cannot conceive of a case more satisfactory in proof of the apostolic original of the Episcopal form of Church Government. Had Timothy been of the same order v/ith the Presbyters of Ephesus, can it be imagined that the Apostle would, by elevating him to such high privileges amongst them, have endangered the peace of the Church, have taken a step so v/ell cal- culated to excite discontent and dissatisfaction amongst the remain- ing Presbyters or Elders ? This cannot be imagined. Timothy was then undeniably intrusted with Episcopal authority in the Church of Ephesus ; he was the Bishop of that place. This is proved by the concurring voice of ancient writers. Eusebius tells tis " that he was the first Bishop of the province or diocese of Ephesus." The anonymous author of his life in Phocius says, *' that he was the first that acted as Bishop in Ephesus, and that he was ordained Bishop of the metropolis of Ephesus by the great St. Paul." In the council of Chalcedon twenty seven Bishops are said to have succeeded in that chair from Timothy. To prove the same point goes the testimony of St. Chrysostom and Theodoret ; and in the apostolical constitutions we are expressly told, that he was ordained Bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul. I shall conclude the detail of our scripture evidence in my next flumber. CYPRIAN. For the jilbany CentincU CLEMENS. No. L X HE author of " Miscellanies" has published nothing lately on the subject of Church Government. He thus allows the reader time to consider what has been already written, and his opponent, " A Layman of the Episcopal Church," room in the newspaper to muster all his forces. This latter writer, though he started early, and has been very industrious, yet he still lags behind, and his knowledge appears by no means to equal his zeal. It will be uifeful ■•'■ Dr. BowdcKi in Uh axiswcr to Dr. Stiles. H CLEMENS. No. I. to the public as well as to himself to point out a few mistakes in his last piece. He says that Episcopalians ^^ rely upon the /lowers which Timo- ihy exercised-^ not upon the manner of his ordination," I have been so weak as to believe that the manner is the only subject of dispute. If the reader will turn to p. 25 of " A Companion for the Festivals," See. he will see that the text in the second Epistle to Ti- mothy is brought to prove that his ordination was Episcopal, and that *' much stress" is laid upon it.* This writer ought to have recol- lected too, that he relied upon it in his first pieces, and unjustly blamed the author of " Miscellanies" for using by instead of with. Again he asserts, " that there is not a single example to be pro- duced from scripture or from the whole history of the Church, before the days of Calvin, of an ordination by any but an order of ministers superior to the elders who officiated in the clerical char- acter/' &c. I know how he interprets scripture, but I cannot tell what Church history he has read. Let him take one example, until •thcrs are found for him : In the celebrated Church of Alexandria, Presbyters ordained even their own Bishojis for more than 200 years, in the earliest ages of Christianity. Whatever rank and power these Bishops had (which is not now the question), this was the manner of their ordination.f He mentions farther some cases in which the Apostles " alone performed the act of ordination." I merely ask him, what was the number of the Apostles ? How could the very first ordinations have been otherwise ? Who ordained Paul and Barnabas at Antioch ? He alleges "that the cause of parity has nothing but words to rest on" — that the Episcopalians "never pretend to, derive arguments from such a source" — and that " they would give up their cause at once, if reduced to the necessity of placing it on such a basis." This is, indeed, strange. I thought that they did rest on the words^ " by the putting on of my hands," to prove that Paul ordained Timothy, I thought that this writer was not willing to give up the little word meta^ and that he was now striving to force it into his service. I should suppose that the words of scripture were the best source from which to derive arguments. | Verily, if he will not admit the obvious construction and force of these words, " with the laying on of the h^rnds of the Presbytery," he is right in giving uji the cause at 07ice, and not challenging persons to dispute with him. After all, this writer seems loath to part with met a. He still asserts that " the two words dia and 77ieta are opposed in the Epis- tles to Timothy" — " that dia signifies, particularly, the cause of a thing, and that 7neta is the preposition of concurrence." Now I * This text is there brought forward to explain and ascertain the meaning of the text relied on by the advocates of Presbytery in the first Epistle to Timothy. £d. t See this assertion disproved by Detector, No. 1. JEd. i How disingenuous and quibbling is this writer, who, the reader will recollect, is the author of Miscellanies under a different signature. By the '^^ords on which, the Layman asserts, the cause of parity rests, he evidently jneans, the i::ords which are used as tit/es or names of office, and which change in their sioniucation, and vary in their application. Ed^ CLEMENS. No. I. If aver that they are not opposed^ that meta^ with the genitive case, has frequently the same meaninsc and force as dia^ and that it must be construed by^ or, by means oj, A few examples follow : Thucyd. Hist. Stephanus edit, printed 1588. book ii. p. 197, folio ed. Kai meta kainoteetos men logon afiatasthai aristoi ?neta dedokimasmenoi de mee zunepesthai cthelein. Translation. Ye are easily deceived by novelty of speech^ but hard to be prevailed upon to execute what is laudable. In this sentence, the v/ord meta is twice used for dia^ as will be seen by attending to its grammatical construction. Thu- cyd. same edit, book v. fol. 354. Dia teen ek tees Attikees potc meta dooroon dokousan anachoreesin. In this sentence, like that in Timothy, both the prepositions are used; though in Thucyd. dia is taken iov propter, and governs the accusative. The translatioa is this : On account of his return from Attica^ supposed to have been occasioned by presents, Thucyd. book vii. folio 526. Meta misihou elthein ; To come for the sake of pay, Mounteney's De- most. 1st. Olynth. p. 46, Eton. 1764. Met' aleetheias; Through the medium of truth. The same, p. 109. Metapolloon kai kaloon kindunoonkteesamenoi, &c. Having required it by many and gloria ous (or noble, or honourable) dangers or hazards, Plutarch, Leips, 1774, p. 16. Meta autou de aeetteeton ousan; But in his hands ^ or ivhen employed by him being invincible. With these authorities I leave the reader at present, to judge whether " the word nieta is as appropriate an one as dia to express the cause of a thing." What- ever " reputation" the " Layman" may have " as a scholar," and %vhatevcr '' lexicons" he may consult, I protest that I had rather depend upon Thucydides, Demosthenes, and Plutarch, in tliis case, than upon him. Omitting several things until another occasion, I remark now only the singular way in which this writer proves that Paul or- dained Timothy. He quotes these words to Titus, " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." *' Here, let it be observed," says he, " in passing along, that Titus is spoken of as having been ordained by the Apostle. As I had appointed thee. Nothing is said of the Presbytery in this case. Paul appointed Titus to his office, and this is a conclusive circum- stance for believing that the case was the same in relation to Timo- thy, as it is not reasonable to suppose that they were commissioned in different ways." The reader will please to look at this passage, and say what he thinks of the ingenuousness of him who wrote it. For my own part, I wish the writer, m passing alor.g^ h.?Ld passed '£r to convey it. Ed. CLEMENS. No. II. -f-^- •will have it so, " a Church officer, a grave man, or man of author rity.'' At the same time Paul, as an Apostle, was superior not only to Timothy and Titus, but I verily believe to all the Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Archbishops, Bishops, Sec. who ever existed either in the Romish or Protestant Episcopal Church. " Let this be remembered." As to the reflection on the author of " Miscellanies" for the neglect of the " use of means" in explaining scripture, let it only be said, that prayer and the reading of the New Testament are among the best means, O, that both Clergymen and Laymen devoted more time to these. Besides, the reader will see that com- mentators are not undervalued nor neglected. The " Layman" speaks of " the uniform and uninterrupted tes- timony of the Church universal for fifteen hundred years," of " the decided and unequivocal evidence of primitive history," and of " the validity of Presbyterial ordination having been denied from its origin." Tliese assertions, without any qualification, are extremely unwarrantable. He will permit me to recommend to him to read Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, and Neal's History of the Puri- tans ; or if he prefer a Bishop of his ovv^n Church, h« may read Burnet's History of the Reformation.* Is it possible that there should be a necessity in the nineteenth century to give an account of the early rise and gradual progress of popery, to produce the sentiments and conduct of the best and most learned Bishops of the Church of England as to Presbyterian ordination, together with the statutes of the realm ?t A generous man would wish neither to * Is it not astonishing tf.at: this author will refer to Bishop Burnet, who, in his History of the Reformation, vol. i. p. 365, expressly says, that to maintain that Bishops and Priests are not distinct orders, is to follow the schoolmen and canonists of the Church of Rome, the ■eery dregs of popery? And in his exposition of the articles he says, that " Christ appointed 2. sue- cession of Pastors, in different ranks ; and as the Apostles setded the Churches, they appointed different orders of Bishops, Priests, anc^ Dea- cons:' Burnet's Exp. Art. 2.5, "* Ed. f It is a fact, capable of being satisfactorily proved, that " the best and most learned Bishops of the Church of England," whatever allowance they might be disposed to make for supposed cases of ?iecessiij, never admitted as a general truth the validity of Presbyterian ordination. On the contrary, they maintained \vith the Church in the preface to the ordination services, that no rnan was to be esteemed a iaxfid Bishop, .Priest, or Deacon, vjho had not Episcopal, consecration or ordination. Even Bishop Burnet, to whom the author of Miscellanies refers, expressly says, that Archbishop^ Cranmer changed the " singular opinions" which, at the commencement ct* the reformation, while his sentiments on many fundamental doctrines were unsettled and erroneous, he was disposed to entertain concerning the equality of povrer in Bishops and Presbyters. These are the words of Bishop Burnet: " In Cranmer's paper some singular notions of his about the nature of ecclesiastical offices will be found; but as they are delivered by him with all possible modesty, so they are not established as the doctrins of the Church, but laid aside ks particular conceits of his oivn ; and it seems that afterwards he changed his opinion. For he subscribed the book thnt was soon afterwards set out, which is directly coiitrary to those opinions ^.tt down in these papers." Buvnqt's Hist- vol, i. p. 239. Ec. JO CLEMENS. No. It mislead his readers, nor to give his opponent unnecessary trouble. He would wish to contend by fair means and with lawful weapons* Perhaps the greatest disingenuity of this writer is an attempt to persuade his readers, that the author of " Miscellanies" had made an unprovoked a)id violent attack upon the Episcopal Church ; whereas the fact is precisely the reverse. This work he has been labouring at in several former pieces ; and in the late one he speaks of a " bitter newspaper attack." One -would think,^ from the Representation given, that passages quoted had been mutilated, that the books mentioned were intended only for the instruction of Episcopalians, that there was a design to deprive them of the right of judging for themselves, and that they were in danger of becom- ing an oppressed and pei-secuted sect.* All this would be pitiable Jn this free country, were it true. But nobody was meddling with their apostolic constitution and worship. It was expected that, like other sects, they would declare their sentiments, and practise accordingly. t I never heard a person say that their ministry and their ordinances were not valid. It is their proclaiming themselves to be the only true Church, and condemning all others, in impe- rious and insolent language, which has given the offence. It is their reviving exploded doctrines about divine right a7id uninternifitcd succession, and claiming an exclusive right to the administration of the v/ord and ordinances, which has excited both opposition and contempt. While I express myself thus strongly, I solemnly de- clare that I have a high respect for Episcopalians, and would coni- mune with them (did circumstances require it) as well as admit them to commune with me. I do not believe that the offensive sen- timents are approved of by the denomination at large. Whoever will read with attention the works which have been referred to, and consider them in connection with what has been dome by the Bishop of the Episcopal Church in this State— that he has re-bap- tised, and re-ordained, cannot justly pronounce any thing which has been written " bitter" or " vindictive." I know not what pro- vocation Bishop Seabury had; but I know that he ought not to have indulged his resentment or his ridicule in a publication professedly written for the purpose of conciliation and union. The threat, with^ which the " Layman" concludes, towards the non-episcopalians in Connecticut, interests me little. If they have behaved ill, they- deserve chastisement. I only plead that they may be shown mercy. * And surely if they are not allowed to maintain their principles, because those principles may in their consequences affect other denominations, they are " in danger of becoming an oppressed and persecuted sect." £d. ■j- Why then does this very writer, towards the close of this address, •»\^armlv censure the Bishop in this State for ordaining those who had not been Episcopallv ordained ? Is it not evident that the " maintaining'' Episcopal ordination, and "practising'' accordingly, is what has called forth the invective and ridic.iU> the " opposition and contempt," cf the author of Miscellanies > ^^' ( 81 ) For the Albany Centifiel, POSTSCRIPT TO THE LAYMAN. No. Vm.* Situated at a great distance from Albany,! it requires a num- ber of days for the papers to reach me, and an equal number for my pieces to be conveyed to the Editors. I mention this in refer- ence to the interval that has sometimes occurred between objections urged by the Miscellaneous writer, and the answers which I have furnished. The public may rest assured it has not been owing to any intrinsic difficulty in the objections themselves. They are all perfectly trite. I have a word or two to say to Clemens. He has been, indeed, " weak" in supposing that the only question relative to Timothy, growing out of the Episcopal controversy, is in reference to the manner of his ordination. It is very easy to see why the advocates of parity would exclude from view the situation of Ti- mothy in the Church of Ephesus, since it carries absolute death to their cause. Is it an immaterial circumstance that Timothy ruled the whole Church of Ephesus, both Clergy and Laity, the Elders or Presbyters being subject to his spiritual jurisdiction ? Is it an imma- terial circumstance that Timothy alone exercised the power of or- daining Ministers, and thus of conveying the sacerdotal authority ? What then becomes of the doctrine of parity ? Destroyed, utterly destroyed. The Church of Ephesus, planted by St. Paul, and placed, by that Apostle, under the government of Timothy, was constructed upon a totally different principle. It had, in Timothy, a Bishop, possessing Jurisdiction over the other Clergy, and exercis- ing ail the powers which are claimed for the Bishops of the Church now. Is it of no consequence that the ancients, who speak on the subject, unanimously represent Timothy as the first Bishop of Ephesus ? What says Eusebius ? *' He was the first Bishop of the province or diocese' of Ephesus." Eccl. Hist. Bib. iii. chap. 4. Wliat says Chrysostom ? " It is manifest Timothy was intrusted with a whole nation, viz. Asia." Horn. 15th in 1 Tim. v. 19. Theo- doret calls him the Apostle of the Asiatics. The Apostolical con- stitutions expressly tell us that he was ordained Bishop of Ephesu3 by St. Paul; and in the council of Chalcedon, twenty-seven Bishops U £d. N 90 UMPIRE. in making the Apostle " ordain Elders in every country in which he made proselytes— those who were absolutely necessary to transact the affairs of the Church during his absence, and then leaving Titus there that he miglit re-ordain them. Nor does he advert to the dis- tinction cipreachmg and ruling Elders ; the latter of whom are al- ways ordained by a single Presbyterian Minister when a congrega-=. tion is to be organized. To what does the argument of " Cyprian" amount ? Paul left Titus in Crete that he should ordain Elders, and therefore Paul ordained Titus, (so the " Layman" says) gave him authority over both Clergy and Laity, constituted him a diocesan Bishop. This reasoning will not convince judicious and candid men. But it will be said, that the argument is this : Since Paul had or- dained Elders in every city, if these had power to ordain others, there was no necessity to leave Titus there for that very purpose- It is answered, that the express words of Paul are, " that thou shouklest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain El- ders." Whether Paul had ordained Elders or not, there were some things wanting which Titus was to see performed according to directions given him by the Apostle. New congregations, pro~ bably, were to be organized ; more officers were to be added to those already formed ; and if these were only ruling Elders, they had no authority to ordain ; or if a sufficient number there had au- thority, they were new in the office, and needed the special direc- tions of the Apostle, by Titus, how they should proceed. There is^ proof that Titus was not fixed at Crete, and made " a supreme ru- ler of the Church." Ke v/as to execute a particular business, which, •when executed, his commission as to this ceased. ^ In giving the testimony of the primitive writers, it is hoped that ** Cyprian" will not miss Clemens^ Romanus^ and Pohjcarji, Their writings are the earliest which have been preserved, and are al- lowed to be authentic. It will be desirable too, if, in quoting the words of Jerome, he can give some more obvious and rational in- terpretation of them, than the author of *' A Companion for the Festivals," &:c. has done. When he enters upon the doctrine o{ uninterrupted succession^ it will be expected that he define it v;ith precision, and bring satisfac-^ tory proof of its existence.! He must trace the Bishops of Rome up to the Apostles, and the English Bishops up to the Church of * But why should Titus be sent to Crete with a " commission" to ordain, if the Elders or Presbyters at Crete possessed the power of ordination ? Whetljer Titus afterwards changed his residence is of no. consequence. The removal of a Bishop from one district or diocese to another does not invalidate his Episcopal authority. Ed. f The reader is requested to peruse the following extract from the Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, which it is humbly presumed both deiines tiie doctrine of uninterrupted succession and " proves its exis- tence." •• As a divine coTntnission is required to qualify any one to exercise the priestly ofnce, there must be a suicession of persons authorised from Christ to send others to act in i'is nci')n£, or there can be no authority in bis Church. For if thut succcuion which convevs a divine comiuission for the ministry UMPIRE. 9t Rome. Here will be an opportunity for him to show, if he can, that there never was any Presbyterian ordination before the days of Calvin. A glance at the history of the reformation will be very necessary, in order to account for the diiference of sentiment and conduct of many of the English Bishops then, from the sentiment and conduct of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States — why the former did not hold that Bishops were superior to Presbyters by divine rigkt^* and why they admitted the validity of Presbyterian ordination, while the latter strenuously contend for the one, and to- tally reject the other. UMPIRE. be once broken, people must either go into the ministry of their own accord, or be sent by those who received no power to send them. And it is surely evident that those persons cannot be called ministers of Christ, be consl- .4ered as hix ambassadors, be authorised to proclaim the testimony of his salvation, or to administer his sacraments, who never received a commis- sion from him. As, therefore, it has been proved that a divine commission to exercise the ministry was to be conveyed through the order of Bishops, it is necessary that the Episcopal succession, from the days of the Apostles, should be uniriterrupted. The divine Head of the Church has pledged himself to preserve the succession of his ministry ' to the end of the world.' There is not the slightest evidence for belie\'ing that the succession has in fact been in- terrupted: its interruption seems indeed morally impossible. For ife has been the universal practice of the Church, from the time of the Apos- tles to the present day, to receive none for Bishops who were not or- dained by other Bishops. The consecration of Bishops was always a pub- iic solemn act, of which there were many witnesses ; and in disputed cases it would be easy to discover whether a person claiming to be Bishop had received a proper comm.isslon. The received doctrine in every age of the Church, that no ordination was valid but that of Bishops, has been a con- stant guard upon viie Episcopal succession. It is in the highest degree ab- surd, therefore, to suppose that any person could ever have been permitted to succeed to the Episcopal office who was not duly commissioned. Nor does it invalidate this succession, that the divine commission to exercise the ministry has been sometimes conveyed through corrupt and wicked men ; «ince, in the language of our Church, in her twenty-sixth ai'ticle : *« Al- though in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments; yet, forasmuch as they do not the same in their o\unna-?ne, but ia Christ's, and do minister by his conitnission and authority, we may use 4heir ministry, £tc." Companion for the Festivals f l^c. p. 32. Ed. * This is all mere assertion. Ed. ( 92 ) For the jiiBa?iy CentineU MISCELLANIES. No. XIX. J. HAD intended to have exposed the -weakness of a few more of the arguments used by the author of " A Companion for the Festi- vals," &c. in favour of Episcopacy, to have examined the testi- mony of the Fathers, and to have produced the sentiments and conduct of the first Reformers ; but copious extracts from a pam- phlet Avhich has fallen into my hands will supersede, in a great measure, the necessity of these things. I refer to that published in the year 1782, by Dr. White, now Bishop of the Episcopal Church in Pennsylvania. It is entitled, " The Case of the Episcopal Churches' in the United States considered." It is judicious, well ■written, soasonable, and bears evident marks of the prudence, liberality, and moderation which distinguish its amiable author.* The Bishop, after giving a representation of the condition of the Episcopal Churches m this country, in consequence of the revolu- tion, declares it to be his opinion, " that their future continuance can be provided for only by voluntary associations for union and good government." He then offers " the outlines of a frame of Church government." The plan is in general to divide the conti- nent into smaller and larger districts ; each of the smaller to elect " a general vestry or convention, consisting of a convenient num- ber (the Minister to be one) from the vestry or congregation of each church, or of every two or more churches, according to their respective ability of supporting a Minister ;" that " they should elect a Clergyman their permanent president, who, in conjunction with other Clergymen to be also appointed by the body, may exer- cise such powers as are purely spiritual, particularly that of admit- ting to the ministry." He proposes that the larger districts should be three, and to " consist of a convenient number of members, sent from each of the smaller districts severally within their bounds, equally composed of Clergy and laity, and voted for by those orders promiscuously ; the presiding Clergyman to be always one, and these bodies to meet once in every year." He proposes further, " a continental representative body, consisting of a con- venient number from each of the larger districts, formed equally of * It is very singular that the author of Miscellanies shorkl slirink from the task of proving that the claims of Episcopacy are unfounded, and should appear vvilling to rest his cause on an Episcopal Divine, who, at a period of imminent danger to his Church, v/as anxious, until the Episco- pal succession could be obtained, to adopt sorne plan of going on as well as possible without it. And even if this author could succeed in bringing a Bishop of the Church on his side, what wcdd the victory avail him ? Would it prove that the Episcopal Church does not maintain the divine in- stitution of Episcopacy? An eminent Presbyterian Divme could be named, who was larely a Principal of one of the Colleges of Aberdeen, who favoured the Independent or Congregational form of Church government? Does his authority prove that the Chuixh of Scotland does not maintain Presby- terian government ? £^- MISCELLANIES. Ko. XI!C. H Clergy and laity, and among the Clergy, formed equally of presid* ing Ministers and others ; to meet statedly once in three years." Such are the outlines of the plan which the Bishop recommends, and which he wished to see carried into immediate execution, with- out waiting for what is called the succession^ and without depend- ing upon any foreign Church whatever. It v/iil be observed that he proposes ordination to be performed by a permaJicnt president,, elected by each of the smaller districts, in conjunction luith other Clergymen^ to be also appointed by the body* He afterwards ex- plains the plan, and satisfactorily answers to every unprejudiced mind, all the objections which could be brought against it. The Bishop, in speaking of their former connection with the Church of England, says, that " it subjected them to many incon- veniences, such as sending to the distance of three thousand miles for ordination," &c. It is remarkable that he was subjected him- self to this very inconvenience. He and Dr. Prevost went over to the Bishop of I^ondon to brin* But it will be asked, ' What if a number of Christians should be cast on a desolate coast or island, or should emigrate to a coun- try secluded from intercourse with the Christian world, and ihoulfl have among them no ordained Minister"*' May they not ordaiw Ministers for themselves ? May not Ministers tlius ordained ven- ture to officiate ? ** But tell me iirst, where is this solitary island or coast— this secluded country of Christians ? Did you ever read of a colony of pious Christians emigrating to a new country, who forgot to take Ministers with them; or whom no Ministers would accompany or follow ? If no such case has ever happened, or is ever likely to happen, it is no^ strange, that the Head of the Cliurch has made no provision for it ; nor is it necessary that we should undertake tp remedy his omission." P. 161. Dr. Lathrop goes on to refute the stale objection that fne succes- sion is broken because it passed through the corrupt Church o^ Rome. It is unnecessary, however, any further to quote his obser- vations. They all tend to prove that an internal call to the minis- try is not valid without a regular external commission from the Head of the Church. Let it be remembered that Dr. Lathrop is not a High Church Divine ; not surely one of thoise ^' fanatics" against whom the au- thor of Miscellanies so often lifts his indignant arm ; but a Con- gregational or Presbyterian Mniister; standing high, in the Statf in which he resides, for taients, learning, and piety. The reasonings of Dr. Lathrop are introduced, principally, tp prove that Presbyterian Ministers can in no other way defend them- selves from, the encrcachmer/cs of self-constituted teachers, than by the doctrine of the necessity of an external commi^.sion^ derived by regular uninterrupted succession from the divine He ut upon the promiscuous use of names. This sort of argument Ijas, I trust, been sufficiently ex- posed. Men may quarrel for ever about terim. The true in- oiiiry is not concerning words, but things. Efiiskofios^ Presbute- rcs^'Biakonos, are all appellative. Each of them is capable of be- ing applied, and is actually applied to all the orders of the Priest- LAYMAN. No. VII. XOl ho6d, Diakonoi is applied to Christ, to the Ajiodtlcs^ to the seven Dcaccna of Jerusalem. And very properly, for they were all Mi- nisters. The same observation may be made of ^^/«X:<>/20«. It is applied to our Saviour^ to his Ajiostles^ to the RldcT^i ol Efihesus^ They were all overseers, Fresbuiero^ is a name indiscriminately given to the Apostles, and those whom they governed. Very justly too ; for Presbuteros signifies a ruler, and there may be rulers of an inferior as well as of a superior order. To say that EfiiskofiOi and Presbuteros are sometimes used, the one for the other, is no- thing to the purpose. The point is to prove that each of them is used in an invariable sense ; Ejiiskopos ahvays denoting, in one part of scripture, precisely the same office that it denotes in every other part of scripture, and Presbuteros always implying, in one passage, the very same powers which it implies in every other pas- sage. And when it can be proved that Efiiskofios, as applied to Christ., as applied to his Ajiostles, as applied to the Elders of Efihesus^ denotes precisely and exactly the same officer, I will give up this controversy. The question is, as to the orders of Mi- nisters that were established in the Church, and this question is f) be determined, not by the names used, but by ih.^ ponuers exercised. In the third place, as to the manner of ordination of Paul, Bar- nabas, and Timothy. This has been pretty fully considered. Paul and Barnabas were not ordained at all by the prophets and teachers of Antioch. It was a mere benediction which they received Upon departing, according to the direction of the Holy Spirit, on a temporary mission. That mission they are represented, in the succeeding chapter of the Acts, as having'fulfilled, and as returning to Antioch, " from whence they had been recommended to the grace ofGodJor the ivork^'' to give an account of such fulfilment. This completely proves that it was not to the afiostolic office they were set apart, and that the laying on of hands v/as merely a so^ lemn invocation of the Divine blessing on their labours. Such is the idea even of Dr. Doddridge, a very conspicuous dissenter from the Church of England. The ordination of Timothy was certainly Episcopal. At all events, there is no proof tliat it was after the Presbyterial mode. The two passages in the Epistles of Paul are to be taken toge- ther. Most commentators consider the text, in the second Epistle, as referring to ordination, as well as to the supernatural gifts of the Spirit. Of the six waiters whom I have consulted, four are decid- edly of this opinion. If the tv/o passages are taken together, the natural construction is that Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of Paul, witii the laying on of the hands of Presbyters ; the former conveying pov/er* the latter expressing concurrence in the selection of character. But let us lay aside the passage in the ^second Epistle. " Neglect not the gift that is in thee, ^vhich was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Pres- bytery." Take this text alone. Does it give any support to the system of parit)- ? I am persuaded that it does not. Some commen- tators, among whom are Jerome and Calvin, consider Pre-^^M^^r/oz^, the Greek term which is here rendered Presbytery, as referring to the gift bestowed on Timothy, not to the manner of his ordination. ^' Neglect not the gift of Presbytery, that is, the office of Priestho{;d, 5.02 LAYMAN. No. VIT. cvvhich was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of hands.*^ This interpretation of Calvin destroys all support which the pas- sage has been supposed, by some gentlemen, to yield to Presbyterial ordination. But let us pass by this construction, and give the advo- cates of parity an opportunity of viewing the passage in every point of light in which it can possibly be considered. ^ The only circumstance that enables them to make the passage give even a colour of support to their mode of ordination, is the use .of the term Presbuteriou: and here they have recourse to the old mode of arguing from names, a mode of arguing which is, literally, good for nothing. Preabuteros^ as we have already observed, is an appellative term, and is applied to the Apostles as well as to tlie inferior Clergy. And, in respect to the particular word here used, Presbuteriou, it is more applicable to the Apostles than to any subordinate order. It occurs in Luke;, twenty-second chapter, six- ty-sixth verse ; and in the Acts, twenty-second chapter, fifth verse 5 denoting the Jewish Sanhedrim, or Great Council. In the Latiu translation it is rendered senatus, v,'hich exactly answers to the .Greek term. Upon wliat possible principle, th^n, can it be con- sidered as particularly applicable to such an association, as an as- sembly of modern Presbyters ? Surely, if we are to judge from the tribunal to which it is annexed, in the passages that have been .cited, tliere is the strongest reason for supposing that it denotes, in the text under consideration, the Apostles themselves. The conclusion from the words, even, is directly against the doctrine of parity ; and the gentleman can get over this only by dwelling on the modern use of the term Presbytery, keeping out of the view of his people, as much as possible, the important circumstance that the .Greek term is applied to the G?^eat Council at Jerusalem, and is rendered into Latin by a word which designates the chief officers />f the Roman Commonwealth. But the true meaning of the Greek word Presbuteriou, is put out of all doubt by referring to ec- clesiastical history, v.'hich informs ns that the practice of Presby- ters, uniting with Bishops in tlie imposition of hands, has never prevailed in the Greek Church, and v/as not introduced into the Western, until the latter part of the fourth century. In the fourth council of Carthage it vv^as decreed, that " in the ordinatimi of Presbyters, all the Presbyters present should lay on their hands ^ near the Bishop's hand ;" the design being to give to the ordination of Presbyters all possible solemnity, and to increase the security against an improper selection of characters for the sacred office. The validity of orders, liowever, vv'as not considered to depend on the Presbyters imposing their hands. And by the very same coun- cil it was provided that the Bishops alone should impose hands in the ordination of Deacons. All this proves, completely, that the primitive Church, universally, considered the term Presbuteriou, in the first Epistle to Timothy, as referring to the Apostles, or members of their order. Our author says that Paul, and those who acted with him, in the ordination of Timothy, laid on their hands, as Presbyters, in the modern sense of the v/ord. And why so ? Because, to be sure, the term Presbuteriou is used. The gentleman had better tell us at once, that tliey laid on their hands as niembers of the Jewish San- DETECTOR. Noyll, 10% hedrim, or as Roman Senators ; for, thus is the Greek term ap- plied. It is a noble way of reasoning this, for there is nothing on ^arth that you may not prove by it. It is rendered certain, then, as far as moral evidence can render any thing certain, that the ordination of Timothy was completely Episcopal. Let it now be observed, that none of the other cases of ordination, recorded in the scriptures, can be made, even by inge^ nious construction, so much as to look towards the Presbyterial mode. The Apostles alone ordained the seven Deacons of Jerusalem. Paul alone ordained Titus. Paul and Barnabas alone ordained El- ders in the different cities which they visited. Igiiatius, as Chry- sosto77i tells us, was ordained by the Apostle Peter ; and Ircneus in- forms us that Li7ius was constituted the first Bishop of Rome by St. Peter and St, Paul. But why need I cite particular examples? Not a single case can be produced from ecclesiastical history, of Presbyters being united with Bishops in imposition of hands, or of their having any sort of concern with the business of ordination, until the time of the fourth council of Carthage. Again. In whom do the scriptures represent the general power of ordination as vested ? In single persons. Timothy possessed it at Ephesus ; Titus in Crete. Not a word is said of an union of Presbyters with them in the business. I have now gone through tlie reasoning of the Miscellaneous wri- ter. I trust I have shown it to be entirely insufficient to establish the doctrine for which he contends. How striking the resemb ance as to mode of proof, between the advocates of papal supremacy and of Presbyterian parity I The champions of the Romish Church build the superiority of the Pope- upon one or two texts, in opposi- tion to the general evidence of scripture, and to the uniform testi- mony of ecclesiastical history. So act the advocates of the Pi'esby- terian cause. The^iddress, in favour of Zebedee's children, with the ordination of Timothy, and the pretended ordination of Bar- nabas and Paul, connected with the promiscuous use of names, form the basis on which remits the system of parity. Surely it is too weak a basis to support any system, much less one that ecclesiastical history tells us'never existed till the days of Calvin, and which the Scripture, in the account of every Church that it particularly notices, most completely disowns. .^ Layma7i of the Ejiiscofial Churchy For the Albany Centiiieh DETECTOR. No. II. I^LEMENS, and his friend, who, from the decisive ground which he takes against Episcopacy, exhibits very curious pretenKions to the character of an " Umpire" in this controversy, charge " Cy^ prian" with dealing only ia unsupported assertions. The most su- perficial readers of his numbers will perceive that he enters into a minute and laborious investigation of the subject of Church govern- iiirent, and supports, by cogent argument, whatsoever he advances ; 104 DETECTOR. No. II. •while the " Miscellaneous author," " Clemens," and his friend Mr. " Umpire,"* seldom make even an attempt at argument, ibut endeavour, to awaken the prejudices and blind the understandings of their readers, by low invective and ridicule, or by bold assertion. To detect their numerous errors and misrepresentations, though an easy, is not a pleasant business. The drudgery, however, must be submitted to. These gentlemen boldly assert, in their usual manner, without an attempt at proof, that the Church of England, at the time of the Reformation, did not consider Episcopacy as a divine institution. I aver that the Church of England, at'the time of the Reforma- tion, was Episcopal both in fact and in theory. That she was Episcopal mfact cannot be doubted. Her Biskofis reformed from the errors of the Church of Rome, and thus pre- served to her the divine succession of the Priesthood. The Mis» cellaneous author and his friends may laugh at the doctrines of dU •uine right and urdnterrupted succession. In doing this they laugh at their bible : for we are there told, that " no man taketh this honour" (the office of the Priesthood) " to himself but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." Aaron held his Priesthood by divitie right. So, says the Apostle, must every Christian Priest. And as no person is now immediately commissioned from Heaven, how can a divi?ie right to the Priesthood be obtained, but from an order of men authorised in succession to transmit this power from the great Head of the Church ? The Church of England was Episcopal at the Reformation from choice. Calvin, Beza, and the other foreign Reformers congratu- lated her on possessing a primitive Episcopacy. The proofs of this may be found in Dr. Durel's view of the Churches beyond the seaso The anathema which Calvin denounced against all who shoidd not reverence and submit to a primitive Episcopacy, such as the Church of England possessed, is well known, and was cited by the Layman in his first address. Beza says, " if there be any, which you shall hardly persuade me to believe, who reject the whole order of Episcopacy, God forbid that any man in liis wits should assent to the madness of such men." He calls the Episcopacy of England, *' a singular blessing," and prays that " she may ever enjoy it." With what face then can the Miscellaneous author assert, that the Church of England was Episcopal at the Reformation through *' prejudice, through interest, and a secret love to the Romish Church?" Wns he aware that he was casting a base calumny on the venerable Reformers of the English Church ? Was he aware that he was grossly misleading the opinions of his readers ? The Church of England then v/as Episcopal mfact. This is of primary importance, since it proves that she preserved the divinely instituted mode of perpetuating the Priesthood. In the confusion indeed attending the reformation and organization of the Church, there were some fevv instances of persons, holding for a short time livings, who were not Episcopally ordained. But this irregularity • At the time of writing this, it was not known that " Clemens" and ♦' Ujftipire," as vvdl as the "Inquirer," were written by the jiuthor of Mis- ■■elbnies. ^J- DETECTOR. No. IL l()i t^as soon corrected by public authority; and the very correction proves the solicitude of the English Church to preserve Episco- pacy. The Church of England at the period of the Reformation was Episcopal also in theory^ in her Jmblic doctrines ^wd. formularies. For some time previous to the Reformation, the inordinate advo- cates of Papal power sought, as much as possible, to destrov Epis- copal authority. What congeniality between them and certain per- sons in modern times I With this view they endeavoured, as much as possible, to degrade the order of Bishops to a level with Presby- ters. In this attempt, the Papal advocates were steadfastly resisted, particularly by the Bishops of the Spanish and Gallican Churches. This Popish error, however, on the subject of Episcopal autho- rity, appears, at the outset of the Reformation, to have tainted the minds of some of the Reformers; who, though Episcopalians in fact, maintaining steadfastly the Episcopal Priesthood, were yet dis- posed to sink as far as they could the Episcopal claims. Let it be remem!;ered, however, that they maintained these erroneous opi- nions before they had completely renounced the errors of Popery, while indeed they held many of its m.ost obnoxious doctrines. The Miscellaneous author and his friends are welcome to their testi- mony at this period, as it will only prove what is on all hands con-* ceded, that one of the errors of Popery was to lessen, as much as possible, the spiritual authority of Bishops, that the Pope might be exalted on their ruins. On a farther inquiry, however, into primi- tive antiquity, Cranmer and his associates renounced whatever er- roneous sentiments they may have been disposed to ejitertain on the subject of Episcopacy, and set forth and vindicated its just preten- sions. *' The institution and erudition of a Christian man," two hooka drawn up by Cranmer, and others, assert that Bishops are aiithoris-^ ed by our Saviour to continue the succession^ and to ficrfietiiate the hierarchy ; and that t\\Q gift of orders is conferred by consecra^ tion and imjiosition of the Bishofi's hands. In a Catechism^ that Cranmer published afterv/ards, he fully owns, according to Bishop Burnet, ^^\\\q -divine institution of Bishofis and Priests." ^ And his well known sermon on '' the /loiver of the Keys" is considered as containing high Church notions. But what put's the Episcopacy of the Church of England and of the Reformers beyond all doubt, is the preface to the book oi consecrating and ordering Bishops, Priests, andDeacons, which was drawn up by Cranmer and the other Reformers^ and still remains part of the faith of the Church of England, and of the Protestant Episcopal Churches in America. This preface begins thus : " It is evident unto all men diligently reading hohj scrijiture and ancient authors, that from the Apo;ities' time there have been three orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons,'^ Here the Episcopal hierarchy is made to rest not only on ^^ ancient authors^'" on the testimony of the Fathers, but on " holy scripture.'* And the preface goes on to state, that no man is to be considered as a la%iful Minister who is not ordained according to that book, in which the power of ordaining is vested in Bisliops, or " hath had Episcopal consecration and ordinution. If now the Miscella- ns PETECTOR. No.n, aeous author should insist that some Divines of the Chm'cli of Eng- land do not maintain that " the holy scriptures," as well as " ancient authors," establish the Episcopal hierarchy, it will only follow, that these Divines have departed from the faith of their Church. He is welcome to their testimonies. But let me remind him, in his own language, *■' JVo General ivould think himself safe in an army. of desei-tera." They will not add much to his strength in the day of battle. Let me remind the Miscellaneous author, that if he con- siders the private sentiments of Divines as determinin-g the public faith of a Church, the Church of Scotland, notwithstanding the high Calvinism of her Confession of Faith, is not Calvinistic ; since- it is a notorious fact, that many of her most distinguished Divines 2?enounce the principal tenet of Calvinism. But the most singular attempt of the Miscellaneous author is his attempt to injure the Episcopal cause by the testimony of a distinguished Bishop. It is singular indeed, that Bishop White, who took unwearied pains to procure the Episcopal suc= cession, who joined in repeated applications to the English Bishops for this purpose, and at length v/ent himself to England to bring the Episcopacy to this country, should yet be represented as its enemy, as denying' entirely the necessity of Episcopal ordination, and as disposed to form his Church upon the Presbyterian model, I think Bishop White will not consider this very inconsistent representa- tion which tlie Miscellaneous author gives of him, as counterba- lanced by the very handsome compliments which are bestowed upon him. It happens that I am in possession of the pamphlet to^ which the Miscellaneous author alludes, and I think it will be in my power to place in a proper light the conduct of Bishop White m this business. At the close of the Revolution, the situation of the Episcopal Church was imminently critical. Deprived of some of her best Clergy, depressed, and in some places obnoxious, serious were the apprehensions concerning her which agitated the bosoms of her friends. Jarring opinions also were to be reconciled. While some of her members were the zealous friends of Episcopacy, others of them were more lax in their opinions on this subject. The distress- ing situation of the Church was increased by the doubt whether it would be in her power, for some considerable time at least, to ob- tain the E/iisco/ial succession. Two objects, therefore, appeared of consequence : To reconcile the dissonant opinions of her members on the subject of Episcopacy, and to preserve the Church until the Episcopal succession could be obtained. These difficult and im- portant objects. Bishop (then only Dr.) White, animated both by the warmest affection for his Church, and by that spirit of conci- liation which has always distinguished him, attempted in his pamphlet to accomplish. To sooth the jealousy of some person* concerning the Episcopacy, he sometimes represents it as a cere- 7no7iy^ as a di'^ltiited point,, as a matter of external order, AH which is true. For the conferring of orders is a ceremony; Episcopacy unfortunately has, since the time of Calvin, been disputed; as Episcopacy relates to government and discipline, it is a matter of external order. To satisfy persons of a different description, lie speaks of a departure from Episcopacy, which lie expressly main- DETECTOR. No. H. tSlf tains is an afiostolic institution, to be justifiable only in cases of nc^ cessity ; and therefore he proposes to obtain the Episcopal succes- sion as speedily as possible ; and he suggests a plan of Church go- vernment, to be observed till the regular Episcopal authority could be obtained. That lie proposed a temporary departure from Episcopacy only on the ground of necessity^ is evident from vari- ous passages of his pamphlet, and particularly from page 30, where, speaking of the opinion of Archbishop Usher, he says, *' What part of the Christian world could the learned primate have •named of which it eould have been so properly said as may be of ours," that " ordination of Bishops cannot be had ?" The case of weceMiVz/ is certainly a very difficult and delicate one. But it by no means follows, that they who admit the plea of necessity for a departure from Episcopacy are disposed to lower its high claims. Hooker, who admits this plea, and allows that mat- -ters of government or discipline are changeable, nevertheless holds this strong language concerning Bishops, from which it evidently appears that he considered them to be of divine authority. " And shall we think that James was made Bishop of Jerusalem, Evodius Bishop of the Church of Antioch, the Angels in the Churches of Asia Bishops, that Bishops every where were appointed to take away factions, contentions, and schisms, without some like direcuou and inuigathn of the Holy Ghost ? Wherefore let us not fe?.r to be herein bold and peremptory, that if any thing in the Churches' go- vernment, surely the first institution of Bishops was from Heaven^ was even of God : the Holy Ghost luas the author ofit.''* But of what aise will the plea of necessity be to the Miscellaneous author and his friends ? Do they mean to justify by this plea their departure from Episcopacy ? Do they mean to plead that it is not in their power to obtain Bishops ? Let them come forward with this plea, and we shall knov^ what answer to make to them. The au« thor of " The Companion for the Altar," and *' for the Festivals and Fasts," whom the Miscellaneous writer holds up as so intoler- ant and arrogant, expressly admits unavoidable causes as an excuse for a departure from Episcopacy. * Hooker's Eccle, Pol. Book vii. Sec. 5. When Hooker says that Church government is changeable, he doetf TiOt use the term in its most extensive sense, as including the officers of the of St. Paul's, at a public crdinat;on, from the charge of St. Paul to Timothy, " Lay hands suddenly on no man," contains as able a defence of Episco- pacy as its advocates need desire. The Miscellaneous author will, I think, be satii^fied with one or two quotations from it. " I cannot find (says the learned Stillingfleet) any arguinent of force in the Kew Testament to prove that ever the Christian Churches were under the sole government of Presbyters," Speaking of the seven Churches of Asia, he says, " The Bishops succeeded the A/iostles in the government over those Churches." And again — " There is as great reason to believe the afiostolical succession to be oi divine institution as the canon of scripture^ or the observation of the Z^orcVs Dnij,'^ The Miscellaneous author omits no opportunity of sneering aC the advocates of Episcopacy as the friends of arbitrary power in the Church — it always delights him to speak of Bishofis as " Lords in God's heritage." Let me recomm.end to him the following re- mark in this much admired tract of Bishop White, p. 18. " Had Rome been governed by a Presbytery instead of a Bishop ; and had that Presbytery been invested with the independent riches and dominion of the Papal See ; it is easy to conceive, of their acquir- ing as mucii power over the Christian world as was ever known in Gregory or Paul." — What I a Presbytery^ a meekj unassuming Presbytery may be even worse than Bishops ; they may even \ne in ambition and tyranny with the Pope himself. What does the Mis- cellaneous writer think of this remark of Bishop White ? He will no doubt admit it to be highly " judicious and seasonable." Let iTie also recommend to him another remark of this distinguished Bishop, in a sermon preached at the last General Convention of the Episcopal Church. " It seemed good to the Apostles to appoint some of these with a sufiereminent commission, of which there "were instances in Timothy and Titus ; and the persons so appointed have handed dovni their commission through the different ages of the Church. This is the originally constituted order," In the obnoxious sentiments selected by the Miscellaneous writer from the works of the author of " The Companion for the Altar," &c. there was no personal invective, no bitter sarcasm, no low ri- dicule. The opinions expressed v/ere in the language of the pri- mitive Fathers, and of some of the most eminent Divines of the English Church. The application of his general principles that author never presumed to make to particular individuals. The sincere inquirers after truth, he placed within the embrace of the merciful Judge of the Universe, of that gracious Parent who " know- cth whereof we are made, and rememberetli that we are but dust." I have carefully perused the obnoxious volumes, and such I declare to be their general spirit. What has been the course pursued by the Miscellaneous author ? With every number his propensity to personal in^'ective and bitter sarcasm appears to have increased. Jn one cf his last numbers [No. XYB/.] he compares some worthf LAYMAN. No. VIII. 309 Episcopal Clergymen to " deserters" and traitors, like Arnold ; tq *' run-away servants;" to " thieves and robbers." May we not liope that he has arrived at the climax of scurrility, that his flight through the regions of invective and ridicux cannot be much far- ther extended ? Would it not be well for him to pause and seriously to ask himself, whether his mode of controversy be worthy of the sincere inquirer after truth ; be worthy of the public teacher of a religion which forbids all rash invective ■ Above all, whether it will ^tand the test of that tribunal at which we must render " an ac- count of every idle word ?" DETECTOR. J^or the Albany Centinel, THE LAYMAN. No. VIII. XT may be proper, now, to take some notice of that intimate con- nection which is admitted to exist between the Old and the New Testament. On this point, hovv'ever, it cannot be necessary to dilate. The Miscellaneous writer will admit all that I wish, under this head, to be admitted. He will, at once, acknowledge that the Mosaic dis- pensation was typical of the Christian, the Gospel being the law in substance, and the law being the Gospel in figure. The law, says the Apostle, was " our school-master-, to bring iisiaito Christ.'* Gal. iii. 24. And the Priests who offer gifts, according to the law, are represented by the same inspired writer, as being "" the example and shadow of heavenly things.'' Heb. viii. 5, 4. In fact, it is impossible to look at any part of the Mosaic system "without perceiving, clearly, that it pointed to something beyond it- self. The rock smitten in the desert was Christ ; and so, also, the serpent elevated on a cross, by looking at which the perishing Israelites were rescued from death. The manna that descended from Heaven to sustain the followers of Moses, was typical of that bread of life on which all the humble disciples of Jesus habitually feed. What was the Paschal Lamb but a most interesting emblem «f the Lamb slain fron\ the foundation of the world I The sacrifices cf the law, at what did they point, but the sacrifice of the Son of God 1 But on this subject I must not enlarge ; for, to trace the pa- rallels between the iaAv and the gospel would require a volume. They furnish a most interesting, and most conclusive evidence of the truth of the Christian dispensation. Our Saviour was equally predicted by the prophets, ar^d prefigured by the law. He came not to destroy the lav/ and the prophets, but X.ofufJil, Let us attend a little, hovvcver, to the cojnparison betv.een the Jewish and Christian Church, iu relation to the officers by whom they were respectively governed. The twelve Apostles may well 1 e conrJdercd as the pT.tviarchaI progenitors of the whole Christian people. St. Paul speaks of his gpnverts, as cf his children, begotten by him to a nev/ (ife, through 110 LAYMAN. K0.VIII. the preaching of the Gospel. In the Christian Church, then, there were twelve Apostles ; in the Jewish, there were twelve patriarchs ; and in the heaven^ society, where both are united, St. John speaks to us of four-and-twenty elders seated round the throne of God» Beside the twelve Apostles, our Saviour commissioned other seventy also ; the number seventy ansvv^ering to that of tlie Elders who were appointed to assist Moses in his ministry. We find three orders of officers in the Jewish Church ; and, in the Christian, there have always been three orders answering to these. What Aaron, his sons, and the Levites were in the temple, that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are in the Church. Such is the concurring testimony of the primitive Fatters. Take that of St, Jerome, whom the advocates of parity are fond of quoting, and to whom, therefore, it is presumed, they will not object. '• That vje 7nay know the afiostolical economy to be taken from the fiattem of the Old Testament^ the same that Aaron^ and his sons, and the Levites nuere in the Temfile, the Bisho/is, Presbyters, and Dea- €ons are in the Church of Christ*" It is too absurd to attempt to turn this parallel into ridicule. By the very same mode of proceed- ing you may destroy the whole Christian dispensation. In all that he has said upon this point, the Miscellaneous writer has contri- buted much more to the support of infidelity than of any other cause. How far, then, do we carry this argument ? We say, simply, that the law being figurative of the Gospel, m all its important parts, the Jewish Priesthood was, of course, typical «f the Christian. For this we have the express declaration of the Apostle Paul, and the advocates of parity will not pretend to con- trovert the position. Weil, then, the Priests of the law serving as ^' the example and shadow of heavenly things," the circumstance cf there being three orders in the Jewish ministry, furnishes a strong presumption against the doctrine of parity. We do not rely upon this as proof. We merely state it as presumptive evidence ■entitled to real attention. It gives us, we contend, possession of the ground, and throws the burthen of proof upon our opponents. Now, what says the Miscellaneous writer in reply to all this ? He talks to us of tlie dress of the Jewish high Priest ; asking, very sagaciously, \s\\QYe ».Y^t\i& golden efihod, i\\c breast plate, the em- Ir Older ed girdle, in which Aaron and his successors were clad. I call upon him here to lay his hand on his heart, and say, whether this is just reasoning. He knows that it is not. What, the Jewish Priesthood not figurative of the Christian, because of a vai'iety in dress \ Is it necessary, in order that one thing be typical of another, that there should be no points of difference between them ? No more than it is necessary that we should be able to rise to the per- fection of the character of Christ, l^ecause we are called upon to propose him as the model for imitation, and to become holy as he is holy. Is the Miscellaneous writer awUre of the conclusion to which hii5 mode of reasoning conducts ? If he has proved that the Jewish Priesthood was not typical of the Christian, he has proved equally, that the law was not'a shadow of the Gospel ; thus destroying, ef- fectually, all connection bet v/een the Old and New Testament, Is MISCELLANIES. Ko. XX. Ill t->iere no difference between our Saviour and the Paschal Lamb by which he was prefigured? Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, were all tvDes of Christ ; but were there no points of distinction between these men and the Saviour of the world ? Give to the infidel the wea- pons of this writer, and how easily will he demoHsh, with them, the whole fabric of Christianity I If the points of difference which have been mentioned, between the Priesthood of the law, and of the Gos- -nel Drove that the one was not typical of the other, they equally prove that our Saviour was never prefigured, and that that intimate con- nection between the Jewish and Christian dispensations, which has been so' much relied upon by the defenders of the faith, never ex- isted but in the imaginations of men. But I feel as it I ^yere msult- mo- the understanding of the reader, in dwelhng on this point.^ I dismiss it therefore, especially as I have not been able to bring; mvself to believe that the writer had any thing more m view, m it, than a flourish of rhetoric to attract the vulgar gaze. ^ The Mosaic dispensation, then, was figurative ot^ the Christian. The Priesthood of the law was typical of the Priesthood ot the Gospel. The former consisting of distinct and subordinate orders, a strone presumption thence arises in favour of that distmction apd subordination of office which, until the days of Calvin, characteriz- ed, without a single exception, the Christian Church. This we contend, as was said before, gives us possession of the ground, and throws the burthen of proof upon the advocates of parity. So much then for the Jewish Priesthood. It was a shadow of the Christian Priesthood, according to the express declaration ot the Apostle Paul. While the Miscellaneous writer does not venture openlv to deny this, but rather seems to admit it, in representing the whole Jewish system as typical, he endeavours, nevertheless, in an indirect manner, to destroy all relationship between the Priesthood of the law and of the Gospel, by dwelling on the va- riety of dress, with some other subordinate points of distinction. Here he acts with his usual imprudence ; tearing up, in his rage aeainst Episcopacy, the very foundations of the Christian faith. ^ F 1 /' ^ l^^yj^^n of the Episcofial Churclu For the Albany CentineL MISCELLANIES. No. XX. Dr. White, the present worthy Bishop of the Episcopal Church in Pennsylvania, proceeds, in his interesting pamphlet, to prove ^'that a temporary departure from Episcopacy would be warranted bv her doctrine, by her practice, and by the principles on which Episcopal government is asserted." , , , , . " Whatever that Church holds," savs he, " must be included m the thirtv-nine articles of religion ; which were evidently intended for a comprehensive system of necessary doctrine."* But what say * It is to be presumed that the Liturgy and OiBces of the Church are dao the standards of her doctrine. -^'*- 112 MISCELLANIES. Ko. XX. these articles on the present subject ? Simply, that ^' the Book of Con'iecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and the ordering of Priests and Deacons, doth contain all things necessary thereunto; neiiher hath it any thing that of itself is superstitious and ungodly." [Art. xxxvi.] The canons speak the same sense, censuring those ■\vho shall " affirm that the government of the Church of England, by Archbishops, Bishops, Sec. is anti-Christian, or repugnant to the •word of God." [Canon vih] And those who " shall affirm that th« form and manner of making and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, containeth any thing in ic that is repugnant to the word of God, or that they who are thus made Bishops, &,c. are not law- fully made," S;:c. [Canon viii.] '• How can such moderation of sentiment and expression be ju"^- tified, if the Episcopal succession be so binding, as to allow no deviation in a case of extreme necessity ? Had the Church of Eng- land decreed concerning baptism and the Lord's supper, only that they were ' not repugnant to the word of God,' and that her offices for those sacraments were * not superstitious and ungodly,* would she not be censured by almost all Christendom, as renounc- ing the obligation of those sacraments ? Equally improper would be the application of such moderate expressions to Episcopacy, if (as some imagine) she considers it to be as binding as baptism and the Lord's supper." " The Book of Consecration and Ordination carries the idea no further, except that the preface, as altered at the restoration (for it v/as not so in the old preface), affirms, that ' from the Apostles* times there have been these orders in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.' But there is an evident diiference between this and the asserting the unlawfulness of deviating from that prac- tice in an instance, extraordinary and unprovided for." It is evident, from the foregoing passages, that Bishop White does not consider a deviation from Episcopacy to be forbidden, either by tlic articles, or the canons, or the book of consecration of the Church of England — that he does not consider it " to be as much binding as baptism and the Lord's supper" — and that the " modera- tion of sentiment and expression" show the meaning of his Church. He informs us that the preface to the book of consecration and or- dination was altered at the restoration ; but still does not condemn a deviation from Episcopacy in particular cases. Let us hear noAV -what a later writer, even the author of " A Companion for the Festivals," says : " Men may vv'ith the same reason abolish the sac- raments of tiie Churcli, and ail other Christian institutions, as pretend that the functions of Church officers are mutable and temporary." This, and many similar declarations, would have been more modest, had they contradicted only Bishop White, and not been opposed to the standards of the Episcopal Church.* The Bishop furnishes next precedents from the practice of the Church. " Many of the English Protestants," says he, " during the per- secution by Queen Mary, took refuge in foreign countries, particu- larly in Germany and Geneva. When protestantism revived at the auspicious accession of Queen Elizabeth, and at the same time a * Sec the remarks at the cud of dns number. E<^» MISCELLANIES. No. XX. US eloud was gathering on the continent, in consequence of the Em- peror's victories over the princes of the Smalcaldic league, many of the exiles returned to their native land ; some of whom, during their absence, had been ordained according to the customs of the countries where they had resided. These were admitted without re-ordination, to preach and hold benefices : one of them [Whit- tingham] was promoted to a deanery ; but, at the same time, as several of them were endeavouring to make innovations in the established Church, it was provided in a law (13th Elizabeth 32) that * whoever shall pretend to be a Priest or Minister of God's holy word, by reason of any other form of institution, consecration, or ordering, than the form set forth by act of parliament, before the feast of the nativity of Christ next ensuing, shall, in the pres'ence of the Bishop, declare his assent, and subscribe to all the articles of religion agreed on,' Sec. Here existed an extraordinary occasion, not provided for in the institutions for common use ; the exigency of the case seems to have been considered ; and there followed a tolera- tion, if not implied approbation, of a departure in that instance from Episcopal ordination." The Bishop has inserted here the following note : " Bishop Burnet says (History of his own times, anno 1661) that until the act of uniformity, passed soon after the restoration, those who came to England, from the foreign Churches, had not been required to be ordained among us. If so, the argument founded on practice, extends furtlier than it has been urged. The act of Elizabeth, however, had no operation beyond the Christmas next ensuing; neither, indeed, did it pronounce that a good ordi- nation which would have been otherwise defective ; but its being meant to comprehend those who were at that time invested with foreign non-episcopalian ordination, is evident from their being actually allowed to preach and hold benefices, on the condi- tion of their subscribing the thirty-nine articles."* * The reader Is earnestly requested to peftse the following extract, front Dr. Chandler's Appeal Defended, page 43, &c. concerning those persona m Elizabeth's reign, who held preferments without being episcopally or> dained. Dr. Chandler is replying to Dr. Chauncy, who had urged the above instances as proofs that the Church of England did not maintain the necessity of Episcopal ordination. " The foreign Divines mentioned by the Doctor, viz. P. Martyr, M. Bucer, and P. Fagitis, who were admitted, without re-ordination, not to ecclesiastical preferments in the entablisbed Church (excepting P. Martyr, who had been episcopally ordained, and was made at last Canon of Christ's Church), but to academical preferments in the Universities, came over upon the invitation of Cramner, and were settled in their respective places before the Ordinal was compiled and established. As to W kittingham and Gravers, the two other instances pointed out by the Doctor; the former was preferred in the early part of Elizabeth's reign, by the interest of the Earl of Leicester, the great patron of the Puritans. Upon the accession of that Princess, she found the affairs of religion in a confused, precarious state ; and the great object of her attention was, first, to brmg about quietly, if possible, the re-establishment of the Protestant religion, as it had been reformed in the reign of King Ediuard,- and then to secure it against the attempts of the Papists, All her political address was requisite for con- ducting this important work, as it was foreseen that innumerable dangers Q iU MISCELLANIES. No. XX. No Presbyterian could reason more to the purpose than Bishop would attend it. In this condition of things, it was found necessary to encourage and employ all persons indiscriminately, who were known to be disallected to Popery, and were thought able, by writing or preaching, to combat successfully its distmguishing principles. Whitwigbam was a per- son of this character, and although not lawfully ordained, yet, by the con- nivance of some, and the interest of others, he obtained the Deanery of Durham. Tra'vers, a noted Puritan, and a popular preacher, one of those who went over to Ant^iuerp for ordination, finding the Mastership of the Temple vacant, made use of all his interest to obtain it ; and he succeeded so far, that he engaged even the Lord Treasurer, Burleigh, to recomm.end him for the appointment. But the Archbishop opposed it, alleging his irregular behaviour, and the insufficiency of his ordination. The event was, that jTra'vers was set aside, and the place given to his competitor, the celebrated Hooker. His friends, however, made a shift to keep him in as a preacher of the afternoon lecture. " Having shown in wha^ manner Whittingham and Tracers got their preferments, I shall go on to observe, that there were, in the fornner part of this reign, many instances of inere Layvieri, Vv'ithout any kind of ordi- nation, who had the address to possess themselves of livings in the Church. * Nicholas, Bishop of Bangor,'' says one who was most cu'cumstantially acquainted with the history of those times, * having this year (1567) made some inspection into the condition of his diccess, sent the Archbishop, according to his order, the names of all the Dean and Chapter, and of all the Ministers in his diocess, with account of their residency and their hos- pitality; such also as were not Deacons nor Priests, and yet held ecclesi- astical preferments. To the end, as he v/rote, that his Grace might per- ceive, how men that were no Ministers had such livings, to the utter de- cay of learned men to be Ministers, where others had that liberty to hold benefices, and not to be in orders.'* If then the preferments of such men as Whittingham and Travers are a proof, that in this reign the ordination of Presbyters was allowed to be valid ; those preferments which were held by the Laity are also a proof, that no ordination at all luas thought to be necessary. H " But neither of these conclusions ought to be admitted ; since we know upon the strongest evidence, that it was the doctrine of the Church throughout the whole of the reign we are considering, that ordination was of divine appointment, and that Episcopal ordination was of apostolical institution ; and that it was an established law from the very beginning of it, that * no man should be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in the Church of England, or suiTered to execute any of the said functions,' without Episcopal ordination. Yet, notwithstanding, it was impossible to prevent transgressions of it in some instances ; and such instances show, not what was approved of, but what was overlooked or permitted, through the necessity of the times. These irregularities, however, were corrected by degrees; and, in a course of years, they were entirely removed. In 1586, the Archbishop took cognizance of tiie case of Tracers, objecting to ' his ordination at Antnxerp, and his denying to receive the orders of the Ministry according to the English book of ordi- hation.' Tra'vers drew up the reasons for his conduct, and presented them to the Lord Treasurer, who sent them to the Archbishop. The Arch- bishop returned them with short marginal animadversions, some of which I will transcribe, for the use of Dr. Chauncy and his friends. * As to that " * Life of Parkr, p. 256." MISCELLANIES. No. XX. US' White.* Had the same just and liberal views been discovered by others, no controversy had arisen. Had it been consistent with brevity, the Bishop might easily have shown that the assertion of Bishop Burnet is correct ; he might have given other instances in practice, particularly the ample licence of Archbishop Grindal to John Morrison, who had no other ordination than by a Scots Pres- bytery ;t and he might have enlarged on the striking instance of assertion, that Ministers lawfully made in any Church of sound profession in the faith, were acknowledged such in any other ; and this to be the uni- versal and perpetual practice; the Archbishop made this only exception ; always excepting siicb Churches as allowed of Presbytery and executed it. Then as to his examples, this was the Archbishop's animadversion — that he knew no such foreign Ministers executing their Ministry here ; but if there were, their cause was far differing from his — that Mr. Whittingham, had he lived, had been deprived, without special grace and dispensation; al- though his cause and Mr. Traverses were nothing like — That the laws of this realm required, that such as were to be allowed as Ministers in this Church of England, should be ordained by a Bishop, and subscribe to the articles before him. Lastly, whereas Trasyer* had said, that the last Arch- bishop of Canterbury Was acquainted with his manner of calling to the Mi- nistry, and so was the Bishop of London, and were contented he should preach at the Temple (as he had done now almost six years), and that the present Archbishop hiaiself had not taken any exceptions against it ; our Archbishop said, that this was to abuse their patience, and that Le neiser allowed of his kind of calling, neither could he allow qfit."f Who can say, after reading the last paragraph of the above extract, that Whitgift, who is the Archbishop there quoted, did not maintain the neces- sity of Episcopal ordination ? Or who v/ill contend that the few irregulari- ties which took place in the time of Elizabeth, during a period of imminent difficulty, invalidate the declarations of the public offices of the Church, which maintain the necessity of Episcopal ordination ? £d. * It will be seen by the letter Bnder the signature of an Episcopalian, that this complirrient is disclaimed by the person for whom it was in- tended. £d. t That Archbishop Grindal was, in some instances, lax in his principles and discipline is confessed. His remissness in repressing the irregularities of the Puritans called forth the reproof of the privy council. The learned Collier, in his accurate and sensible history, inserts this letter of the privy council to Archbishop Grindal, and prefaces it with the foUov^^ing remark. *' Archbishop Grindal being thought too gentle and remiss in his manage- ment, the privy council wrote to him to complain of the relaxation of dis- cipline." Col. Eccle. Hist. vol. ii. p. 571. It is also a fVct that he licensed Morrison ; and Colliier rfiakes the follbw- jng judicious remarks upon it. " Before the Archbishop's jurisdiction was returned, Br. Aubrey, his Vicar-General, grznttd 3. preachi?ig licence to one John Morrison, a Scotchman, in which he allows the orders of a Presby-, ter given him by the Scotch Church." Collier then inserts the licence, and afterwards remarks — " By the clauses" (in the licence) " of ^antum in nobis est fas 7nuch as in us lies J, et de jure possumus fand according to right can do J, et qtiatenus jura regni patiuntur fand as far as the laws of the kingdom suffer us), it is plain that Aubrey (w-ho, as the Vicar-General of the Archbishop, granted the licence) was somewhat conscious of a strain upon the English constitution; and that the Archbishop was notsofirnj ^' I Lif« of Whitgift, p. 252." 116 REMARKS ON MISCELLANIES. No. XX. VVhittingham. But he has done enough. One authentic instance is as good as a thousand. What credit now is to be given to the assertions, that " the validity of Presbyterial ordination has been denied from its origin" — and that it has been adopted from " neces* sity ?" Where was the necessity that Whittingham and others should remain without Episcopal ordination? Were there no Eng- lish Bishops ; or were there none willing to ordain them ? No such thing. Their ordination was admitted by the Church and by the state to be valid. Could not Calvin have obtained Episcopal ordina-* tion ? Yes; he might have been a Bishop, a Cardinal, any thing he pleased. He was highly esteemed and honoured by the first Re- formers, and his name will be had in everlasting remembrance. The pamphlet of Bishop White is very rare, and therefore I can- not dismiss it without further extracts. This is doing justice to Episcopalians themselves j and I do not despair of its producing some effect upon those who are teaching tilings " contrary to sound doctrine." IRemarks, by the Editor j on the firecedln^ dumber*] The preceding number contains the very serious charge, that the author of the " Companion for the Festivals," Sec. has " opposed those standards of his Church," which he solemnly promised to maintain. He intreats the patience and candid attention of the Reader while he vindicates himself from this charge. It will be recollected that he maintains the divine institution of Episcopacy ; that Episcopacy, therefore, is to be placed on a footing with other divine institutions ; and that of course a departure from it can only be excused by necessity, by unavoidable ignorance, or involuntary errors And as a necessary result of the divine institu* tion of Episcopacy, he maintained, as a general proposition, subject, doubtless, to the exceptions above mentioned, that Episcopal ordi- lo Episcopal right and apostolical succession, as might have been expected." Collier. Eccle. Hist. vol. ii. p. 579. But because Grindal was lax in some of his principles and in his conduct, does it follow that the Bishops of the Church were generally so? Or, be- cause, in the difficulty and confusion attending the setdement of a Church, some irregularities were connived at, is it a proof that the Church does not maintain the declarations of her public services ? If one of the Presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church were to acknowledge a man as a Minister who had not received what that Church considers as a regular call and commis- sion to the Ministry, would this prove that the Presbyterian Church does not maintain the necessity of such call and commission I Surely, the occasional irregularities of any Church, or the lax principles or conduct of some of her members, should not be considered as aSecting her public faith and doc- trines. The triuir.ph with v/hich the author of Miscellanies adduces these instances, is surely premature. While the public standards of the Church of England, and her constant and acknowledged practice sanction only Episcopal ordination, some few irregularities in the first settlement of tltc Church, when, from peculiar circumstances, it was difficult and almost im.- pcssible to eaforce strict order and discipline, will pass for nothing. Ed, REMARKS ON MISCELLANIES. No. XX. lir 6atioh is necessary to the exercise of a valid ministry. Let Us now see Whether, in maintaining these opinions, he has opposed the standards of his Church. He takes it for granted, that the book of consecration of Bishopt and of ordering of Priests and Deacons,* is one of the standards of his Church ; as this book is not only ratified by the Articles, but was solemnly set forth by the Church, several years before sli© formally adopted the Articles. In opening this book, he is struck with the preface, which begin* ■with the following sentence : " It is evident unto all men diligently reading Holy Scrifiture^ and ancient authors^ that from the AjioL ties' times there have been these orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishofis^ Priests^ and Deacons," The fair construction of this passage is, that the Holy Scriptures prove the institution of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and that ancient authors prove the same. But he will not rest the conformity of his opinions to the stand- ards of his Church on this proof alone. Going on in the preface he finds the following sentence : " No man shall be accounted or taken to bie a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in this Church, or suf- fered 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 Efiiscofial consecration or ordina- tion," Here the lawfulness of a Minister is rested on his having JEpiscopal consecration or ordination. Is not this the very language of the '< Companion for the Festivals and Fasts ?" The force of the term " lawful" has been evaded in England, where the Church is established, by saying that by the term " lawful Minister," is merely meant his being acknowledged by the law of the land. la this country, however, no such evasion of the term can be re- sorted to. The term as used by the Episcopal Church here, can have only an ecclesiastical signification, and must mean lawful in the eye of the Church, Consider " lawful" as denoting sufficiency of authority ; then, since the Church declares that no man shall be considered as a " lawful" Minister, v/ho hath not had Episcopal consecration or ordination, she excludes all Ministers from having sufficient authority, who are not thus ordained or consecrated. Is not this the language of the '' Companion for the Festivals," See, ? With what justice can the author of that book be accused of oppo- sing the standards of his Church ? In the office for ordering Deacons^ the first prayer thus com- mences: " Almighty God, wAo, by thy Divine Providence'^ hast afifiointed divers orders of Ministers in thy Church," Sec. And the prayer goes on to rank De.acons as one of the orders of Ministers thus appointed. In the office for ordering Priests^ the first prayer thus com- mences: " Almighty God, giver of all good things, who^ by thy Holy Spirit, hast appointed divers orders of Ministers in thy Church," 8cc. And the prayer evidently ranks Priests among the orders tMis appointed, * This book is Inserted in the PbHadelphia edition of the Common Prayer Book;, royal octavo, and in the New-Yprk qidrto edition. 118 CVPRIAN. Ko. IV. In like -manner, in the office for the consecration of Bishops, the second prayer thus commences: " Almighty God, giver of all good things, who, by thy Holy S/iirity hast appointed divers ORDERS of Ministers in thy Church," Sec. And the prayer plainly ranks Bishops among the orders thus afi/ioi7it€d. In the other offices, the Bishop ordains. Deacons and Presbyters do not receive the pov;er of ordination. It is vested, at l;iis coj»secration, in the Bishop only. Here then the Church expressly declares that Almighty God epfiobited divers orders of Ministers in his Church ; that these or- ders are Deacons^ Priests, and Bishops ; to the last of whom alone appertains the power of ordination. Are not these the doctrines maintained by the author of the " Companion for the Festivals," Sec. ? With what justice can he be accused of opposing the stand- ards of his Church ? What he inculcates may not, indeed, be of much importance ; but what the standards of the Church inculcate is of the first importance to all her Ministers and to all her mem- bers. If the above declarations from her services do not prove that she maintains the divine institution of Episcopacy, and acknow- ledges only Episcopal ordination, he confesses himself unable ta judge of the meaning of terms or the force of language. In peaceably and decently maintaining, in her public offices, the necessity of Episcopal ordination, the Episcopal Church gives no just cause of offence to other denominations. She exercises only the same right which they possess ; a right of which no human power can justly deprive her. To deny her this right ; to attempt to deter her from the exercise of it, by a system of denunciation, ridicule, and obloquy, is to display a spirit of persecution, which, in this age, and in this country, will surely be reprobated by good men of all dencminatioHS. £.d» For the Albany Centineh CYPRIAN. No. IV. 1 HE instances that have been adduced of Titus at Crete, of St. James at Jerusalem, of Epaphroditus at Philippi, of the seven Bi- shops of the Pro-Consular Asia, and of Timothy at Ephesus, are, surely, competent to demonstrate the existence of the Episcopal dignity in the Church of Christ during the Apostolic age. From these combined sources we derive accumulated and satisfactory evidence. And let it not be forgotten, that, notwithstanding what has been said by tlie Miscellaneous writer, and by many other advocates of his cause, a strong argument in our favour is to be drawn from the exact correspondence between the orders of our Priesthood and those which v/ere instituted in the Jewish Church. At least ^ve have a i^ight to avail ourselves of this circumstance, if it be ad- mitted that the Apostles and the early Fathers adopted in their writings a legitimate mode of reasoning. CYPRIAN. No. lY. 119 It will not be denied by any one who is acquainted with the sacred scriptures, that the Jewish dispensation, although not in all its mi- iiute points, yet certainly in its outlines, was typical of the Christian* lit the one, the other was completely adumbrated. And were not the orders of the Levitical Priesthood — was not the form of Eccle- siastical government established by Moses, a very important part of the old dispensation? Is it not probable that by tlie orders of the Jewish Priesthood were adumbrated corresponding orders in the Christian Church ? But we are told " that the whole Jewish dispensation was typical, and was completely fulfilled and abolished at the coming of Clirist." This is partly true. But was the substance also abolished with the shadow ? Can it be supposed that Christ did not intend to perpetu- ate the Priesthood? And if he did intend to institute a Priesthood, why should not the law in this instance, as well as in every other, be a " shadow of the good things to come?" Under the old dispen- sation, by various types, the new one was prefigured. Christ himself was adumbrated by unnumbered figures. So also was his Church. So also were many institutions of his Church. And why should not this be the case with his institution of Ecclesiastical government? Why should not the orders of the Priesthood under the old econ- omy be supposed to typify those orders that were to be established under the new ? Besides, the fact is, that the Christian dispensation was not so much the abolition, as it was the fulfilment of tlie Jew- ish. Christ came, not to destroy •, but X.o fuljii the law and tlie prophets. It is true, that in many respects God accommodated himself cs a merciful and v/ise Legislator, to the peculiar circumstances of the Jewish nation, and thereby rendered the law a schoo] -master, that prepared them, by its instructions, for the coming of Christ. But all the fundamental principles of the systems he pursued to- wards tlie Jewish and Christian people, were precisely the same. From these great principles there was no necessity that he should ttoop, in order to suit himself to the sentiments, the manners, and prejudices of his people. The revelations which he communicated to Jews and Christians, in relation to his own nature and attributes, in relation to the origin, the fall, the restoration, the present con- dition, and the everlasting destiny of the human race, were pre- cisely the same. The moral laws, which he promulgated to the one people, and the other, were, with a very few modifications, the same. So also the form of ecclesiastical government was, with very little alteration, the same amongst Jewish and Christian people. There can be conceived to be no necessity on this point for a radical change — a total abolition. The form of Church government esta- blished by Moses, was as much the appointment and institution of God, as that which was established by Christ himself. Why then should God be supposed to have abolished his own institution, where no imperious necessity, as in the case of the rites and ceremonies, and peculiar usages of the Tewish Church, seemed to require it, be- fore he could usher in the new dispensation ? It is true, indeed, we possess not the Jewish form of Church government. We possess ,6n€^ howerer, which is the consummation of the Jewish — a gov«rn- 150 CYPRIAN. No. IV. ment of which the Jewish was an imperfect image. We possess z Priesthood more glorious than the Levntical, inasmuch as it minis- ters under a more glorious dispensation — inasmuch as it performs purer and more exalted offices — inasmuch as in its nature and offi- ces, it is the glorious substance which was only faintly shadowed out under the law. We think, therefore, that we stand on substantial ground when we maintain that we derive a strong argument in demonstration of the divine origin of our form of Church government, by showing that on this point the new dispensation is made to correspond with the old ; is made the true substance of which the old v/as the sliadow, WHiat the High Priests, the Priests, and the Levites were in the temple, such are the Bishops, the Presbyters and Deacons in the Church of Christ. This is the uniform language of the Fathers. This is the conclusion to which the data afforded us by the Apostles inevitably lead. Such was the model of Church government instituted by God himself, and intended to be transmitted through all ages, with mo- difications that should vary, no doubt, according to the varying circumstances of mankind; provided these modifications affected not its great and cardinal principles. We say that the Jewisli Priesthood was the image of the Christian. We say that it is sound reasoning to deduce the probable form of the substance from the lineaments of it that may be traced in its image. Nor will our mode of reasoning tend in the smallest degree to favour the pretensions, or sanction the usurpations of the Pope of Rome. Let it be remembered, that wherever there is a Bishop, Presbyters, Deacons, and a people, there we believe also is the Church of Christ. It is a matter of no importance whether his jurisdiction be extended over a smaller or a greater territory. A Bishop, says St. Jerome, has the same authority whether he be placed over the diocese of Eugubium or of Rome ; of Rhegium or Constantinople. Nor does it diminish the force of that evidence which we derive in support of our cause, from the similitude between the Jewish and our Priesthood, from the one being typical of the other, that tlie analogy cannot be traced through every minute point. As well might the infidel attempt to prove that none of the types which arc considered by believers as having a reference to our Saviour, can properly be applied to him. Not one of them will apply to him in every particular. As to the remaining observations made on this head by the "author of Miscellanies," I make no remarks upon them. I leave it to his readers to determine whether they do any credit to his understanding or his feelings. These arc the arguments which we derive from Scri/iture^ in proof of the Apostolic origin of our form of Church government. We trust they are satisfactory to every unprejudiced mind. And what are the considerations by which the advocates of parity endeavour to evade the force of this strong and accumulated evi- dence ? By a few expressions of scripture, almost too inconsiderable to merit a moment's examination. From the promiscuous use of the terms Bishop and Presbyter in the sacred scripture — fi'om its being mentioned in ope place, that Timothy was ordained " with CYPRIAN. NoflV. 121 the laying on of the hands of the Presb3^tery"-~from the transaction that took place between Paul and Barnabas, and tlie men of Anti- och — from such considerations as these, do they endeavour to coun- teract the evidence which wc derive from the most clear and un- doubted facts. After what has l)een already advanced on these points, it is altogether unnecessary that I should dwell upon them. The argument which the advocates of parity once attempted to draw from the promiscuous use of the terms Bishop and Presbyter, is, I believe, at this time generally relinquished. It is too feeble to merit a serious reply. With regard to the passage in which St. Paul exhorts Timothy *' to stir up the gift which was in him, which was given him by prophecy, witli the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery;" I wish to be indulged only in a few remarks. There can be no doubt that when St. Paul speaks of the gift v/iiich was imparted to him by the laying on of his hands, it refers to the same transaction. St. Paul then, at aiiy rate, was himself present at tlie ordination of Ttmothy, This is all that is necessary to every purpose v^-hich we wish to accomplish. This passage does not shov/ that Presbyters alone ever possessed the pov/er of ordination. St. Paul was, in this instance, obviously associated with them. But the author of " Miscellanies," before he enters on this part of his subject, offers up a petition, which certainly merits our very serious attention. He prays that the same spirit v/hich indited the word may also direct him in the interpretation of it. If he will avow that his petition was granted, that the spirit for Vvhich he of- fered up his solemn petition was dispensed to him, surely it vrould be rashness, it would be presumption in us to proceed a step fur- ther. Who shall dare make one insjiired fienman contradict or even misunderstand another ? Nevertheless, since after the inter- pretation he hath given to the phrase " !)y prophecy/' there seems to be no internal evidence of his having really received this ?rpcr- natural power, and since he hath not as yet afforded us any exter- nal proof on which to found pretensions of this kind, v/e hope v/e shall be excused for our infidelity, when we reject, as unworthy of credit, the whole of what he has advanced on this part of the subject. It is altogether unsupported by any proof. This has been amply de- monstrated in the answer he hath already received. It would be to impose on the patience of the public, should I attempt to enter a field which has been so thoroughly explored. The sect of Presbyterians can derive no advantage, then, to their cause from that passage of St. Paul's Epistle already illustrated ; nor will they be any more profited by tlie transaction which took place betv/een Paul and Barnabas, and iiie people of Antioch. Let them prove to us, that this was a real ordination, and not a mere benediction, a ceremony very common In the Jev/ish Church ; let them shov/ us that the Apostles did not always esteem it as their peculiar privilege to have received tlieir consecration to their office immediately from the hands of Christ himself, and that this is not the only way in which they were ordained ; let them show us that St. Paul had not been already ordained by Christ whilst on his v/ay to Damascus persecuting his Church ; in short, let them shov/ us that this was net altogether an extraordinary affair, and thereibrej R 132 MISCELLANIES. No. XXI. not tending to establish a precedent by which to regulate the future practice of the Chu/ch ; let them prove these things, and then we will admit that this fact gives some countenance to Presbyterian principles. Let their Ministers prove to us that the Holy Ghost hath ever said to their congregations as it did to the people of An- tioch, Separate me such men for the Ministry, mentioning their names ^ and v/e will no longer question their jus divinum — we will no longer require even their ruling Elders to give validity to th« work of their ordination. Such is tlie abundant proof which the Scriptures afford us m favour of Episcopacy, Such are the feeble attempts that have been made to invalidate them. CYPRIAN. I For the Albany CentineL MISCELLANIES. No. XXI. T may be expected that the sentiments of Bishop White, of Pennsylvania, will have greater weight with Episcopalians than any- thing which could be written by myself. He wrote at a time critical to the Episcopal Churches, has accurately examined the subject, and prudently accommodated himself to the prejudices of many of those for whom he wrote. His station in the Church and his cha- racter, alone entitle him to respect and attention. In stating " the grounds on which the authority of Episcopacy is asserted," he differs widely from those late writings which have given such just cause of offence. " That the Apostles," says he, " were succeeded by an order of Ministers superior to Pastors in general, Episcopa- lians think they prove by the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, and from the improbability that so great an innovation, as some con- ceive it, could have found general and peaceable possession in the second or third century, when Episcopacy is on both sides acknow- ledged to have been prevalent." The use here of the words thinky and as some conceive it,* plainly enough intimate the Bishop's own opinion. The author of '' A Companion for the Festivals," ScCi* not only thinks, but is sure, and will allow nobody else so much as to think, except those who show " ignorance, invincible prejudices, imfierfect reasonings, and mistaken judgme7itSi"-\ Bishop White proceeds to reason as follows : * The words " as some coiiceive it^' evidently apply to the opponents of Episcopacy. £d. f Does not the Miscellaneous author believe in the doctrine of the Trniity, in the necessity of Baptism and the Lord's Supper? Does he not believe that thoce who reject them are " imperfect" in their " reasonings," *' mistaken" in theiv judgements ? V/hat excuse will he make for them but that their " ignorance" is " unavoidable," their " error invohnitary," or their '* prejudices invmcible ?" Now may not tiie Quaker and the Socinian urge against the author of Miscellanies, the same ciiarges of arrogance, or bigotry, and intolerance vrhich lie so frequently and charitably applies to the author of the " Companion for the Festivals," &c ? in regard to the diiTersnt style of this book, and of the p7>niphlct, it maj MISCELLANIES. No. XXL 123 " That the Apostles adopted any particular form, affords a pre- sumption of its being the best, all circumstances at that time consi- dered ; but to make it unalterably binding, it must be shown en- joined in positive precept.* Bishop Hoadly clearly points out this distinction in his answer to Dr. Calamy. The latter having consi- dered it as the sense of the Church, in the preface to the Ordinal, that the three orders were of Divine appointment, and urged it as a reason for non-conformity ; the Bishop, with evident propriety, remarks, that the service pronounces no such thing ; and that, there- fore, Dr. Calamy created a difficulty where the Church had made none ; there being " some difference," says he, '' between these two sentences — Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are three distinct or- ders in the Church, by Divine afifiointment ; 2Si(\.-—from the Afios- ties' time, there have been in Christ"* Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. t The same distinction is accurately drawn, and fully proved by Stillingfleet, in the Irenicum, " Now, if the form of Church government rests on no other be proper to mention that their object was different. The design of the one was the elucidation and defence of the pi-inciples of the Church ; the design of the other was to conciiiale and to reconcile opposite opinion* and prejudices, and to unite all parties in a plan v/hich the author recom- mended for the government of the Church, till the succession could be ob- tained. As the author of that pamphlet himself observes, in his first letter, in the subsequent pages, under the signature of an Episcopalian, " the state- ment of the Episcopalian opinion is introduced" (in his pamphlet) " not in an argumentative manner, but in reference to an object very different from that of the comparative merits of Episcopacy and Presbytery. To the purpose of the author of the pamphlet, it v/as sufficient that Episco- palians " thought" as he defines; whether they thought rightly or not on the question between them and the anti-Episcopalians." How uncandid then is the author of Miscellanies in the remarks which he makes corxerning the author of the *' Companion for the Festivals," £ic. Ed. * See the last paragraph of the remarks at the end of this number. Ed. f Dr. Calamy appears to have understood the preface to the ordinal ac- cording to its natural and obvious meaning. The entire sentence, part of which only is quoted in the above passage, reads thus : " It is evident unto all men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' times there have been these orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons." Now, suppose the Church had said, It is evident unto all men diligently reading Holy Scripture and au' ciejit authors, that from the Apostles' times, the doctrine of the Trinity has been received in the Church ; would not the natural interpretation of this sentence be, tha.t the Church had ahva} s received a doctrine which was established in Holy Scripture, and supported by the testimony g^ ancient authors ? Is it not common in every disputed point of theology, to endea- vour to prove it in the first instance from Holy Scripture, and then to show, from the testimony of the primitive writers, that we have not mistaken the sense of Scripture ? And in regard to all these points, is it not common to 3ay that they are proved by Scripture and ancient authors, an expression always understood as equivalent to divine authority vr appoi7itinent ? The prayers, however, in the offices of ordination already quo'ced, put the sense of the Church, as to the divine appointvient of Bishops, Priests, and Dea- cons, beyond all doubt. In regard to the sentiments of Bishop Hoadly, see the remarks at the end of this number. * fid. 124 MISCELLANIES. No. XXI. foundation than ancient and apostolic //rac^zce, it is humbly submit- ted to consideration, whether Episcopalians will not be thought scarcely deserving the name of Christians, should they, rather than consent to a temporary deviation, abandon every ordinance of posi- tive and Divine appointment." Here Bishop White agrees with Bishop Hoadly, and both de- clare that three orders are not of Divine afipointvient^ and that this is not the sense of their Church in the words of the preface to the Ordinal. Bishop White insists that there should be positive pre- cefit^ as v/ell as apostolic practice^ to make Episcopacy invariably binding-. In this he has gone further, perhaps, than I would go.* His meaning, hov/ever, I apprehend to be, that the practice of the Apostles, who were extraordinary officers, is not binding, nor can be followed by us. In this he i3»undoubtedly right ; and the distinc- tion between the first constitution of the Church and the practice to be followed afterwards is highly important. The extraordinary powers which the Apostles exercised died with them.f Let this be attended to, and all that high-flying Episcopalians say about Ti- mothy being made Bishop at Ephesus, and Titus left at Crete, will appear perfectly trifling. The truth is, that they were either com- panions of Paul in his travels, or sent by him to preach and or- ganize churches in certain places.:|: Paul acted under the imme- diate authority of the glorious Head of the Church ; he employed Timothy, Titus, and others, to whom he gave special directions for their work. This I take to be the meaning of Bishop White ; as well as that the ordinances of divine worship, which were of posi- tive appointment, were not to be abandoned for that concerning whidli there could be produced no positive precept whatever. Bishop White gives the sentiments of several writers of his Church, and their own explanation of them, as will be seen in the following extract : '' Any person reading what some Divines of the Church of Eng- land have written against Dissenters, would, in general, widely mis- take their meaning, should he apply to the subject before us the censures he will sometimes meet with, which have in view, not merely the merits of the question, but the duty of conforming to the * Let the reader take particular notice of this. The author of Miscel- lanies, with great propriety, appears unwilling to admit that apostolic practice is not a ground of obligation in institutions which are evidently not local and temporary, but general and pervianent, in their design and uses. Ed. t Were not the gift of miracles, the gift of tongues, §cc. extraordinary powers? and did these die with the Apostles? Were they not continued among many of the primitive Christians ? Dees t'.ie Miscellaneous author mean to assert that the power of ordination, and the power of governing the Church, died with the Apostles? Did they not communicate these povv^ers to their successors ? Ed. I It appears from the Episdes of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, that they were sent to Ephesus and Crete, to ordain Elders and Deacons. Now, if the Elders who were at Ephesus and Crete, before Timoihy and Titus v/cre sent there, possessed the power of ordination, was it not woi-se than nselfss — was it iiot an aiiroit to ihosc Elders, to send Timothy and Tituu to exercise this power? " Ed. MISCELLANIES. Ko. XXI. 125 .established Church, in all things not contrary to the law of Gcd. Thus Bishop Stillingfleet, who, at the restoration, had written with, great tenderness towards the Dissenters, and many years after- wards preached a sermon on a public occasion, containing severe animadversions on their separation, on being accused of inconsist- ency, replies (in the preface to his treatise on the unlawfulness of separation), that the former was ' before the laws were establish- ed ;" meaning principally the act of uniformity.* So also Bishop Hoadly says, the acceptance of re-ordination by the dissenting Ministers, would not be a denial of that right, which (as they con- ceived) Presbyters had to ordain ; but a confession that their former ordination was ' so far null and void, that God did not approve the exercise of that in opposition to the lawful settled method.' Dr. Henry Maurice also, who has written with great learning and re- putation in defence of Episcopacy, makes the same distinction; observing, that the * Dissenters do foreign churches great injustice when they concern them in their quarrel,' the ordination of the latter being not only v/ithout, but in opposition to Bishops, against all the established laws of this Church,' Sec. Even where the same .distinction is not expressed, it is generally implied."! Bishop White has given the main argument to some of the most learned and able writers in favour of Episcopacy. They do not .contend for it as of divine rights but as being established by laws. They do not deny the validity of Presbyterian ordination otherwise than as its being" in opposition to the lawful settled method" in the realm.! The following note of Bishop White is v/orthy of regard for its justness and candour. * Bishop Stiliingfleet, in his sermon pve.ached at St. Paul's, and already quoted hi Detector, No. II. certainly denied the right of Presbyters to or- dain, and maintained that the apostoHcal succession, in the order of Bishops, stood on the same ground of obligation with the canon of scripture and the observance of the Lord's day. Ed. -j- There v/as certainly a difference between the foreign churches and the Dissenters of England. The one pleaded the necessity and the peculiar circumstances of their situation as an excuse for their departure from Epis- copacy ; the other acted in dn-ect opposition to the authority of Bishops- Dr. Maurice, while he makes this distinction, is steadfast in maintaining that Christ and his Apostles instituted Bishops in the Church ; vested them with the exclusive power of ordination ; and placed them over congregations, and over the other orders of Ministers, with the power of governing them. These are palpably the positions which, witti great force of learning and reasoning, he maintains, in his treatises on DiocemJi Episcopacy, against Clarkson and Baxter. Even the most strenuous asserters of the divine right of Episcopacy spoke with delicacy of the situation of some of the foreign churches, solely, however, on the j^rinciple that they departed from Episcopacy on the ground of }'.ecessity; that their error was unavoldabk, and iTiight therefore be excusable. Ed. \ It is most astonishing that Divines of the Cliurch of England, who maintain that the Apostles, under the directioir of Christ, instituted three orders of the Ministry, and vested the first order with the power of ordi- nation, should be represented as " no otherv/ise denying the validity of Presbyterian ordination, than as its being in cppcsiticn to the lawful settled method in the realm.." Let the reader peruse i\xz icinarks en this extra- ordinary assertion at the end of this nunibcr. Ed. 136 REMARKS ON MISCELLANIES. No. XXL " In England, the members of the established Church consider the Dissentei-s as blameable in not conforming to it as such, there being nothing required contrary to the law of God.* These, on the other hand, blame the members of the establishment, for not yielding to their conscientious scruples, which thus exclude them from public offices, and subject them to considerable burthens. Such were the principal sources of the animosities which have sub- sisted between the two parties ; and hence arises an argument for charity and mutual forbearance among religious societies in Ame- rica, with whom the same causes of contention and mutual censure have no place, and with whom, of course, the same degree of bit- terness would be less excuseable than in England.f How often do facts baffle all conjecture I Who could have sup- posed that in the United States, more intolerant principles:!: would have been advanced than in England ? The good Bishop has lived to see his advice, as to ordination, rejected, and his hopes frustrated by some who pretend to be wiser than their fathers. If, by the ex- tracts which I have made, or those I shall yet make, any resent- ment against him may be excited, it will only add brightness to his graces, and immortality to his performance. IRemarkSy by the Editor^ on the preceding Mimder.'] The author of Miscellanies, in the preceding number, and in many other passages of his Miscellanies, is anxious to establish the idea that " the most learned and able writers in favour of Episco- pacy," contend for it not as of " divine right," but mei'ely as established by human laiif extreme^ of inevitable necessity can alone, in tlie opinion of Hooker, justify a de])arture from Episcopal ordination. On account of this case oi necessity, he admits^ " We are not simfdy and without exception^'' to insist on Episcopal ordination. But it is evident tiiat, with this exception alone, we may, according to Hooker, urge " a lineal descent of power from the Apostles, by continued succession of Bishops in every efiectual ordination." For in the strongest lan- guage, he excludes, in every other case, all ordination but Episco- pal. " These cases of inevitable necessity a/o72e excepted, HONE may ordain but ONLY BisHOPS." See Hooker's Eccle. Pol. book vii. sec. 14. Unblushing then must be that confidence which will maintain that Hooker admits in general the validity of Presbyterian ordination. A case of extreme iiecessity can never sanction 2l general practice ^ nor establish a general principle. Hooker dispenses with Episcopal ordination only in a case where the divine institutions of baptism and the Lord's Supper may be dispensed with ; in a case of inevitable ne- cessity. Let us no more then be told, in the language of the author of Miscellanies, that " the most ab^e and learned writers in favour of Episcopacy" do not deny the validity of Presbyterian ordination, otherwise than as its being in opposition to tha " lawful settled me- thod in the realm ;" that they " do not contend for Episcopacy as of divine right, but as bdng established by lanvs," They maintain, 128 REMARKS ON MISCELLANIES. No, XXI. with Hooker, that the '• institution of Bishops is of God, the Holt; Ghost is the author of it;" and they admit of a. departure from Episcopal ordination only in " a case of inevitable necessity," And of what avail will this exception be to the opponents of Epis= copacy ? Will they justify, by the plea of necessity, their departure from Episcopacy ? Will they join issue upon this plea with the advocates of Episcopacy, and admit that " cases of inevitable ne- cessity excepted, none may ordain but only Bishops?'' Happy would it be for the Christian world, if the opponents of Episcopacy would act upon this principle. The schisms that now rend the body of Christ, and give occasion to the enemy to blaspheme, Avould be healed. Christians would all be united as one fold, under one Shc-pherd. The prayer of Christ for his followers would be ac- complished, " May they all be one, as thou Fatlier art in me, and I in thee ; that they also may be one in us." Bishop HoADLY is often brought forward by the anti-Episcopa- lians as the champion of their cause. And yet his defence of Epis- copacy against Dr. Calamy, contains arguments in favour of it that we certainly should not expect to hear from one who was not hear- tily its friend. Pie contends for Episcopacy in the first place, on the ground of '-'' firescrijition, and the Imvjulness of the thing itself;'* observing, on this argument, that the " most learned patrons of the Presbyterian cause have never been able to produce any positive proof of any time in the Christian Church, since the Ajiostles' days, when it was esteemed the office of every Minister of the gospel to ordain others to the ministry ; or when this office was not ac- knowledged by all who speak any thing of it, to belong to single persons superior to ordinary Presbyters."* His next argument in favour of Episcopal ordination is " taken from the instances of ordination recorded in the New Testament." On this argument he observes, tliat " no sucli right in Presbyters: to ordain as is of late years claimed, can be concluded from any of the instances produced out of scripture in favour of Presbyterian ordination." But, on the contrary, he " doubts not to prove that there is no example of ordination alleged in their behalf, in which we find not some ecclesiastical ojjicer acting superior to the ordi- nary teachers of those days." Bishop Hoadly next supports Episcopal ordination " from the rules concerning ordination in the New Testament ;" observing, that there are no rules on ^' the point of ordination but what are given to persons snperior to the Presbyters^ and ordinary teachers of those days." He considers the instances of Timothy and Titus as conclusive in favour of Episcopal ordination ; observing, that it is " a very remarkable thing, that when there were Presbyters already settled at E/ihesus and at Crete^ and such as Vv'ere without doubt as fit to manage the business of ordination as any in later 3ges, that St. Frail should not think f\t to entrust this affair with them and their Presbyteries^ but should devolve it wholly on Timothy and Titus ; and instead of sending his directions to the * Hoadly's '< Brief Defence of Episccpa.1 Oidiriation." The quotations are taken from the first chapter. REMARKS ON MISCELLANIES. No. XXL 129 teachers already in those fdaces^ should appoint these two to this office, without the least mention of any such right in those teachers, as they must have had according to some modern reasonings." The argument for Episcopacy, from the cases of Timothy and Titus, cannot be placed in a stronger point of view than it is by Bishop Hoadly in the above extract. Bishop Hoadly founds his fourth argument in favour of Epis- copacy on afiostolical institution ; alleging, explicitly, " that the Apostles left the power of ordaining Presbyters in the hands of Jixed Bishojis.'' He says, that " the main point to be proved is, that Episcopacy is of apostolical institution. For if it be shown that Bishops were settled in the Churches of Christ by them, it will be easily granted that so considerable a business as that of ordination was so far confined to them, by the ivill of the Afiostles^ as that it should never be performed without their inspection an4 their hands." Bishop Hoadly then proceeds to exhibit, and to vindicate the testimony of the Fathers in favour of Episcopacy, In the sub- sequent part of his works he minutely considers, and, with great ability, refutes all the arguments that are ever used against Epis- copal and in favour of Presbyterian ordination. And the most strenuous advocate for Episcopacy would be at a loss for stronger arguments than those urged by Bishop Hoadly. Now, that a man who maintains, as Bishop Hoadly does, that Xhc power of ordination was always confined to single persons^ su- perior to Presbyters— -that all the instances of ordination in the New Testament prove, that the power of ordination was confined to single persons, superior to Presbyters — that all the rules in the JVew Testament concerning the ordination of Presbyters, are di- rected to persons superior to these Presbyters, to be executed by them o^-Lr— and that Episcopacy and Episcopal ordination are of apostolical institution (these are the very words of Bishop Hoadly) — that any person who holds such language in regard to Episcopacy and Episcopal ordination, should yet carry so far the spirit of com- pliance, as to concede that Episcopal ordination is only " a matter of decencv and regularity,'' is;most extraordinary indeed : yet this concession does Bishop Hoadly make in the very treatise from which the above extracts are taken. If Episcopal government is to be placed on the foundation of decency and regularity only, why may there not be as much decency and regularity in Presbyterian go- vernment ? Bishop Hoadly strenuously maintains that the power of ordination was vested by the Apostles (who, it will be recollected, were divinely commissioned to establish the Priesthood,) not in Pres- byters, but in the superior order of Bishops alone. If then the Pres- byters were to exercise this power, would it not be usurpation ; would it not be substituting human authority in the Church in the place of divine ? If the power of ordination was confined by the Apostles to Bishops, would not the exercise of it by Presbyters (whatever allowance we may be pleased to make for a case of ine- vitable necessity) be a mere nullity ? No principle is 'more plain than that a man cannot lawfully exercise a power which he has not lawfully received. If Bishop Hoadly, by these concessions which he made, and whicli appear contradictory to his other principles, S 150 REMARKS ON MISCELLANIES. No. XXh expected to induce the Dissenters to conform to the Church, how greatly was he disappointed ? It is matter indeed of astonishment and regret, that Bishop Hoadly should afterwards become the champion of principles that tended not only to subvert all authority in the Church, but to weaken many of her fundamental doctrines. So reprehensible were his opi- nions esteemed, that the lower house of convocation made a formal presentation of him to the house of Bishops. His character has been thus dravv'n by the pen of an able Divine ; " He always showed himself a much sounder politician than Divine ; he daily pronounced the absolution of our Rubrics in the face of the Church, yet told the world, through the press, they were no absolutions at all. In the same place he daily repeated our Creeds ; yet, in several parts of his works, borrowed arguments from the writings of the Socini^ ans ; which, by an artfid turyi^ he so levelled at the doctrines either contained in, or necessarily resulting from those Creeds, that he who reads his books grows heterodox himself, while he believes the writer to be orthodox. In his most celebrated book, in which he insinuates what he would have us take to be the only necessary con^ ditions on which the favour of God is to be obtained, he dwells on. moral conditions only ; and by slight touches and double expres- sions, eludes the necessity ofyfl?7/z m the meritorious death of Christ,, He published a discourse, in which, among other things, he set forth, that it matters not so much ivhat our religious principles are, as it does that we be sincere in them ; reducing in a manner the whole duty of man to that of sincerity^ of which he had given the world so bright an example in his own practice and profes- sions." Christ delegated his power in the Church to his Apostles. «' All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. As my Father sent me, even so send I you." Whatever the Apostles did, had there- fore the sanction of Christ. What they did as the insfdred gover- nors of the Church, was virtually done by him. In the exercise of the power thus entrusted to them to establish the Church, the Apostles, in all the Churches of which we have any account in: Scripture, constituted three orders of the Ministry, and • gave the power of ordination to the first order. Here is more than mere apostolic practice — it is, as Bishop Hoadly maintains, Afmstolic in^ stitution. And surely, in the fundamental point of the orders of the Christian Ministry, which derives all its efficacy from the divine commission which it enjoys, the Apostolic mode of conveying this commission is binding, Man has no riglit to change it, at what- ever time, and for whatever reasons he may think proper. To say, indeed, that it is unalterably binding, would be to maintain what cannot, in a strict sense, be predicated of any divine institu- tion. For God, who " will have mercy, and not sacrifice," will dispense with his own positive institutions when it is not in the power of men to comply with fnem ; and will, we trust, pardon that violation of them which is founded on necessity^ and on zni^o- luntary^ not toilfid error. May we not say then, in the words of the excellent and pious Dean Stanhope, " This spiritual government being instituted by Christ himself, cannot be abrogated^ ought not to be changed, by any authority less sacred, any declaration less AN INQUIRER* 131 positive and express, than that by which it was first established. This, we have reason to believe, would not be wanting, were such authority mischievous or unnecessary : But for any man to pro- nounce it so, without any such signification from its author, is cer- tainly most impudent sacrilege, and even raging impiety."* Ed» For the Albany CentineL QUERIES. 1 Ij[( .OW long will the present dispute between Episcopalians and non-Episcopalians continue in the manner in which it is at present managed ? Could not the writers bring what they have to say into shorter compass ? 2. What weight in the controversy should be allowed to the testi- mony of those called the Fathers ? Is their practice to be received as the true interpretation of Scripture, or is the Scripture alone to be the guide in this matter ?t 3. When the Fathers contradict one another, is the whole of their testimony on this point to be rejected ; or is the greatest num- ber to decide ; or must we depend principally upon those who were cotemporaries with the Apostles ?| If the last, why are not Clem- tns Romanus and Polycarp,^ who mention only two orders of offi- cers in the Church, more frequently quoted ?|) 4. What is the meaning of the expression, " Successors of the Apostles ?" Does it mean that the Bishops of the Romish and Epis- * Stanhope's Epist, and Gospels, vol. iv. p. 224. Ninth Edition. Epl«, for St. Mark's Day. t V/hen the Scriptures speak of three orders in the Ministry, and give the power of ordino.tion to the first order; and when v/e find that the primitive Fathers bear concurring testimony to the apostolic institution of these orders, we have a!! the evidence that the case will admit. We rely on the Fathers as faithful historians, as crtdibk voitnesses to matters nf fact. In this point of view their testimony is of importance to ascertain the true sense of Scripture. Errors of judgment do not prove them to be in- competent witnesses to matters of fact. " Let us not (to use the language of Bishop Hoadly), under the pretence of freedom and impartiality, cast ofT their universal concurrent testimony about a matter of fact of which they are the only proper judges," [rhe matter of fact to v/hich Bishop Hoadly al- ludes, is the prevalence of Episcopacy from the Apostles' times] " lest we destroy all historical certainty, and forfeit the credit even of the most sacred turitings now extant." Hoadly 's Def. of Episc. Ordin. ch. i. Ed. \ The Fathers do not contradict one another on the subject of Episco- pacy. Even according to Bishop Hoadly their testimony on this point is ** wiiversal and concurrent." Ed. I) Clemens and Polycarp v/ere both Bishops ; the one of Rome, and the other of Smyrna. And when they were themselves Bishops, does this writer (who the reader will recollect is the author of Miscellanies) mean to insi- iiuate, that they bear testimony against the existence of this order? Ed^ 132 AN INQUIRER. copal Churches succeeded to the Apostolic office, or only that the Apostles constituted an order in the Church, who are to ordain, consecrate churches, and rule over a number of Ministers and their congregations, be they more or less?* 5. What idea is to be fixed to an " uninterrupted succession,'* and how is it to be traced?! Who were the seven first Bishops of the Church of Rome ?| What is the truth respecting the successors of Austin the Monk, who (as is said), having become almost en- tirely extinct, by far the greatest part of the Protestant Bishops ■were ordained afterwards by Aidan and Finan, who were no more than Presbyters ?\\ 6. Since Paul sent for Titus, after he had " set in order the things that were wanting" in Crete, to come to Nicopolis, took him along to Rome, and then sent him into Dalmatia, may not Titus be pro- perly called an Evangelist, or a travelling; rather than a diocesan Bishop ?§ * This writer must surely know that Bishops claim to be *' successors of the Apostles" only in their ordinary power of ordaming to the Ministry and governing the Church. Ed. f Dr. Lathrop (see the remarks at page 94, &c.) will inform this gentle- man \Nnat is meant by " uninterrupted succession," and how it is to be traced. Ed. \ Though there may be some difference of opinion as to the particular order in which the seven first Bishops of Rome succeeded one another, no primi- tive writers ever dispute the succession of Bishops in that Church. Ed. jl As there is no authority stated for tliis fact, and as it is qualified by the expression, *' as is said," it is scarcely necessary to notice it. The learned Collier, on the authority of the venerable historian of England, Bede, remarks, " The Bishop who was sent to King Oswald before Ai- dan's mission, was consecrated "ait 'R.yG.: AiT)Aii liiexoise recci'ced his orj^n consecration there; where it appears by the historian there were more Bi- shops than one." He likewise remarks, on the same authority, " Aidan was succeeded in his Bishopric by Finan; who being consecrated and sent into England by the Scots, went to his see in Holy-Island, and built the Cathe- dral there." See Collier's Eccle. Hist. vol. i. p. 94, 95. Ed. § Let Bishop Hoadly answer this inquiry, and silence the only objec- tion which anti-Episcopalians can bring against the evident superiority of Timothy and Titus over the other orders at Ephesus and Crete, that they w-ere extraordinary officers, E^cangelists, travelling Bishops. " It is of small importance whether Tir,iothy and Titus were Jixcd Bishops, properly so called, or not. Perhaps at the first plantation of churches there was no such necessity oi Jixed Bishops as was found afterwards; or perhaps at first the superintendency of such persons as TiniothynnA Titus was thought requisite in many different churches, as their several needs required. If so, their office certainly was the same in all churches to which they went ; and ordijiation a work reserved to such as they were, persons superior to tiie settled Presbyters. But as to Ephesus and Crete, it is manifest that Ti- tnothy and Titus were to stay with the ch-urches there, as long as their presence was not more wanted at other places: And, besides, if they did leave these churches, there was as good reason that they should return to them to perform the same office of ordination when there was again occa- sion, as there was at first why they should be seHt by St. Paul to that pur- pose. Nor is there the least footstep in all antiquity, as far as it hath yet appeared, of any attempt in the Presbyters of Ephesus of Crete, to take to CORNELIUS TO CYPRIAN. 135 7, What was the particular oiFence given to Bishop Seabury •which induced him to beat so unmercifully non-Episcopalians in a pamphlet inviting them to union ; or, as the author of "A Com- panion for the Festivals," &c. has it, to " come into" the Episcopal Church ? 8, Were Timothy and Titus successors of the Apostles during the lives of the Apostles, or after their decease ? If the former, in what relation did the Apostles stand ? If the latter, how could they be Bishops before that time, since Bishops are successors of the Apostles ? Would it not be more modest in the Bishops of the Epis- copal Church not to carry their succession higher than Timothy and Titus?* 9, If we can prove by the writings of the Fathers, merely because they relate facts, that Bishops are a superior order to Presbyters, may we not also prove, from the writings of the Old Testament, that kingly government is of divine right ?\ 10, In case a dispute arose, the decision of which depended on the date of the baptism of the children who were first baptised by a Lutheran Minister, and baptised again by an Episcopal Minister, which register of the two Churches ought to be admitted as proof? 11, Did the Bishop of London know that several persons whom he ordained as Priests, and one whom he ordained as a Bishop, had no other baptism than that administered by Ministers of a Presbyterian Church, whose administration of ordinances is held by the Episco- palians in the United States to be '' nugatory and invalid ?":j: AN INQUIRER. A LETTER FROM CORNELIUS TO CYPRIAN. Dear Brothir, A HAVE attended, with much interest, to the controversy which you and the Layman are now so well maintaining against the writer of Miscellanies and his coadjutor, respecting the Episcopal govern- ment of the Christian Church. It is astonishing to behold the con- fidence with which the advocates for Presbyterian parity traverse themselves the offices appropriated in the forementioned Epistles, to a supe- rior order of men." Hoadly's Def. of Epis. ch. i. Ed. * As Timothy and Titus were commissioned by the Apostles, succeeding Bishops derived their commission, through them, from the Apostles. Ed. t Kingly government stood among the Je'vjs on the ground of disfoine right, because it was instituted by God, Episcopacy among Christians stands on divine authority, because it was instituted by the Apostles, who were di- i}inely comviissioned to establish the orders of the Priesthood. Until the au- thor of Miscellanies can prove that kingly government was prescribed to Christians as well as the yexvs, his insiduous and disin^.'^^enuous comparison between it and Episcopacy will receive the indignation Vt deserves. Ed. \ This writer v.-ill, on this point, find satisfactory information, if he is disposed to seek it, in the note on his Miscellanies, it p. 24, &c. Ed-. SS4 CORNELIUS TO CYPRIAN. the same ground from which they have again and again been beaten by the champions of primitive discipline. From the days of Ori- gen, Celsus and other infidels have brought forward objections to the truth of Christ's gospel. Every objection has been fairly obvi- ated ; every argument has been completely confuted by Origen, and those who have succeeded him in the good fight of faith ; and yet, Tom Paine, in the present day, will write with unblushing effron- tery ; as if the truth of Christianity had never been maintained in former ages, against all opposition ; as if there were not now in ex- istence a Watson to expose his ignorance, and chastise his blas- phemy. Precisely in the same manner acts this writer of Miscel- lanies. The fact is, it is too apparent, that the chief aim of him and his abettors is not to search for truth, but to increase a party. The arguments of Potter in his Treatise on Church Government^ and of Slater in his Original Draught of the Christian Churchy have never been answered, and I will venture to affirm, never can be answered in the way of dispassionate reasoning ; and yet, this boast- ing Miscellanist comes forward with a bold front, and even with triumphant language, as if the cause of Episcopacy were com- pletely baliled and laid low in the dust. It is disgusting to every ingenuous mind to trace him and others of the same description through all their arts of misrepresentation. Their chief skill is in exciting the passions of the people, and thus diverting their minds from a calm attention to the merits of the case in dispute. If we insist upon the necessity of Episcopal ordi- nation, immediately they rai&e a clamour about High Dutch and Low Dutch, Presbyterian and Methodist ; and all parties are cal- led upon to unite in opposition to the insoleTice of Episcopalians. And is it, then, insolent to teach our own people the doctrines of our own Church ? Is this a question which is to be decided by numbers ? Even if numbers were the proper criterion by which to determine the dispute, the truth is evidently on our side, if we take into view the whole Christian Church. But, supposing this were not the case, does truth become falsehood, when the majo-^ rity happens to be opposed to it ? In the institutions of civil govern- ment^ the voice of the majority may determine what is right and what is wrong ; but in matters of religious concern, I have yet to learn that the vox populi is the vox Dei, It was said by them of old time, follow not a multitude to do eviL It seems to be th^ opinion of our opponents, that the multitude can never do evil, and that if they have the multitude on their side, they may go on in perfect security. I wonder what would have been the fate of Christianity, had the first preachers of the gospel acted upon this Presb3'terian maxim. What shall we now say to Mahometans ancj Pagans ? The disciples of Mahomet are more numerous than those of Christ. Is Mahometanism therefore true, and Christianity false ? The Pagans are more numerous than even the followers of Mahomet. Are we therefore, to make no attempt to convert them from the error of their ways ? St. Paul was virulently assailed by Jews and Gentiles, as a setter-forth of strange gods. When he was at Ephesus, the Crcflsmai of the Goddess Diana made no small stir, and filled the whole city with confusion, alleging that the Apostle's doctrine led to t.he despising of the temple and destroying the magnU CORNELIUS TO CYPRIAN* 135 Jfiicence of a Deity whom all Asia and the world worshipped. Butj Tvas the advocate of God's truth appalled by their numbers, or overborne by their violence ? No ; he persevered through evil report and good report, through perils by sea and land, among gentile robbers and false brethren^ who called themselves Chris- tians ; and truth, which is mighty, finally prevailed over all opposi- tion. Now, in order to excite popular resentment, I know it will be said by our adversaries, that I am making die advocates for Pres- byterian parity no better than Mahometans and Pagans. Be it re- membered, that I mean no such thing. My argument is simply this ; when a proposition of great moment to the Christian world is held forth to our consideration, it is our bounden duty not to be swayed by the numbers who have already decided against it ; but dispassionately to weigh the arguments which are adduced in sup- port of it; and then to follow the heavenly guidance of truth, how- ever numerous the hosts may be which are set in array against us. Is it not reasonable to suppose that the primitive Fathers of the Church must have been well acquainted with the mode of ecclesi^ astical government established by Christ and his Apostles ? Now, their testimony is universally in our favour. What course, then, have the enemies of Episcopacy, for the most part, pursued? Why, they have endeavoured by every art of misrepresentation to invalidate this testimony of the Fathers. Ignatius was born before the death of St. John. Seven of his Epistles have been proved by Bishop Pearson to be genuine, to the satisfaction of the whole learned world. In these Epistles he repeatedly mentions the three orders of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, and speaks of the order of Bishops as necessary in the constitution of every Christian Church. All this has been done ; and still, the Presbyterian teachers mislead the people, by artfully insinuating that none of the writings are genuine which go undei* the name of Ignatius. Another artful method pursued by our opponents is to collect all the errors into which the Fathers have fallen, with respect to particular points of doctrine ; to paint these errors in the blackest colours ; and when they have thus prejudiced the minds of the people against them, boldly to go on to the preposterous conclusion, that the testimony of these Fathers is not to be regarded v/hen they stand forth as wit- nesses to a matter of fact. But is this fair dealing ? May not a man of sincerity and truth be liable to errors, as to matters of opi- nion ; and still be a true witness, as to things v/hich he has seen and heard ? Pursuing the usual mode of artful misrepresentation, our Mis- cellanist has endeavoured to represent Jerome as favouring the Presbyterian scheme of Church government; and with the same spirit, he abuses^the Church of England as too nearly bordering on Popery. After seeing what has been published on these subjects, if your opponent has any spark of modesty remaining in his bosom, he will never produce the testimony of "Jerome in support of his cause, nor will he dare to reproach the Church of England as in- clining to the errors of Popery. The fact is, that the Pope of Rome (as is evident from the history of the Council of Trent) is as great an enemy to genuine primidve Episcopacy, as the most vio- lent Presbyterian can be. Knowing the Church of England to be 1S6 MISCELLANIES. No. XXII. the firmest bulwark of the Protestant cause, he is more afraid of her than of any other reformed Church ; he has endeavoured to ■weaken and confound her by open assaults, and by insiduous attempts to sap her foundations ; and among other arts to effect his purpose, he has employed emissaries, who assumed the Presbyterian puritan character, and went about England in the time of Queen Elizabeth, declaiming against established liturgies and forms of prayer, and clamouring vehemently for a farther reformation. And are the people still to be misled by their teachers boldly asserting or art- fully insinuating that the Church of England bears too great a re- semblance to that of Rome, and that her Daughter the Protestant Episcopal Church of this country, in her most prominent features, is very like her Mother ? You shall hear farther from me on this subject ; in the mean time, I remain your very affectionate friend, CORNELIUS.* J'''or the Albany CentineU MISCELLANIES. No. XXII. 1 HOUGH I had often heard of Bishop White's pamphlet, yet I never saw it until lately. The copy which I use was printed in Philadelphia, by David C. Claypole, 1782, The plan of govern- ment proposed by the Bishop was in general adopted ; at least so far as respected the division of the continent into larger and smaller districts ; but that part which related to ordination was omitted, in consequence of the strong prejudices of some.f Of this the Bishop was aware v^hen he wrote. " To depart," says he, " from Epis- copacy, would be giving up a leading characteristic of the com- munion; which, however indifferently considered as to divine ap- pointment, might be productive of all the evils generally attending changes of this sort." Rather than to run any risk of evils which the change might occasion, it was determined to obtain the ordina- tion of Bishops from the Bishop of London ; as this, hoivever indif- ferently con.vdered as to divine appointment^ would comport with certain prejudices. No one can misunderstand the Bishop, who reads what follows : " It cannot be denied, that some writers of the Church of Eng- land apply very strong expressions to Episcopacy, calling it a divine * The fcregoing letter was sent to the printers of the Albany Centinel, who, from a wish not to extend the controversy, declined inserting it. The friends of Episcopacy will regret that in consequence of this circumstance no other productions of this writer appear in this controversy. Ed. f Episcopal ordination was adhered to, not from " the strong prejudices of some," but from the ^e/;era/ principles of Episcopalians. The plan of the pamphlet Avas founded on the presumption that the Episcopal succession could not be obtairci. As soon as there appeared a prospect of obtaining it. Bishop White was among the first to propose and to unite in the measures that were adopted for that purpose. £^* MISCELLANIES. No. XXIL UY appointment, the ordinance of Christ, and the latv of God, and pronounce it to be of divine right.* Yet, in reason they ought to be understood as asserting it to be binding, wherever it can conve- niently be had ; not that law and gospel are to cease rather than Episcopacy." The Bishop shows that Mr. Hookerf and others clearly make this distinction ; and he gives the words of Arch- bishop Whitgiit, quoted by Bishop Stillingfleet, as asserting that *' no kind of government is expressed in the word, or can necessa- rily be concluded from thence. "| The last paragraph of the chap- ter is full and explicit. It is as follows : " Now, if even those who hold Episcopacy to be of divine right, conceive the obligation to it to be not binding when that idea would be destructive of public worship, much more must they think so, who, indeed, venerate and prefer that form as the most ancient and eligible ; but without any idea of divine right in the case. This the author believes to be the sentiment of the great body of Episcopa- lians in America ; in which respect they have in their favour un- questionably the sense of the Church of England ; and, as he believes^ the opinions of her most distinguished prelates for piety, virtue, aad abilities." The Bishop, in order to render his reasoning the more perspi-. cuous, and so as not possibly to be misunderstood, has put some words in italic. Let the author of " A Companion for the Festivals," &c. and all his abettors read, and ponder in their hearts. Bishop White " believes it to be the sentiment of the great body of Efiis- cofialians in America^'' that Episcopacy is not of divine right. " In ivhich resfiect^'' says he, " they have in their favour unouest'ion- ABLT the sense of the Church of England i andy as he believes^ * This is a true representation of the sentim>ents of the generality of the eminent Divines of the Church of England on the subject of Episcopacy. There is no inconsistency between these sentiments, and the exception some of them are disposed to make for " a case of inevitable necessity." £d. j- The quotations already adduced from Hooker prove, beyond all doubt, that, whatever allowance he might be disposed to make for a case of " /«« evitable iiecessity" he expressly maintained that Episcopacy was of divine appointment. The following quotation is added as further proof on this point: " I may securely, therefore, conclude, there are, at this day,' in the Church of England, no other than the same degrees of ecclesiastical or- ders, namely, Binkops, Priests, and Deacons, which had their beginning from Christ and his blessed Apostles themselves." Hooker's Eccl. Pol. B. 5. Sec. 78. Ed. \ Archbishop Whitgift, in this quotation, uses the term government in the sense in which the Puritans, whom he opposed, used it, as including all the particulars of discipline, as well as rites and ceremonies. See the note concerning Whitgift, at p. 87", 88; and also the note at p. 107, concerning the sense in which Hooker, and other advocates of Episcopacy, sometimes Vise the term Church gover?ime7it. In his letter to Beza, \Vhitgift uses language, which puts beyond all cavil his sentiments as to the divine and apostolical msutuuon of Episcopacy. "We make no doubt," says the Archbishop in this letter, " but that the Episcopal degree which we bear, is an institution apostolical and divine,' and so ahvays hath been held by Sk continual course of times from the Apostles to this verji age of our£." Set Di, Chandler's Appeal Defended, p- 35. ' £d. T 138 MISCELLANIES. No. XXIL the opinion of her most distinguished fir elates for fiiety^ virtue^ a7id abilities,''* Do I misrepresent the passage ? Who is so hardy as to charge me with this ? Readei ., judge for yourself. The passage is written in the 28th page of the pamphlet. Will any ask, Who is Bishop White, that his sentiments should have so much weight? Let me ask such a person, Who is he who contradicts that for which there is such ample proof? The Bishop believes on good foundation. He gives a reason for his faith. He is fcurrounded with a cloud of witnesses. He has produced a suffi- cient number, and he could easily produce many others. He is, notwithstanding, a true Episcopalian y\ and he moves with dignity * When the author of the pamphlet hei-e quoted asserts, tha. •"' the most distinguished prelates of the Church of England venerate and prefer Epis- copal government as the most ancient and eligible, but without any idea of divine right in the case," it is presumed he must mean absolute divine right, without any allowance for a case of " inevitable necessity ;" for, with this al- lowance, Hooker, whom the author of this pamphlet professes to take as the guide of his opinions, expressly maintains that " the institution ofBishopsiz from God, the Huly Ghost is the author of it." That a departure from Episco- pacy in a case of necessity is allowable, does not pyove that Episcopacy ia Jiot a divine institution : for all will admit that the neglect of the divine institutions oi Baptisin and t}ie Lord's Supper may be allovv-able in cases of ■necessity. What these cases of necessity are, it may be difficult to deter- mine ; and must finally be left to the decision of that gracious Being, who, ■whenever he finds a sincere desire and endeavour to know and to do his will, will not be " extreme to mark what is done amiss." Even the authorof the pamphlet here quoted, who only justifies a departure from Episcopacy in " an extraordinary exigency," and where " ordination by Bishops ca?j«o/ (^e /6aa'," holds out the doctrine thzt " the Episcopal povier n«as lodged by Christ and his Apostles in the superior order of the Ministry.''^ For in his first letter, signed An Episcopalian, which v.- ill be found in the subsequent pages, he assumes as his ozvn, the Episcopalian opinion as stated in his pamphlet. And this opinion is in the following words: " There having been an Episcopal pGiver lodged by ^esus Christ with his Apostles^ and by them exercised generally in person, but sometimics by delegation, (as in the instances of Timothy and Titus) the same was conveyedby them^ before their decease, to one pastor in each Church, which generally com- prehended all ihe Christians, in a city, and a convenient surrounding dis- trict."*^ Ed. t " A True Episcopalian !" And yet, according to this writer, " no Pres- byterian could argue more to the purpose." [See Mis. No. XX.] According to the author ef Miscellanies, a " true Episcopalian^^ is one who places Episcopacy, not, as his Church does, on the ground of " Scrip- ture and ancient authors," but merely on the footing of expediency and preference. According to this author, a " true Episcopalian" is one, who, instead of maintaining with his Church in the offices of ordination, that " Almighty God, by his Holy Spirit, appointed divers orders of Ministers in the Church,'* refers their authority merely to Apostolic practice. According to the author of Miscellanies, a " true Episcopalian" is one, who, though his Church ad'inowledges none as " lawful" Ministers, with sufficient authority, but those who have " Ejiiscopai consecration cr ordina- tion," maintains that those Presbyterially ordained have sufficient autho- rity. If these be the principles of ?, " true Episcopahan," pray, hovy is hs t« MISCELLANIES. No. XXII. 13# ind usefulness in the highest order in his Church. He venerates and prefers her form of government as the most ancient and eligi* ble. Against this, Presbyterians have no objection.* They freely yield to others that privilege which ihey claim for themselves. They wish to stand at a distance from all bigotry and censorious- ness. May the lawn sleeves of Bishop White be always as unsul- lied as is his character I May those on whom he puts his hands, in conjirmation^ receive divine blessings ! May those whom he or- dains, with his Presbyters, be "ambassadors for Christ!' May the churches which he consecrates^ be dwelling places of the Most High ! May he preserve, until the end of life, that estimation in which he is held I Finally, may he be approved by the great " Shep- herd and Bishop of our souls I" As he does not believe Episcopacy to be of divine rights so he gives what he conceives to be the origin of its order of Bishops. *' In the early ages of the Church," says he, " it was customary to debate and determine in a general concourse of all Christians in the same city ; among whom the Bishop was no more than presi- dent."! Again, "The original of the order of Bishops was from the Presbyters choosing one from among themselves to be a stated president in their assemblies, in the second or third century."^ For the support of this opinion much and high authority can, and may hereafter be produced. The mode is perfectly Presbyterian to choose a president for a time. Thio is necessary for the preservation of order ; but still he has no superiority of power farther than what arises from the ofHce to which he is appointed. He is still a Pres- byter. The Presbyterians call him Moderator or President ; and they may call him Bishofi^ as is said to have been the custom in the primitive Church. Had Episcopalians aimed at nothing more, had they not contended for a distinct and permanent order in the Church superior to Presbyters, as being of divine and immutable constitu- tion, and perpetuated by uninterrupted succession, there would have been no controversy with them. Then would there have been a reasonable prospect of union between them and other de- nominations. Now the other denominations are obliged to stand on their own defence. In my next number I hope to finish the extacts from Bishop White's pamphlet, and to make some reflections upon the whole. be distinguished from a " true PresbyterianT^ Happily the character of % " true Episcopalian'''' is hot to be determined by the standard of the author of the Miscellanies, nor the opinioas of Bisliop White, to be ascertained by his representations. Ed. * And yet this writer, in his first number, asserted, that " the classical or Presbyterial form of Church government isi the true and only one which Christ prescribed in his word." IIov/ then cs^n Episcopal government be the most ancient and eligible ? Ed. t But may not the Bishop, in addition to this /jou'er of preciding, have possessed the power of ordination, &c. ? Does the author of tlie pamphlet assert, that he had not the exclusivepower of ordaining to the Ministry ? Ed. ± The author of Miscellanies here attributes to the author of the pam- phlet what is not his opinion but the opinion of certain Dissenters whom he had quoted, (referring to Neal's history as his authority) called the " Smec- tymnuan Divines!" Ed. UO MISCELLANIES. No. XXII. At present I shall conclude with an extract from " A Discourse of Religion," by Sir Mathew Hale, Lord Chief Justice of England, " That ecclesiastical government,' says this great and good man, ** is necessary for the preservation of religion, is evident to any reasonable and considerate man ; and that the Episcopal govern- ment constituted in England, is a most excellent form of ecclesias- tical government, and exceeds all other forms of ecclesiastical go- vernment, may be easily evinced; and that it is the best adapted to the civil government in this kingdom, is visible to any mtelligent person ; and yet I do not think that the essence of Christian religion consists in this or any other particular form of government.* A man may be a good and excellent Christian under this or any other form of ecclesiastical government ; nay, in such places where possibly there is no settled form of ecclesiastical government esta- blished. " But if we observe many persons in the world, we shall find some highly devoted to this or that particular form of government, as if all the weight of the Christian religion lay in it : though the wise and sober sort of conformists know and profess this, yet there be some rash people that will presently unchurch all the reformed Churches beyond the seas which are not under Episcopal government, f That if they see a man, otherwise of orthodox principles, of a pious and religious life, yet if scrupling some points of ecclesiastical go- vernment, though peaceable, they will esteem him little better than a heathen or publican, a schismatic, heretic, and what not : on the other side, if they see a man of great fervour in asserting the ec- clesiastical government, observant of external ceremonies, though otherwise of a loose and dissolute life, yet they will be ready to applaud him with the style of a son of the Church, and, upon that account, overlook the miscarriages of his life, as if the essence and life of Christian religion lay in the bare asserting of the form of ecclesias- * Who has ever asserted that " the essence oi the Christian religion con- sists in this or any other particular form of government ?" May not Epis- copacy be of divine appointment, and binding upon Christians, without being the essence of religion ? £d. t The" rash people" to whom Cliief Jdstice Hale alludes, and who, rank- ing among the brightest luminaries of the English Church, were surely not interior to him in talents, learning, and piety, do not unchurch any of their fellow Christians. Episcopacy y till the time of Calvin, was the uniform and sacved characteristic of the Christian Church. As far then as Episcopacy is a characteristic of the Christian Church, those denominations who have departed from it have unchurcled themselves. Let us hear again what the " judicious HooKExi," who, som.e anti-Episcopalians would have us be- lieve, gives up the necessity of Episcopacy to a true and /^fr/ec^ Church — let us hear what he says on this point. Speaking of the order of Bishops, he observes, (Eccle. Pol. B.vii. Sec. 5.) " Nor was this order peculiar unto so7nef(r>x> Churches, but the ivhole nvorld wiiversally became subject there- unto ; insomuch as they did not account it to be a Church v-hich tvas not sub- ject unto a Bishop. It was the general received persuasion of the ancient 'christian ivorld, that Ecclesia est in Episcopo, the outixard Being of a Church, consisted in the having of a Bishop." It is to be presumed that the general received opinion cj the ancient Christian 'world w'ill be considered as of at Itast as much authority as the opinion of Lord Chief Justice Hale. £d. • MISCELLANIES. No. XXIL 141 Ileal government."* [Hale's Contemplations, vol. i. p. 448. Edinb. edit.] I have been charged with being " personal" and " vindictive ;" but I have written nothing which can be called more personal and severe than this: " Wise and sober sort of conformists ;" that is, Enghsh Episcopalians. " Some rash peo file i" such as the author of *» A Companion for the Festivals," &c. and his followers. " Un- church all the reformed Churches which are not under Efiiscofial governmeiit; " just as the Episcopal Priests in this State have done. Bishop White shall be my advocate, and I will have the cause tried before Lord Chief Justice Hale, f * Let these remarks fall on those who deserve them. Every true " son of the Church" will disclaim their justice, and will question their viodera- tio?i and charity. No person can be guilty of the gross absurdity of main, taining that the observation of " external ceremonies" will atone for a «' loote and dissolute life." But does Chief Justice Hale, does the Miscel- laneous aathor mean to assert, that a good life will save a man who neglects those positive instifations which God has established as the means of grace, and ranked among the conditions of salvation ? This improper and invidious comparison between the es'tcntials and cir- tiimstantials of the Church, is often made by the opponents of Episcopacy, Dr. Campbell has urged it in his lectures, and is thus replied to by Daube- JTY : " All true religion, it is to be remembered, has its source in Reve- lation. To that same source, the essentials, and, for the ■Juost pari, the circutnstantials of religion are to be traced up. Considered in this light, it is our duty to hold them in equal reverence. To make use of the observa- tion of the judicious Butler — ' As it is one of the peculiar weaknesses of hu- man nature, when, upon a comparison of two things, one is found to be of ^rc^^er importance than the other, to consider this of/6e;- as of scarce a«j/ importance at all; it is highly necessary that we remind ourselves, how great presumption it is, to make light of aiiy institutions of divine appoint- ment; that our o^Z/^'^afzo/z.s to obey all God's commands whatever, are a6- jo/ziie and indispensable ; and that commands m.txQ\y positive, admitted to be from him, lay us under a moral obligation to obey them ; an obligation 97ioral in the strictest and most proper sense'.' Butler's Analogy, p. 270.'* See Daubeny's Prelim. Dis. to his Discourses on the connection between the Old and New Testament, p. 142, &c. £d. f If Bishop White is to be the advocate of the author of the Miscel- lanies, he must give up the position which he repeatedly advances, that «' thei'e is no pre-eminence of one Minister above another ; that all arc equals." For Bishop White, in a late sermon before the General Conven- tion, maintains, that the Apostles instituted an order of Ministers, with a supereminent (oinmissiom that this commission lias been handed dovin to the present times ; and that this is the " originally constituted order." If Lord Chief Justice Hale is to sit in judgment upon the author of Miscella- nies, he will be reproved for his assertion, that " Diocesan Episcopacy is corrupt and injurious." [See his Misc. No. 10.] For Lord Chief Justice Hale, in the very extract above quoted by the author of Miscellanies, asserts, *' that the Episcopal government, constituted in England, is a most excellent form of government, and exceeds all other forms of ecclesiastical govern- tnent .'" At the tribunal which the author of Miscellanies has himself cho- sen, he stands condemned. J£d. ( 145 ) For the Albany Centine!, MORE QUERIES. 1. An giving the opinion of Dr. Doddridge on the passage in Acts xiii. 3, respecting the ord'nation of Paul and Barnabas, why did the " Layman" omit these words of the Doctor, in his paraphrase ; " In token of their designation to tliat extraordinary office?"* Where does the Doctor say that " it was no ordination at all?"\ Admitting that " they were not nonv invested with the apostolic office by these inferior Ministers^'' as I think every judicious com- mentator will admit, yet may not a strong inference be drawn in favour of Presbyterian ordination ? Does not the " Layman" him- self yield the point, so far as can be expected, when he speaks of this and of the passage in the Epistle to Timothy, as of '^ doubtful construction?'' \ Does not Bishop Pearce convey the same idea as Dr. Doddridge, when he adds, after the words " whereunto I have called them," " that is^ for J ire aching the gospel to the Gentiles?'* When persons are set apart for a particular work, in a particular manner, is it not a fair inference, that they are to be thus set apart for the work of the ministry in general ?|( 2. On what authority does a writer, under the signature of " Cy- prian," intimate that Epaphroditus was an Apostle ?§ I have * The Layman was not guilty of unfau- quotation, as this writer insi- nuates. He quoted the tiote of Dr. Doddridge on the passage ; the words quoted L»y this writer are in the paraphrase. He could have had no reason for keeping these words out of view, for they or.ly assert, vvhat he main- tains, that Paul, Barnabas, &c. did not then receive the ordinary office of the ministry, but were designated to the " extraordinary office" of preach- ing the Gospel to " several countries of Asia." £d. •j- Let the candid reader peruS* the note cf Dr. Doddridge on this pas- sage, which is given entire by the Layman in his 6th No. and then deter- mine whether Dr. Doddridge does not disclaim the ide;i that tiiis was an ordination to the ivork cf the Tninistry. Ed. \ Here we discover the characteristic candour of the author of Miscel- lanies. The Layman, willing to concede the utmost to the opponents of Episcopacy, states ; that " in respect to these passages, the utmost that can be contended for, is that they are disputable passages." And then in» quires, " Is it correct or safe to JDuild up a mode of ordination iinknoivn to the Church for 1500 years, and expressly contradicted by the constant ex- ercise of the power of commissioning, by an order of men superior to the Elders of Ephesus, upon two cases of doubtful construction?" And this, to be sure, is yielding the point ! What must a cause be that is supported by such pitiful sophistry ! _ Ed. 11 That is, a solemn comviendation of those, who are already Ministers, to the grace of God, for the discharge of their ministry in 3. particular district, is proof of the mode by wliichthey originally received the ministerial com- mission. Ed. § He intimated it on the authority of St. Jerome, which he supposed would be decisive with those who, on some occasions, are disposed to con- sider St. Jerome as an oracle ; and because Epaphroditus was st) led " an Apos- tle'" by St. Paul, On the authority of the primitive writers, Hooker as- serts, "they whom we now call Bishops, were usually termed at the/rrt AN INQUIRER. 143 heard of Matthias being " numbered with the eleven Apostles ;'-* and of Paul being '' called to be an Apostle ;" but I have never found .^uch a commission for Epaphroditus. It is true that in" Phil. ii. 25. he is called '' humoon apostolon," properly translated your mes- senger ; but I never knew that his being employed as a inesse7iger to carry the churches' alms to Paul entitled him to a rank with Paul himself. If this be so, may not John Leland^ who escorted the mammoth cheese to Mr. Jefferson, be also called an Apostle ? 3. Do the Episcopal Priests expect to " be heard for their much speaking?" Or do they intend to write a folio as large as " Caryl on Job," which v/ould require twice the patience of Job to read? 4. How many Bishops does " Cyprian" think he can muster in the two first centuries, beginning with Timothy and Titus, whom he will fix, the one at Ephesus, and the other at Crete, whether the Apostle Paul will or not ? Since he so freely quotes the Fathers now, in his arguments from scripture, v/nat v/ill be left for them to say when he expressly calls upon them ? Had he not better confine himself to one thing at a time ? 5. Would it not seem that the Church of England, in protesting against the Pope's supremacy, had not protested against his infalli- bility ? Or rather, does it not seem as if she had transferred both to herself? Is not the conduct of certain EpiscopaHans in this State, in unchurching all who do not belong to their sect, and who do not believe as they believe, as to the order, power, and succession of Bishops, to set themselves up to be both sulireme and infallible?^ 6. What do Episcopalians mean when they speak of some churches having Presbyterian ordination through necessity ?\ Can none of the English Bishops be spared to cross the Tweed into Scot- land, or to take a tour into foreign countries, to " set in order the things that are wanting?" Were the Presbyters to come to them, would they not perform the same kind office which they performed for Americans ? If there be real necessity and not choice, how is it possible then to keep the succession iininterru/]tedP\ AN INQUIRER. Apostles, and so did carry their very navies in whose rooms of spiritual authority they succeeded." Eccl. Pol. B. ?. Sec. 4. £d. * This wrijei- must again be told, that " certain Episcopalians in this State" set up no claims in regard to the " order, power, and succession of Bishops," which were not avowed by the Chmxh universal for 1500 years. The constant attempts of the author of Miscellanies to involve the Episco- palians in the odium excited against Roman Catholics are equally unfounded and ungenerous. An honest disputant, and above all, a conscientious in- quirer after truth, should surely be ashamed of these arts. £d. t EpisGopalian.s have never made this assertion. They have only con- tended that the plea of necessity is the only plea, in the opinion of many celebrated adyocr.tes of Episcopacy, which can justify a departure froin Episcopacy ; and that Calvi?i and others made this plea in the frst instance. as a justification of their departure from it. £d. 4 The succession is not interrupted by any particular Chmch. departing^ from Episcopacy It could only be interrupted hy :x total departure from Episcopacy tliroughout the universal Chwrch. T\vc succession \s preserved in the order of Bishops,- and as long as any of this order remains, the sue- «f s&ion is not interrupted. Ed. w. { "4 ) For the Albany CentincU CYPRIAN. No. V. E have now seen the evidence which we derive from scripture in support of the claims of our order of Bishops. It appears to me that this evidence alone is perfectly satisfactory. As we advance, however, with the Church in her progress, and examine the writings of the early Fathers, our evidence accumu- lates at every step. At a very early period, it is placed beyond all possible controversy, that this form of government was established in the Church. And here let me appeal to the common sense of every unprejudic- ed reader, to bear witness to the truth of the following proposition. If we had only obscure hints given us in scripture of the institu* tion of this form of government by the Apostles, and if at a yery early period — as soon as any distinct mention is at all made of the subject, this appears to be the only form of government existing in the Church, have we not the strongest possible presumption, have we not absolute demonstration, that it was of Apostolic original ? Who were so likely to be acquainted with the intentions, with the prac- tices, with the institutions of the Apostles, as their immediate suc^ cessors ? If, then, we should admit for a moment (and really it is almost too great an outrage against sound reasoning, to be admitted even for a moment) ; I say, if we should admit, for the sake of argu- ment, that "the Classical or Presbyterial form of Church govern- ment was instituted by Christ and his Apostles," at what period was the Episcopal introducecl ? When did this monstrous innovation upon primitive order find its way into the Church of Christ I At what period did the Bishops make the bold and successful attempt of exalting themselves into " Lords in God's heritage ?" These are questions which the advocates of parity have never yet been able to answer, which they never will be able to answer. They tell us, in- deed, of a change that must have taken place at an early period, that Episcopacy is a corrupt innovation ; but they can produce no proof on which to ground these bold assertions. They are counte- nanced, in these assertions, by none of the records of these times that have been transmitted to us. It is a mere conjecture, a crea- ture of the imagination. It is conjectured that this change took place immediately after the Apostolic age. It must be that this change took place, or Presbyterian principles cannot be maintained. Thus a mere conjecture on their part is to overbalance the most solid and substantial /zroo/" on oui;s. In order to follow these aerial adventurers in their excursions, we are to desert the broad and so- lid bottom of facts, and launch into the regions of hypothesis and uncertainty. We sa}-, then, and I hope it will be well remembered, that from the earlieat information which is given us concerning the institutions and usages of the Christian Church, it undeniably appears, that there existed in it the three distinct orders of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. Wc say, that this circumstance amounts to demon- strative evidence, that these three orders were of divine institu- CYPRIAN, No. V. 145 tion — were of Apostolic appointment. And here, moreover, let it be remarked, that it is not incumbent upon us to prove that Episco- pacy was not an innovation upon the primitive establishment. The presumption operates entirely in our favour. The burthen of proof on This point lies upon them. They are required to show that there is any foundation for the hypothesis that the government of Christ's Church underwent any such change at this early period. But we do hot stop here. We maintain that to suppose the form of government in the Church of Christ to have been so fundamentally altered at this time, is the wildest imagination that ever entered into the hfead of man. Let us contemplate the circumstances of this case. . It is stip/iosed that Christ and his Apostles instituted originally but one ordcrr of Ministers in his Church, equal in dignity and au- thority. It is imagined^ that immediately after their death, a number of aspiring individuals abolished this primitive arrange- tnent, elevated themselves to supreme authority in the Church of Christ. Concerning the thyie at which this innovation was effected, the advocates of Presbyterianism are by no means agreed. The? ftiost learned among them, however, admit that it must have taken place before the middle of the second century, ^^houtforlij or fifty years after the times of the Afmstles, Blondel allows that Epis- copacy was the established government of the Church v.iLhin forty years after the Apostolic age. Bockart assigns as the period of its ongin, the age that immediately s.ucceeded the Apostles. He says \\. 2iV0'f,Q^ paulo Jiost Ajiostolos, Salmasius even allows that this government prevailed in the Church before the death of the last of the Apostles. And, in fact, this is the only period at which it can be supposed to have originated with any degree .of plausibi- lity. It shall be my task to show that it is altogether improbable^ that it is almost imjiossible^ tliat any innovation upon primitive order and discipline could have been effectuated at this early period. Within forty years after the times of the Apostles, v/e are told, that the Bishops, by a bold and successful effort, trampled upon. the rights and privileges of the Clergy, and elevated themselves to the chair of supreme authority ! Wliat I Those who v/ere the im- mediate successors of the Apostles — those v.'ho had received from, these miraculous men the words of eternal truth, the institutions of God's own appointment- — so soon forget the reverence and duty which they owed them— so soon, with a rash and impious hand, strike away the foundation of those venerable structures which they had erected ! Would they not permit the Apostles to be cold in their graves before they began to undermine and demolish their sacred establishments ? Would such iniquitous proceedings have been pos-» sible with men who exhibited, on ail occasions, the warmest attach- ment to their Saviour and to all his institutions ? Will it be ima- gined that the good Ignatius, the venerable Bishop ofAntioch, he who triumphantly avowed that he disregarded the pains of mar- tyrdom, so that he could but attain to the presence of Jesus Christ — ■ will it be imagined that he entered into a conspiracy to overthrow that government which his Saviour had established in his Church ? Would the illustrious Polycarp, the pride and ornament of th^ .Churches of Asia, have engaged in the execution of so fcul an ea» U i46 CYPRIAN. No.V. terprize-~he, who, when commanded to blaspheme Christ, ex* claimed, " Four-score and six years have I served him, and he ne- ver did me any harm ; how, then, shall I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?" In short, can all the pious Fathers that succeeded these, be supposed to have co-operated in perfecting the atrocious work which they had begun r These things will not be credited. But even supposing that these pious men, whose meek and una* spiring temper renders it altogether incredible that they made any such sacrilegious attempt, were inclined to obtain this pre-emi- nence in the Church ; can it be imagined, that the remaining Pres- byters v/ould have %vitnessed\\\tSQ d-dv'm^ iisur/iations with indiff'cr-'- cnce ? VV^ould they have made no effort to save themselves and their brethren from the control of so undue and illegitimate an autho- rity ? Could none be found amongst them possessed of so much zeal in the service of their divine Master, so ardently attached to his holy institutions, as to induce them to resist such a bold and impi- ous attempt? In short, would not such an attempt by a few Pres- byters, according to the uniform course of things, necessarily have agitated and convulsed the Church ? Would not the period of such an innovation have become a marked and peculiar jera in her ex-* istence ? Can the advocates of parity show any thing in the history of m.an analogous to their supposed change in ecclesiastical govern-* ment at this time 1 Could ever such a radical and important alter- ation have been produced in any government, civil or ecclesiastical, without being accompanied by violence and convulsion ? We find that the congregations, at this time, were extremely jealous of the authority that v^as exercised over them. This jealousy made its appearance even during the times of the Apostles. Some took it upon themselves to call in question the authority of St. Paul, others that of St. John. From the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians, it would seem as if some disorders had arisen amongst them from a similar source. Is it to be supposed then that any number of Pres- byters v/ould have dared, would have proved successful had they dared, to endeavour to accumulate in their hands such undue autho.* rity as that which was claimed by Bishops ? And even if we should allow that a few Presbyters might in some places have had the ta- lents and address to elevate themselves to this superiority over their brethren, is it probable, is it possible, that this' took place at the same time over the universal Church ? Can such a singular coin- cidence of circumstances be reasonably imagined ? The Church had, at this time, widely extended herself over the Roman empire. Did, then, tlie Churches of Africa, of Asia, of Europe, by a mira- culous unanimity of opinion, enter at the same moment into the de- termination to change their form of government from the Presbyte- rial to the Episcopal ? I will not do so much discredit to the under- standing of any reader as to imagine that he does not at once per- ceive the inadmissibility and the absurdity of such a supposition. Let us, hov.'ever, suppose the most that our adversaries can de- sire. Let US suppose that the primitive rulers of the Church were destitute of principle. Let us suppose them devoid of attachment to the institutions of Christ. Let us suppose that Ihey vraited every opportunity to promote their own aggrandizement. Let us suppose the difficulties removed tliat opposed them in their ascent towards MISCELLANIES. No. XXIIL U7 the chair of Episcopal authority. What was there, at this period, in the office of Bishop to excite their desires, or to invite their ex- ertions to obtain it? The veneration attached to it, as yet, extended no farther than to the family of the faithful. The Church was on all hands encountered by the bitterest enemies. By elevating them- selves, therefore, to the pre-eminence of Bishops, they ouiy raised themselves to pre-eminence in difficulties, in dangers, in deaths. Their blood was always the first that was drunk by the sword of persecution. Their station only exposed them to more certain and more horrid deaths. Was an office of this kind an object of cupi- dity ? Is it to be supposed that great exertions would be made, many difficulties encountered to obtain it ? But I need say no more on this part of the subject. The idea that an alteration took place at this time in the form of government originally established in the Church of Christ, is alto^ gether unsupported by any proof. It is proved to be unfounded by unnumbered considerations. CYPRIAN. W, For the Albany CentineL MISCELLANIES. No. XXIIL HILE the extracts from Bishop White's pamphlet may ha\-e some effect in lowering the flight of certain Episcopalians, they will be to the great body cause of satisfaction and joy. It will be seen, that the defence of Episcopacy does not rest on divine ri^ht and uninterrufited succession ; but on cxfiecliency, or a preference for that particular form of government.* Thus, it may be maintained with perfect toleration and charity towards other denominations. Let Episcopalians be assured that they are not, in general, blamed for unchurching all others. The charge is brought only against a few of aspiring minds, who have written with little prudence, and with too slight an examination of the subject. f Bishop White con- * Does not the preface to the oi-dhiation services " rest" Episcopacy on Scrip- ture and ancient authors? Do not the prayers in the ordination services set forth that Alviigbty God, by his holy Spirit, appointed the orders of' the Priest- hood? Does not Hooker, who stands at the head of the venerable list of the advocates of Episcopacy, maintain, that " the institution of Bishops was from God, the Holy Ghost was the author of it?" Does not Bishop White himself maintaui, that " the Apostles appointed some with a superemiiitnt conunission, and that the persons so appointed have handed dawn thein* commission through the different ages of the Cliurch ?" What founda- tion then has the assertion that " the defence of Episcopacy does not rest on discing right a7id uninterrupted succession, but on expediency or prefer' ence?" Ed. t Let the justice of this last charge be tested by the present discus- sion. As to the charge of '• aspiring minds ;" there mny be as much pride in opposing Episcopacy, as n\ advocaiing its claims. There is not a little truth in the observation of the Layman in his second address : " This lofty hatred of subordination, ah! how opposite is it to the humility of the Gospel! Wiiat mischief hath it not operated both in Church and ift State!" Ed. UB MISCELLANIES. No. XXIIL eludes his pamphlet with urging the same doctrine and the sam« pious sentiments with which he began ; as will appear irom the folio will g: ^' Perhaps, however, there would be little room for dilTerence of sentiment among the well informed, if the matter were generally taken up with ^seriousness and modei-ation, and were to re;.i on re- ligious principles alone. But unhappily there are some, in whose ideas the existence of their Church is so connected with that of the civil government of Britain, as to preclude their concurrence in any system, formed on a presumed final separation of. the two countries. Prejudices of this sort will admit of no conviction but such as may arise from future events; and are therefcre no farther considered in this performance, dian with a sincere sorrow, that any persons, professing to be of the comiri union of the Church of England, should so far mistake the principles of that Church, as to imagine them widely different from what form the religion of the scriptures, " As for those who are convinced that the United States have risen to an independent rank among the nations, or who even think that such may probably be the event of the war, they are loudly called on to adopt measures for the continuance of their churches, as they regard the public worship of God, the foundation of which is immutable ; as they esteem the benefit of the sacraments, which were instituted by the s^upreme Bishop of the Church; and as they Are bound to obey the scriptures, which enjoin us ' not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is,' " It is presumed there are many, who, while they sincerely love their fellow Christians of every denomination, knowing (as one of their prayers expresses) that the • body of Christ' comprehends * the blessed company of all faithful people,' are more especially attached to their own mode of worship, /ie7'/ia/iG from education, but as they covceive^ from its being most agreeable to reason and scripture, and its most nearly resembling the pattern of the purest ages of the Church. On the consciences of such, above all oihers, may be pressed the obligation of adopting speedy and decisive mea- sures to prevent their being scattered '' like sheep without a shep- herd," and to continue the use of that form of divine service, which they believe to be " worshipping the Lord in the beauty of holi- Tiess." From the above extract we are informed as to the cause of the prejudices of some against the system proposed by the Bishop; it was an attachment to the civil government of Britain, and an op- position to tlie independence of tlie United States.* Or,'they con- ceived, that the existence of their Church depended on a continu- ance of its former connection. But there is a remarkable opposi- tion in what the Bishop pleads for, to the sentiments expressed by the author of " A Companion for the Festivals," &c. and " for the Altar," See. The one speaks of " the benefit of the sacraments" * V/.hat :s the der/gn of this insinnavion ? Episcopalians will yield to iione in attachment to the government or their country, and in zeal for its independence. True Churchmen will always be found the supjjorters of order and good governrneut. Ed. MISCELLANIES. No. XXIII. 149 feJminlstered by those who should be ordained in the nnanncr ■which he had proposed, and without the " Episcopal succession ;" the other declares that the administration of ordhiances by such, would be " nugatory and invalid." He puts these words into the mouth of a communicant : " Let it be, therefore, thy supreme care, O mv soul, to receive the blessed sacrament of the body and blood of thy Saviour, only from the hands of those who derive their authority by regular transmission from Christ," 8cc. In another place he says, that " none can possess authority to administer the sacraments but those who have received a commission from the Bishops of the Church." Indeed the scnthnent runs through his books, which he rseems to have written on purpose to inculcate it. Tliere is likewise some difference between the Bishop and the Priest as to their nonon of the " body of Christ." The one has no scruple to call other denominations '^ fellow Christians ;" — the other does not extend his charity beyond the Episcopal Church, except in cases of " ignorance^ invincible prejudices^ imperfect reason- ings^ and mistake?! judgments ;"* and even in these, he seems un- willing to make any " allowance^' but leaves it to God. His notion of " fellow Christians," and " the blessed company of all faithful people," will be seen in what he says on the Church and its unity. He has much more charity for the Heathen than for non -Episcopa- lians, as appears by his saying, " In every nation he that feareth God and ivorketh right£0us7iess, is accepted of him. But where the gospel is proclaimed, communion with the Church by the partici- pation of its ordinances at the hands of the duly authorised Priest- hood, is the indispensable condition of salvation."! The tender- ness oi the Bishop is remarkable in accounting for the attachment of Episcopaliaiis to their own mode of worship. " Perha/is^'' says he, " from education, but as they conceive^ from its being most agreeable to reason and scripture," kc. He does not magisterially pronounce that they are right ; but they conceive that they are ; they have been educated in this opinion ; and he is willing to make the same allowance for others. Widi the author of " A Compa- nion for the Festivals," Sec. no excuse is admitted for a departure from Episcopacy, except what approaches to profound ignorance, or downright idiocy. | I shall now make some brief reflections upon the whole. 1. It may be said that Bishop White pleads only for '• a tempo- rary departure" from Episcopacy, and that in cases of -^necessity." 'i answer, that his reasoning is as strong for a total as for a tempo^ * What more charitable excuses can be made for the errors of men, than by assigning these eiTors to unavoidable igtiorance, to inaphroditus, Andronicus, and Junius, are called Apostles, The translation, it is true, is messenger ; but the Greek tarm is the^ very one which in other places is rendered Apostle, and why it is not rendered so in these cases, no sufficient reason can be given. But leave out of the question the examples of Epaphroditus, Ant- dronjcus, Junius. The cases of Barnabas and Matthias most clearly prove that the apostolic office was not personal to the twelve. If it had been personal to the twelve, it would have ceased with them. They could not have prei;un^ed lo bestp^Y it Qn others. LAYMAN. No. IX. 157 If ft'om scripture we go to Xh^ primitive Fathers^ vft find them |)caring the most decisive testimony against the principle for wliich our opponents contend. Ireneus, TertuUian, Cyprian, Jerome, all speak expressly of Bishops as the successors of the Afiostles, How, then, do the advocates of parity support their doctrine m this point ? They talk to us of the miracles which the Apostles performedi of the prophecies which they uttered, of their being inspired wri- ters, and witnesses of the transactions of Jesus. It is true, the power of miracles has ceased, so also of prophecy. The scrip- tures being composed, there could be no further necessity for in- spired penmen ; and none but the cotemporaries of Jesus could be witnesses of his acts. But did these things make up the apostolic qffice ? Surely not : if they did, then Apostles existed in every congregation. Supernatural gifts were very common among the primitive Christians ; being bestowed even upon women, but surely not making them Apostles. The Apostles governed the Church, they preached, they baptised, they administered the eucharist, they ordained, they conftrmed. In all this they exercised powers of per- petual necessity in the Church. Where, then, is the pretext fop representing them as officers purely extraordinary ? Was preach- ing an extraordinary act? was baptising, was tlie administration of the Holy Supper, was ordaining ? No ; the Apostles were stated and regular officers of the Church. To talk about the superna- tural gifts bestowed upon them is perfectly idle. You might as well say that the women on whom the Holy Spirit was effused, on the day of Pentecost, were all Apostles. The jipostles^ then, were regular officers of the Church ^f Christ. They have had sriccessorsy and they will continue to have successors until the end of the world. The Elders and the Dea- cons were subject to their control. They alone exercised the high powers of ordination and governmentm We proceed to observe that, before their departure from the world, they constituted cm order of Ministers^ in whom they in- •vested these po-^vers^ giving them authority to rule the other Cler- gy, and making them the channel through which the sacerdotal office was to be conveyed to future generations. This is completely proved by the cases of St. James, Bishop of Jerusalem, of Timothy, of Titus, of Epaphrcditus, of the seven Angels of pro-cor.sular Asia. Primitive liistor)^ most completely establishes the fact, Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Ire- neus, Clemens of Alexandria, TertuUian, Origen, Cyprian, aU prove it in the most unequivocal manner. Look for one moment at Eusebius. He composed his history in the beginning of the fourth century, about two hundred years after the death of the Apostle John. AU the necessary records of the churches were put into his hands by the order of the Emperor Constantine, and from these he compiled his work. Decs he give any account of a change from Presby terianism to Episcopacy ? So far from it, that he has inserted tlie names of all the Bishops who had succeeded each other, in the principal churches, beginning v.dth the indivi- duals whom the Apostles appointed, and descending, regular!)^, 158 LAYMAN. No. IX. to his own time. Let the advocates of parity produce a single pri- mitive historian who yields this sort of evidence to the apostolic institution of their system. They cannot produce a single writer. This I aver positively. They try to make Clemens Romanus speak in their favour ; but it is by the old and miserable sophistry of names- This Father sometimes speaks of Bishops and Deacons ; which circumstance, say the advocates of parity, proves that there were but two orders. They might as well prove that there were but two orders under the Jewish dispensation, because they are called Priests and Levites. Clemens Romanus was Bishop of Rome, and ruled the inferior Clergy. This we are expressly told by Ireneus, TertuUian, Eusebius, St. Jerome. Clemens of Alexandria styles him Clement the Apostle. But I forbear. This paper has already been extended to too great a length ; and I am now obliged to leave the controversy. It had been my intention to go regularly through the evidences of the divine institution of Episcopacy ; but a voyage to Europe, which I have been some time contemplating, and which I am now compel^ led to take for the benefit of my health, renders this impossible. I regret the circumstance the less, however, since the able writer, under the signature of Cyprian, promises to do full justice to the subject. Expecting to sail in a few days, I cheerfully commit to him the future management of the discussion. A serious examination of the subject of Episcopacy had con-- vinced me, in opposition to the prejudices and habits of education, of its divine origin ; and a sincere desire to defend what I esteem the cause of truth led me to engage in this controversy. While I believe those who have departed from Episcopacy to be in a great error, and would entreat them, in the most urgent man- Tier, to examine the principles on which they stand, I can sincerely say that I feel disposed to put the best construction on their con-r duct. There are excellent men of all denominations ; and great allowance, we humbly hope, v/ill be made for error by the righ- teous Judge of the earth. Let it be recollected, however, that error is venial only in proportion as it is involuntary. How then shall that man excuse himself who, having been warned of the defect of the ministry at v/hose hands he receives the ordinances of the gospel, neglects, nevertheless, to give attention to the subject, and to examine dispassionately those works which prove the necessity of union with that Church, the validity of whose ministrationsc even its most inveterate opponents are obliged to acknowledge. In the Episcopal Church there is certainty of being in covenant with God* its Priesthood has a valid authority to act in tlie name of Christ; and I do believe that almost all who shall engage in the examination of this subject, with a determination to seek only for truth, will come to the conclusion, that those who have laid aside the divinely insti- tuted government of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, must rely upon uncovenanted mercy. I cannot but regret that there should be so strong a disposition in the Miscellaneous writer to descend to low wit, and to sneering and contemptuous expressions. He is greatly deceived if he sup- poses they will give force or success to his cause. The serious inquirer after truth cannot fail to be disgusted with such conduct*. LAYMAN. No. IX. 159 It certainly furnishes no light presumption of the weakness of the system into whose service it is forced. The question before us is of the highest moment ; and all dissenters who can possibly find opportunity, are bound, by every principle of duty, to give it an attentive examination. It ill becomes our opponents to endeavour to put the thing off, by representing it as a matter of little import- ance, and by charging Episcopalians with narrowness and bigotry. This is the weak resource of men, conscious of the unsoundness of the ground on which they stand. We invite inquiry. Let tlie prin-. cipie for which we contend be examined ; recollecting, always, thatj the institution which we maintain has been laid aside by a very tri-. fling proportion of the Christian world; the dissenters from JEpis- Gopacy being confined to the western Church, in which Church they sprang up, but a few centuries ago, amount now to a most insigni- ficant proportion of its numbers. As to the charge of illiberality, let it be recollected that this comes from men who make the doctrine of absolute decrees almost fundamental to the system of the gospe^ representing all who re- ject it as half Christians, whose hearts have not been brought to- submit to the sovereignty of God. With much more truth might the rejection of Episcopacy be placed to a hatred of control, which- disdains the idea of superiority, loving equality in the ministry be- cause it is flattering to the pride of the human heart. W^hen the Apostles proclaimed the religion of Jesus, declaring that there was no other name given under heaven whereby man could be saved, might not the same charge of bigotry have been preferred against them ? And may not Episcopahans contend for that system of government which the Apostles established, and \vhich they never invested man with the power to change. While we maintain that Episcopacy is essential to the Church of Christ, and that those who have departed from it have no spiritual autho- rity whatever, have no Ministers, and no ordinances, we presum.^ not to judge of their motives, or to determine on their future con- dition. These we leave to the eternal Judge, who will deal justly and graciously v/ith all men. Where the true faith is professed, and where there is real sincerity of heart, we believe God will bestow his bless- ing. Indeed, in every nation, he who feareth God, and worketh righteousness, will be accepted of him. At the same time it is the duty of every man to enter the Church of Christ, and to conform to the divinely instituted government of that Church. Schism is still, in the language of the Apostle, a carnal sin. This is the only way in which charity on the one hand, can be reconciled with a sacred adherence to Christian truth on the other. Do you ask us to give up Episcopacy? What reply will you make to the Quaker, who accuses you of bigotry- in refusing to renounce the ordinances of Baptism and the Holy Supper, as essential parts of the Christian dispensation? Take back, then, your charge of illiberality, lest it recoil upon your own heads, and be employed to your ov/n destruction. In fact, be assured it is not from what mea term bigotry that you have to apprehend danger. No ; it is a loose spirit, tending to the brealdng down of all government, that threat- ens the Christian world with destruction. Lay preachers will prove your bane ; and their presumption is the genuine result of ^60 CVPRIAN. Isfo. VI. those loose principles on which your departure from Episcopacy is grounded. In truth, loose principles never fail to return, in time, to torment their inventors. TKere is as much right to officiate without any commission, as with one derived from an invalid authority ; and the reasoning adopted by the advocates of parity leads directly to the conchision, that all pretenders to a spiritual call may enter at once, without any outward commission, upon the ad- ministration of holy things. Thus is the office of the Priesthood laid open to ignorant and self-sufficient men, who bring religion into contempt, causing many to offend, and to fall from the faith. There is a closer union than is generally imagined between schism and heresy. The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. It is the candlestick, the doctrine being the light set in it. With- out the light, the candlestick is indeed of little use ; but the can- dlestick being taken away, the light is in perpetual danger of being thrown down and destroyed. What God has joined together, let no man put asunder. The government and the faith have been united by Christ, and they can never continue long in a sound state when separated from each other. The union of the govern- ment and the faith is the ordinance of Christ. Their separation has been the rash work of human hands. I now leave the controversy. My object in the beginning was simply to correct the false views that might be presented by the Miscellaneous writer. This I trust I have done. It would take me a long while to go through tlie evidences of the divine institution of Episcopacy. Expecting to sail in a few days, for Europe, I am obliged to abandon the undertaking. But I feel perfectly easy in leaving it in the hands of Cyprian. He will do justice to the sub- ject. w4 Layman of the Efiiscofial Church, For the Albamj CentineL CYPRIAN. No. \T. JLjET us now leave the sacred records, and examine the proofs which the carhj Fathers afford us of the existence of the Ejiiscofial form of government in the primitive Church. Kere the advocates of parity find no countenance given to their principles. The early Fathers give their full, clear, and unequivo- cal testimony in demonstration of the point which we wish to esta- blish. So Avell aware, indeed, are our adversaries of the powerful aid which we derive from them, that they have been compelled, in self-defence, to resort to the very unjustifiable expedient of making an attempt to invalidate their authority, to diminish the weight of their testimony. When tlie writings ot the Fathers give even the shadow of support to their preconceived opinions, then, truly, they are disposed to view them in the most favourable light. But no sooner are they discovered to contain any thing that militates against these opinions, than they are no longer consideretl as av\- thentic— they are no longer worthy of credit. CYPRIAN. No. VI. 161 The credibility oi the early Fathers, as the reporters of maimers qf Jact, cannot, without outraging the soundest principles of reason- ing, be called in question. They are men of undoubted veracity. The same reasons that would induce us to reject their testimony, would operate with equal force towards the exclusion of all human testimony as a legitimate vehicle for the conveyance of truth. It is true, that in their writings are contained many false principles, many erroneous opinions, much illegitimate reasoning. But does this consideration tend, in the smallest degree, to diminish the force of their testimony as the relaters of matters of fact ? Facts are simple and unambiguous intheir nature. They cannot be misun- derstood. In the relation of facts, the most illiterate are not sub- ject to error or misapprehension. The early Fathers, then, as the reporters of facts, cannot be considered as liable to objection, al- though in matters of doctrine and opinion they are not always worthy of implicit faith. But what can these objectors intend by attempting to assail the credibility of the Fathers ? Do they not know that the same blow that will lessen our confidence in the testimony of the primi- tive Church, will proportionably weaken the foundation on which Christianity rests ? Is it not upon \k\z fidelity of the primitive Church that we must depend for the purity and integrity of the canon of scrifiture ? Is it not upon her testimony that we must establish the divine institution of infant baptism? Is it not upon the usage of the primitive Church that we justify ourselves for the observation of the sabbath of the first day ? Let these writers beware that they wound not Christianity in a vital part, by aiming a blow against the authority of the early Fathers, It cannot, then, be questioned that the Fathers are credible re- porters of matters of fact. This is all we demand as essential to, the accomplishment of our present purpose. It is matter of fact that there existed in the primitive Church three distinct orders of the Priesthood, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, Does the testi- mony of the primitive Fathers go towards the establishment of this point ? If it does, it is no longer a subject that will admit of controversy. Let us begin with the earliest writers. In them nothing seems to militate against Episcopacy ; every thing contributes to the confir- mation of it. The Miscellaneous writer has, indeed, with a degree of exultation and triumph, challenged us to produce the testimonies of Clemens Romanus and of Folycarp. What was the object he had in view, v/hen he thus, with an air of defiance, made this demand of us? Did he wish to impress upon the minds of his readers the idea that Clemens and Polycarp furnish any materials towards rearing the superstructure of Presbyterian discipline? If he did, he was either disingenuous, or ignorant of their writings. They con- tain nothing that favours Presbyterian principles. They contain nothing that is at hostility to the Episcopal hierarchy. It is true, they contain very little that bears any relation to this subject. It is on this account that they are not mentioned by us in the investigation of it. Their silence, surely, v/ill not operate as an argument in our favour or against us. It happens, however, that we have the sentiments •f Poiycarp enlisted on our side bv this strong and conclusive cir- • • Y $62 CYPRIAN. Ko.VL camstance. He recommends to the Churches, to v/hich He •writes, the Epistles of Ignatius. Now, in the Epistles of Ignatius, the three ©rders of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, are distinctly and re- peatedly mentioned as the standing officers of the Church. Poly- carp, therefore, by recommending them to the Churches, gives his sanction to the doctrines inculcated in them— he gives his sanc- tion to Episcopal principles. I have said, that in the Epistles of Clemens Rom.anus and of Poly- carp, there is nothing decisive to be met with on the subject of Church- government. Nevertheless, even in them we find some indistinct intimations of the existence of the Episcopal discipline. What are we to think of that passage in Clemens, in which he says, '' For the chief Priest has his proper services ; to the Priests their proper place is appointed, and to the Levites appertain their proper ministries, and the Layman is confined within the bounds of what is commanded to Laymen." Here the intention of the author and the connection of the passage show that Clemens alludes to the Orders of the ministry which existed in the Church of Christ. He, therefore, asserts three distinct orders. What are we to think of the place in which Clemens asserts that the " Apostles went about preaching through countries and cities, and appomted the first fruits of their conversions to be Bishops and Deacons," Sec. in which he clearly proves that besides the Apostles, the highest order of Mi- nisters, there were two more in subordination to them ? These are passages in Clemens that are strikingly advantageous to our scheme. In regard to Poly carp ; besides that he virtually gives his assent to all that is contained in the Epistles of Ignatius, what will the advocates of parity say to the inscription of his Epistle vrhichruns thus : " Polyearp, and the Presbyters that are v/ith him, to the Church of God which is at Philippi." Does not this intimate his^ Episcopal pre-eminence ? Does not this slight hint (and slight we are willing to admit it is) tend to corroborate that strong and con- clusive evidence which we derive from the Revelations of St. John, and from the testimony of ancient writers, in proof that Polyearp was Bishop of Smyrna ? Clemens Romanus and Polyearp, then, fur- ilish our adversaries with no weapons v^^itk which to assail us. We acknowledge, that from their silence on this topic, we also can de- rive very little advantage from their testimony. But the fact is, we do not stand in need of their assistance on this point. Their' attention was occupied by other subjects. On this account they have" but slightly glanced at this; but for this omission of it by them, we are amply compensated in the full, the explicit, and the reiterated mention made of it by Ignatius. Ignatius lived also in the Apostolic age. He suffered martyrdom- a very few years after the death of St. John the Apostle. The Epis- tles that have been handed to us under his name, have all the marks of genuineness and authenticity. They have the same claims to- credit as any of the productions of that early age of the Church, The testimony of Ignatius ought, with every candid reader, to be considered as sufficient of itself, if it be full and explicit, to deter- rnine this conti'oversy. Let us, then, collect a few of the most strik- ing passages of his Epistles that relate to this subject. . To det^i^ CYPRIAN. No. VI. i&Z the whole of what he has advanced on it, would be to transcribe almost the half of what he has written. If Ignatius had written his Epistles in modern times, at a pe- riod when this question was agitated, it would seem as if he could not have expressed himself in terms more definite, more unequivo- cal and decisive. He frequently e:>ihorts the people to yield oi^edi- ence to their spiritual rulers, and the Presbyters and Deacons to be in subjection to their Bishop. In the Epistle to the Magnesians, he mentions Damas their Bishop, Bassus and Apolonius their Pres- byters, and Sotion their Deacon. He praises Sotion, the Deacon, for his subjection to the Bishop and Presbyters, and exhorts them all to reverence their Bishop. In his Epistle to the Traliians, he speaks of their Bishop Polybius, and telis them, " that whilst they live in subjection to their Bishop as to Jesus Christ, they seem to live, not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ." " Let nothing, says he, be done vvithout the Bishop, even as ye now practise." Again. " Let all of you reverence the Deacons as the commandment of Jesus Christ, the Bishop as the Son of the Fa- ther, and the Presbyters as the council of God and assembly of; Apos- tles. Without these no Church is named." In another place he says, " He that is within the altar is pure ; But whosoever does any thing without the Bishop, the College of Presbyters, and the Deacons, his conscience is defiied." In his Epistle to the Ephe- sians, he thus expresses himself : "Whosoever is without the al- tar is deprived of the bread of God. Let us have a care of oppos- ing the Bihhop, that we may be subject to God." In his Epistle to the Philadelphians, he says, " Whosoever belongs to God, and Je- sus Christ, is with the Bishop. Endeavour, therefore, to partake of one and the same eucharist, for there is but one flesh of Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood, and one altar; as there is one Bishop, with the College of Presbyters, and my fellow-servants the Deacons." In another place: " Wlien I was with you," says he, •■' I cried out and spoke with a loud voice, Adhere to the Bishop, the College of Presbyters, and the Deacons." Again ; " Do nothing without the Bishop." " God, he tells them, will forgive the schisma- ticks, if they repent and turn to the unity of God, and to the coun- cil of the Bishop." In his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna, he ex- horts them thus : " Let all of you follow the Bishop, as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the college of Presbyters as the Apostles, and reverence the Deacons as the commandment of God." Again he says, " Let th.at eucharist be accounted valid which is ordered by the Bishop, or by one whom he appoints." " Without the Bishop it is lawful neither to baptize nor to celebrate the feast of charity." In his Epistle to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, he tells them, " Let nothing be done without your approbation," &c. And afterwards, addressing the people of that place, he says, " May my life be a ransom for those who arc subject to the Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons, and may I have my portion in God with them." If these passages of Ignatius are not sufficient to decide this con- troversy, then 1 must confess myself inadequate to judge of the force of evidence that would be requisite to do it. Here we find ex- pressly mentioned, the three distinct orders, Bisho/is, Presbyters^ ;aod Deacons. ThtBhhops are obviously considered as the sv.^ 164 CYPRIAN. No. VII. preme officers. All authority emanates from them. The Presby- ters and Deacons are repeatedly and solemnly admonished to yield obedience to them as paramount officers in the Church of Christ. In his Epistle to the Traliians, he exhorts them " to obey their Bishop, as Christ and his Apostles had commanded them." This proves that Ignatius believed that the order of Bishops was instituted by Christ and his Apostles. Thus does Ignatius establish the doctrine for which we contend, beyond all rational contradiction. And let it be remarked, that the peculiar circumstances that attend his tes- timony are calculated to give it additional force. He suffered mar- tyrdom four or five, or perhaps eight years after the death of St. John. Here, then, is this distinct and reiterated mention made of our three orders of Ministers within eight years of the Apostolic age. Will any one believe that in that short space of time, the hi- erarchy had been altered from Presbyterianism to Episcopacy ? Nor could it be that the good Ignatius was iniluenced by any si- nister view in exalting the office of the Bishop. If motives of per- "Bonal aggrandizement, if any Avorldly considerations had ever mingled themselves with the incentives that propelled him to ac- tion, they had, surely, at this time, ceased to operate. He was, at the period in which his Epistles were written, under the prospect of immediate death. He was just about to appear in the presence of that Master whom he would have trembled to think of, had he •been conscious of having been influenced in his conduct by any un- Vv'orthy motives. Would he have proceeded as he did, exultingly, on his way to the place of martyrdom, rejoicing in the anticipation of being offeied up for his Saviour, had he made the iniquitous at- tempt which some are willing to ascribe to him, to overturn the go- vernment of his Church ? Would he not rather have shrunk back Vith horror from the prospect of appearing in the presence of that Redeemer whom he had injured and insulted in his body the Church ? We defy the enemies of Episcopal government to evade, by any shifts, that strong and irresistible evidence with which we are fur- nished from the Epistles of Ignatius. They have never yet been able to refute or in any degree invalidate the arguments we draw from this source, and thev never will be able to refute or invalidate them. ' CYPRIAN. For the Albany CeniineL CYPRIAN. No. VII. -LJL.FTER the abundant proof in demonstration of the divine in- stitution of Episcopacy, which has been extracted from the Epistleis of Ignatius, it would seem to be superfluous to produce the testi- mony of any other ancient writer. Nevertheless, I should not do justice to our argument should I stop here. The v/hole stream of antiquity flows strongly in our favour. Ireneus, the celebrated Bishop of Lyons in France, who wais CYPRIAN* No. VII. les tlie disciple of St. Polycarp, gives us also his testimony in confirma- tion of those truths which had been delivered by Ignatius. Hfe asserts the uninterrupted succession of Bishops in all the churched, to the period in which he wrote. He urges this circumstance &s an argument by which to refute the opinions of the hereticks, who had arisen in his day. " We," says he, " can reckon up those whom the Apostles ordained to be Bishops in the several churches, and who they were that succeeded them down to our own time^. And had the Apostles known any hidden mysteries which they im- parted to none but the perfect (as the hereticks pretend), they would have committed thein to those men, to whom they committed the churches themselves; for they desired to have those in all things perfect and unreprovable, whom they left to be their suc- cessors, and to whom they committed their own ahofitolic authority, '** He then adds, " because it would be endless to enumerate the suc- cessions of Bishops in all the churches, he would instance in that of Rome. He enumerates twelve Bishops, down to Elutherius, who filled the Episcopal chair in his own time." This is the testimony "cf Ireneus. To prove the same point, goes the testimony of HegesippIts, of PoLYCRATEs, and Clemens of Alexandria, who flourished at the same period. Clemens of Alexandria was the most learned man of his age. Giving a summary of those duties which concern Christians in general, he says, " that there are other precepts without number, which concern men in particular capacities ; some which relate to Presbyters, others which belong to Bishops, others respecting Deacons, and others which concern widows." In another place he tells the Presbyters and Deacons, '• that those amongst them who both teach and practise what our Lord hath prescribed, although they be not promoted to the chief seat (that is, the Bishop's) here on earth, shall at last sit on the twenty-four thrones, spoken of in the Revelations of St. John, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." And again he " speaks of the gradual promotion of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, which he resembles to the or- ders of Angels." To the testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, we may add that of Tertullian, who lived nearly at the same time. From him it appears that there had been Bishops settled in all the churches of Africa, from the times of the Apostles to his own. In his Treatise on Baptism, he sa3^s, *' that the power of baptising is lodged in the Bishops, and that it may also be exercised by Presbyters and Dea- cons, but not without the Bishop's commission." He asserts also, like Ireneus, the uninterrupted succession of Bishops in all the churches from the apostolic age. It would extend my numbers to a much greater length than I would wish, were I to dwell long enough on these articles, to give full force to the evidence we cati draw from each of the Fathers ; I must, therefore, pass rapidly from one to another. Or I GEN, who was the scholar of Clemens Alexandrinus, and who lived in the last of the second and begianinfj of the third cen- tury, lends his aid also in confirmation of our doctrine. Speaking of the debts in the Lord's Prayer, he first insisls on the debts or duties, " commoa to all Christians;" and then adds, " Besides 166 CYPRIAN. No.VIL • these general debts, there is a debt peculiar to v/idows who are maintained by the Church, another to Deacons, another to Presby- ters, and another to Bishops, which is the greatest of all, and ex- acted by the Saviour of the whole Church, who will severely pun- ish the non-payment of it." Here he surely asserts that Bishops are made by Christ himself superior to Presbyters and Deacons. But let us now come to the writings of Cyprian, Bishop of Carth- age, in which the most irresistible light is thrown on this subject. I shall give only. a few quotations. In reasoning against Novatian, he says, " that there being only one Church, and one Episcopacy all the world over, and orthodox and pious Bishops being already regu- larly ordained through all the provinces of the Rom.an Empire, and in every city, he must needs be a schismatic who laboured to set up false Bishops in opposition to them." He affirms, that there cannot be more than one Bishofi at the same time in a Church. He maintains, that Bishofis are of our Lord's appointment^ and derive their office by succession from the Apostles. "The Church," he says, " is built upon the Bishops, and all acts of the Church are governed and directed by them." He speaks of the Christians un- der his charge, as his Clergy and people, his Presbyters and Dea- cons. He advises Rogatian, one of his contemporary Bishops, who had desired his opinion concerning a disobedient Deacon, " that if he persisted in provoking him, he should exert the power of his dignity (whereby he means his Episcopal office), and either depose him from his office, or excommunicate him." He complains that som.e of his Presbyters had arrogated powers to which they had no claim. Ke even excommunicated some of them for their pre- sumption. He expressly asserts the authority of Bishops over Priests as well as people. He charges all who disobey their Bishop ■with the sin of schism. In short, to transcribe all that St. Cyprian has said in our favour on this point, would be to v;rite a volume. Thus does this cloud of witnesses give their united testimonies in proof of the apostolic institution of the Episcopal form of Church government. And Eusebiu-s, who lived in the latter part of the third and the beginning of the fourth century, has, as it were, completed the evidence we derive from this source. He traces back the succession of Bishops in many of the churches, from the apos- tolic age to his own times. Eusebius had the advantage of all the records of the Church, v.'hich could be collected by the aid of Con- stantine the Emperor of Rome. He lived only tvro hundred years after the Apostles. He traces back the succession of Bishops at Jerusalem to St. James, of Rome to Linus, of Alexandria to St. ^lark, of Antioch to Evodius, of Ephesus to Timothy, of Crete to Titus. After the times of Eusebius, that the Church was Episcopal, both in her sentiments and in her form of government, is almost as certain as that the sun shone. When Aerius appeared in the fourth century, and, because he himself was disappointed in his ex- pectation of obtaining the office of a Bishop, of which he was am- bitious, endeavoured to sink the Bishops to a level with Presbyters, he met with the general indignation and abhorrence of the Church. For this attempt he is stigmatised as a heretick by Epiphanius, an(J Jais new opinion represented •' as full of folly and njadness, beyoa4 CYPRIAN. No.VIT. tef %hat human nature is capable of." Could the Church, th«n, at this period, have been in any degree verging towards these equalizing principles that have since gained admission into her ? Thus strongly does the current of antiquity run in favour of Episcopal principles. The advocates of parity have here, no eva- sion by which to avoid the force of this accumulated evidence. A few of the Fathers indeed, they have endeavoured, but in vain, ta enlist in their service. On the opinion of St. Jerome they place their principal reliance. Let us, then, examine for a moment, the testimony of St. Jerome, and see whether he advances any thing that will operate to their advantage. Let it be remarked that St. Jerome flourished in the last of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century. His testimony, there- fore, supposing it to militate against us, could not be estimated as possessing the same weight as that of those writers who lived nearer the time of the Apostles. It happens, however, that St. Jerome, so far from having advanced any thing that mihtates against our opinion, has said a great deal i>-e«nfirmation of it. His words are these : " Having observed^hat the names of Bishop and Presbyter are used promiscuously in the scriptures, and that the Apostles call themselves Presbyters, he concludes, that at first there v/as no dis- tinction between their offices, but that Apostle, Bishop, and Pres- byter, were only different names for the same thing ; and that the churches were then generally governed by a college of Presbyters, equal in rank and dignity to one another. Afterwards divisions being occasioned by this parity among Presbyters, vv'hen every Pres- byter began to claim as his own particular subjects those -whom he had baptised ; and it was said by the people, *• I am of Paul, and I of ApoUos, and I of Cephas;' to remedy this evil, it was decreed all the world over, that one of the Presbyters in every Church should be set over the r^st, and peculiarly called Bishop, and that the chief care of the Church should be committed to him." This is the wonderful passage on which the advocates of parity place so much reliance, and which they i^present as fraught with such ruin- ous consequences to the cause of Episcopalians. Let us analyze it, and we shall find that it is perfectly harmless. In the first place it will be observed, that St. Jerome merely ha- zards a conjecture.^ which he thinks probable on this subject ; and as he, as well as ourselves, in matters of ojiinion is fallible, we are left to judge of the degree of probability on which his conjecture rests. But St. Jerome builds tliis conclusion on the promiscuous ix^e of the terms Apostle, Bishop, and Presbyter in the Scripture, which has already been shown to be too vv'eak a foundation to sup- port its superstructui^. Chrysostom and Theodoret had remarked the same community of names, but they did not think themselves justified to draw such an inference from it. They still maintained that there was a difference in the authority^ which was possessed by the different orders of Ministers. But let us admit that all that St. Jerome cays on this subject is well founded. Let us admit that his premises are just, his conc>>aoion legitimate. Let us admit that first there vvas no distinction between the Ministers of the Chuixh ef Christ, but that all its concerns were managed solely by a Col- lege of Presbyters. What is the conciiviion th2.t can be drawn froca m CYPRIAN. No. VIII. these coRcessiGiis which will prove in any degree inimical to us? This is the only inference which we shall be licensed to draw, and which is perfectly innocuous, as it relates to our principles. It will follow, that although there was but one order of Ministers exist- ing in the beginning, yet the Ajiostles^ as soon as men began to say, " I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas," and dissention began to rise from this source, instituted the order of Bishops, and invested them with supreme authority in the Church. Let it be Xioted, that this is said to have been done by the apostles. The order of Bishops is, then, according to St. Jerome, of apostolic in- stitution. This is all that we wish to prove. That the Apostles had a reason for making this appointment surely ought not to dimi- nish the veneration in which we hold it. The same imperious rea- son v/ill subsist in every age of the Church. But let us account for these expressions of St. Jerome which have even the appearance of giving a degree of countenance to the prin- ciples of our adversaries. He was highly offended at the conduct of some Deacons, who, in consequence of the wealth they had ac- quired, acted with insolence towards their Presbyters. This ex- cited the resentmeRt of the venerable Father; and whilst under the influence of tliese feelings, what wonder that in order to humble the Deacons and elevate their Presbyters, he should speak in exag- gerated terms of the dignity of the latter ? On such an occasion it was natural to run into this extreme. But even whilst in the height of his zeal for the Presbyters he is almost exalting them to the; Episcopal dignity, he admits that — in the dusmess of ordination^ JBisho/is are superior to Presbyters, In another place he says, that what *' Aaron, his sons and the Levites were in the temple, such are the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in the Church of Christ." St. Jerome then says nothing that will contribute to give counte- nance to those principles which are maintained by the advocates of pa]'ity. I might go through the other Fathers from whom they have en- deavoured to derive succour. But if their principal support fail? them, his auxiliaries can do them but little service. I have now slightly- glanced at the support which we derive from the testimony of the primitive Church. I leave it to my readers to judge whether with such evidence as this on her side, the Episcopal Church has any thing to fear from the assaults of her adversaries. CYPRIAN. T, For the Albany CentineL CYPRIAN. No. VIIL HITS I have, as it were, barely laid open to view'the fountains from which we draw our evidence in favour of Episcopacy. I have displayed only the corner stones cf that strong foundation which supports the principles of Episcopalians. I have not been able to enter into a minute or thorough investigation of the subject of Church government. CYPRIAN. No. VIII. 1(59 It must, however, be permitted me to indulge the hope, that even from this cursory view of it, it will appear, that the Church of Christ was, for the Jii^st Jour hundred yea.rsy Episcopal m /irin- ciji/e and in /iraciice, I trust it has been demonstrated to the sa- tisfaction of every unprejudiced reader, that the three orders of jBzs/io/is, Frcfibyters, and Deacons^ which are, at this time, the standing officers of the Episcopal Church, were instituted by Christ and his Afiostles, I would fain hope also, that from this brief examination of the subject, it has been proved, that the Bishops were invested by rhe Apostles with supreme authority in the Church as their successors ; that they always enjoyed preroga- tives peculiar to themselves ; that they alone possessed the poiver of ordination ; and, 1 might add also, the privilege of administering the sacred rite of confirmation. These ?.re opinions which were held in the Universal Church for fifteen hundred years. It is only very lately that they have been called in question. Calvin pleaded necessity for attempting to establish a Church in which the Episco- pate formed no part of its organization ; and his followers, when that plea will no longer serve to be urged in their justification for continuing their separation from us, are obliged to set themselves to work to fabricate others. Hence all the opposition that has been made to Episccpacyi The same principles and the same discipline which prevailed in the primitive Church, prevailed also in the Church of England at the time of the Reformation. This will not be denied by any one ■who is acquainted with the history of those times. We are pre- pared to show, by indubitable proof, that the sentiments of most of our Reformers were decidedly Episcopal. We are prepared to show that they maintained the divine right of Bishops. Bancroft was by no means, as is boldly asserted by the author of " Miscel- lanies," the first who broached these opinionn. The same opinions were entertained by Cranmer, by Hooper, by Parker, by BiLsaN, by Whitgift, and many others. It is not to be won- dered at, indeed, if at this period of reform, some of our Divines fluctuated in their sentiments on these points. They had, as yet> received but a very slight examination. So also, they fiuctuated in their sentiments on many of the fundamental doctrines of Christi- anity. But as soon as they had settled themselves permanently in those great principles upon which the Reformation was founded^ these Episcopal opinions, we maintain, were connected with them. We assert, with perfect confidence that we shall not be contra- dicted, that at the period of the Reformation, and at every succeed- ing period, the great body of the most learned and eminent Divines of the Church of England have zealously and strenuously contendeci for the doctrine which we advocate. Fortunately for the Episcopal Church in the United States, these sound principles have found amongst her sons also, able and successful champions. A Sea- bury, a Chandler, a Bowden, and a Moore, have zealously come forward in their defence — have attracted to themselves signal honour, whilst they were ministering the most important service to their Church, The judicious and amiable Prelate of PennsyU •vania^ although vX a very critical and hazardous season, he was willing to relax somewhat from the rig-or of lii-s principles, 5ind bv Z 17& CYPRIAN, i^o. VIIL a temporary departure from them, make an effort to save hit Church from the ruin that seemed to threaten her — yet, let it ber remembered that he has never abandoned these principles. He still adheres to them. These principles and no others are main- tained by the author of the " Companion for the Altar ;" an author %vho, in this early effort, has afforded his Church a flattering pre- sage of his future activity and usefulness in her service, and whose talents and virtues no one who has the happiness of being acquainted ■with him will hesitate to acknowledge. Had th6 " Miscellaneous writer," instead of venting his resentment against the " Compa- nion for the Altar," and the " Companion for the Festivals and Fasts," gone to the Epistles of Ignatius and the writings of the firimitive Fathers^ he would have found more abundant fuel to sup- port the flame of his indignation and to enkindle the prejudices and passions of his readers. He might have drawn from them a much: more hideous picture of what he estimates as uncharitableness, bigotry, and intolerance. The principles of Episcopalians, then, those principles that dis- tinguish them from all other denominations of Christians, are sim- ply the following. They maintain that the three orders of Minis- ters, Bishofis^ Presbyters, and Deacons, are of divine appoint" Tnent, They maintain that the order of Bishops, the only lawful successors of the Apostles, have alone, through all ages, been invested with the power of transmitting the sacerdotal authointy. They maintain that no ministrations in holy things are valid unless they are performed by those who have received their commission from them. In other words, the order of Bishops is the only channel through which the power to perform sacerdotal functions can be eonueyed. These are their sentiments, and they must be indulged in entertaining them. They wish not to judge or ofifend those who do not think as they do. It is true, there are some consequences which may be deduced from these principles that are disagreeable to the feelings, and at variance with the opinions of other denomina- tions of Christians. This is a circumstance which, we allow, is much to be lamented, but really it is an evil which we cannot reme- dy. If our doctrine goes to unchurch other denominations, it is much to be regretted. We cannot consent to become so pliant in our principles as to abandcn or conceal the truth^ because to some persons it is unpalatable* Whilst we profess to feel a most sincere and ardent attachment to our brethren of other denominations, we must be permitted to feel greater attachment to the institutions of our Saviour. We heartily wish that our sentiments were more consonant to those of our fellow Christians, But when this is not possible, shall the charge of being bigotted, prejudiced, or uncharitable, frighten us into an abandonment of them ? The Apostles must have been thought to be men excessively bigotted and uncharitable by the Phi- losophers of Greece and Rome, when they went through the world proclaiming that none but those who believed in Christ could expect salvation : Yet they did not abandon their doctrine on this accounto W^e will follow their example. No clamour that can be raised against us shall induce us to shrink from declaring the whole coun- sel of God. W^e wish not to obtrude our sentiments upon the atten- CYPRIAN. No. VIII. xn tion of those to whom they are obnoxious. We pretend not to hurl anathemas against the heads of those who differ from us in senti- ment. We must, however, be indulged both in believing and in teaching what we estimate as the whole truth delivered to us by revelation from God. In requiring this, we exact from others only the same privilege which, in our turn, we are willing to yield them. Are not they permitted to hold the distinguishing tenets of their churches without molestation from us ? Do we attempt to interfere with the doctrines they inculcate, with the principles they espouse ? Is not the doctrine of pi-edestination, and all those minuter points connected with it and springing out of it, perpetually proclaimed from their pulpits ? And yet if there are any doctrines uncharita- ble in themselves — if there are any doctrines that would excite my zeal to extirpate them from the Church of Christ, they are the doctrines of election and reprobation as taught in the institutes of Calvin. Yet other men differ from me in opinion on these points. I am willing they should do so. Our difference of opinion need not diminish our charity for each other. Such is the Episcopal Church at this time — such would she always be in this country — such has she ever been in every country. She has always been the mildest, the most tolerant and charitable in her spirit of any Church in Christendom. Let it not be imagined that because Episcopalians believe their own Church the only true one, on this account, they entertain uncharitable sentiments of their bre- thren of other denominations. They utterly disclaim all such un- christian sentiments, They love, they trust, as they should do, all who profess to be followers of that Saviour who is our common hope, W^e trust we shall at last meet many of them in that ha- ven where we would be. We would entreat them, however, we would call loudly upon them to examine diligently the interesting subject of Church government. It is a most important and funda- mental one. It is of the utmost importance to us all that we should he in the true Church, in the Church which was founded by Christ and his Apostles. In no other place can we obtain a title to the covenanted mercy of God. In the Episcopal Church we are assured that we are in perfect security. Her enemies themselves cannot deny that her doctrines are pure, her ministrations valid. Every other path but that which leads through her, is, to say the least of it, extremely perilous. Those who are in involuntary or unavoida- ble ignorance on this topic, no doubt, will be excused by God. But let it be remembered, that the same indulgence cannot be supposed to be extended to those who, when they have been admitted to the light, have wilfully and obstinately closed their eyes against it. I have now done ; I leave what has been said to the consideration of our readers. If any of them, after an impartial examination of the subject, have come to a different conclusion from myself, I have no disposition to disturb them in the enjoyment of their opinion. It is to be hoped that nothing which has been advanced in this con- troversy, will beget any uncharitable sentiments in the breasts of the members of different denominations of Christians, either in this place or in any other place to which these papers may have ex- tended. I hope we shall still continue as hitherto, to love each other like brethren. ITS VINDEX. No. I. For my^'elf, I profess to feel a sincere and ardent charity for all denoi^ina.tions of Christians. For the many learned and eminent gentlemen who attend the ministrations of the sanctuary amongst them, I feel the highest respect and esteem. In all that I have ad- vanced in this discussion, I have scrupulously endeavoured to avoid wounding their feelings or those of their people. If I have failed in doing so, I beg them to excuse it. It has originated, if it exists, in zeal for the support of what I have been wont to estimate as truth, and not in a want of respect or affection for them. For the author of " Miscellanies" I profess to entertain similar senti- ments. I blame him for his mode of attacking the Episcopal Church. Let him assail us with arguments without any mixture of abuse, and we will hear him patiently. Nevertheless, as he also may be supposed to have felt a laudable zeal in a cause which he thought defensible, and as I am willing to extend to others the same indufgence which I wish them to show to myself, I am disposed to excuse him. With pleasure I avow that I entertain for him senti- ments of high respect and esteem, and look forward to the period when a more intimate acquaintance v/ith him, which I should be happy to cultivate, will teach me more justly to appreciate his talents and his virtues. In the mean time, in return for the good ■wishes he has bestowed upon his opponents, I could most heartily v/'ibh him 3. good E/izsco/ialia7i» CYPRIAN. J^or the Alba7iy CtniincL VINDEX. No. I. To the Editors of the Albany CeiilineL Gentlemen, I N the following letter, which I request you to msert in your papci-j may be easily discerned the style and spirit of a pamphlet from which the author of Miscellanies, in his late attack on EpiscopacVj has made copious extracts ; and which he attributes to the Rt. Rev. ^Prelate who presides over the Episcopal Church in Pennsylvania. In this point of vievv, the letter may be considered as an important document, illustrating the meaning and tendency of the pamphlet in question. It obviously suggests the following remarks. The author of the Miscellanies has represented Bishop White (whom he states is the author of the pamphlet) as regarding the Episcopal succession as a thingunnec^ssary, or of little consequence. Eut, on the contrary, the author of the pamphlet, as stated in the following letter, proposed to include in his plan a general apjiroba-- iion ofEp.iscop.acyy and a determination to procure the succession as soon as convenient. He only justified a temporary dispensation with the succession on the plea of necessity — a plea, which it is presumed will justify a dispensation wdth the sacraments of the Church, which are to be considered as necessary to salyation only '^' tvhen they can be kad»'' VINDEX. No. I. in The author of the Miscellanies has also attempted to enlist Bi- shop White, in the same ranks with himself, as the advocate of Pres- bytery. The following letter expressly denies that any reasoning iriendly to the cause of Presbytery appears in the pamphlet. But the most important part of the subsequent communication, is a correction of several misrepresentations, in the numbers of the Miscellanies, of the sentiments of Bishop White (considered as the author of the pamphlet) relative to Episcopacy. The pamphlet professed to give a representation of the opinion in favour of Episcopacy. And this representation of the JE/nscoJialicm ofiinioriy the following letter states '' ought, in reason, to be understood as the author's o'voiu'' Now, according to this opinion, the Episcopal pQ%ver was lodged bxj Jesus Christ voith his A/iostles, and by them communicated to the superior order of the ministry now called Bi- shops, Let the reader peruse the following letter and the extract from the pamphlet subjoined, and then judge whether the author of Miscellanies will be justified in considering a person who places Episcopacv on such a ground as hostile to its divine claims. The Miscellaneous author indeed, imputes to Bishop White, whom he considers as the author of the pamphlet, what is stated there as the opinion of the opponents of Episcopacy; who " conceived" it to be an " innovation," which took place, according to certain Di- vines quoted in Neal's history of the Puritans, in the second or third century. Now, though the autlioi* of the pamphlet expressly speaks of the " improbability" of such an innovation, and quotes from Neal merely to prove the time wlien, according to the opponents of Episcopacy, the innovation took place, the Miscellaneous writer considers this very opinion, which the pamphlet states to be impro- huble^ as the sentiment of its author I But let the reader peruse the letter and the subjoined extract, and judge for himself. It was not the object of the pamphlet to exhibit a defence of Epis- copacy. Its author was studiously desirous to avoid controversy. Its stvie, therefore, is not the style of argument or controversy, pointed and positive. It is mild and moderate, suited to the critical juncture of the times, and to the conciliating plan whicli the author had in view, the uniting of all descriptions of Church people, in a plan to preserve their Church till the succession could be obtained. On the whole, it appears, that if Bishop White is to be considered as the author of the pamphlet, no imputation of being hostile to the claims of Episcopacy can be justly charged on him. In the tract ascribed to him, under the representation of the Episcopalian opi- nion, he maintained as his o%vn^ that the Bishops derived their Episcopal power from the Jpostles^ in whom it was lodged by Je- sus Christ, He only pleaded for a tem/iorary departure from Epis- copacy, on the ground of necessity. The Episcopal succession was to be obtained as speedily as possible. In conformity with these opinions, Bishop White was one of the most active and zealous in the measures that v/ere pursued to ob- tain the succession. He left his family, his friends, and his country, and exposed himself, at a late period of life, to the dang;ers of a voyage across the Atlantic, to obtain for his Church that succession •which v/as necessary to constitute her an Apostolic Church. His attachment to the truly primitive institutions of bis Church is well 174 AN EPISCOPALIAN. known, and has been often manifested. And as the Miscellaneous author is willing to take Bishop White as his advocate, let him sub- scribe to the following sentiments, advanced by the Bishop in his sermon before the last Oencral Convention of the Episcopal Church : <' It seemed good to the ^Jiostles^ to appoint some of these with 7i siifier eminent commission^ of which there were instances in Timo^ thy and Titus ; and, the persons so appointed, have handed dotuit their commission through the different ages of the Church. This is the originally constituted order* And, therefore, without judging those who have departed from it, we may nvish ^.\\6.Jiray for its re- storation in all Christian Churches ; as one mean for the restoring ©f godly discipline, for the having of our ' hearts knit together in love,' and ' that we may with one heart and one mouth, giorify God." The Miscellaneous author may be assured, that if he will permit Bishop White, as his advocate, to use the above language, he will not be suspected of being attached to Presbyterian govern- ment, which has uniformly been considered, since its introduction in the sixteenth century, as a departure from the " originally con- stituted order,** The author of Miscellanies is incorrect in his assertion, that Bishop Provost furnished facts for the pamphlet to the author of it. At the time of publication, Bishop Provost was not personally acquainted with the author, had never corresponded with him, nor (did he know any thing of the pamphlet till he saw it in print. VINDEX, To the Author of the Publications entitled) " Miscellanies^'* I N some of your late publications, you have given copious extracts from an anonymous pamphlet, published in 1782, and entitled, *' The Case of the Episcopal Churches in the United States consi- dered." Being possessed of a copy of this pamphlet, I have com- pared it with your publications ; and I address to you the result of the comparison. You seem to have done no injustice to the author, in represent- ing him as asserting the lawfulness of a temporary departure from Episcopacy in cases of necessity ; and as believing that a case of this description existed at the time of the publication. So far as your extracts apply to these points, you have not given him any reason to complain. But in some other particulars, v/hich I pro- ceed to mention, I take the liberty of representing to you, that your statements are materially (though, as I trust, unintentionally) incorrect. The prominent proposal of the pamphlet, and as such printed in lai^er letters than the rest, is, '' to include in the proposed form of government^ a general approbation of Episcopacy^ and a declara^ tion of an intention to pirocure the duccession as scon as conveni" ently may be ; but, in the mean time, to carry the plan into effect, •without waiting for the succession." In your nineteenth number, AN EPISCOPALIAN. 175 you take up the lattei^ part of his proposal, respecting the immedi« ate execution, without any notice of the former jmrt, which seems essential to the exhibiting of the design of the publication. The effect of the thus separating of two matters intended to be com- bined, appears in sundry passages of your Miscellanies. In your twentieth number you say, " No Presbyterian could rea- son more to the purpose ;" meaning than the author of the pampli- let. To what purpose ? It must have been intended by you, as the connection shows, to dispensing with EphcofLal ordination; as in the instances in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Now, there is no rea- soning in the pamphlet to that purpose. There is a mere state- ment of rhe fact ; which seems to have been designed to apply in this way — That if such a dispensation was allowable, in consider- ation of circumstances existing at the time ; still more might the like be allowed in an exigency much greater. On perusing the pamphlet, I do not find a sentiment which I can suppose an anti- Episcopalian writer v/ould produce in favour of a parity in the Mi- nistry. What you say in your twenty-first number, concerning the state- ment in the pamphlet, of the grounds on which Episcopacy is de- fended, appears to me to convey a representation of the sentiments of the author the very reverse of those which are obvious on the face of this part of the production. For, first, Of a long paragraph, comprehending that statement, you quote a very small part only ; although the rest is neces- sary for the exhibiting of the author's views of the grounds of the argument for Episcopacy. Secondly, In the stress laid by you on the expressions, " they think," and " as some conceive" (although the latter applies not to Episcopalian disputants, but to their opponents), you seem to intimate that such " thinking" and " conceiving" is accompanied in the author's mind by doubt : an intimation for which there will seem no cause, when it is considered, that the statement of the Episcopalian opinion is introduced not in an argumentative man- ner, but in reference to an object very different from that of the eomparative merits of Episcopacy and Presbytery. To the purpose of the author of the pamphlet, it was sufficient that Episcopalians " thought" as he defines ; whether they thought rightly or not on the question between them and the anti-Episcopalians. Thirdly, Although by contrasting what you approve of as mode- ration in the pamphlet, with what you censure as fiositiveness in another performance, you seem to imply that the Episcopalian opi- nion, as stated by the former, was agreeable to the sentiments of the author; yet, in another sentence, you seem to believe that the op « posite was intended to be intimated. If you designed to convey this idea, there is no warrant for it in the performance ; which ought, in reason, to be understood as conveying, under the representation of tue Eiiiscofialian ofiinion^ the author's oion ; although in a way the least likely to be construed into a challenge to a theological dis- putation, which might perhaps be unpleasant to the author at any time, but for which, I will venture to say, he could not have found so unseasonable a time as that of the publication of this performance. As on this part only of your productions I am at a less, in some xrs AN EPISCOPALIAN. respects, for your meaning, I shall subjoin the entire paragraph of the pamphlet, thus giving an opportunity to any one so disposed, to" compare it with what appears in your pubhcation. In your same twenty-lirst number, after repeating a quotation of the pamphlet from Bishop Hoadly, you represent him and the author of the pamphlet as declaring, what I cannot nnd either of them declare, that three orders are not of divine a/ijiointment ; and then you go on to state what you suppose to be the meaning of the author of the pamphlet, in regard to the extraordinary powers of the Apostles, This subject seems to me quite foreign to the quotation referred to^ which simply states the distinction between a fact, and an ofiinion connected with it in the minds of some. Bishop Hoadly thought that Dr. Calamy might admit the former, and yet reject the latter. In regard to the views of the author of the pamphlet, he seems to have adduced the quotation in evidence of a distinction between Apostolic practice, and a matter of indispensable requisition. In your twenty-second number you deliver, as the ofiinion of the author of the pamfihlet^ what he had cited as the ojiinion of others^ put in contrast with what should be supposed his oivn. In stating the Episcopalian opinion, he had occasion to refer, for the sake of precision, to that of their opponents, in regard to the date of the introduction of Episcopacy ; and then, in order to guard (as would seem) against the charge of misrepresentation from that quarter, he gives, in a note, a quotation from Neal's history of the Puritans, containing the opinion of those called the " Smectymnuan Divines," who are there cited not as evidences of the truth of the case, but of the s€7ise of their communion. The part of your production al'Uded to, is where you quote the pamphlet as asserting that Epis- copacy had its origin in the second or third century ; for the cor- recting of w^hich statement, I refer to the extract which I have already promised to subjoin. In your twenty-third number you assert, that the reasonings of the pamphlet are as strong for a total as for a temfiorary departure from Episcopacy. I cannot see any ground for this assertion, ex- cept on your misapprehension of the design of the quotation from Mr. Neal. Surely, with a man \vl\o believes that there have been three orders from the beginning, the necessity of a te7nfiorary de- parture does not involve that of a fnal abrogation ; and if so, it is liot correct to represent the reasonings of the pamphlet as applying to both these points alike. In the same number you lament, that the governm.ent of the Episcopal Church was not founded on the plan represented in the pamphlet. If it had occurred to you to have compared the date of the pamphlet with that of an important event which took place about the same time, j-ou would have perceived, that the ground en which the plea for a temfiorary departure rested, was soon done away. The pamphlet is dated in 1782 ; the preliminaries of peace were signed at Paris, in the latter end of autumn in the same year; and tidings of them reached this country early in 1783 ; it having, been for some time known that negociations were begun. After this, the Jiccesslty ceased^ and the author's persisting in his pro- posal would have been little to the credit of liis sincerity. Ypuhaye liberally declared, Sir, that if you have misunderstood BY THE AUTHOR OF MISCELLANIES. No. I. I7t the author, you will, on the least notice, correct it. This anony- mous notice can have no further claim on the promise than in pro* portion as your own judgment may be convinced of your supposed mistakes : but in proportion to such conviction, you will doubtless think yourself pledged to an acknowledgment. AN EPISCOPALIAN. The extract (referred to in the foregoing letter) from the pamphlet quoted by the author of Miscellanies. "Let us take a view of the ground on v/hich the authority of Episcofiacy is asserted. " The advocates for this form maintain that there having been an Episcopal power lodged by Jesus Christ with his Apostles^ and by them exercised generally in person, but sometimes by delegation^ as in the instances of Timothy and Titus; the same tI^qs conveyed by them before their decease to one pastor in each Churchy which generally comprehended all the Christians in a city and a conve- nient surrounding district. Thus were created the apostolical suc- cessors^ who, on account of their settled residence, are called Bi- shops by restraint; whereas the Apostles themselves were Bishops at large, exercising Episcopal power over all the Churches, except in the case of St. James, who, from the beginning, was Bishop of Je- rusalem. From this time the word " Episcopos," used in the New- Testament indiscriminately with the word " Presbuteros" (parti- cularly in the twentieth chapter of the Acts, where the same per- sons are called " Episcopoi" and " Presbuteroi") became appro- priated to the superior order of Ministers. That the Apostles were thus succeeded by an order of Ministers superior to pastors in general. Episcopalians think they prove by the testimonies of th« ancient Fathers, and from the improbability that so great an inno- vation (as some conceive it) could have found general and peace- able possession in the second or third century, when Episcopacy is on both sides acknowledged to have been prevalent.* The argu- ment is here concisely stated ; but (as is believed) impartially; the manner in which the subject is handled by Mr. Hooker and Bishop Hoadly, being particularly kept in view." For the Mbany CentineL By the Author of " Miscellanies," No. I. 1 HAVE published nothing of late on the subject of Church go- vernment. Besides an apprehension that the readers were tired of the controversy, I was v/iUing that mv opponents should have every advantage, as v/ell as that what had been already written by me, appeared to be more than sufficient. ^ * " The original of the order of Bishops 'siuntiatio?i or the doctrine of the U'rinitji, under pain of being shut out from the kingdo^n of Ileacen? Episco- palians judge i^.one. 'I'o his own master every man will stand or fall. And yet truth must be maintained, and the danger of rejecting it, dis- played. Ed. ■ II It would have been well, if the author of Miscellanicj had specified " this case. ' Ei. BY THE AUTHOR OF MISCELLANIES. No. V. 18J yules in a Church ah'eady formed is unnecessary, or may be dis- pensed with. I have written, I hope, what you Avill deem sufficient and satis- factory. I feel myself indebted for your letter ; and if ever I should collect my numbers into a pamphlet, I shall profit by your remarks. For the Bishop I have a sincere and high respect, chiefly from the character which he universally sustains. Did I think it necessary, or that it would bq agreeable to him, I would send him my name, Kf ever the author of " Miscellanies" has an opportunity, he will testify, in person, the estimation in which he holds him. For the Albany CentineL By the Author of " Miscellanies^* No, V. J. SHALL now finish my remarks on the last piece of " Cyprian," and I hope that the conduct of my numerous opponents will not extort any thing farther from me. My expectation was vain, that when their ecclesiastical drum beat to arms, they would easily yield the victory to a single person ; or that even a retreating and irregu- lar fire on their part, would soon cease. By the iarge extracts which I have published from Bishop White's pamphlet, and the explanation of them lately given, both by " An Episcopalian," and myself, it must be evident, beyond contradiction, that the Bishop holds sentiments widely different from those warmly contended for by the author of " A Companion for the Festivals and Fasts," Sec. and his coadjutors in this State.* What " Cy- prian" says on this subject is strange. " The judicious and amia- ble Prelate of Pennsylvania," says he, " although at a very critical and hazardous season, he was willing to relax somewhat from the rigour of his principles, and by a temporary departure from them, make an effort to save his Church from the ruin that seemed to threaten her ; yet let it be remembered, that he has never aban- doned these principles." I ask now, if no ordination is valid except that performed by Bishops of the Episcopal Church ; if ordinances administered by any other are inefficacious ; and if there can be no true Church without a government by three orders, how a depar- ture from these principles was to save his Church from ruin ? Was not this to plunge her into deeper ruin ? According to " Cyprian," * And let it be observed, once for all, that the question of Episcopacy 3S surely not to rest on the decision of any individual, however great his reputation and amiable his character. It should be tested " by the law and the testimony," as explained by the best commentary, the universal faith and usage oi the Ch\x\-c\v. Bishop White would certainly give a decision on the subject, not very agreeable to the author of Miscellanies. For he ■would trace the Episcopal power to the Apostles, in whom it was lodged by ^eszis Christ. The sentiments maintained by the author of the " Compa- nion for the Festivals," &c. and " his coadjutors," are supported by the iiuthority of names, that will yield to none in talents, learning, and piety. . Ed. 190 BY THE AUTHOR OF MISCELLANIES. No. V. Ministers and ordinances on the plan of Bishop White, would be mockery, sacrilege, usurpation, schism, rebellion against Christ, and what was worse than to be in a state of heathenism.* It will readily be believed that Bishop White has " never abandoned his principles." He is an Episcopalian, and is an ornament to the Church over which he presides. He holds such Episcopacy as is consistent with reason, scripture, and that " charity which is the bond of perfectness."t " Cyprian" speaks of my " resentment against the Companion for the Altar," of the " flame of my indignation," and directs mc to the Epistles of Ignatius for " more abundant fuel." Against the author referred to and himself I certainly feel no resentment. It is not said, though the reader may suppose it, as I did myself on first reading the sentence. As to the copious quotations which *' Cyprian" has made from Ignatius, and on which he lays his chief stress, they admit of a very short answer. They are not genuine.:|: Hear the words of Mosheim, that learned and impartial ecclesi- astical historian. *' There are yet extant several Epistles, attri» buted to him, concerning the authenticity of v/hich there have been, however, tedious and warm disputes among the learned, which still subsist." Farther : " The whole question relating to the Epis- tles of St, Ignatius in general, seems to me to labour under much obscurity, and to be embarrassed with many difficulties." There are seven Epistles, which Mosheim says, " the most of learned men acknov/ledge to be genuine ;" but " Cyprian" has not told me ■which I am to read«|| Indeed, I am unwilling to admit any of them as proof, until their authenticity is ascertained ; and not even then, unless they are agreeable to saci^ed writ. " To the law and to the testimony : if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." It is impossible to reconcile the professions of charity which * The author of Mi sceUanies persists in confounding the general state of the Church, in which Episcopal ordination is necessary to the exercise of 2 valid ministry, v.'-ith those cases of " inevitable necessity,^* in which, ac- cording to some, ordination by Presbyters is valid. A person who main- tains that ordination by Presbyters is valid in a case of necessity, where or-> dination by Bishops caiDiot be bad (wliich Bishop White supposed was the situation of the Episcopal churches at the time when the pamphlet Vv^as written), may surely consistently maintain, that j« all other cases, Episcopacy is essential to' the Church, and Episcopal ordination essential to the exercise of a valid ministiy. l^hich 'ivas by them co^nviunicuted to the ord^r of Bishops ; that the Apostles leried an order of Ministers, amoiig ii:ho7n were Timothy and Titus, iviih a superetninent commission; that this commission has been handed dovin through succeeding agss ; that this is tiie Originally con- 8TITUT3ED ORDER. Let it be remembered then, that, according to the author of Miscellanies, this is an Episcopacy "consistent with reason, scripture, and that charity which is the bond of perfectness."^ Bd. \ This is an easy way of destroying the authority of Ignatius. See the Tcrnarks at the end of tins number. -£«• )j From the Episvles acknowledged, according to Mosheim, " by the most ^f Uarncd'/nen," tcbs genuine, were the quotations of Cypnan taken. Ed. EY THE AUTHOU OF MISCELLANIES. No. V. 191 ^ Cy'prian" makes with many of his assertions. " If our doctrine,** says he, " goes to unchurch ether denominations, it is much to bt regretted." Again : *' Episcopalians believe their own Church the only true one." Again : " It is of the utmost importance to us all, that we should be in the true Church, in the Church (the Episcopal Church) which was founded by Christ and his Apostles. In no other place can we obtain a title to the covenanted mercy of God» In the Episcopal Church we are assured that we are in perfect security. Those who are in involuntary or unavoidable ignorance on this topic (such as idiots, or such as live in heathenish darkness, or such as have never read as much as the Episcopal Priests, and have not the same enlarged understandings) no doubt, will be ex- cused by God. But let it be remembei^ed, that the same indul- gence cannot be supposed to be extended to those who, when they have been admitted to the light (they who have read " A Compa- nion for the Festivals and Fasts," Sec. and the productions of "A Lavman," and " Cyprian"), have wilfully and obstinately closed their eyes against it." This is his charity i Who could expect, not- withstanding all this, to hear him talking of *' a most sincere and ardent attachment to brethren of other denominations" — of " fel- low Christians" — of " not pretending to hurl anathemas" — of *' ut- terly disclaiming all unchristian sentiments" — of " trusting that- we (Episcopalians) shall at last meet many of them (anti-Episcopa- lians) m that haven where we would be." The reader shall make his own reflections, if he indulge me in a single one. If this be the charity of Episcopalians, I sincerely and publicly declare it is not: that which I exercise tovv^ards them. " Cyprian" sa)^, in the name of his Church, " We exact from others only the same privilege which, in our turn, we are willing to yield them." They shall have abundantly more than they have yielded to me. I do not uiichurch them. I do not assert that their ordination, and their administra- tion of ordinances are invalid,* I will not express myself so coldly as to say, *' We trust we shall meet many of them in heaven ; " for I firmly believe it. God forbid that my charity should be able to find no other excuse for brethren who differ from me, than that " thev have wilfully and obstinately closed their eyes against ths 5ghtl"t * Here is the great advantage of the Episcopal Church. Even its op- ponents cannot assert that its " administration of ordinances is invalid.'* in maintaining that Eplscnpal ordination is necessary to the exercise of a valid ministry, Episcopalians contend for the faith of the universal Church ■for fifteen centuries. With the unpleasant consequences that may result from this opinion, they are not chargeable. They wish to "judge no man." " To his own master he standeth or falleth." Ed. f The Qiiaker can go still farther in charity than the author of Miscel- lanies, for he can extend his charity to those who wilfully reject baptism and the Lord's Supper. The Socir.ian will contend for the praise of supe- 5^or charity with the author of Miscellanies, for he also can say, " God forbid that my charity sliouid be able to find no other e>:cuse for" those •who deny the divinity of Christ, " than that they have wilfully and obsti- nately closed their eyes against the light !" Cyprian did not apply -p^rsozally to any individual who opposed Epis£o» 192 BY THE AUTHOR OF MISCELLANIES. No. V; I see no good reason -why " Cyprian" has digressed from the subject to attack the seventeenth article of his own Church. " If there are," says he, " any doctrines uncharitable in themselves — if there are any doctrines that would excite my zeal to extirpate them from the Church of Christ— they are the doctrines of election and reprobation as taught in the institutes of Calvin." The institutes of Calvin were written by an individual, and are entitled to no other smthority than what the character of a great reformer, reason, and scripture give them ; but the articles of the Episcopal Church have long received the sanction of the Church of England, and have been adopted in this country. It looks, therefore, like a wantonness, especially in a member of that Church, to go out of his way to rail against them. I know that the article which respects election and reprobation is not entirely to the mind of some Episcopal Priests ; ;^nd that in a Convention held 1799, a substitute was proposed ; but that the Convention, after mature deliberation, determined (in my opinion wisely), that they either would not, or could not, at present, alter the Divine decrees.* As this, however, is a matter which iias no connection with the controversy on liand, and I wonder how *' Cyprian" contrived to introduce it, t shall leave him, if he should be thought censurable, to the admonition of his Bishop, If the assertion of " Cyprian" be true, that the Episcopal Church <' has always been the mildest, the most tolerant and charitable in her spirit, of any Church in Christendom," I shall only say, that I am sorry she has forfeited her character in this country. Never were more intolerant principles held by the Roman Catholic Church ; and nothing appears to me wanting but power to act again the same bloody scenes.f She sets up for the mother Church, the only Church ; and declares that there is no salvation in any other.^ I cannot be- lieve that these are the sentiments of the great body of the deno- mination ; and I trust that the advocates of them will, upon longer and more mature reflection, become less rash and censorious. " A little learning is a dangerous thing ; ** Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring." pacy, the charge that his opposition v/as " obstinaie and wilful.'* Suck may surely characterize opposition to Episcopacy; it is therefore the duty of its advocates to caution its opponents against this inexcusable opposition. Who justly merits the charge, they presume not to say ; it is known only to Cod, Ed. * See the remarks at the end of this number. Ed. t Here, doubtless, the author of Miscellanies exercises that " charity which is the bond of perfectness " Here, doubtless, he displays that " spi- rit of the gospel," the want of which, in one of the following sentences, he charitably imputes to his opponents. Here, he evidences the sincerity of his professions of respect for the Episcopal Church. What would b« thought, what would be said of the Episcopalian who should impute such a disposition to those who conscientiously differed from him in opinion ? Surely when the author of Miscellanies wrote this sentence, he " knew not what spirit he was of." Ed. \ Not so. Episcopalians do not thus presumptuously limit the mercies of the Almighty. In ail denominations ; the humble, the penitent, and the obedient, whose errors are not voluntary and wilfuh will be accepted BY THE AUTHOR OF MISCELLANIES. No. V. 193 When their locks are silvered by age, when their experience is more ripe, and when they have imbibed more of the spirit of the Gospel, they will abate in self-sufficiency and exclusive pretensions.* The reader will make such application as he may think proper, of the following passagie in the New Testament : " And when his dis- ciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that wc command fire to come dov;n from heaven and consume them, even as Elias did ? But he turned and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are made of." I shall conclude with expressing a few sentiments, and challeng- ing my opponents to meet me on the'same liberal ground. I believe that the Episcopal Church is a part of the Church of Christ, and that the ordinances administered by her are, with the blessing of God, effectual means of salvation. Did I reside in a place where I could attend only that Church, I would worship with her, and re- ceive the sacraments from her hand ; yea, had I been educated in that Church, I think it highly probable, that I would remain in her communion. I can easily conceive that persons may prefer Epis- copal government without being " in involuntary or unavoidable ig- norance," or without " wilfully or obstinately closing their eyes against the light." I think it perfectly right, that every Church should adopt and conform to such regulations as they may judge to be agreeable to the word of God. In short, X contend for no other privilege to be extended to me, than what Cyprian has promised, or than what I cheerfully extend to others. He most heartily wishes that I was a " good EpiscopaUan.'* I sincerely thank him. I think myself safer where I am ; because I act according to my conscience, as he does according to his. Let him continue an Epis* copaliaji, and m.e a Presbyterian ; and if we both iniprove the pre- cious advantages which we enjoy, we shall meet in heaven, and spend an eternity together in praising " Him who hath loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood, "f by the gracious Parent of the universe, through the merits of that blood which was shed for all. These are the sentiments expressly avowed in various parts of his books by the author of the " Companion for the Fes- tivals and Fasts," and " for the Altar." ^d. * Young as mav be the advocates of Episcopacy to whom the author of Miscellanies here alludes, they surely deserve commendation for not indul^;- ing a propensity, common to youth, and which those whose " locks are silvered by age" have not always restrained, to strike cut into r.ev: paths. Their object has been to find the" old paths, and to walk therein." They sought to drink at the deep and pure fountain o^ primitive Xx\xl\\, not in the shallow and degenerate streams of later ages. The charges of self- srijjldent and exclusive pretensicfis will apply to all the primitive Fathers, and to some of the most eminent Divines that ever adorned the Church. With such company they are proud to be ranked; and thus supported they fear not any charge that can be brought against them. ^ _ -Ed. f In this sentiment every Episcopalian can join, for though " in these controversies , truth can be only on one side, sincerity may be on both." And v/here there has not been a luilful neglect of the means of information, nor a unlful opposition to the truth, sincerity ^ e-jcn in error, will be accepted bv the merciful Judge of the world. ^'^• 2C ( 19i ) iBernarksj by the Editor^ o?i the preceding Nuinbcr,'\ In the preceding number the author of Miscellanies makes tiVo assertions which require particular notice : That the Epistles of Ignatius are not genuine ; and that the Articles of the Church of England are Caivinistic. In regard to the genuineness of the Epistles of Ignatius : That this venerable Father wrote certain Epistles cannot admit of a doubt. Many of the primitive writers quote from Epistles which they attribute to him. Eusebius in particular makes mention of seven Epistles, which he considers as the genuine productions of this apostolic Father. These seven Epi ties are now alone defended, and some others which have been attributed to him^ are given up as spurious. These se\'en Epistles fii*st appeared in a larger form than at pre- sent ; in which state thougii they were defended by many learned men, as in substance the production of Ignatius, yet all acknow" ledged that they were corrupted and interpolated. There was no reason to believe, however, that the testimony in regard to Episco- pacy, which was interwoven with almost every sentence of these Epistles, was sjmrious, or not entitled to credit. Archbishop Usher at length published a Latin version of these Epistles, from tivo manu- scripts ; one of which he found in the University of Cambridge, and another in a private library. This version exaciiy- agreed ■with all the passages recited by the Fathers ; and is not lia- ble to the objections urged against the larger copies of these Epis- tles. A short time after, the learned Isaac Vossius (who, it should be recollected, was not an Episcopalian) found in the iibrary at Florence, a Greek manuscript of these Epistles, in which the ^xt exactly agreed with the Latin -version published by Usher. These Epistles, as published by Usher and Vossius^ and which are known by the name of the sinaller Epistles^ are those which, according to Mosheim^ " the most learned men acknowledge to be genuine.'" This opinion he himself adopts as " preferable to any- other." These are the Epistles which even Blondel, Salma- sus, Daille, learned opponents of Episcopacy, acknowlege are the Epistles which Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian of ths third century, possessed ; and which answer exactly to quotations from the Epistles of Ignatius, in the writings of several of the Fa- thers, These are the Epistles which have been received as genuine, not only by all the learned advocates of Episcopacy, but by other learned men who were not Episcopalians; by Grotius, by Le Clerc, &c. and even by Dr. Lardner, (than whom there could not be a more accurate judge of the genuineness of ancient writings) who says, " I do not affirm that there are in them any considerable corruptions or alterations."* What greater proof can we have of the genuineness of any writ- ings than that they were quoted by contemporary and succeeding writers. The Epistles of Ignatius, as published by Usher and Vossius, are quoted by Polycarp, v.'ho knew Ignatius, and by * See Bishop Horsley's Letter in Reply to Dr. Priestley. Letter 5. REMAUKS ON MISCELLANIES. 195 Ireneus, Origen, and Eusebius, of succeeding ages. All the passages recited by them may be founds nvordfor word, in the edi- tions by Usher and Vossius, According to the lear.ied Dupin, *' This is true not only in the resemblance of one or invo passages, but in a. very great number that are cited by different authors; ivhich makes it so much the more certain." " Besides," continues this learned historian, " there is nothing in these Epistles which does not agree v/ith the person and time of Ignatius ; there are no defects in the ch'07iolcgy^ nor any anachronisms,, v/hich are usually found in supposititious works; there is no mention made of any he- retic that lived after Ignatius ; the errors that are refuted belong to his time^ as that of the Simonians and Ebionites, concerning the passion and divhiity of Jesus Christ ; the tradition of the Church is confirmed according to Eusebius : he speaks of those gifts of the Holy Spirit that were visible in the Cliurch, 8cc. Upon the whole matter, these Epistles are v^ritten with great simplicity^ and bear an afwstolicu' character,'"^ Unable to resist the powerful evidence in favour of these Epist'es, the opponents of Episcopacy maintain that those we now possess are full of corruptions and interpolations. But if you exclude from these Epistles, as spurious and interpolated, all that relates to Epis- copacy, you will destroy their sense and connection. _ The testimo- nies concerning Episcopacy are so numerous and various, so essen- tial to the sense, of the author, that it is impossible they could have been, by any ingenuity, incorporated with the text of v/hich they were not originally a part- We mav therefore sum up the evidence in favour of the Epistles of Ignatius, in the words of an able writer, who has given a learn- ed and perspicuous detail of this evidence.t " The sum of the matter is this : Polycarp^ in his Epistle to the Philippians, the acts of Ignatius' martyrdom, and Ireneus, in the second century ; Ori- gen^ in the third ; Eusebius,, Athanasius,, Chrysostom, and Jerome^ in the fourth ; and a great number of writers down to the fifteenth century, all bear witness to these Epistles4 And with regard to the internal evidence, there is nothing in the Epistles which indi- cates a period subsequent to that of Ignatius. The distinction of Bishops from Presbyters was common in the second century ; |j the inscriptions of the Epistles are simple, and in the apostolic man- ner; there is nothing which savours of the Platonic philosophy, ■which prevailed in the Church in the conclusion of this, and in the next century ; in short, every thing suits the time and circumstances of the holy martyr v/hen he wrote." * t)upin's Ecd. Hist. vol. 1. on the Epistles of Ignatius. f Dr. Bo-aden, in his second letter to Dr. Stiles. \To these ma^ be added the names of the most learned men since the Reformation. Those marked in italics, are not Episcopalians. Usher, Vossius, Grotius ; Pearson (who wrote a learned vindication of these Epis- tles), and Hammond, Fetavius, Bull, Wake, Cave, Cotelerius, Grabe, Du- pin, Tillemont, Le C'krc, Bocbart, and the learned Fabricius, Professor at Hamburg, in the last century, Ij Blondel, Salmasius, and Cbamier, ac!:nowledge that, about onp hundred and forty years ^i'-AX Christ, Episcopacy prevaikd, ^d. 1^6 REMARKS OK MISCELLANIES^ M'^ritings attested by such powerful external 2ind zntBmal evi- dence cannot be questioned, without endangering the credibility of all ancient writings. And it is worthy of remark that the genuine- ness of the Epistles of Ignatius has been called in question^only by those who, on account of the decisive evidence which they giveJ in favour of Episcopacy, are interested in opposing them. The author of Miscellanies also asserts, that the articles of the Church of England are Calvini&tic ; and that the seventeenth ar^ tide m particular maintains the Galvinistic doctrine of " election and reprobation;" and that those Episcopalians v/ho oppose this doctrine, " attack" the articles of their Church. These are very serious assertions : for, if true, they involve the great body of the Clergy of the Church of England, and almost every individual among the Episcopal Clergy in this country, in the criminality and odium of opposing the doctrines of their Church. It is of importance to ascertain what are the peculiar tenets of Calvinism, Many Calvinists indeed, with a disingenuousness for which it is difficult to find an apology, are in the constant practice of ranking among the peculiar tenets of Calvinism^ of appropriating exclu- sively to the religious system so called, the doctrines of the corrup- tion and guilt of man—oi the atonement and grace of Jesus Christ— ^i jusiif cation through a true and lively fahh in him^ as the 07?/;/ mediator betvjsen God and man — of the sanctif cation of the soul through the grace of the Holy Spirit, But these were doc- trines that prevailed in the Church long before Calvin imposed his gloomy system. They were the glory and the consolation of primitive martyrs, long before St. Austin, in the filth century, first introduced the doctrine of particular absolute election. They have been espoused by a host of eminent Divines, who, while they opposed the peculiar tenets of Calvinism, were zealous in pro- claiming the doctrines of salvation through the cross of Christ. These, indeed, are the doctrines of the Church of England, But the pretensions, that would confine these doctrines to the system of Calvin, are equally unfounded and arrogant. No I the tenet which \s peculiar to Calvini^m^ and distinguishes this system from all others, is the doctrine of particular abso- lute ELECTION. This doctrine is laid down in the institutes of Calvin, in terras that are revolting to every idea vv^hich reason or scripture affords us of the attributes of God. He divides the whole human race into the Elect and the Rcfirobate; and thus lays down the decree of election and reprobation concerning them. *' Non enim pari conditione creantur omnes : sed aliis vita ster- na, aliis damnati;) rsterna preordinatur." " For all are not created in like estate, but to some eternal life,, to ethers eternal death is forcappointcd," Cal. Inst. lib. iii. chap. 21. 5, " Quos vero damn^^tioni addicit, his justo quidem et irreprehen. sibi'i, sed incomprehensibili ipsius judicio, vitas additum precludi." *' But those whom he afijiointcth to damnation,, to them, we say, by -his just and irreprehensible, but also incomprehensible judgment, th££iitrij of life is blocked up,'' Cal. Inst. lib. iii. chap. 21. 7, REMARKS ON MISCELLANIES. 197 *•' Ergo si non possumus rationem assign a ';e, cur suos misericordia digne'iur, nisi quoniam ita ilii piacet ; neque etiam in aliis repro- bandis aliud habebimus quam ejus voluniatem." " Therefore if we cannot assign a reason why he should confer mercy on those that are his^ but because thus it pleaf^cth him ; nei- ther indeed shall we have any other cause in rejecting of others^ than his own ivlil," Cal. Ins. lib. iii. chap. 22. 11. " Quemadmodum suje erga electos vocationis efficacia, salutem, ad quam eos seterno consilio destinaret, perficit Deus ; ita sua ha- bit adversos reprobos judicia, quibus consilium de illis suum exe- quatur. Quos ergo in vit^ contumeiiam et mortis cxitium creavit, ut irse sux organa forent, et severitatis exempla ; eos, ut in fineni suam perveniant, nunc audiendi verbi sui facultate priveat, nunc ejus prsedicatione magis excxcat et obstupefacit." ** As God by the effectualness of his calling towards the e/^c^, per- fects the salvation to which by his eternal counsel he had appointed them ; so he hath h\& judgments against the reprobate^ by which he executes his coun^^el concerning them. Whom therefore he hath created to the shame of life and destruction of death, that they may 6e vessels of his wrath, and exa7nples of his severity^ them, that they 7nay come to their end^ sometime he deprives of the power to hear his word, and sometime he more blinds and confounds, by the preaching of it," Cal. Ins. lib. iii, chap. 24. 12, " Ecce vocem ad eos dirigit, sed ut magis obsurdescant : lucem accendit, sed ut reddentur cceciores : doctrinam profert sed qua magis obstupescant : remedium adhibit, sed ne sanetur." " Behold, he directs his voice to them, but that they may become the more deaf: he lighteth a light, but that they niay be rendered the more blind: he showeth forth doctrine, but that they may be made viore dull: he applies to them a remedy, but not that they may be healed," Cal. Ins. lib. iii. chap. 24, 13. Well might Calvin himself confess, that this decree of election and reprobation is a " HORRiaLK decrei:." "Decretum quideni iiorribllefateor." Cal. Ins. lib. iii. chap. 23. 7. Weil may Cyprian have declared, *• if there are any doctrines uncharitable in themselves ; if there are any doctrines that would excite my zeal to extirpate them from the Church of Christ, they are the doctrines of electio7i and reprobation as taught in the insti- tutes of Calvin." And yet this horrible decree, so contrary to the attributes of God, and to tlie explicit declarations of his holy v.'ord, Calvin hesi- tates not to found on some doubtful and obscure passages of scrip- ture, on texts evidently applied, not to the eternal destiny of Indivi- duaU, but to the spiritual privileges of nations and communities in the prestni. world. This d' cuine is thus kid dov^n in the Confession of Faith of the Preci.jttrian Church in the United States of America. It is laid dov/n in similar language in the Confessions of Faith of the other Calvinistic Churches. " By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated nuto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death," Conf. of Faith, ch. iii. sec. 3. The next section of this chapter of the Co]-!rc:-sion of Faith in;- i98 REMARKS ON MISCELLANIES. presents the number of the predestinated and foreordained, as *' particularly and unchangeably designed," as " certain and defi* rite." The next section declares that those " predestinated unto life, God hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without Siny foresight of faith or good works, or fierstverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature as conditions or causes inoving him thereunto," The conclusion of the sixth section declares, " Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, efFectuaiiy called, justified, adopted, or saved, but the elect only,'' The seventh section deserves particular notice, as it contains the doctrine usually distinguished by the term Reprobation, " The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the un- searchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or with- draweth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them lo dishonour and tvralh for their sin, to the praise of his g.orious justice."* On the subject of effectual cailiiig, the Confession of Faith de- clares, that it is " not from any \\\\\\^ foreseen in tnaUy who is alto- gether fiassive therein," Chap. X. sec. 2, The third section of this chapter declares, that " £lect infants dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the spirit — so also are other elect persons, wiio are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word." Let the reader consider well the fourth section of this chapter. *• Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the v;ord, and may have some common operations of the spirit, yet they never truly co'me to Christy and therefore cannot be saved,'* Here appears the reason why those finally perish who " never tru- ly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved ;" they are "not elected^" That none but the elect can be saved, is expressly de- clared in the sixth section of the third chapter, quoted above. And that those elected are not elected in consequence of GgCCs fore- seeing that they would improve the means of grace, accept the of- fers of salvation, sind persevere unto the end, is evident from the section above quoted, which explicitly declares that the elect are chosen, " without any foresight of their faith or good ivorks, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature as conditions, or causes moving thereunto." The elect, therefore, are arbitrarily unconditionally elected. The first section of the seventeenth chapter declares, that the elect " can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace ; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved," * Calvin says, " Qiios Deus pretei-it, reprobat" — " whom God passes by, he reprobates" " Ac multi quidem, ac si invidiam a Deo repellere vellent, electionem ita fatentur ut negent qiienquara reprobari ; sed inscite nimis et pueriliter ; quando ipsa electio nisi reprobatioai opposita non sta- ret." " And ma':'y indeed as though they would drive away the malice from God, do so grant election, as to deny that any man is reprobated ; but this too ignorantly and childishly ; forasmuch as election itself 'wotdd not stand unless it %oere set contrary to reprobation^ Cal. Inat. lib., iii. chap. 23. 1. REMARKS ON MISCELLANIES. 195 The author of Miscerianies has been pleased to observe, in one of his numbers, that he believed Episcopalians in general were igno- rant that the tenets of Episcopacy were so seriously and solemnly propagated. Perhaps it may with equal truth be asserted, that the great body of Presb}'terians are not aware that the tenets of elec-^ lion and refirobation are thus explicitly and solemnly set forth in the Confession of Faith of their Church, Now that the articles of the Church of England^ and of the Pro- testant Episcopal Church in America, maintain these peculiar tenets of Calvinisin^ is absolutely and positively denied. The fifteenth article of the Church declares, that " Christ, by the sacrifice of himself took away the sins of the world,'' The six- teenth article declares, that " after we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and, by the grace of God, we may arise and amend our lives." The thirty- first article declares, that " the offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for a// the sins of the nvhole nvorld^ both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone." In perfect conformity •with these declarations are her liturgy, offices, and homilies ; all v/hich contain numerous declarations absolutely irreconcileable with the peculiar tenets of Calvinism. There are none of the articles of the Church of England which contain language or sentiments simi- lar to those contained in the Confessions of Faith of the Calvinistic churches. The only article that can be adduced in proof of the Calvinism of the Church of England is the seventeenth article. Now, let it be remembered, that this article is entirely silent on the tenet of reprobation. It says nothing in respect to those among mankind, whom God " hath passed by, and ordained to dishonour and wrath." This is an important doctrine of Calvinism, to which the Church of England is utterly a stranger. And when the au- thor of Miscellanies talks of " the article of the Church which re- spects election and reprobation" he talks of an article which has no existence. The part of the article which respects " predesti- nation and election^" is as follows : — " Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the •world were laid) he hath constantly decreed, by his counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation, those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they, which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called ac- cording to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season : they through grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made Sons of God by adoption : they be made hke the image of his •nly begotten Son Jesus Christ : they walk religiously in good works, and, at length, by God's mercy they attain to everlasting felicity. Now the article simply maintains the doctrii.te of " predestina- tion unto life." That there is such a predestination, all denominations of Christians acknowledge. The point in dispute between Calvinists and their opponents is in respect to the characteristics or t\\efounda~ tion of this predestination. Is it arbitrary and miccnditio7ial^ or the contrary? Is \t founded, on the ^i^A-^^forsknQ'i'dedp'e of those who 200 REMARKS ON MISCELLANIES. would accept the means of grace ; or is it indcfiendciit of this fore- knowledge ? Are a certain number predestinated unto life without any foreknoiuledge of their faith, Sec. or are their faith, their good works, wrought through grace, and accepted for the merits of Christ, the conditions of this predestination ? This last is the predestination maintained by anti-Caivinists, and expressly dis- claimed by Calvinists ; who all maintain that this predestination is *' without any foreknowledge of faith, of good works, of perseverance, or any other cause in the creature moving thereunto," The seven- teenth article of the Church makes no such declaration, holds no such sentiment. We are therefore to construe the article in a dif- ferent sense ; and to believe with the Apostle, Rom. viii. 28, that those are '' chosen in Christ," whoni God " foreknew" would be- lieve and obey the Gospel. These are they who are called^ who nvejusti/ied^ he. In no other article is the subject of election mentioned. But it runs through almost every chapter of the Confession of Faith of the Calvinistic churches. It is the corner stone of Calvinism, It is the spirit which extends its sullen reign through every part of the gloomy edifice which Calvin erected. The Bdcct^ uncondi* tionalhj elected, without any " foreknowledge of their faith, or any other cause in them moving thereunto," are alone the objects of those " good tidings," which, it was declared, should be for all mankind. They alone are " the seed" whom that blessed Saviour, T/ho shed his blood as " a jirofiitiation for the sins of the worlds" ** redeems, calls, justifies, sanctifies and glorifies." Well might the acute and learned Jortin characterize Calvinism as a system of " human creatures without liberty, faith without reason, and a God without mercy !" This character of the system is justified by its natural and necessaiy consequences^ though it is but justice to acknowledge that these consequences are disclaimed by its advo- cates. The above strictures are dictated by no sentiment of disrespect for those denominations who, in the exercise of an acknowledged right, maintain the tenets of Calvinism. With many individuals of these denominations the writer is in habits of intimate acquaintance and friendship. The strictures are purely defensive. They arc imperiously called forth by the charge of the author of Miscel- lanies, that the arficlts of the Church of England are Calvin- istic; by the charge, assiduously propagated, that, while the ar- ticles of this Church, and of the Episcopal Church in America, maintain the tenets of Calvinism, the Clergy of those churches maintain opposite doctrines, and are, therefore, guilty of opposing the standards of their Churches. This charge, so materially af- fecting the consistency, the reputation, and the character of the Episcopal Clergy, could in no other way be refuted, than by com- paring the Confessions of Faith of the Calvinistic Churches with the articles of the Episcopal Church, and thus ascertaining their dissi- milarity and opposition. If the Articles of the Church of England were Calvinistic, would the Calvinistic Clergy have thought it necessary to substitute others in their place ? No\v, it is a well known fact, that, in the reign of Elizabeth, the Calvinists were anxious to substitute in the place AN EPISCOPALIAN. No. II. 201 ©f these articles, what are called " the Lambeth Articles," in ■which the tenets of Calvinism are couched in nearly the same lan- guage in which they are exhibited in the institutes of Calvin and the public confessions of the churches modelled on his system. In addition to the direct evidence before exhibited, here is strong pre- sumptive prquf that the articles of the Church of England do not merit the charge of Calvinism. That the Protestant Episcopal Church in America does not con- sider the articles as sanctioning the peculiar tenets of Calvinism, will not admit of a doubt. Articles were proposed for considera- tion by the General Convention of that Church, in 1799 ; but were not acted upon, in consequence of a determination to adopt the ar- ticles of the Church of England, as they iverC', in toto. The Con- vention of 1801 unanimously adopted these articles; and all the members of this Convention were decidedly a7z??-Ca/pm/s;/f. What stronger proof of the sense in which they received these articles \ The Convention possessed full power to model the articles as they pleased. They would have all agreed in opposing the distinguish- ing tenets of Calvinism. Had they believed that the articles were Calvinistic, it is absurd, and in the highest degree dishonourable to them, to suppose that they would have adopted articles contrary to their sentiments. There could have been no apprehension of opposi- tion from the great body of the Laity. For it is a fact, that a large proportion of the Laity, even of the Calvinistic churches, do not believe the doctrine of election and reprobation as stated in their Confessions of Faith. Among Episcopalians, these tenets have scarcely any advocates. Thanks to God, these doctrines, which re- present him not as a just and gracious Father^ the character in. ■which he delights we should behold him, but as a stern and inexorable Sovereign^ are fast hastening into disrepute. No ; the Convention. believed thvat the imputation of Calvinism cast upon the articles was wholly unfounded. And not being disposed to meddle with those who are " given to change," they adopted, without alteration, the articles which they had received from their venerable parent, the Church of England, and which the Reformers of that Church had sealed with their blood. Ed, For the Albany CentineL AN EPISCOPALIAN. No. II. To the Author of the " Miscellanies,*'^ Sir, X HAVE seen your letter to me, in the Albany Centinel of the 8th October, and am pleased at finding that our correspondence is not likely to be embittered by asperity or incivility. The first matter which I wish to notice in it, is your declaration of your never having meant to say, that the author of the pamph- let pleaded for parity. I avail myself of this as of what I trust 202 AN EPISCOPALIAN. No, XL will be the ground of our future agreement. But, while I hope that your declaration will be as decisive with others as it is with me, you must permit me to think that there is apparently, in your ex* hibition of some passages of the pamphlet, the meanuig of which you have discharged yourself. You have done away that apparent meaning of the first passage, noticed by me, by printing the whole of it. I allude to the propo- sal of keeping in view, under a temporary departure from the suc- cession, the obtaining of it as soon as conveniently might be. Al- though you now give the proposal entire, you are not wiUing to admit that injustice was done the author by omitting it. Of desigjied injustice I have made no charge. But its tendency to mislead, however unintended by you, I inferred from the circum.stances, that you had been engaged in a controversy, wherein Episcopacy on one side, and parity on the other, had been the points maintained; that your first mention of the pamphlet was with the declaration, that you had considered it as releasing you from the necessity of expos- ing arguments of your opponents "in favour of Episcopacy; that you represented the author as making a voyage for a purpose which he was convinced might be accomplished as well at home ; and that, according to your opinion, the reasonings of the pamphlet applied as forcibly for a final as for a temporary departure. Now it is nothing to the present point, that, in the expressions the last quoted from you, the author may have been supposed not to have in- tended to serve the cause of parity. I deny all tendency of the pamphlet that way ; and, under these circumstances, I submit to the impartial, whether the express proposal of keeping the suc- cession in viev/ were not necessary for the giving a correet idea of the plan proposed. You would not, I think, have charged me with wliat " looks like an evasion," if you had apprehended the sense of the part of my letter to which that expression is applied. I intended to state your meaning to be (but I may have sacrificed perspicuity to brevity), that the reasoning of the pamphlet went to the point of dispensing with Episcopal ordination in all cases ; as had been done in Eliza- beth's time in so?ne. My understanding of you thus was, I think, natural ; because the JoTfner was the purpose to which you had ap- plied yourself in your controversy with Cyprian and others^ You had not been pleading for the dispensing with Episcopal ordination in any case of exigency. But you might have judged that the doing cf this could only have been on such ground as applied generally. This is what I understand to be your purpose ; and what I do not find supported by any reasonings in the pamphlet. Your apphcation of the term, " as some conceive," to Episcopa=. lians, instead of to their opponents, has been corrected by you in such a manner as, in my opinion, more than balances the mistake. In regard to your quotation from Bishop Hoadly, and your re- presenting of him as distinctly saying, what you now contend for as only a fair inference from him ; I should not have taken advant- age of this circumstance were it not, that, in the course of my reading and my conversation, I have occasionally perceived an ambiguity in the use of the words "• of divine appointment." That ^hc ApQstks appointed a ministry in three different degrees, is AN EPISCOPALIAN. No. III. 205 what would have been contended for by Bishop Hoadly ; and he has said nothing to the contrary in the passage in question. But if, under these terms, it be understood that the appointment was accompanied by any thing declaratory of perpetual and unalterable obligation in every exigency and necessity whatsoever, the contrary to this is, I confess, a fair inference from his words, and from the citation of them in the pamphlet. You complain, that after printing a certain paragraph from the pamphlet, I did not subjoin other paragraphs which follow ; mean- ing principally, as I suppose, what has just now been referred to from Bishop Hoadly. I began with an acknowledgment that you had done the author no injustice, as to the point to which that pas- sage applies ; and I afterwards observed that it makes a distinction between apostolic practice, and a matter of indispensable requisi- tion. But you think I should have given the paragraphs, because they were necessary for the understanding of the pamphlet. The object of my letter was not to explain the pamphlet generally, but to rescue some parts of it from inadvertent misrepresentation. And when I printed one paragraph at large, it was because it had been printed by you in part only, although the whole was necessary to the sense. The other you had given entire. My incidental mention of the object of my letter reminds me to request of you, that if there are some matters in yours not neces- sarily connected with that object, you will not think it disrespectful in me, that I pass them by in silence. AN EPISCOPALIAN. For the Albany Centineh AN EPISCOPALIAN. No. IIL To the Author of the " Miscellanies, Sir, H -AVING now before me your letter in the Centinel of the 11th October, I readily admit your acknowledgment of the mistake of the quotation from Neal's history. And, indeed, I have been con- fident, that a second attention to the passage would bring the true intent to viev/ : especially as it would occur to you, how improbable it is, that a professed Episcopalian, addressing the Episcopal Church for a purpose which interfered with the prejudices of many, should have quoted the opinion of the Smectymnuan Divines, however personally respectable, as authority with that body. It would not have been surprising if the supposed evidence of meaning had made the author of the paragraph somewhat negligent in his manner of quoting Mr. Neal. This, however, in my judgment, is not the case ; the note being connected by an asterisk, with a fact said to be ac- knowledged by both parties. Of the acknowledgment of it by one 2U AN EPISCOPALIAN. No. III. of them, there could be no doubt ; and therefore the note might be thought to apply evidently to the acknowledgment of it by the other. It surprises rae much that you should consider the passage above referred to, as carrying the same meaning with another^ which ex- presses the mere presidency of a Bishop in a general concourse of Christians. This passage supposes the existence of Bishops dur- ing the ivhole tract of time referred to ; while the other affirms the rise of them during that tract of time, in all parts of the Christian world, in violation of original establishment and existing habits ; an event, of which, in the estimation of Episcopalians at least, there is not the shadow of evidence. And then the part the Bishop is described as taking in the business of debate and determination is very short of his duty generally ; not extending to the preaching of the word, the administration of the sacraments, and the ordain-. ing to the ministry. Yet you think this passage sufficient for your purpose ; that is, evidence of what the author of the pamphlet con- ceived to be the origin of Bishops. You continue to lament that the government of the Episcopal Church was not founded on the plan represented in the pamphiet. I know of no difference of principle, unless it should be considered as such, that there was not a temporary departure from Episco- pacy ; the ground for which you acknowledge to have been done away. But, you say that the sentiments of the pamphlet remain ; that is, sentiments declaratory of what might have been done in aa exigency no longer existing. But you add, the author expected the necessity to continue longer. Probably he did; and he may have thought with many judicious persons, that, however defeated the design of subjugating America, the armies of Britain would be "withdrawn, without an acknowledgment of our independence for some years ; as had been done in the contest between Spain and the Netherlands. What v/ould this prove, but that the author was mistaken, and that the war ended much more to his satisfaction, and jirobably to yours, than he had expected. But you think the Epis- copal Church might have continued to have the three orders, al- though giving up the succession ; and that this would have led to her union with other Churches ; that is, she might have given up ■what she conceives to be a constituent part of her institutions, and coeval nvith her holy religion : in the mere doing of which I see little ground of union with others ; but much ground of disunion within herself. Relying on the sir.cerity of your declared benevolence to other do- r.ominations than your own, 1 will take the liberty of addressing to you some sentiments to the same effect, merely in the exercise of the a.llov/able freedom with which you have communicated to me yours. What I would principally say to this purpose is, that, in order to cultivate mutualtoleration in our respective communions, we should bear with some measure of mutual intolerance ; and much more, with what ive may conceive to be such, though not deserving of the name, being resolvable into opinion, void of malice. To ex- plain my meaning by a few supposed cases. Should any Presbyte- rian Church declare (which I do not know to be done by any, and is certainly not done by the body most commonly distinguished by AN EPISCOPALIAN. No. III. 505 that name) that parity of the ministry is necessary to the existence of a Church, I should suppose them intending to uphold what they thought Christian verity ; and that the bad aspect it would have on the condition of Episcopalians were a circumstance to which they could not accommodate their system. Should any members of sucli a body (and I am now stating what I have known to happen) consi- der Episcopacy such an usurpation that it is unlawful to hear the word or to receive the ordinances from a ministry acting under it, I should recollect that their salvation is too serious a matter to ex- pect the means of it to be accommodated to my ease or satisfaction. Now, to take the subject in another line. Had the Episcopal Church declared (which she has not) that the sacraments are inva- lid from any other than an Episcopalian ministry ; or, should any of her Ministers maintain (as 1 have known done, in consequence of what appeared to them to result fairly and necessarily from her declarations and her practice) that the acts of any other than an Episcopalian ministry are generally invalid ; although I should con- sider it a matter fairly subject to temperate discussion from the press ; yet I do not think it an insult either to societies or to indi- viduals, unless this should appear in the terms under which the argument were conducted. I do not see any other grounds on •which mutual forbearance, consistently with variety of opinion, can be maintained. Episcopacy and Presbytery out of the question ; I could name to you a score of preachers, whose discourses conti- nually consign to damnation very many who (I am persuaded), in your estimation, as well as mine, would be thought entitled to the Christian character. If this is to be held a ground of personal offence, where is it to stop ? In short, under the happy toleration of our laws, its advantages in one way must be immensely counter- balanced in another, unless we apply to the present subject, what is said by the Roman poet, " Hanc veniara damns, petimusqne viclssim.'* In what degree sentiments of this sort tend to promote an union of churches, it would be difficult to ascertain ; but I am disposed t® believe, that their effect would be considerable. Animosity preced- ed division. Forbearance and good will must precede union. Of quarrel on any legal ground there is none ; while, for the contrary^ there is abundant motive in a consideration v/hich, though arising from what is a dire evil in itself, may in this way render that evil productive of much good. I allude to the increase of infidelity. This gains much more from the animosities of Christians, than from their separate worship ; which, however much to be lamented, is resolvable into causes consistent with the acknowledging of the same scriptures ; with the pleading of the same evidence of a di- x^ne power in the establishment of Christianity ; with the pointing to the same progressive accomplishment of its prophecies ; and, above all, with the adorning of their profession by tlieir lives an.d conversation. It is to be hoped that this mutual forbearance in advocating our respective opinions, will be at last the mean of ad» vancing that visible union so favourable to maintaining the " unity of the spirit in tlie !)ond of peace," and in which we shall " glo-r rjfy" God not only with '' one heart," but also with one " m.ooth." SOS VINDEX. No. II. I wish to conclude with my most ample acknowledgments of the liberality of your last paragraph ; and with expressing my opinion, that, judging by my own feelings, I should suppose of the gentle- man whom you name is the author of the pamphlet, that he would thankfully accept the attentions you so politely tender him, if an opportunity should offer. AN EPISCOPALIAN. For the Albany CentineL VINDEX. No. II. To the Author of " Miscellanies*** Sir, H ROM the declarations of the printers, the public were led to expect that the controversy concerning Church government would soon be terminated. You have thought proper to renew it, and the printers have indulged you. I claim from their impartiality the pri- vilege of a reply. If the Episcopal writers have hitherto received every indulgence, you certainly have no reason to complain. Your communications have always been promptly and correctly inserted ; and the printers have graced them with their fairest types. It is an easy matter for a writer, who deals principally in bold as- sertion, to be very concise ; and thus to be able to apply to those who are anxious to establish every thing they advance, the very elegant epithet of being " long winded." You brought assertion upon assertion so rapidly, that it was not an easy matter even for " A Layman," for " Cyprian," and for " Detector" to keep up with j'Du. Careless of proof, and proudly fancying that your ipse dixit "would be received as sacrcd, you appeared to think that your only business was to assert. Your opponents, reverencing their cause, and respecting the understanding of their readers, thought it their duty to bring forward full and fair reasoning. We readily concede to you the merit of brevity. We trust that this controversy, which you commenced in a news- paper, and where, of course, those whom you assailed were obliged to follow you, will serve to convince you that the Episcopal Church has sons able and determined to defend her. - If your opponents have introduced new matter, it is a merit which you do not appear anxious to obtain. In your late publications, you have recourse to your old weapons. You endeavour to connect Efiiscofiacy with Popery ; to excite the public indignation against the " Companion for the Altar," and for " the Festivals and Fasts;'* and to pervert the pamphlet which you attribute to Bishop White, to support your opinions. You assert that the prevalence of Episcopacy for fifteen hundred yeai-s after Christ, is an argument much stronger in favour of Po- pery than Episcopacy, What, Sir ! Do you mean to assert that VINDEX. No. II. 20r during the first ages of the Church, \vhen, according to the conces- sion of even the advocates of Presbytery, the Episcopal govern* nient arose ? Do you mean to assert that during this period the in- fallibility and supremacy of the Pope, transubstantiation, and other corruptions of Popery prevailed ? If this be your intention, you will excuse me for doubting your credibility as an ecclesiastical histo- rian, and your talents as a defender of the Protestant faith. Episcopalians, equally with you, maintain, that " the scriptures are the only and perfect rule of faith and practice." But in inter- preting this rule, are we to discard contemporary evidence ? Are we to reject the testimony of the primitive Church ? You, doubtless, maintain, that the scriptures establish the divinity of Christ. The Socinians deny it. Episcopalians maintain that the scriptures esta- blish Episcopacy. You deny it. Now, if you can prove, from the testimony of the Fathers, that the primitive Church received the doctrine of the divinity of Christ ; and if we can prove, from the same testimony, that the primitive Church received Episcopacy as a divine institution ; should not this satisfy the Socinian ; should not tliis satisfy you, Sir, that these doctrines are contained in the scriptures ? On what other ground can you account for their uni^. versal reception in the Church ? You affect to doubt that Calvin ever urged the plea of necessity for renouncing Episcopacy. The Layman, in his first address, quot- ed the declaration of Calvin on this subject ; and I beg leave to repeat it. You will find it in his work " concerning the reforma- tion of churches,"—" If they ivoiild givexxs, says Calvin, such an hierarchy^ in which the Bishofis should so excel, as that they did not refuse to be subject to Christ, and to depend upon him as their only head, and refer all to him, then I will confess that they are wor- thy of all anathemas^ if any such shall be found, who will not re- verence it, and subm.it themselves to it with the utmost obedience." Here Calvin expressly pleads, that they would not give him a pri- Hutive Efiiscofiacy^ such an Episcopacy as the Church of England possessed, and on the possession of which he and Beza cordially con- gratulated her. Here he denounces those as '* worthy of all cwa- ihemas, if any such shall be foimd^ who will not reverence it and submit themselves to it with the utmost obedience." I say not that the plea was well founded ; fori believe that Calvin coidd have procured a firimitive Episcopacy. I say not, that, as he advanced in the work of reformation, he adhered to this plea. It is sufficient for my purpose that at one period he certainly advanced it. The chagrin which you discover whenever this declaration of Calviii is mentioned, is perfectly natural. The declaration proves the veneration wtiich, at one period, your great master entertained for Episcopacy, and the qualms of conscience v/hich he felt in renouncing it. Calvin, you insist, might have been a Bishop, perhaps with the honourable titles of '' Right Reverend Father in God," and " your Grace." — Ah I but he would not then have been founder or THE Church in Geneva, You assert, that " there v^as no opportunity of effectually op- posing Episcopacy till the period of the Reformation." What, Sir t have we not been told that Episcopacy was an usurpation — an usurpation that reared its formidable head in the early ages ? \Va» 208 VINDEX. No. II. not the period of its first appearance the most favourable period for crushing this monster that was destroying the sa.cred /ireslytery of the Church ? Must not Episcopacy at this period have been viewed as an impious attack upon the institutions of the Apostles, whose memories were then cherished with the most sacred fervour? Would those venerable and pious men who, through the tortures of the rack, and through the flames of the stake, obtained the crown of martyrdom ; would they have silently permitted the foundations of the Church to be subverted ? Would those illustrious lights of Christianity, in whom humiUty shone with the most splendid lustre, •would they have become not merely accessories, but firincipals in this impious work of usurpation, in this lawless grasp of dominion ? Alas I that in those degenerate days, there was no Miscellaneous Author to step forth the bold champion of oppressed truth, and to lift up his fearless voice against these usurping " Lords in God's heritage." The pamphlet which you attribute to Dr. White is the burden of your song. This, with you, is " law and gospel." You deride and discard the testimony of the primitive Fathers of the Church, and yet you appear willing to rest your cause on the fallible opinion of an individual of the present day. But even this support will fail you. This subject, however, I will leave to " An Episcopalian," who is particularly interested in correcting your mistakes. You tliink my commentary on his letter wholly unnecessary ; and yet you have occupied one of your numbers with replies to my remarks, I feel at some loss to account for the anxiety you discover to defend the indulgence of the sensual appetites. In one of the numbers of your Miscellanies you remark, that " the celibacy of the Popish Clergy is none of the smallest corruptions in their Church, against which every orthodox Clergyman will protest," And you now cen- sure me for my intrusion by the very refined observation — " A brace on the table is pleasant enough ; but a brace of antagonists is not ▼ery eligible." Episcopalians, while they " contend for the faith," are yet mind- ful of the sacred injunction to exercise charity. In conformity to the order handed down from the beginning, they maintain, that Bishops only have the power of ordination ; and as a general pro- position, that Episcopal ministrations only are valid. At the same time they are disposed to believe, that when any Church cannot obtain the lawful succession, God, who " is not a hard master, reaping where he has not sown, and gathering where he has not strawed," will mercifully dispense with it. Nay, that he will gra- ciously accept and bless the ministrations of those who have not a^ lawful call ; when the error is not chargeable to wilful neglect of tlic means of information, or to obstinate resistance to the light of conviction. In this way does the author of the " Companion for the Altar" reconcile truth 'with charity : in this way does he embrace in the arms of fraternal benevolence all who, according to the talents bestowed on them by their graciouii Maker, seek to know and to do his will. You will pardon me if I assert, that you appear totally unac-~ quainted with the doctrine of Succession, as maintained in every age of the Church. Ycu think that when aay Church thvQ^f{i o^ VINDElX. No. II. 209 Episcopacy, the succession is interrupted. No, Sir ! as long as there remains a single Bishop in the world, one lawful successor of the Apostles, the apostolic succession remains. We are under no apprehension that it will ever be lost. It is founded on the rock OF AG E s ; on the unfailing promise of the divine Head of the Church, <^ Lo, I am with you alway^ even to the end of the world,'* The " Episcopal Priests" in this State, because they maintain tenets obnoxious to you, you have been pleased to load with every epithet of contempt and opprobrium. I wish not to repeat expres- sions which I deeply regret you ever descended to use. If you consider your language as merely *' playful," it would have com- ported better with the dignity of truth, and with the dictates of charity, if, on a serious subject^ you had yourself been grave. If you mean to awe the advocates of Episcopacy into silence, be as- sured you will fail in your aim. Your attack on Episcopacy has already called forth in her defence " A Layman" and " Cyprian," who do honour to themselves and to their cause. I am not even without the hope that this discussion, which you have provoked, " will produce some effect upon those who are teaching things contrary to sound doctrine ;" will lead the candid and dispassionate to ex- amine and to acknowledge the claims of that Priesthood, which has subsisted from " the Apostles' times," and v;hich was never laid aside, until the sixteenth century, in any part of the Christian tvorld. To the author of the " Companion for the Festivals and Fasts'* you apply the remark — " Into what vagaries and absurdities will men sometimes run to maintain a cause which they have incon- siderately espoused." Now, Sir, to impress on you the impropriety of rash judgment^ I will inform you, that the opinions advanced by that author were the result of a serious and full investigation of tlie subject on which he wrote ; and that the sentiments which you style absurd, are expressed in the language of Divines, who ever have been and ever will be considered as the brightest ornaments of the English Chui'ch. But from you, Sir, a charge of this kind surprises me — you, Sir, who, when you explained texts of Scripture, disdained to employ the lights of commentators ; and who recently made it your boast that, in the present discussion, you have scorned to take either " counsel or assistance." I confess I am both surprised and pleased with a concession in one of your late numbers. You observe, " I would be cautious in asserting the divine rights either of Episcopacy or Presbyterian- ism." And yet you set out with considering Episcopacy as a usur- pation; you commenced this controversy with the positive assertion that " the Classical or PresbijteHal form of Church government is the true and only one which Christ hath prescribed in his ivord,'* I congratulate you, Sir, on this candid renunciation of error — I con- gratulate you on the traces of mildness and moderation which yon display towards " An Episcopalian." O si sic omnia ! On sacred subjects we should disdain those little arts that are vrorthy only of the dabbler in the sinks of party politics ; and should Avield the manly weapons of candour and truth. Pardon me, Sir; I honour in you that conscientious exercise of judgment which I claim for myself. But v/hen I review the numbers of your Miscellanies, and 2E 210 VINDEX. No. II. discover in them so little argument, and So much bold assertion; so little dispassionate investigation, and so much artful appeal to the prejudices and passions of the public ; so little seriousness and candour, and so much ridicule and finesse ; I am disposed to reject the belief that the author of Miscellanies is a gentleman, for whose talents, piety, and sacred character I cherish the sentiments of es- teem and respect, VINDEX. THE END. ERRATUM. Page 53, line 14, instead of *' Surely a word cannot be men- tioned," read. Scarcely a %vord can be mentioned. on Theological Semmary-Speer Library 1 1012 01035 4399