"^^ y^ J Srom f^e feiBrarg of (pxofcBBox ^amuef (gtiffer in ^emorg of Sub^e ^amuef (gtiffer Q0recftinrib<5e ^Jreeenteb fig ^dmuef (Btiffer (grecftinrib^e feon^ fo t^e feifirarg of (Princeton J^eofo^icaf ^eminarg 5. /£3, ^Inn!°willi.n>- 1752-1808. A collection of the essays on the subject of COLLECTION ESSAYS ON THE SUBJECT Of EPISCOPACY, Which originally appeared in the Albany Centirie!, And which are ascribed principally to THE REV. DR. LINN, THE REV. MR. BEASLEY, AND THOMAS Y. HOW, ESQ. VVith additional Notes and Remarks. BctorTJorli : Printed by T. ^jT J. Swords, No. 160 Pearl-Street. 1806, PREFACE. J.N 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 avowal 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: while 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- ductions on the same side., are all attributed to the Rev. Dr. Linn, an eminent Clergyman of the Dutch Reformed Church at Albany, and formerly of New- York. For the able elucidation and defence of Episcopacy by a " Lay- man" and " Cyprian," its friends are indebted to Thomas Yardley How, Esq.* and the Rev. Frederick Beas- • This gentleman was educated to the bar, and when the late Gen. Hamilton held a high stution in the army raised by Congress a itvf years since, acted as his private Secretary. iv PREFACE. LEY, Rector of St. Peter's Church, Albany. The letters signed " An Episcopalian," on the subject of a pam- phlet generally ascribed to a distinguished Clergyman of the Episcopal Church, which the author of Miscellanies supposed favourable to his sentiments, were written by the author of that pamphlet ; and the short pieces signed " Detector" and " Vindex" were written by the author of those books which the author of Miscellanies made the pretext of his attack on the Episcopal Church. The author of those books can most conscientiously de-r clare, that, in the passages which have been deemed offen- sive, his sole object was to contribute his humble efforts tp diffuse, among those of his own communion, a knowledge of the principles of their Church. It never occurred to him that this exercise of an acknowledged right, and, as lie conceived, of an important duty, in books addressed to Episcopalians, and designed for their use, would be the cause of offence to others, and give rise to a news- paper attack upon the Episcopal Church, The attention of many persons has now, however, been awakened to the subject of the constitution of the Christian Church ; and in order to enable them seriously to investigate the sub- jiect, it has been deemed adviseable to collect and to pub- lish all the pieces which appeared, on both sides of this question, in the Albany Centinel. The author of Mis- cellanies has, with great Industry, collected together all the arguments against Episcopacy. He has indeed dealt largely in assertions. These, of course, could not be ex- posed and refuted in as concise a manner as they were made. And as the printers became at kngth extremely averse to publishing on the subject, the advocates of Epis- copacy were compelled to pass by, W\xho\xt particular notice, PREFACE. V several of the assertions of the author of Miscellanies. These are principally the subjects of the additional yiotes and remarks added to this volume by the Editor. Some persons, who condemn, at all times, religious con- troversy, may be of opinion, that this controversy should have been left to perish with the newspapers of the day in which it appeared. But these persons are entreated to remember, that controversy often unavoidably results from the discharge of the duty explicitly urged in Holy Writ, to " contend earnestly for the faith." The here- sies and schisms that prevail in the Church arise not from the imperfection of the sacred volume, but from the frailty and corruption of human nature ; and they even powerfully corroborate the divine origin of those Scrip- tures, which predict their rise and prevalence. Steadfastly to oppose them, however, must certainly be the obvious duty of every friend to the purity and success of divine truth. And no one who considers that every Christian Minister must be " called of God as was Aaron," must be vested with a ^/W/ze co7nmission; no one who consi- ders that some jnode must have been originall}' esta- blished for perpetuating^ agreeably to the promise of the divine Head of the Church, the ministerial authoritj^, " alway, even to the end of the world ;" no one who considers how great stress is laid by our Saviour and his Aposdes on Church unitij ; no one who considers how much the divisions that distract Christians obstruct the diffusion of divine truth, v/ill hesitate to declare, that every inquiry on the subject of the mode of deriving from the Head of the Church the ministerial commission ; and every inquiry concerning the principles of that Chris- tian untty^ Avhich preserved the glory and purity of tlie vi PREFACE. primitive Church, and is still necessary for the same im- portant object, is of primary and essential importance. Hence too it becomes the duty of every Christian serh eusly to inquire where are the true Priesthood^ and the valid ordinances of the Church; and hence the present publi- cation, which furnishes a view of the arguments on these important topics, may be justified.* The present publication is rendered necessar}' on another account. A periodical work, entitled, " The Christian's Magazine," has been for some time announced. This will be conducted by the united talents of the re- pectable body of anti-Episcopal Clergy in the city of New- York. And it is ascertained that they have been, for a long time, preparing to expose, in this Miscellany, what they consider the erroneous tenets of Episcopalians on the constitution of the Christian Church. With a knowledge of this circumstance, it would be a dereliction of duty in those who believe Episcopacy was the originally and di- vinely constituted mode of conveying and perpetuating the ministerial commission, to remain inactive. In the present publication, the arguments for and against Epis- copacy are presented to the reader ; and he has thus a fair opportunity of judging of the merits of this important question. • Potter on Church Governinent, and the tracts on the same subject in the Scholar Armed, viz. Leslie on the ^alijications to administer the Sacra- ments, and Lavi^s three Letters to the Bishop of Bangor, contain the sub- stance of the arguments in favour of Episcopacy. The anti-Episcopal arguments are stated by Sir Peter King, in his Inquiry concerning the Constitution, &c. of the Primitive Church, and by the late Dr. Camp' bell, in his Ecclesiastical Lectures. Tlie former book was answered, it is said, to the conviction of Sir Peter King himself, by Slater, in his Ori- ginal Draught of the Primitive Church ; and the latter book by Bishop Skinner o£ Aberdeen, in h\s Primitive Truth and Order Vindicated. PPEFACE. vw The imputation of uncharitableness and bigotry^ libe- rally applied to the advocates of Episcopacy, is disclaimed as equally ungenerous and unjust. The same imputatioa has always been urged, by the opponents of the truths of- Revelation, against the advocates of these truths. It has pleased God to make his Church the channel of his covenanted mercies to the world. Christians, universally, for fifteen centuries, considered the Priesthood, in the orders of Bishops^ Priests^ and Deacons^ as one of the essential characteristics of the Church; and considered the reception of the ordinances administered by this Priest- hood as the divinely appointed mode of entering into cove- pant with God. But though the institutions of the Al- mighty are indispensably binding upon men, he is not himself restricted by them. Every benevolent hearty therefore, ardently cherislies the delightful belief, that mercy will at length be extended to ail who humbly and earnestly seek to know and to do the will of their hea- venly Master. In the sincerity of his soul, the writer can adopt and cherish the sentiments avowed by a dis- tinguished Prelate ; vfho still honours and promotes by his jerudition and talents, tlie cause of science and religion ; and who, for his zealous defence of primitive faith and order, has been frequently branded with the charges of intolerance and bigotry-.* " Though truth in these controversies can be only on one side; he will indulge, and he will avow, the charitable opinion that sincerity may BE ON BOTH. AnD HE WILL ENJOY* THE . REFLECTION, • Bishop Horsley. See his Charge to his Clergy, while Archdeacon of St. Albaa's, in defence of the divinity of Christ, against Dr. Priest- ley. viii PREFACE. THAT, BY AN EQUAL SINCERITY, THROUGH THE POWER OF THAT BLOOD WHICH WAS SHED EQUALLY FOR ALL, BOTH PARTIES MAY AT LENGTH FIND EQUAL MERCY. In THE TRANSPORT OF THIS HOLY HOPE, HE WILL AN- TICIPATE THAT GLORIOUS CONSUMMATION, WHEN FAITH SHALL BE ABSORBED IN KNOWLEDGE, AND THE FIRE OT CONTROVERSY FOR EVER QUENCHED. WhEN THE SAME GENEROUS ZEAL FOR GOD AND TrUTH, WHICH TOO OFTEN, IN THIS WORLD OF FOLLY AND CONFUSION, SETS THOSE AT WIDEST VARIANCE WHOM THE SIMILITUDE OF VIRTUOUS FEELINGS SHOULD THE MOST UNITE, SHALL :BE the CEMENT OF AN INDISSOLUBLE FRIENDSHIP; ■WHEN THE INNUMERABLE MULTITUDE OF ALL NATIONS, KINDREDS, AND PEOPLE, (wHY SHOULD I NOT ADD OF ALL SECTS AND PARTIES?) ASSEMBLED ROUND THE THRONE, SHALL, LIKE THE FIRST CHRISTIANS, BE OF ONE SOUL, AND ONE MIND; GIVING PRAISE WITH ONE CONSENT TO Him THAT SITTETH ON THE THRONE, AND TO THE Lamb that was slain to redeem them by his BLOOD." J. H. HOBART. Ncxv-7'orkj February i 1806. F&r the Jtlbmy CentineL MISCELLANIES. No. IX. I N the course of these numbers I shall devote one, now and then, to the subject of Church Government. Some may think 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 countiy, and fron> 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 sti'ictures, 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 Presbyterlal 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 Episcopalians appear to have been sensible of this in aiTanging 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 were left at full and equal lii^erty to model and organize their respective Churches and forms of worship and dis- cipline, in such manner as they might judge most convenient for their future prosperity, consisteatl)^ with the constitution and laws of their country." Episcopacy here is not such as is established in Great-Bi'itain, but approaches a little nearer to what has the fairest claim to a di- * Let the reader take particular notice of this assertioa with which the Author of Miscellanies commences his attack tipon 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 Episcopalians, in unison witli the faith of pri- mitive ages, have presumed to think that Episcopacy was instituted by Christ and his Apostles. Editor. f Episcopalians were indeed fully sensible that a /jr/m/in'e Episcopacy, stripped of tliose adventitious appendages which in some nations are con- nected with it, was not only •' adapted to the temper of the people of the United States," but " the most conformable to their institutions of civii government." And tl.e reader will see this point ably proved by Cyprian, and by tbe Layman. Ed. 'J MISCELLANIES. No. IX. vine right. The formerly pretended uninterrufited line of suedes-^ xio7i from the Apostles, the pompous array of dignitaries in the Church, and the conferring upon them civil offices, serve their pur- poses under JSIonarchies: in this country th6y have passed, except with a few fanatics, as a tale that has been told, or like " a vapoui* 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 Caurch in England, and have formed their constitution on that mo- del. They have assumed here the title of " the Protestant Episco- jjal Church," and are thus distinguished from the other sects of Christians, particularly from the Roman Episcopal Church. By Presbyterians I mean those who, in their Church Government, folloAv the plan of the Church of Scotland, of Holland, and of almost all the foreign Protestant Churches. Were the derivation of the ■word Efiiscojiallan explained, it would be seen that it belongs as much to others as tliose who have assumed it ; but it is used, at pre- sent, for the sake of distinction. While the greater part of pro- fessing Chi'istians are known by the term Presbyterian,! the Churches of Rome and of England are as well knov/n by the term Episcopalian. Some of the points of difference are more in name than in reality. The Presbyterians have their Sessions or Con- aiaicries^ their Presbyteries or Classes, their particular Synods, their General Sy?iod or Ge?ieral Assernbly. The Episcopalians have their Church Wardens, their Vestries, their State Convene tions, and their General Convention. The Presbyterians have their Standards of Doctrine and Directories for public worship, the Episcopalians their Articles and Liturgy. The Presbyterians have 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 Probationers. \ * 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 witii the cause of monarchy. Does not this writer know that the ttmpofai and spiritual powers of the EngHsh Bishops are totally distinct, and are in no respect necessarily connected ? Does he not know- that a primiti'iie Episcopacy, such as now exists in the United States, flourished for three hundred years under the frowns of the civii powers when tlieBiihops, so far from enjoying teniporal honours, were the constant marks tor the arrows of bitter and vengeful persecution ? Jid. •]• So far from the greater part of professing Christians being Presbyte- rian, the Presbyterians, in proportion to those who are Ejiiscopal, form bu: a small number. The whole eastern Cbiircb is Episcopal, and by far the greater part of the ivestern. The Presbyterians sprung u]i at Geneva in tiie sixteenth cetitury, and constitute the inferior number among Protest- ants. _ Ed. \ Deacons in the Episcopal Church are more than Probstioners. Tlacy are, in a qualified sense, Ministers of the word and sacraments. They liave the power of administering baptism, and are allowed to jjreach. Ac- cordingly, us Ministers, tliey tac ordained by uiipobiticn of hands. 'I'hey MISCELLANIES. No. IX. S There arc, however, some things in which the Episcopalians have deviated from the exact classical form, either through inat- tention to the scriptures, tlie only sure guide, or (what charity is unwilling to suppose) through a fondness of singularity, and of su- periority over their brethren.* The latter cause is the less to be suspected, because they declare, in Article XX. " It is not lawful for tlie Church to order any thing that is contrary to God's word writ- ten." Here they profess to take the writteJi 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. Tliis distinction is prominent in their government, and in their Liturgy. When they meet in General Convention, there is the " House of Bishops" distinct from the "House of Clerical and Lav 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 office. 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 rjritten ; and the Episcopalians, in order mercifully to open the eyes of the blind, reject Presbyterian ordination, so that whoever v/ould join the Episcopal Church must be anointed from the horn of their Bishop, though he had received before a sort of ordination by " the lajing on of the hands of the Presbytery." Examples cf 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 tlie baptism of his children was invalid : he was 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 ai-e held by the Episcopalians and the Roman Catholics. Tiie lattt-r of these sects, though consistent, yet may be thought unneighbourly ; for they would in no wi.se admit even an Archbishop of the Pro- testant Episcopal Church into theirs, until they had placed a mitre of their own upon his iiead. cannot indeed cxereir,e the full power of the Priesthood, the consecration of the elements in the Hoi) Eiicharl u, and the pronouncing of the declara- tion o5 absolution, and the authoritative benediction. Ed. * Charity v/ould have spared this uncharitable insinuation. . Ed. t Might it not with more propriety have been said, that Episcopalians happily retained at the Reformation that apostolic and primitive form oi" Church Government which some Protestants unhappily discardt'd ? iV. ( 4 > For the Alhany^ Cmiind* The « LAYMAN'S" Defence of the Church. No. I. V^HURCH government is certainly a subject of deep importance. It has received the merited attention of the most enlightened scho- lars. There is nothing new to be said upon it at this 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 appi'opriate title to his luerubations. He is undoubtedly a miscellaneous writer. 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, polkical discussions ? This, certainly, is the way to deprive the subject o£ that high dignity which it undoubtedly possesses, and to excice feel- ings little favoui-able 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 this kind shed any light Hpon 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 pui-e. 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 move that he has permitted himself to attack it in a Mianner which will not, 1 presume, be justified by his warmest friends. Many will, doubtless, read liis piece who have never seen any thing on the subject of ecclesiastical government. It is this consideration alone that 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. T'he Episcopal Church asks ouly a dispassionate hearing. Slie invites those who are so strongly opposed to her, to lay aside pre- conceived opinior/i for a moment, 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. No. I. 5 their minds. The zeal against her she sincerely believes to be the result of a want of acquaintance witli her institutions and services. Could this difficulty be removed, she fondly ii>duiges the belief that multitudes would flock to her communion, and that thos-e who ought never to have been separated from lier would return with joy to her bosom. It is by no means my design to go into a regular examination of the subject in question. This is fur from being the proper mode; nor do I feel myself competent to the undertaking. Be it my task, to notice, as briefly as possible, the observations under considera- tion, presenting simply thohe ideas tliat 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 litt.e conge- nial with a sincere desire of 'appealing only to the understanding of his readers. If on any question the judgment alone ought to be addressed, this surely is that question. Any remarks calcu- lated to excite animosity should be most carefully avoided. Has the writer under consideration conducted in this manner ? Why does he attribute the attachment of Episcopalians to the princi-r pies which distinguish tl^eir Church to prejudice, suJierstui&Uy and bigotry ? Why does he represent the important doctrine of an uninterrupted succession from the Apostles to Avhicli the Epis- copal Church subscribes, as a /"o/e in which none but a fcwya^w- tics believe ? Why does he talk of tlic necessity of anointing Ministers from the horn of the Binhofi, or represent Episcopa- lians as PROFESSING to take the written word of God ior 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 differ 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 i-eprobation. I ha\e too good an opinion of the writer to believe that he chci-ishes in his heart those feelings that his language is calculated to inspii-c in the hearts of others. He lias expressed himself inadvertently, and I persuade myself he will, in his cool moments, regret what he has done. , Let us proceed to notice the matter of this address. " While the greater part of professing Cliristians are known I)y the term Presbyterian, tlie Churches of Rome and lingland are as well known by the term Episcopalian." I must be permitted to say that this is a wide departure from fact. \W K/iisco/iacy is nieant the necessity of distinct orders in the Ministry; the highest order possessing alone that power of ordination by which the sacerdotal authority is conveyed. Now, the whole Christian world is Epis- copal, except a few dissenters, who, within two or tlirec hundred S 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 entii-ely 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, Prussia, 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 comparatively 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. Tlie advocates of parity constitute but a very trifling propor- tion of the remaining part of the Christian world. These ai'e facts. I cannot help taking notice, also, of the manner in Vv'hich 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 was 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 written ; 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 Presb}lery." 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 it's 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 ihe 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 P2pistle to Timothy — " 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." 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 common 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 fov.- of the Protestants of Pruesla &«d Germapv arc Episcopal. Ed. LAYMAN. No. I. 7 " The gift of God which is in thee, BY the putting on of my hands." St. Paul, tlien, imposed hands on Timothy ; and by this imposition Timothy received his power. The Greek word here used, is dia ; and it signifies the means bxj 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." Hei-e 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 meta^ 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 laying on of the hands of the Bishop, w/VA the laying on of the hands of Pres- byters. The reader is, I trust, convinced of the importance of the words by and nuilh^ in this case. Was it fair, then, to give the passage from the first Epistle to Timothy in a mutilated state ? Ought the word ivith to have been omitted, and the v/ord 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 exonei'ate 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 v/hen 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 Tiniothy 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 words of St. Paul, akhough not particularly called for by any thing in the strictures which have given rise to this 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, who laid their hands on Timothy, iu connection with Paul. I'he term Presbuttrus^ in its general im- port, signifies a Church Governor ; and, of coui'se, 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- bulero.^ 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 pi-oved that they v/ere 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 prohaljle that the Presbyters, who, with Paul, imposed hands upon Timothy, were really and truly Apostlec. But let h « LAYMAN. No. I. be conceded to the enemies of Episcopacy, that they were nothing more than Elders. The concession will avail them nothing ; for Paul was an Apostle, and superior to the order of mere Presbyters, Ke imposed hands on Timotliy, 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- vocates of parity ? Here the subject seems naturally to call for a few obsei'vations on that promiscuous use of the terms Elder^ Bishofi^ Presbyter, on ■which the opposers of Episcopacy place so much reliance. The fair inquiry, certainly, is as to the orders of Ministers which ex- isted in the Church in the Apostolic age, and the ages immedi- ately succeeding ; not as to the particular titles of office 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 whicii tlie)^ are applied. Presbuteros 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. ^/^/sA-o^os signifies an overseer. Every Bishop is over- seer of his diocese, and every Presbyter of his particular flock. The Apostles then arc called Presbyters. This proves conclu- sively that no argument can be drawn by the advocates of parity, from the promiscuous use of the terms Presbyter, 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 the Elders of Ephesus. In Roman history we find the term Imf levator at one period ap- plied to designate a General of an army ; at another, a Magistrate clothed with unlimited civil and military authority. Suppose we should be told that every General of an army was 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, ai-e used piximiscuously 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 oi*der of Bishops existed in the Chvirch as distinct from, and superior to the order of Presbyters, within forty or fifty )ears after the last of the Apostles. The Bi- shops then liad Pi-esbyters under tliem, over whom they exercised authority. The offices were disiinct from the beginning ; Bishops being the successors, not of those wlio are promiscuously called Bis/io/i.i, Presbyters^ F.ldcr.^, in tlie New Testament, but of the Apostles themselves. Thcodorct tells us expressly, " that in pro- cess of time tliose who succeeded to tlie Apostolic office left the nanic of Apostle to the AjiostleSj strictly so called, and gave the LAYMAN. No. I. 9 name of Bishop to those who succeeded to the Apostolic office." No argument then can be founded on the promiscuous use of namesi This mode of reasoning pro^'es 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. An 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 snffice 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 thee 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 heard It said that Timothy was only jirimus 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 csAXtd firimua inter paret, or by any other name. The writer in question ridicules the idea of an uninterrupted suc- cession from the Apostles, calling it a tale which obtains currency only among fanatics. This is strange language to apply to a prin- ciple susceptible of the strictest demonstfatioft. 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 vehy 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 Bailiffij. Nothing improper is intended by this comparison. It ia purely for the sake of illustration. C io Layman. No. i. This writer declaims on the subject of the civil dignities, coh" nectcd vvith the Church of England, and attempts to confound them with Eiiiscofmcij, 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. Efiiscofiacy 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. '^Tlie Pro- testant EjHscopal Churcli is now, and ever has been, the firmest bulwark of the cause of the Reformation. The sacerdotal authority is not impaired by haying descended through the Romish Church. If it is, the scriptures are equally affected, 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 new st.craments. 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," saj s he, " such an Hierarchy, in which th.c 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 i-everence 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 with some of his modern admirers. I took up my pen in this business v/ith 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 communication too I dislike extremely. MISCELLANIES. No. X. 11 I can trulj' say, that I feel much respect for the gentleman on whose production I have been commenting, and that 1 wish weM to the denomination of Christians of which he is a member. I most sincerely bless my God, however, tliat 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 autliority ceases. We bless God that he has given our Church a priesthdod, whose authority is so unquestionable, and we under- take not to judge those who have departed from what we conceive 4he only mode of conveying the sacerdotal power. ji Layman of the Episcopal Church. For the Albany Cendnel. MISCELLANIES. No. X. jLt may be asked. Do we not read of Bi^ojis ? 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 tiiis, 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 Avord e/iisko/ios occurs five times in the New Testament, and signifies an overseer or insjiector. It is translated in four places 6ishof}, v/hich comes from the Saxon word bischo/i, and in one place overseer. The words cpiskopees and e/iiskofioiintes are also found j the one trandated " the office of a bishop," and the other " taking the oversight." If these places be examined, it will be clearly seen tliat 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 Epi.scopal Church, receives uo countenance. In Titus i. 5 — 7, tlie Apostle says, " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldcst ordain JUders in every city. If any be blameless," 8cc. " For a Bishop [cpiskopon] must be blameless," &:c. The connection here shows beyond contradiction, that Elders or Presbyters are also Bishops. They are called by the one name ftnd by the otlicr. See also Acts xx. 28, Paul haviuij assembled J2 MISCELLANIES. No. X. the Elders or Presbyters [presbuterous] of the Church at Ephesus, a,ddressed 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 [presbutei'ous] which are among you I exhort, who am also an Elder," &c. 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 sumjiresbuteroa, 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- bly to our translation in other places, fierforming the office of Bi- 9hojis. 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, Sccf 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 out of superior rank and pov;er to the other Clergy, is improper, and is a proof of words being sometimes perverted. No one is entitled to the appellatioa 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 Pishop of o^r souls." II Memorable wfts the occasion on which he * By the same mode of argument could it not be proved, that our 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. ^ Episcopajians never pretended to rest their cause on the precarious and changeable application of names. They assert, that it appears from the facts and declarations of scripture, that the Apostles comniunieated their Episcopal power to an order of men distinct from, and superior to those called Presbyters and Elders ; and sometimes in reference merely to tlieir overseeirig the Church, Bishops. And that to this order the name of Bi- shop became appropriate after the death of the Apostles. Ed. II But even on the principles of this author, is not every Pastor *' the Bishop" of his congregation ? Was not this title lately bestowed in the most solemn manner \ipon a Minister of New-York at his installation to the charge of a single congregation \ If the miscellaneous author is con- cistent, he will flot fail imn^ediately to chide his brethren for this " aspir- ing conduct.'^ Ed. MISCELLANIES. No. X. 13 Ijavc a solemn and affectionate charge to his disciples. *' Grant," said the mother of Zebedee's children, " that these my tAvo 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 ^hall not be so among you." The Episcopalians not having the semblance of an excuse for their practice from the term Bishop, lat us consider next some pas- sages of scripture which they labour to introduce as pleading for them. Because we read of the ordination of Deaco7is, of Jildere, and of Timothy and Titus being appointed to officiate in certain churches, it has been inferi-ed, 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 eveiy one Avho is set apart to the ministry of the gospel. f They collected churches, and organized them by ordaining Elders, and those helps, governynents which are instituted ; and so does every * Let Dr. Campbell, the most zealous opponent of Episcopacy in modern times, show the futility of this distinction between a ruling and a teaching Elder. " Some keen advocates for Presbyterj', as the word is now under- stood, on the model of John Calvin, have imagined they discovered this distinction in these words of Paul to Timothy, (1 Tim. v. 17.) ' Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double 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 who 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- cially 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 but personal ; that it does not relate to a difference in the powers conferred, but solely to a difference in their ap- plication. It is not to the persons who have the charge, but to those who labour in it, oj xottjoivteo-. And to this exposition as the far more natural, I entirely agree." See Dr. Campbell's Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 178. Ed. •f 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 Deacons ? The Elders of scripture we know preached and administered the sacraments. But on the Presbyterian plan Elders are coniined to assisting the Minister in ruling the Church. The Dea- cons in scripture both preached and baptised. Presbyterian Deacons are stripped of these powers. The fact is, that the distinction of three orders is so apparent in scripture, that tliose denominations who rejected Episcopacy found it necessary to keep up at least the semblance of tliQ primitive plan. JLd. 14 MISCELLANIES. No. XI. Presbyterian Minister. In conjunction with the Elders he admitat to communion, inflicts censm-es, 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 fi'om 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,! and that, therefore, his acts are valid; and tkough 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 li'as on fiolitical topics. 3. HE writer 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 I'cad two late publications ; the one entitled, " A Companion for the Festivals and Fasts," Jkc. and the other " A, Companion for the Alcar," &ci' 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 with 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 writer is ex'ceedingly averse to quoting this text accurately. It is, " luhb the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." Ed. t How can he derive liis comnii.ssion from Christ, if, accor(],ing to this writer, there is no succession of persons appointed to convey this commis- sion from the Apostles, on whom it was confen-ed by Jesus Christ ? Ed. I This author here very projierly admits that the ministerial office is of divine, 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 ofiice is divi::e, because " instituted by the Apostles, who knev/ the mind «f the great Head and Lawgiver." Let this be remembered. EJ. CYPRIAN. No. I. -is I am astonished at his assertions, that " the dissenters from Epis- copacy bear no sort of proportion to those who aclhere 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 ivestern Church" — that if " the Roman Catholics be struck en- tirely out of the calculation, the advocates of parity constitute but a very trifling pi'oportion 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 by instead of mit/i, 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 Episcoj^al, but after the Pres>byteri:in mode. If the writer will only patiently indulge me in my miscellaneous course, I promise him all proper atten- tion. I For the Albany CentineL 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- rernment, 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 as an additional proof of tlie 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. f 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 doui)t attend it ; and yet these v.-i!l 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 all opinions upon a level, and reprobates the divine injunction of" contending earnestiiT' 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 his readers will not regret the occasion v/liich called forth his pen. iiJ. li CYPRIAN. No. I. of the spirit in the bond of peace," yet his warmest friends mU3t admit, that before he 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 reconcileable with Christian charity or cartdour^ 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, 6f 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, can 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 form 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 bigotiy, 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 Government 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, a* * I say this attack is unprovoked — for althotigh I have read the pub- lications to which this gentleman alhides when he endeavours to justify himself, yet 1 am by no means of opinion that they exculpate him for hav- ing recourse to this mode of assailing the Episcopal Church, of retorting what he, it seems, has considered as an injury. I beg this writer to re- riember, that the Compa.iion for the Altar, and the Companion for the Fesiivals and Fasts, are intended solely for the use of Episcopalians. Surely we have a right to instruct our people in what we esteem as the whole counsel of God. While \jc ar« tolerated, this privilege will not be denied lis. As to the Bishop of this State, I know him to be warmly attached to the principl.-s of his Chi^rch, and always compe.-cnt to the task of defending tbtm. CYPRIAN. No. I. ^ 1? •orae of the ablest champions of his cause have done, a more li* mited and a more tenable situation. Instead of rushing thus impe-* tuously into the field, he had better I'etired at once into the citadel* Should he and his adherents meet with a defeat in the open field of argument, tliey may possibly find themselves too much weakened and exhausted to defend, at last, the citadel itself. Of the last part ofthis proposition, as proceeding from that gentle- man, I confess I do not know what opinion to entertain. Can it be the deliberate intention ofthis writer, by representing the Episcopal forai of Church Government as hostile to the civil institutions of this coun- try, to excite an illiberal, an uncharitable, and an unfounded preju- dice against her? And who could have anticipated an insinuation of this kind from the writer of a preceding number on tlie 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 that this is a part of his production which I do not comprehend. I will not ascribe to him unworthy motives — lam 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 which we enjoy. One of the wishes nearest to their hearts is, that their civil 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 exei-tions to preserve it in its purity and vigour. The only apprehension some of them entertain on the subject is, that the materials of which it is composed are not suffi- 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 adminiftration, that stability and energy, which are essen- tial to the promulgation of its existence, which ai-e essential to the happiness and prosperity of the nation. All tliat they would warn them against, is, any attempt at touching with 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 our civil. We feel not the justness of tliis writer's observations, that the Presbyterial form of Church Government is more conformable than our own to our in- stitutions of civil government. In fact, what incongruity can subsist between the Episcopal form of Cliurch 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 not these magistrates the poorer of com- missioning subordinate officers to aid them in the administration of government ? And with ^rhat powers of any importance are our Bi- D 18 CYPRIAN. No. I. shops entrusted, but the power of commissioning subordinate officer* of the Church? They can obtain no undue influence over their Pres- byters, their Deacons, or their people. They can estabUsh 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 would frighten the good people of this country? Where is that terrible power lodged in the hands of our highest order 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 Pi'otestants against the Episcopal Chui'ch, 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 v.'hat has this form of government, organized byClirist 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 upon it dur- ino- 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 misguided sons have stained her sacred standard? Sha.ll the constitution of England be thought accountable for those usurpations of authority that were witnessed during the reitism. This tract, independently of the important subject of which it treats, is •well worthy of ^cneraLperusal, on account of the singular ingenuity and MISCELLANIES. No. XIL 3S 4. The writer quoted speaks of his being " humble 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 to baptise hi* children. The author of Miscellanies several times insinuates, that some persons have been ordained Priests, and one a Bishop who had not Episcopal bap- tism. Admitting the truth of his assertion, of what advantage is it to his cause ? Admitting that the st^al of authority, in which alone their baptism ■was deficient, was not supplied when they received confirmation, or the Holy Eucharist, from the hands of Christ's authorised Ministers; what ini superabtt; impediment was there to their receiving the ministerial commis- sion ? This commission, deriving all its efficacy from the power of Christ, is independent of the quahtications of the Minister. Holiness of heart and fife 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- Til," was one of the highest order of Ministers. The author of Mis- cellanies, surely, will not rtiaintain that the absence of vital holiness irt a Minister renders nugatory his administration of the ordinances. Neither can he contend that any defect in the baptism of a Minister renders nu- gatory the exercise of a valid ministerial commission. The fo!!lowing extract from " Laurence on Lay Baptism," the 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 is 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 o^ the Church ; and how can he who i;; not of the Church, admit another by baptism into the Church? I answer; though he is out of the Church! with respect to any benefits himKelf, 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, which he himself neither does, nor ever will enjoy. A master of a family may send a neighbour, or a stranger lubo is not of his family, and gi\e 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 poor children into that fa- milv, stands good ; because the master of the family sent and etnpowered hint TO do it. This 1 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 conve) the gift of the Holy Ghost by his ministration of sacraments to others. For as it K not t.\\c personal 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 fc^r the validity thereof, when he administers it to me by virtue of a divine commission explicitly given to hint. This coMMiiiioN ALONE is that whicli maices the ministration not his, but God's own act; and, as such, ivithout any other appendant cause, it ia good and valid. Henre our blessed Lord called both unbaptised and unholy men, vir. his Apostles, wlio cannot be proved to have been baptised in the name rf the Qrinity before his resurrection ; and one of them, Judas Iscariot, a thief, a devil in hisdi-sposition — to the administration of holy things ; as if he would thereby teach us to look':;///6y<7if/J> on tua authority on'I,y, without confiding in any of the best accomplishments of those on whom if has confcnc'J it. And if we do but look back to the condition of ihs E 28 MISCELLANIES. No. XIL POSTSCRIPT. Since the above was written, I have read a continuation of the address by " A Layman of tlie 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, when 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 i-est. 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, and does not support his cause. All that is necessary by v/ay 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 Episcopahans managing their own affairs in their own way. Had they not treated other churches with indignity and insult— had tliey maintained their Bis/tops, Priests^ and Deacons, and plead 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 humility and cha- rity, as being the way to greater prosperity. Jewish Church, during their forty years sojourning; in the wilderness, wfi shall find that none of them were circumcised in all that space of time. Though the uncircumcised were, by God's own appointment, to be cut off fiotn among bis people, yet the ministry of those ])riests 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." -£(/. * 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 ordaining those who have not been episcopally ordained, they are considered as treating other churches whh " indignity and insult." Though he here allows Episcopa- lians to plead " divine authority" for Episcopacy; yet, at tlie close of his twenty-third number, he warmly censures them for oflering this plea. This is his language in that number. " I have no objection to their pre- ferring Episcopal ordination, provided that they voill cease to assert it on divine rij^ht ; for I think that this is untenable, offensive to their fellow Christians of other denominations, and injurious to themselves." This author fre- quently accuses the advocates of Episcopacy of having written incautiously and with precipitancy. lie certainly affords many specimens of the care and consideration with which he has composed his Miscellanies. Jid. ■ ( '^-r ) For the Albany Centinel. THE LAYMAN. No. II. JLt was my 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 talent*, 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 delicacj-, I entreat him to ascribe it to zeal in the support of a cause which 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 wiiter, which appear to me to be exceptionable, I recollect this quality in man, and find no dilhculty in ascribing to honest zeal what, upon a more narrow \iew, I might consider aa 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 viev/ in a point of light very different from that in which he has been accustomed to consider them. Upon this part of the suliject I now enter ; begging leave, however, to take uoticc, in the first place, of a passage in the tenth number of the Miscellanies, which appears to me to call for some animadversion. " The ji/wslle Peter, from ivhom the Romish and the Protestant Ejiiscojial Church firciend to hmostles, 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. This remark is made incidentally here. Should circumstances render it proper to pursue the inciuiry, 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. Tliere is another point of view in Avhich the passage under consideration requires to be placed. " Here the Jlpofitle Peter^ from ivhojn the RoTn'tah and the Protestant Episcopal Church fire- iend to have derived their authority^ calls himself not a Bishoji but an £.lder, claims no /ire-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, tlie apostohc office is represented ■A.^fiurely 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 1 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 au':hority in the Apostles, and their successors the Bishops, over the other orders of the Clergy, you put into the hands of your adversaries a weapon, with which they will very easily demolish the whole order or the Priesthood. The wild plan of rcntlering e\ery thing common in the Church, giving to any one who imagines himself qualified, the right of preaching, and of administering tiie ordinances of the gospel, with- out an cxtci-aa! ccunnission, to the utter dcirniclion of all regular so LAYMAN. No. lU. and spiritual authority over the laity, in an order of men set apart /or the pux-posc 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 shall there be a distinct set of men invested with 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, >vhy is not the idea of distinction and subordination between 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- 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 pi-escribed in the scriptures of truth ; not what is most suited to the varying institutions of men. And I believe it can be made to appear, that the constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church is equally founded in scripture, Jind 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 Efiiscofial Churclu For the Albany Centinel, THE LAYMAN. No. IIL X 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 tv/elfth 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 lan- guage employed in ushering 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 uur aulUcu- fcuiids the jublificaliou of his present con- LAYMAN. No. Iir. 51 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 systent 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 answer," 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 m-ged 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 groimd. They are no part of the Episcopal Hierarchy ; and it is much to be regretted that this Avriter will continue to confound things that are distinct ; or, in treating of the situation of the Episcopal Church here, Vt'ill wander for ever to the Papacy of Rome. All this has certainly nothing to do with the quesiicfli 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 ; and I trust, it will prove impregnable to every assault of the foe. Let us proceed to consider the publicatior.s 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 shoi't, and it is impossible from them alone to arrive at a just conclusion. Deductions are separated from their firemises, o/u:tio-ns {voxn their /iroqfs, and consec/uciices ivoi-n theii' qualijications, 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 i^^ht of maintaining, in decent language, those doctrines which they believe to be taught by the 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 v/ay into the hands of very few persons of other denominations. Besides, they are works which arc verv common in our Churrli, being designed as a preparation for, and as an illustration of her instiiutiuns and services. In truth, the 32 LAYMAN. 5fo. III. want of these publications in any country where our Church existJ would be a great defect. Every 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 could be more proper than to show the foundation of tlie authority that instituted them f In a Work designed as preparatory to the most solemn ordinance of our religion, what move correct or inore natural than to show the divine right of tliat Priesthood at whose hands it is received by the com- municant ! 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, tliC appointment of God ; and it is from this that they derive all their value. The water 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 spplication. And, certainly, in the Holy Supper, it 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 reasoninp; 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, surel}', to draw on us a vindictive attack. I observe, in the second place, that the discussions contained ia the works under examination, are conducted in an unexceptiona- 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 before 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 Epi; copal Church. It is not the manner^ but the mat- ter of these treatises that has gi^ i offence. And has the time ai*- rived, when wc are to be violently assailed for claiming and exer- cising the right of judgment on a subject the most interesting that can possibly cngnge tlie attention of the human mind ? I trust not. We l-e!iere that Kjiiscopacy 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 mrmcnt a departure takes place from the sys- LAYMAN. No. IIT. 3(8 tem ordained for its transmission. We consider Bishops as the sue- cessors of the Apostles, and as possessing alone that power of ordi- nation by which the ecclesiastical ofBce is continued and preserved. These doctrines we maintain — we have a right to maintain them. And no reasonable man can consider sucli conduct as giving just cause of offence. How do Presbyterians themselves act in this particular? Are they not in the continual practice of illusti-atingand 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 ! But you 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 whicli 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. Yoa consider Episcopacy as the appointed plan, and conformity to it aa 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 i^ow 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 you deem an important part of the wliole 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, five up the right of thinking for himself on 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 v/hich God has given him, and neglecting the important duty of instructing his people in ■what he deems to be a most interesting branch of I'eligious 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, theij- necessity. It is far from our inteaUon to ^ €.AYMAN. No. m. give you offence. We enly claim that right of thinking for onv* selves, and of inculcating oui' 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 step 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 with 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 admit the validity of Presbyterian ordination is to abjure our faith ; for, v/e 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 cart 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 v/riter : " The Classical or Presbyterial form ef Church Government is the true and only one which Christ hath prescribed in his word." " The custom of having diocesan Bishofi* is cormpt and injurious." All distinction and subordination in the ministry are declared, in confessions of faith that might be men- tioned, to be unscrifitiiral and antichristian. 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 i« representing her system of government as corrufit^ as unscrip~ t^lrat■, as antic hristia7r. Indeed, indeed, this is singular conduct ; presenting, certainly, one of the rarest specimens of contradiction that the anrmls 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 whom 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 sulycct ; and, while it should excite us seriously to examine our opinions, and conscientiously to seek for truth, it should read to lis, at the same time, a lesson of foi-bearance and humility. The subject of this paper will be continued and concluded in mj next address. 4 Layman qf the Mpiscojial Church* . ( S5 ) For the Albany CentineL MISCFXLANIES. No. XIH. J. HE arguments which the sect of Episcopalians attempt to draw 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 Jind 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 i*esembling 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 tlierefore it can be no less sacrilege to usurp their office." Here is nothing but assertion of a veiy extraoi-dinary 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 Jewish Church is to be followed, except in having three orders, and of theii" 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 coming of 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, feeing 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- «3ity. 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 thi'ce orders in the Christian Church, • The connection between tlie Jewish and the Christian Priesthood so generally acknowledged by Christian divines is ably explained and defended by the Layman in his eigluli, and by Cyprian in his fourth number. Ed. t Hov/ then was the Jewish Priesthood " fulfilled," but in the institution of the Christian ; whicli is, as the author of the Companion for the Altar obser\-es, " the complctioii and perfection of the Jewisli," and resemble* Jt in its three ofdera ^ ^rf. 58 MiSCELLANrcS. No. XIII. which is not disputed;* but that there is such an officer as the High Priest was in the Jewish Church, and that this officer is the order of their Bishops. 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, we had all better return to the Mother Church. The truth is, the Jewish nation were one Church, under one govei'nment, civil and ecclesiastical. Such an officer as the High Priest was then necessary, and could exist ; but now, when the Church consists of all kindreds, tongues, and nations, it is impossible. The High Priest was a type of Jesus Christ, who, " by his own blood entered in once into the holy place;" and who *' ever liveth 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 Chmxh 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. j 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 ? Do Bishops beget Bishops, or even the second order of Priests ? Do they resemble one another in their dress ? Where are now 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 urim and thummim, £cc. ? Are lawn sleeves, black gowns, and surplices to be compared with these ? The Episcopal Priests wear what is called a cassock ; but it is not made of linen, and is more WV^c petticoats than breeches.\\ A Jewish High Priest might not marry a widow, while indulgence in this respect was granted to the other Priests. Is there any re- etriction among the Episcopal orders? A Jewish Priest couM 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, iand constantly maintain, that all Ministers are on an equality ? How then can there be tbree orders of the ministry ? £d. •j- As Cyprian very properly observes in his fourth number, " Wherever there is a Bishop, Presbyters, Deacons, and a people; there is also th« Church of Christ." The comparison then is lo be made between a Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons, who constitute the Priesthood of the Christian Church; and the High Priest, Priests, and Lcvites, the Priest- hood of the Jewish Church. £d. I How can the Presbyterian Minister prove that he is •' as raucli ap- jsointed 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 was originally conferred by the divine Head of the Church, this the miscellaneous author repeatedly disclaims and ridicules ! £d. jl What confidence can be placed in a writer, who^ on sacred subjects, indulges in such low knd indecent ridicule ! £(i. MISCELL.\NIES. No. XTII. 87 eohsecrated, 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 f 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. I'he 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 rather are known of God, bow 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 dispensi- tion. i:d. 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. ^ Are the onitre and the crown connected in Scotland ? Does the esta' tlished Church there subscribe to the maxirn " no Bishop, no King?" D3 ■not presbyterianism ?unA 'monarchy there consort together? Why does not the author of Miscellanies send, to his brother Presbyterians in Scodand, hi* solemn remonstrance against this unhallowed connection \ Kd. II 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 ajjply. The Lamb sacrificed in the Jewish Passover was a type of Jesus Christ, the true " Paschal Lamb." " Clirist, our Passover, says the Apostle, is %iicri&ced for us." No, says the author of iMisccUanies, the inspired Apos* ( ss ) For the Albany CentineL 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 meta are both used, the one translated by and the other with. " By prophecy, with the lay- ing on," 8cc. In the second text, dia alone is found. " Bij the putting on," 8cc. 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 afifirobatio7i ; and that, " in the Church of England, the Presbyters lay on their hands with the Bishops in ordination, to denote their conse7it." The latter is their Strong ground ; for they cannot prove that this Presbytery was an assembly of Apostles ;t and if they could, the consequence would be, tie is surely in an error ; for who will presume to trace a resemblance in the most minute points between a Lamb 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 sacred 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, the 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 nmnes, but to yacts and pertons, read the Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, and see whether he does 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. •)■ Neither can this author prove that this Presbytery was an assembly of Presbyters properly so called ; for Presbytery, attending solely to the meaning cf lUc word, denotes an as^embl/ oioUnten,' and, of course, may be vart- MISCELLANIES. No. XIV. S» iRat the Apostles called themselves Presbyters, and acted only as «uch in 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 own hands ? Had not all the Apostles equal authority and power ? 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 tha 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 th© 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 upoa Timothy J once at his ordination, and again when the Holy GhosC ■was given him ; or Avhether both purposes were answered at the same time. The latter seems the more probable of the two froir* the words in the first Epistle — " The gift which was given thee by prophecy, ivith the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery;" tha* is, together with, 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 conferrecl 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 tog-ether nvithy and may be thus translated. See Matt. ii. 3 and 11. " He Avas troubled, and all Jerusalem with him." They saw the young child •tuith 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, or together nvith fioverty, A careful attention is to be paid to the Vford /irvfihecy, 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 tlie Apostle exhorts Timothy to exercise, as well as all the extraor- dinary gifts of the Spirit, and which were conferred upon him whea he was set apart to be an officer in the Church. If any incline to think, that /iro/ihecy 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 antlior gives of these texts, are so ably exposed by the Layman in his fifth number, that any obsei-vations here are unnecessary. JEd. * As the Layman very properly observes, " One of them may hav« conveyed the sacerdotal authority, while the rest may have imposed hands to give additional solemnity to the .transaction, ^nd as ^^n expression of conc.unens* in jhe sdsption of chj^ractcr." Ed. m LAYMAN. No. rv. " the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery," the word meta will bear them fully out. It signifies not only with, but by, by mca7is ofy and has the same sense as dia 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 nvith them." Who does not see that it signifies in these places by, and Blight 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 C07iciirrcrice, than ap}iro~ bation, or than consent. It was an actual conveyance of ministerial authority. So that in whatever way the text is explained, it does not serve the Episcopalians. To say that meta has never the same meaning with clia, 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 ignor- ance of the nature of the language. I prefer, however, the interpretation which I have given»that by profihecy 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 oi-dination was not there in- tended. The Apostle had wholly a different object in view, as Avill be shown before this subject is dismissed. Indeed it appears to me, that he had the same object in view 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 of Timothy, ■which will be still worse and worse for the Episcopahans. If they have no other proof than his saying, that he put his hands on Ti- mothy, it is not sufficient ; because this was for a quite diflerent 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 fellow Presbyters laid on hands with him. This is exactly Presbyterian ordination. The subject Avill be continued in my next number. For the Albany Centinel* THE LAYMAN. No. IV. I 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 Presbyterians take very good care to exercise themselves. It is not necessary to say an/ LAYMAN. No. IV. 41 thing 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 censoriousness. To be acquainted with 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 luhole earthy hidced,, will do right. The grace of God quickens and animates all the degenerate children of ^dam. The mercy of the Saviour is eo-extendve with the ruin into which sin has plunged mankind. And^ in every nation, he that feareth God, and workcth righteousness, is accrjited of him.'* Again, " Sefiaration from the prescribed government and regular Priesthood of the Church, when it proceeds from involuntary and tmavoidable ignorance or error, we have reason to trust, will not intercept, from the humble, the penitent, and obedient, the bles~ sings of God's favour." Still further, " The important truth which the imiversal Church has uniformly mai7itained, that, to ex- perience the full and exalted efficacy oj the sacraments, we must receive them from a valid authority, is not inconsistent with that charity which extends mercy to all who lahowr under involuntarij error." Once more, " But though we presume to judge no ma?iy leaviiig all judgment to that Being who is alone qualified to make allowance for the ignorance, invincible prejudices, imperfect rea- soning, and mistaken judgments of his frail creatures ; yet, it must not from h:mce be concluded, that it is a matter of indiffer- ence, whether Christians communicate with the Church ornot ; or that there is a doubt upon the subject of sc/iiam, whether it be a sin or not." Such is the language of the works under examinntion ; and such, also, is the language of the Episcopal Church. Will the writer iu question require more ? Is he ready to express sentiment:; of greate? charity ? Will he admit that the grace necessary to repentance is given to all men ? and that even the virtuous heathen will be saved? Are we to give up the divinity of Jesus Christ because the Soci- nians have denied it ? Are we to lay aside baptism and t!ie holy supper because the Quakers have discarded them ? Are we to le- Bounce the doctrine of the corruption of man, and of the ab:iolute necessity of the operations of the divhie Spirit to begin, to carry on, and to perfect the work of sanctiftcation, because some of the followers of Armiuius, departing from the tenets of their master, • These remarks appear evidently dictated by the too partial spirit of friendshijj. The author of the works iu question however ouj'jlit certainly to consider himself much indebted to the Layman for the uble vindication of tliosc works from the charges brought against them. £d. G 42 LAYMAN. No. IV. have denied the principle, asserting the capacity of man to turn, of himself, unto God, and be saved i We shall continue to declare tiie 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 derired, whatever abuse may be heaped upon us for so doing. While we undertake to judge no man, we 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^ iration 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 vv'ouM be his duty to do so. And how unjustly would he think liiuiiielf 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 v/ouid 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 can 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 v/orks 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 United 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 worth}' 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 moht learned man that this country has produced. In hlni was eminently united profound genius, with the most laborious and persevering application to study. He was educated as a Con- gregational Alinister, and officiated in that capacity for some time ; but ins attention being called to the subject of ecclesiastical goveni- 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 belief in the divine institution of Episcopacy, and of the consequent invalidity of Pres!)yterial ordination. Several otlier Congregational Clergy- men, of great talents, and distinguished worth, were engaged in • Tills wori; wa: lately published by T. Si J. SwoiJs, New-York. LAYMAN. No. IV. 43 the investigation with Dr. Johnson. It terminated in the sair.e way with them. They renounced their offices, went to Enghmd for holy orders, and continued, through life, most warmly att-clied to the Episcopal Church. Their example was afterwards follo^vtd by others; and I penuude myself that the same tuncere investiga- tion would terminate in the conviction of almost all who should engage in it. Would it have been just or decent to have commenced a hiiler attack in the newspapers agamst these men, for renouncing, un- tler a sense of duty, the ordination which they had received, and taking orders in the Episcopal Church I E\ery correct and ingenu- ous mind must immediately pcrceis e that such conduct would have been improper and violent in the extreme. And where is the dif- ference between this and the course wliich the writer in question has thouglit proper to pursue ? 'lliere 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 di\ine instit\ition of PLpiscopacy has been strenuously main- tained in this country, from the time of Ur. Johnson to the pro- >:cnt day, by the most able writers of the Episcopal Chuich. In fact, the vahdity of Prcsbyterial ordination has been denied from its very origin. Calvin himself, the French Mugonots, and otliei- reformers, justified their departure from Episcopacy on the prin- ciple of necessity alone. The primitive Fathers of the Church are most poivitccl arid ex- press on this subject, and every reproach cast upon the aa-.h.crofi the publications in question recoils with tenfold force upon lliese ' venerable men. Hear i/ie 'ivords of Ignatius — " He thut dcelh any thing without the Bisho/u and Prciby'nrs^ and Deacons, is rot puie in his conscience." '*• Therefore, as Christ did nothing v.illiont the; Father, so neither do ye, whether Deacon, Presbyter, or ImUIc^ anything witliout the Bis/n/\" '•'• He that doeth aught without the Binhofi serves the dcvi'." VVh'Atsays I:-enxus, Bishop of L}ons, J!\ the second century ? " We can reckon up those whom the Apostlf. ordained to be Ehhofis in the several Churches, and to whom they committed their own apostolic auihority." Listen to Tcrtutlian of the same age — " The power of baptising is lodged in the Bis/io/i, and it may also be exercised l)y Freainitcra and Deacons;^ !;iit not with- out the Bishop's commission." What says St. Cyprian of the third century r — *' The Churcli is liuilt on the Bishops, and all the acts of the Church are governed and directed by them its Prcaiclcuts.'' What wi'.l our author say to a'l this ? I am afraid, were he carefully to go through the primitive Fathers, he would often iind it neces- sary t!) i)ause, and compose himself, and " take bi'eath." These considerations, then, I submittoan impartial public. I sub- mit them to the gentleman whom I oppose. If the Episcopal Church, in suj^porting doctrines which have ever distinguished her, and which never, as she thinks, were departed from, till the days of Calvin, is obliged to draw conclusions that nearly affect the mem- bers of other persua?:ions, she can only regret tlie consequence of vhat her convictions of duty command her most firmly to maintain. She wii-hes wdlto all men. SliS undertakes to judge none. Eelicvin?:; sincerely that Ep:sc:-pacy is a divine institution, ar.d that ail arc bound U MISCELLANIES. No. XV. to conform to it, can she be blamed for urging it with charitable zeal? At all events, can she be found fault with for inculcating upon her men-bers those doctrines which she has professed in every age, and yhich appear to her to be an important pai't of the Christian dis- pensation ? To require her to act differently, is to require her to become hypocritical, and to sacrifice her principles at the shrine of policy. To this she can nev^er consent. While it will be her en* deavour to treat witii becoming respect the sentiments of her fellow Christians, she must insist upon the right of contending for that sys- tem of government which she believes the Apostles established, and whose divinity is attested, as she thinks, by the uniform testimony of the Church universal for fifteen hundred years. She blames not those who think and who maintain that Presbyterial government is the only one which Christ has prescribed in his word. While this opinion is supported in language not insulting nor disrespectful, she sees nothing but the fair exercise of that right ef judgment with which God has invested his rational creatures. The writer upon whom I am remarking believes the divinity of Jesus to be essential to the Christian dispensation, and that no one can be considered as in covenant v/ith God who absolutely rejects that fundamental doc- trine. Suppose the Socinian should loudly complain ; would not our author reply very mucli in the language which I have used on .this occasion ? Very well : while the Episcopal Church rejoices that she can so cordially unite with her brethren of the Presbyterian persuasion, on the essential principle of the divinity of our blessed Saviour, she thinks the evidence of Episcopacy, from the scripture, and from history, no less strong ; and the justification which our author would urge, in relation to the Socinian, she humbly hopes she may apply to her own conduct. Passing over, for the present, what has been said on the Jewish Priesthood, I proceed to the remarks upon the Epistles to Timothy, much reliance appearing to be placed on them. I flatter myself I shall be able to support the interpretation I have given, and to show that the observations of the writer take for granted what must e\'er require proof, and advance hypotheses that are entirely new, being as unsupported by commentators as by the plainest maxims of construction. ji Laijman of the Episcopal Church. I For the Albany Centinel. INIISCELLANIES. No. XV. HAVE admitted in my last number, for the sake of giving Epis- copalians more than their due, that Paul was present at the ordina- tion of Timothy ; that he presided, and laid on his hands with the Presb) ters. But I coritend that in the ordination itself, he acted merely as a Presbyter ; and that it was in conferring the miracu- lous gifts that he acted as an Apostle, and was superior to the t)ther Presbyters. Since both dia and nicla are used in the same Acrse, the former connected mi\\ prophecy, and the latter with the JVIISCELLANIES. No. XV. 45 laying on of hands, I am of opinion that the best translation of the latter, in this place, is together with ; and that the conferring the miraculous gifts, and the setting apart to the ministry, are to be considered as two distinct things, which took place either at the same time or the one immediately succeeded the other. " Bij pro- phecy ;" that is, by the act v/hich conferred prophecy; the thing signified being put for the sign. The sign was the patting on of the Apostle's hands, which was done in the ordi nation 4and the gift then conf«rred, Paul acting both as an Apostle and a Presbyter ; or, the Apostle put his hands singly on Timothy either just before or after his oi-di nation. The words dia and meta are thus allowed respec- tively an appropriate meaning; though the latter, as has been shown, might also be translated by, and signifies often the same thing as dia. The thing signified by putting on of the Apostle's hands, was ftrophecy, the very gift which Timothy is exhorted not to neglect, but to stir ufi. The Episcopalians allege that the text in the second Epistle, where the Apostle speaks of putting on hands, refers to ordination- Let the context be examined. 2 Tim. i. 5, 6, 7. " When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice, and I am persuaded that in thee also. Wherefore I put thee in remem- brance, that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the put- ting on of my hands. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear ; but of power and of love, and of a sound mind." Where is there any thing aI)out ordination ?* Nothing but the words, by the fiutting on uf my handr,, could have suggested the idea. The text is a better proof that the Apostle confirmed Timothy, than that he ordained him. The Episcopalians would be wiser to quote it for what they call the " Apostolic rite of confirmation," which is done too by put- ting on of their Bishop's hands ; for the practice of such confirma- tion needs itself some confirmation.\ I barely mention, without laying much weight upon it, that the word dia is used here ; the same word which is connected with firo/ihecy in the first Epistle ; and therefore, that this is the gift which was conferred by the put- ting on of the Apostle's hands. The interpretation which I have given is strengthened by con- sidering other passages of scripture. Acts viii. 11,17. "When the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had re- ceived the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." Acts xix. 6. " And when Paul had laid /lis hands ufion * There is as much aliout ordination here as in the other text. The ex- presiions, " Stir up the gift that is in thee," and " neglect not the gift that is in thee," have evidently the same meaning. Ed. f Does the author of Miscellanies recollect that confirmation is a rite handed down frnm the Apostles' times; that Calvin himself bore decided testimony in its favour; and that Cai.vx.v and Beza both refer to it the imposition of lianiis mentioned by the Apostle in the sixth chapter and seeond verse of the Epistle to the Hebrews? If he is in doubt on the sub- ject, let him peruse the nineteenth chapter and the fourth book of Caiiiin's Institutes; and the co.mrucnc oi Calvin and Beza on tiic verss in the Epistle to the Helwews. Ed. 46 MISCELLANIES. Ko. XV. them^ the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake ivith tonnes ^nd firo/ihesied." No one will say that these converts were ordained to be officers in the Chuixh. 'I'he Episcopalians endeavour to prove by the texts their practice of confirmation. Is it not evi- dent that the purpose for which the Apostle laid on hands was to confer the miraculous gifts of the Spirit ? " IVieij spake nvit/i tongues and prophesied.* If this is undeniable from those places in the Acts, why should not the text in the second Epistle to Timothy be understood in the same manner? AU upon whom the Apostles laid their hands were made partakers of extraordinary gifts in a greater or less degree. There never was an exception. It could not be the saving and ordinary influences of the spirit which they conveyed, because these had been enjoyed, or were supposed to be enjoyed by persons before they were ijaptised.f Simon the sor- cerer, who was baptised^ but not regenerated^ would not have offered the Apostle Peter money to obtain the power of confei-ring the Holy Ghost, had there been nothing more tiian what was ordi- nary and secret.| It is true that all wlio were baptised did not ex- ercise extraordinary gifts ; nor did the Apostles lay hands on all ; but on whomsoever they did lay hands, these gifts invarial)ly fol- lowed. Witli respect to those at Ephesus upon whom Paul laid his hands, we are expressly told, that " they spake ivit/i tongues and prophesied. ' ' Thus have I cai'efully examined the passages in the Epistles to Timothy, and the result is, 1. That in one the Apostle refer.s both to the gift of the Holy Ghost and to ordination ; in the other to the gift of the Holy Ghost alone. 2. 'i'hat the Holy Ghost was given to Timothy by the imposition of Paul's hands, and that the ordination or setting apart to the ministry of the word was by the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery. 3. That these were performed at the same time, or immediately succeeded one another. 4. That though the Greek word nieta, when it governs the genitive case, has equal meaning and force with dia, and may, on the highest autho- rity, be translated Sy ; yet in this place, together ivith is to be pre- ferred. 5. That even the presence of Paul at the ordination of Timothy cannot be inferred VT-ith certainty from the words, '< the putting on of my hands," seeing they refer to tlr; conveyance of extraordinary powers. 6. That so far as Paul was actually engaged * Is it said that the Samaritan converts " s])ake with tongues and prophe- sied I" This author asserts, but does not pr('ve, " that all upon wlioin the Apostles laid thxir hands were made partakers of extraordinary gifts." Ed f But are there not difl'erent degrees of grace .' And may not these be conferred at different times, and in different ordinances? Ed. \ Simon had received " the washing of regeneration,'" but not " the re- veviing of tlie Holy Ghost;" which are considered by the Apostle as dis- tinct. By his baptism Simon was translated into a nevj state, in which he received coyuUtionallv a title to tlie blessings of the Christian covenant; and ia liiis sense he was yc^cnercicd. Eegeneraticn, in the sense of scripture and the primitive Church, is distinct from renovation, or the change of mind and heart eflcctcd b\ the operations of the Holy Spirit. And the former term, in its appropriate signification, is applied to baptism; which is the di- vinely instituted m> an of translating us from our natural state into a state of grace, in ^vll;ch we are to " worl; cut our salvation." £d. MISCELLANIES. No. XVL 47 In the ordination, separately considered, he laid on his hands as a mere I'resbyter ; and tliat, probably, he presided among his fellow Presbyters on the occasion. W'Tien a person is to be ordained, the Presbyterians appoint a Minister to deliver a sermon, another to preside, and another to give a charge to the person when ordained. Someiinies two or all of tliesc services may fall to the same member of the Presby- tery ; but generally they are divided. The Minister who presides explains Ijriefly the nature of the Ijusiness, receives the vows of the candidate, and then by solemn prayer and imposition of hands, the Presbyters laying on hands together with him, the person is or- dained, or invested with the sacred office. The same power which the Presbyters possess they convey. They have no apostolic power, and they convey none. They are Presbyters, or Pastors, or Bishops and Governors of the Christian Church, and they invest others with the same office. Acting by the authority of Clirist and his Apostles, what they have received they " commit to faithful men."* I For the Albany Centinel. MISCELLANIES. No. XVL HAVE not forgotten m.y promise of an extract from the re- markable meditation for the " Saturday evening" preceding the communion, in " A Companion for the Altar," &c. But having lately read a pamphlet entitled, " An Address to the Ministers and Congregations of the Presbyterian and Independent Persuasions in the United States of America," it will be useful to furnish my readers with a few short extracts from this. It was printed in 1790, and is ascribed, on good authority, to the late Bishop Seafniry. His design professedly is to persuade those whom he addresses to for- sake their schismatic courses, and join the Episcopal Churcli, as being the only true Churcli. " She" [the Episcopal Church] says the writer, " supposes that Presbyterians and Independents have departed from the true go- vernment of Christ's Church, and are essentially deficient in the matter of ordination. Unless the Presbyterians can be prevailed on to give up this point, ali my labour is lost, and my hopes are at an end," p. 43. Again, " VVhoever needlessly breaks this unity, by departing from this communion, [the Episcopal Church] that is, when he could continue in it without sinning against God, is guiltv of schism, and ought to repent of his wickedness, and return to the * And v.'hat is it which tbese " PrPsbytcrs, or Pastors, or Bishops," have " received," and which rhey " commit to faidiful meu :" Without doubt, this author means the viinhterial commission. And how can they receive this commission from " Christ and his Apostles," by whose " authority" lie says thr^y act ? Certainly in no (jther way than by uninterrupted succes- sion. Here we have ano'her example of the coTsistency of this gentleman, of the care and consideration wirli whic)i he write.. At one time he ridi- cules the doctrine o^ cuccety.ioi; at anoiher he nialres i: the foundatioa of all hit reasonings. ii. .48 MISCELLANIES. No. XVL Church of Christ from which he has strayed." p. 50. Again, " Let me ask the gentlemen for whose benefit these chai-itable efforts are principally intended, why, if they can effect a re-union with the Church on reasonable and liberal terms, and in her bosom do vway the odious imputation of schism, and obtain valid orders for their Ministers, they should not do it ? Many of their Ministers, as well as people, must have doubts and misgivings of mind concerning their ordination. It is their misfortune too that those doubts and misgivings are well founded." p. 51. Again, "They may put a bold face on the business, and think to brave it out ; and as they first assumed the title of Presbyters, and the style of Reverend, so they may, in imitation of Dr. Stiles and his brethren of Connecticut, usurp the title of Bishops, and it may be the style of Right Reverend (pray who then would be Reverend ?) it will all end like those plays of children which they call make-believe. Their doubts and misgiv- ings will continue, and, like a perpetual blister, keep them for ever uneasy and wincing. The people will see it and laugh. They see it already ; and the number of those who return to the Church is daily increasing. Think me not censorious ; my words are the words of truth and candour." p. 52. Again, " You ask. Have we no au- thorized Ministers ? no valid sacraments ? To these questions, I fear I shall return disagreeable answers. You have Ministers of the people, I confess ; and if I may be allowed to make a supposition (and I have made a good many without any leave at all), I must suppose, that such as your Ministry is, such is your sacraments." p. 52. Again, " Most of the original settlers to the southward had never separated from tlie English Church. If many of their de- scendants have done so, it has been owing to the arts and example of the Presbyterians of New-England, and of their new-fangled brethren of Mr. John Wesley's mission. Mr. Wesley, in his dotage, being eighty-two years of age, a certain Dr. Coke prevailed on him to confer the Episcopal character on him the said Coke. This was done privately at Bristol." p. 54. I shall produce only one ex- tract more at this time. " You would give up an ill-founded Church government, and an unauthorized Ministry and sacraments, and you would obtain a government. Ministry and sacraments, according to the institution of Christ, the example of his holy Apostles, and the practice of the primitive Church, in its purest period. You would give up an unjustifiable separation, and heal a breach which the in- temperate zeal of your forefathers made in the unity of Christ's Church. You would get rid of extempore prayers in public wor- ship," &c. p. 54. Such is the language which the Bishop uses when persuading men to join the Episcopal Church. One would think that he might have found what was more conciliatory, and more likely to have produced the effect which he professes to have had in view. I have given his words merely to show the haughty pretensions, and imperious tempers of these men, who with benevolence, candour and charily in their mouths, contemn, ridicule, and abuse their fellow Christians.* A Bishop sets the example, and a Priest soon apes his superior, * In jiidgine; of the extracts from this performance, tlie reader shoukl take into consideration the circumstance that the minds of Episcopalians in MISCELLANIES. No. XVI. ' 49 The Metliodists, though they have " Episcopal" in the style of their Church, yet are not acknowledged by the right Episcopalians , as of their generation. The Bishop informs us, that Mr. VVesley, when he had got into his dotage, was persuaded by Dr. Coke to or- dain him a Bishop. In this I confess Mr. VVesley was wrong; and ■whether in his dotage or not, he had lived long enough to know, that he could not confer a power which he did not possess. If three Bishops of the true Episcopal Chui'ch, descending in an uninter- rupted line from the Apostles, must unite their efforts to consecrate one like themselves, how vain in Mr. Wesley, a Presbyter, a Chris- tian Bishop, singly to think of anointing a High Priest I This was neither Episcopal nor Presbyterian ordination. I wonder most at Dr. Coke, who could not l)e in his dotage, in requesting and sub- mitting to such a thing. He would have been more excusable in applying to some Romish Bishop, or to some Bishop in the line of succession from Rome ; for then he would have been on an equality with the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and they would not have dared to thrust him out of doors. Though I do not pity him and his Clergy, yet I think the usage hard. He had no business to be neighing after Episcopal ordina- tion, or he ought to have espoused it in a proper manner ; and if. he must have it, I would recommend him and Bishop Asbury to make application yet to " the successors of the Apostles." In what an awkward situation are their preachers at present ! Before one of them could be admitted to an Episcopal pulpit in the city of New-York, he was obliged to renounce all the authority he once supposed himself to have had, and to receive orders from the true Connecticut were irritated by the intolerant treatment which they had re- ceived. But what connection has this pamphlet with tlie other works of which this writer coinplains? There are no expreKsions in the Companion for the Altar, or for the Festivals and Fasts, wliich authorize the charge that the author of them " contemns, ridicules, or abuses liis fellow Chris- tians." The charge is unjust and ungenerous, and comes witli a very ill grace from a writer who, in almost every sentence, casts ridicule and abuse upon the Episcopal cause andits advocates. As to " haughty pretensions ;" there are no pretensions made which were not avowed in the jjriinitive ages by some of the most humble and pious men that ever adorned the Christian Church. That advocate for Episcopacy does injury to his cause who does not speak of his fellow Christians, who may difter from liim, with all the respect and esteem that may be due to their talents and their virtues. But it is surely too much to expect that, as a mark of his respect and esteem for them, he should give up his principles. The Episcopalian only wishes to be permitted to maintain these principles witliout being accused of " haughty pretensions" or " an imperious temper." It does not become a follower of Calvin to cast on others the charge of " imperious temper." Mildness and humility cannot be ranked among the conspicuous virtues of this great man. And* it is thought by many that it is the tendency of the religious system which he " ^.-formed to cherish an austere, self-sufficient, and domineering E]3iric. y In trac- / jng the coherence among the systems of modern theology, we may observe that the doctrine of absolute dccteta has cvt-r been intimately connected wiili \ the enthusiastic sjjirit: as that doctrine aftbrds the highest subject of Joy, \ V triumph, and security to the elect, and exalts them by injinite degrees above ] the rest of mankind." Hume's Etig. Tlicre mu3t b« always n)any excep- / tioiis to all general remarks of this sort. Ed. / ^0 MISCELLANIES. No, XVL Churcli. Another residing either in the city of Schenectady, of some where in the adjacent country, was made to strip off his M6- thodistical coat, and to do penance for several months, in a whito shirt, before he could come " near to the altar to minister." These are real inconveniencies, and are to be charged to the account of Dr. Coke. He being called a Bishofi, and his Church jE/iiscofialf young men are deceived, and not one in ten of them ever disco- vers the mistake. Had not the preachers alluded to had more than common reading and common genius, they would have floun- dered on through life. One reason, no doubt, why the Methodists are treated so cava- lierly is, that Messieurs Coke and Asbury, " in imitation of Dr. Stiles and his brethren of Connecticut, have usurped the title of Bishops," and the Episcopal dignitaries are afraid, that the style of " Right Reverend" will be usurped next. So far as I know, they need not be jealous and fearful on these points; for the Presbyte- rians at least covet neither their ordination nor their titles as used by them. Presbyterian Ministers are indeed the Bishops of the New Testament, and they have no superiority over one another, but what talents, learning, piety, and usefulness give.* POSTSCRIPT. As the leaders of that small portion of professing Christians cal- ling themselves Episcopalians, and setting themselves up for the only true Church in the United States, appear to have read par- tially, so I have thoughts of having reprinted " The divine right of Presbyterian ordination asserted, and the Ministerial authority, claimed and exercised in the established Churches of New-Englandj vindicated and proved : in a Discourse delivered at Stanford, Lord's-Day, April 10, 1763, by JVoah Welles, A. M. Pastor of a Church of Christ there." This performance has lately been put into my hands.f It consists of seventy-eight pages octavo. The writer has handled his subject with ability, and in a manner which must aflFord conviction to every unprejudiced inquirer after truth. It seems that before the Revolution the Episcopalians used the same unjustifiable language as now. " Had our Episcopal neigh- bours," says Mr. Welles, " been contented with the peaceable unmolested profession of their own peculiar principles, I never should have thought of introducing this subject into the pulpit, much less of publishing my sentiments upon it. But the restless endea- vours of some among them, to draw away persons from our com- -munion, and their unwearied attempts to increase their party, by constantly insinuating to you, the danger of continuing in fellowshii> with Churches in which (as they would bear you in hand) there is no authorized Ministry, no regular gospel administrations ; at last convinced me, that it was high time something should be publicly offered for your satisfaction, on this important point." • And hnd Timothy and Titus no superiority over the other Minister* of Ephesus and Crete but what " talents, learning, piety, and usefulness give I" Ed. ■j- An answer to this pamphlet was published, written by the Rev. Dr. Learning, »n Episcopal Clergyman of Connecticut. EU. ( SI ) For the Albany Ccntinet. THE LAYMAN. No. V. A HE Remarks on the Jewish priesthood, I confess, surprise^ me. They are, certainly, of a very singular nature ; proving, if they prove any thing, that there is no sort of connection between the Old and the New Testament. This shall be fully shown when I come to the subject in the regular course of the investigation. I proceed, in the meantime, to the observations on the Epistles to Timothy, upon which observations no little reliance appears to be placed. The writer would have it supposed that Episcopalians lay much stress on the passages in question. Not so. They rely upon tho. ^}oivers which Timothy extrcised, not upon the manner of his ordination ; and all they do on this point, is to show that there is no evidence from scripture of the ordination being after the Pres- bytcrial mode. Our opponents, knowing full well that the state of things, in the Church of Ephesus, gives no sort of countenance to their doctrine, take care to be as silent as possible upon it ; go- ing always to the passage in the first Epistle to Timothy, and setting that up as the great bulwark of their cause. In this, they ■ act wisely, since the structure of the passage gives them an oppor- tunity of dwelling on the term Presbytery ; it being on terms alone that their whole argument is grounded. The rules of just reason- ing, then, obviously require the Presbyterians to prove that the pas- sage in question establishes their mode of ordination. They rely upon it as proof. Episcopalians do not ; resting their cause, in reference to Timothy, upon the poAvers which he exercised in that Church of which he was the spiritual governor. All that is incumbent upon us, therefore, is to show that the words of Paul to Timothy prove nothing for the opposite cause ; and it will be recollected that I took this ground expressly in my first address to the pub- lic. Let our author prove, then, that the Presbytery spoken of ■were nothing more than Elders or Presbyters, in the sense in which these terms are now used. Until he does this, the passage will avail him nothing. True, we cannot prove absolutely, that they wei*e Apostles, although we think this much the most rational in- terpretation ; especially when it is considered that the practice of Presbyters uniting with Bishops, in the imposition of hands, has ne- ver prevailed in the Gi-eek Church, and was not introduced into the Western until the latter part of the fourth century. This is a strong, indeed I may say a conclusive circumstance to prove that the Presbytery spoken of were members of a superior order who laid their hands on Timothy, in connection with Paul ; and such is, accordingly, the interpretation put upon the passage by some of tl;e most judicious commentators. And here let it be briefly added, that there is not a single example to be produced 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 El- ders, who officiated in the clerical character at Ejjhesus and other places. While our Saviour remained upon earth, he alone com- Tyissioncd persons to act ia his uumc. This po'ivcr, iuimediatc^y 52 LAYMAN. No. V. before his ascension, he gave to the Apostles ; and, let it be recol- lected, that he gave it to them alone. They, accordingly, ordained the seven Deacons of Jerusalem, and Paul and Barnabas ordained Eldei's in every city. In these cases, the Apostles who were the Governors of the v/hole Church, both Clergy and Laity, alone per- formed tlie act of ordination. No Presbyters or Elders were united with them. These circumstances, taken in connection with the ^ate introduction of the practice of Presbyters joining with Bishops, in the imposition of hands, prove, as far as moral evidence can prove any thing, that the Presbytery, or Church officers men- tioned in the Epistle to Timothy, were of the order of the Apostles. All that is necessary to us, however, is to show that there is no evidence of the Presbytery being mere Elders ; for, until this point is unequivocally established, the cause of parity can receive no sort of support from the passage. And as to the word Presbytery, it signifies Church officers, Eldermen, or men of authority ; and, therefore, may as well mean Apostles as an inferior order. Again, Jerome and Calvin, both of whom the advocates of parity are fond of quoting, give a construction to the passage in question •wliich comj)letely puts down all that our author has said upon it. They understand the Apostle to say to Timothy, " Neglect not the gift of the Priesthood, which was given thee by prophecy, with the la}'ing on of hands ;" making the term Presbuterion refer to the of- fice of a Priest or Church Governor, bestowed on Timothy, not to the manner in which he was ordained. And the powers of office are to be ascertained from the Epistle of Paul to Timothy, in which he is addressed as the Spiritual Governor of the Clergy, as well as of the Laity of Ephesus. I barely mention the opinion of Jerome and Calvin here, to show how very feeble is the aid to be derived to the s}'stem of parity from the word so much relied upon in the passage under consideration. There is still another way in which all support to the Presbyte- rian cause, from this passage, is destroyed. Paul was present at the oi'dlnation. Well, then, according to the hypothesis even of this writer himself, superior and inferior orders united in the ordi- nation of Timothy, which is very different from the Presbyterian system. Here, however, we are again assailed with the artillery of words. True, Paul laid his hands on Timothy ; but he did it as a Presbyter. Yes, he laid on his hands as a Cliurch Governor, which is the meaning of Presbyter ; but that he laid on his hands as an officer, on a perfect level with the Elders of Ephesus, is an as- sertion which I utterly deny, and which has never been even at- tnvfitcd to be proved by the only evidence worth attending to, the evidence of facts. How, then, is it proved ? Why, the term Pres- byteiy is used ; which is, doubtless, demonstration itself. It is high time that this sort of reasoning were given up. Paul is nothing more than an Elder of Ephesus, at the ordination of Timothy, because a general term, signifying eldcr^ or grax>e mcn^ or men of authority, is used. What will not this mode of reasoning prove ? Christ is called D.'akonos, whicii is translated a Deacon, or Minister. Therefore, Christ was on a level with the Deacons of Jerusalem. Prcsbuteroa signifies an elder man ; whence comes the term Alderman. By this new species of logic, it might be proved that the Apostles were, LAYMAN. No. V. 53 to all intents and purposes. Aldermen, in ilic civil acceptation of the term ; and that every Alderman is, really'and truly, an Apostle. Eliezer, the steward of Abraham's house, is called Presbutcros, and, of course, Avas a Presbyter, in the same sense in which the term is applied to the Elders, whom Paul and Barnabas ordained. The Judges appointed by Moses with power over thousands, and hundreds, and fifties, and tens, are called Prefbuferot, and must, therefore, have been Apostles. Cicero was saluted by the Roman army with the title of Imperator. Therefore Cicero held the same ofSce with Augustus Cxsar. And we might he told, in the same way, that the thi'ee consuls of France, before the establishment of the empire by Bonapai'te,were nothing more than commercial agents. How vain, how superlatively vain is this reasoning from names ! Surely a woi*d cannct be mentioned that is not used in different senses ; and the sense which it is designed to convey in a particular case, must ever depend upon the circumstances of that case. The powers, not the titles of office, are the great objects of attention. Paul, in laying hands on Timothy, did it as a mere Elder of Ephe- sus, or of any other place, because he is sometimes called Presbu~ terosy that is, a ruler, an elder, or grave man, or man of autho- rity. Let this be remembered. To admit that Paul laid on his hands at the ordination of Timo- thy, is to admit that it was not a Presbyterial ordination. For Paul was an Apostle, and exercised power over Elders. In other words, he was of a superior order. And this is not to be answered, let me assure the gentleman, by saying that the term Presbytery, signify, ing Church officers, is used. I would submit it to any candid man of the denomination to which tliis writer belongs, whether the perpe- tual attempt to darken the subject, by dwelling on terms of a gene- ral signification, does not completely prove that the cause of parity- has nothing but words to rest on. Paul, in laying hands on Timothy, is on a level with that order of Elders which he was in the continual habit of directing and governing, because he is called Presbuteros, that is, a Church officer, a grave man, or man of authority, I re- peat it, let this be remembered. We perceive the same mode of proceeding in %vhat our author says relative to the Greek terms dia and incta, an attempt to cover the weakness of his cause under the ambiguity of words. It is known to every Greek scholar, that dia signifies, emphatically, the cause of a thing ; while vieta denotes, emphatically, nearness of si- tuation, relation, connection, agreement. It need not be observed that words are used sometimes more loosely, and sometimes more strictly. A term is often introduced in a sense different from its original and primary meaning. The two words dia and meta are opposed in the Epistles to Timothy. Well, then, the two words being opposed, and the first, as every Greek scholar knows, denot- ing, emphatically, the cause of a thing; the latter conveying, par- ticularly, the idea of relation, connection, agreement, it follows, obviously, that they are to be taken in these their appropriate senses. Our author will not venture to say that the Greek word 7)ieta is as appropriate an one as dia to express the cause of a thing. He will not so far hazard his reputation as a scholar. I assert, then, that dia signifies, particularly, the cause of a thing, and that meta is the S^ LAYMAN. No. V. preposition of concurrence. Nor is this invalidated by the circum- stance of meta being sometimes used as dia with the genitive case. The emphatical distinction between the two words lies in the first denoting a cause, the other concurrence. Why does St. Paul care- fully use the word dia in the one case, and meta in the other. Why does he not use meta in both cases ? It is to be recollected too, that the passages are, in his Epistles to Timothy, relating to the same subject ; and, of course, the terms must be regarded as contrasted with one another. Surely the words dia and meta, as opposed, sig- nify, the first, the cause of a thing ; the last, nearness, concurrence, agreement. This is familiar to every Greek scholar, and I assert it on the authority of the best lexicons of the language. The circum- stance, then, of the Apostle using a word in relation to himself, ■which denotes the instrumental cause, and with respect to the Pres- bytery, a word which, particularly as distinguished from dia, ex- presses agreement, shows, clearly, that the authoritative power ■was vested in him, and that the act, on the part of the Presbytery, ivas an act of mere concurrence. Here it may be proper to take a very brief notice of what our au- thor says relative to the two passages in the Epistles to Timothy, making one refer to the ministerial office, as well as to the supernar tural gifts of the Spirit, and confining the other to the sufiernatwaL gifts alone. This is attempted to be proved from the context. But the context is as silent about ordination in the first Epistle to Timo- thy as in the second ; and, therefore, according to this mode of reasoning, the gift of office is not referred to in either of the pas- sages. I have consulted the commentaries of Hammond, Burkitt, Guyse, and Pyle. They all consider both the passages as refeiv ring to the gift of office, as well as to the supernatural gifts of the Spirit; which shows how unfounded is the distinction attempted to be drawn on this occasion. In fact, there is just as much evidence of a reference to the ministerial gift in one passage as in the other, and the distinction laid down by this writer rests on nothing but his own arbitrary assertion. It is impossible to read liis pieces without remarking, that they consist of hypotheses from beginning to end ; hypotheses too which he very candidly acknowledges to be entirely his own,havinp; consulted no commentator,lest, indeed, hismind should be biassed. This confession, I trust, the public will duly appreciate in judging of his strange imaginations. The prayer to the Holy Spirit for dii'ection would have been much more likely to be effectual, had it been connected with that use of means which ought ever to acr company our petitions. It is, however, very immaterial whether the distinction drawn in this case be correct or not ; for, as has been already remarked, wc rely on the superior powers which Timothy exercised, not on the manner of his ordination, although we think the evidence of scrip- ture shows it, beyond all doubt, to have been Episcojjal. The only (juestion that can be fairly raised, is as to the propriety of Presby- ters imposing hands in connection with the Bishop. This practice, however, can do no harm, as they lay on hands confessedly, by way of mere concurrence, not by way of conveying the sacerdotal au- thority. I can readily believe this writer when ke says he has read no coni' LAYMAN. No. V. ^5 mentator on the passages which he so strangely interprets. He has taken leave, indeed, not only of commentators, but of the plainest maxims of construction. Was there ever any thing more strange, or more absurd, than the manner in which he understands the words^ *' by prophecy " in the first Epistle to Timothy ; making them meaA the extraordinary gift of prophecy conferred upon Timothy at the time of his ordination. " J\feglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." It might readily be referred to any man of discern- ment to say whether this mode of expression points at the gift ot" prophecy bestowed upon Timothy. No. It was by prophecy that Timothy was selected as a proper person. The words refer to th« Apostle himself. It was by prophecy that he discerned Timothy to be a fit character for the ministe^-ial office. If our author will con- sult the most judicious commentators, he will find this to be the in- terpretation which they unanimously give. But the arrangement of the sentence, with the manner in which the words are brought in> renders it perfectly plain that they do not allude to the gift bestowed on Timothy, but to the way in which he was distinguished as a fit object of the gift to be bestoAved. The thing, however, is put out of all dispute by referring to another passage in the first Epistle to Timothy, first chapter, and eighteenth verse. " This charge I com' mit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies ivhich ivent before on thee." Here the charge is spoken of as committed to Ti- mothy, in pursuance of prophecy relative to him ; in other words, in consequence of his being discerned to be a fit character for the office, by means of a revelation on the subject to the Apostle, or by means of the power of prophecy given to the Apostle for the pur- pose of distinguishing fit characters for the sacred function. I have consulted several of the most respectable commentators in the lan- guage, two of them of the Presbyterian persuasion ; and they all understand the passage in the manner I have stated. The interpre- tation of this gentleman has, I believe, the merit of novelty ; but it is as strange as it is novel. I shall conclude the present address with briefly noticing the un- fair point of view in which the writer endeavours to place the, general subject before the public. He would have it supposed that/ Episcopalians refer to names and words in support of their doc- trine. Not so. We contend that subordinate orders, with distinct^ powers, were established in the Church by the Apostles them- selves ; and this we prove not by tlie names used, but by the au- thorities extrcised. For example, Timothy i-uled the whole Church, of Ephesus, both Clergy and Laity. The Apostle addresses him, and him alone, as the supreme Governor of the Church, calling upon him to see that his Presbyters preach no strange doctrine, to receive accusations against them, to try and to punish them, if found guilty. In all this the Apostle addresses Timothy alone, and recognizes in him a spiritual control over the Elders or Presbv- ters, and Deacons of Ephesus. To say, after this, that the Elders thus ruled by Timotliy had as much power over him as he had over them, because Timothy may be called Presbuteros, an elder man, or man of authority, is indeed paying more attention to nvords than things. It is flying from the qutsliun, and endeavcuviag tu A6 LAYMAN. No. V. create obscurity by dwelling on the ambiguity of names. What if Timothy is styled Presduteros, or man of authority, and the Elders whom he ruled are called so too • Timothy exercised powers which they could not exercise. Timothy governed them. They wei-e subject to his jurisdiction. As to the business of ordination, St. Paul says to Timothy, " T/ie things that thou hast heard of' me among many ivitnessesy the same cominit thou to faithful vien, nvho shall be able to teach others also." To Titus the Apostie says, " For this cause left I thee m Crete, thai thou shouldst set in order the things that are nvanting^ and ordain FJders in every city, as I had a/ipointrd thee." Here, let it be observed, in passing along, that Titus is spoken of as having been ordained by the Apostle. *' As I had af^liointed thee." Nothing is said of the Presbytery in this case. Paul appointed Titus to his office ; and this is a conclusive ciixumstance for believing that the case was the same in relation to Timothy, as it is not reasonable to suppose that they were commissioned in different ways. •^ In whom was the power of ordination vested in the Churches of Ephesus and Crete ? Clearly in Timothy and Titus alone. Them alone the Apostle addresses, and them alone he speaks of as ordain- ing Elders, or as committing the things they had received I'rom him to faithful men, capable of teaching others. Is not this utterly in- consistent with tlie Presbyterian system ? What individual among them could witli propriety be addressed as the Apostle addresses Timothy and Titus ? Not one. The power among them is in a numerous body of equals, lest there should be " loi'ds over God's heritage." The power, in Ephesus and Crete, was in Timothy and Titus, to whom the Presbyters were sulyect, liable to be tried and punished for misconduct. It is on this plain statement of facts, relative to Ephesus and Crete, as well as to other Churches, taken in connection with the uniform and uninterrupted testimony of the Church universal for fifteen hundred jears, that Episcopalians rest their cause. They have never endeavoured to derive arguments from the names made use of. This has been the practice, exclu- sively, of the advocates of parity. Driven from the ground of fact, not able to deny that Timothy and Titus were supreme Go- vernors in the Churches of Ephesus and Crete, possessing alone the power of ordination, they say that Timothy is called a Pres- byter, and was therefore upon a level with those very Elders whom he ruled, whom he could control as to the doctrines they preached, whom he had power to try and to punish ! Episcopalians having established their cause upon the firm ground of ScrifUure fact, follow the advocates of parity to the argument which they attempt to build on words, and sliow that it avails them nothing. Diiven from this ground also, they turn round and say, Episcopalians can derive no support from the words. They never pretended to derive argument from such a source. They would give up their cause at once if reduced to the necessity of placing it on such a basis. They rely upon the evident state of the Churches of Epliesus, Crete, Jerusalem, and otlicr places, as detailed to us in scripture, tai;en in connection with tiic decided and unequivocal evidence of primitive history. And all they say about names is sim- ply to show tliat they furnish no aid to the system of parity. THE LAYMAN. No. V. 57 The writer has introduced, from an address which he ascribes to Bishop Seabury, certain passages for the purpose of showing the sentiments entertained by Episcopalians on the subject of Presbyte- rial ordination. In this business, it is unnecessary that he should quote authors, or multiply observatioiis, for the validity of that mode of ordination our Church finds herself constrained most ex- plicitly to deny. She believes that a particular method of conveying the sacerdotal power was instituted by the Apostles, and that man has no more right to change tliis mrtliod of conveying a divine authority^ than he has to change the holy supper, which is the ajifiointed method of conveyin'g a divine gift. And if it be objected that so much importance ougl\t not to be attached to the external polity of the Church, I answer, that what God has joined together no man should put asunder ; and, that the same mode of reasoning would lead to speaking lightly of the ordinances of the gospel. Can it be so important, the Quaker may ask, to sprinkle water, or to take bread and wine ? The fact is, all these things derive their importance fi-om the com?]ia7id of God, and man has nothing to do with inquiring into tl;e propriety or impropriety of institutions established in the scriptures of truth. They are objects of faith, not subjects of metaphysical investigation. The validity of Presbyterial ordination, as T have shown in pre- ceding numbers, has been denied from its origin. And I believe I have made it appear that those men who complain so much of the Episcopal Church, haA^e indulged in a mode of expression to- wards her, quite as free as that which she has herself exercised. What if Bishop Seabury has expressed himself in a manner some- what severe ? It has nothing to do with the present controversy. Surely our author does not mean to go back to so distant a period for a justification of the bitter newspaper attack which he has thouglit proper to commence. Besides, the whole address of Bishop Seabury must be read beibre a proper judgment can be formed of detached passages. These may be greatly softened and explained by the general spirit, and the obvious design of tlie discourse. And since the gentleman has thought proper to bring this matter up, let it be observed, that the Episcopalians of Connecticut had been treated in the most intolerant manner ; which circumstance ought certainly to be considered in determining on the propriety of the style which Bishop Seabury uses. Our adversaries will find it their interest, probably, to let tliese matters rest. The writer wlioni I oppose continvies to employ a language much better calculated to excite passion than to elucidate truth. After solemnly invoking, in one of his numl)ers, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, iie descends, in a succeeding address, to a mode of expres- sion which even the most strenuous advocates of his doctrines will not justify. There is something in the style of several numbers of the Miscellanies, calculated to excite the warm indignation, not only of every member of the Episcopal Church, but of every friend of decorum and of truth. ji Layma7i of the Eiuscojial Church, ( 58 ) ■/'"or the Albany CentineU MISCELLANIES. No. XVIL OiNCE my explanation of the two texts in the Epistles of Paul tO' Timothy, I have read a few writers upon them. Two of these in- terpret the gift mentioned in the first Epistle, to mean the office of the ministry, and that prophecy refers to Timothy being chosen and foretold by the revelation of the spirit. Thus, in chap. i. 18, it is said, " according to the prophecies which went before on thee." I shall not contend for the interpretation given by myself; nor is it essential in the argument. Admitting tl\at Timothy was chosen to his office by the " discerning of spirits," and that the gift which he was exhorted not to neglect was ordinary^ still his ordination •was Presbyterian. It may serve, however, to corroborate my in- terpretation to mention, that the Greek word " charisma" is ge- nerally used to signify an extraordinary gift, and that an ordinary one is expressed by " doi'ea" and " charis." The gift is also said to be " en soi," in (hee, which cannot be properly said of the office* of the ministry. Should any still insist that the verse is to be inter- preted in connection with chap. i. 18. they will remark that the ex- pression there is " epi se," o« or concerning thee ; and therefore prophecy in the one place may refer to what was foretold concern- ing him, and, in the other, to the exercise of the same gift in him- self. Whichsoever of the two intei'pretations is preferred, my ar- gument remains in equal force. One writer says, " It is, at least, higlvly probable that the impo- sition of Paul's hands upon Tir/iothy, mentioned in the second Epis- tle, was not for ordination ; but at a different time, upon a different occasion, and for a different purpose, viz. to confer on him the ex- traordinary powers of the Holy Ghost ; and that these powers are the gift which the Apostle exhorts Timothy to stir tip., u e. dili- gently to use for the end for v/hich it was conferred upon him. This interpretation Avill make the two different accounts pei-fectly consistent, Avhich perhaps no other will. And that this was in fact the case, may be further argued from the different subjects treated of hi the two places under consideration." Dr. Whitby, a learned commentator of tlie Episcopal Church, is of the same opinion. " The gift here mentioned," says he, " being the gift of the Holy Ghost, was usually conferred by laying on of the hands of an Apostle, Vain therefore is the inference of JRsthius from these places, that ordination is a sacrament, seeing the grace here mentioned is no ordinary grace, but an extraordinary gift, conferred only in those times by the hands of an Apostle, and now wholly ceased." As then, " by the putting on" of Paul's liands, mentioned in tliis place, an extraordinary gift was conferred, which was conferred only by the hands of an Aprastle, and this power is noiu ivholly ceased; and as, at the ordination of Timothy, there was, undeni- ably, the" laying on of the hands of the Presbytery," so no argu- ment whatever can be drawn in favour of the Episcopal mode. Whoever ordained Timothy, it is plain that they did it not as per- sons of a superior and extraordinary character ; but as ordinary MISCELLANIES. No. XVH, 5? gospel Ministers or Presbyters. Could it be admitted that Paul re- fers to tlie ordination of Timothy when he says " by the putting on of my hands," still he ascribes the same power to the hands of the Presbytery in his first Epistle ; and, consequently, there is the same reason to say, that the Presbytery ordained Timothy as that Paul ordained him. If Paul laid on hands at the ordination, in this trans- action merely, he acted as a Presbyter, and could act as no other. As an Apostle he was superior to Presbyters, and, as such, has no successor. But as a Presbyter, he could commit to others this of- fice. I will not say, that Presbyters are " successors of the Apos- tles^" because I think that such language savours of arrogance, if not of impiety ; but I will say that Presbyters are the highest order to whom the Apostles, by the authority of Christ, have committed the administration of the word and ordinances of the Church.* I proceed now to give another passage from the New Testament more circumstantial than the last, and which is left on purpose to guide the Church in the important matter of ordination. It is re- corded in Acts xiii. 1, 2, 3. " Now there were in the Church that ■was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers ; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, ■which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said. Se- parate mc Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." In this passage, let us attend prin- cipally to the following things : 1. The authority by which the ordination ■was performed. The Holy Ghost said. As the Apostle Paul, under the immediate guidance of divine inspiration, directed Timothy and Titus to or- dain Elders, so, in the present case, there was an express com- mand of the Holy Ghost. This was necessary in the first examples of ordination ; otherwise the practice of the Church would rest up- on the inventions of men. The command which was then given is now our authority, and the pattern which was then set we must now scrupulously follow. Though we have no immediate inspiration, yet we have that which was dictated by it, and this is our sure and «nly guide. • The author of Miscellanies bestows a great deal of labour on two texts of scripture, wliich have never been much relied on by the advocates ^of Episcopacy. When in }>roof of the power of Presbyters to ordain, the text is quotedj " with the laying on of the hands of tb.e Presbytery ;" tlie Episcopalians produce the other text, " by the laying on o£ ony hands," and say, that if even by Presbytery be meant a number of Presbyters, it is evi- dent that Paul, who was of a superior order, presided and conveyed autho- rity. But, granting the utmost; the texts taken together, if they do not prove any thing for Episcojjul ordination, do not prove any thing against it. And, without relying on doubtful texts, the Episcopalian finds suHicieut proof of Episcopacy in the superior jjowers, which Timotliy and Tiius ])0s- sessed at Ephesus and Crete, of ordaining and governing the other orders of the ministry. There is surely nothing of " arrogance and impiety" in saying that Bishops are the successors of the Aposiles, in their ordinary ecclesiastical authority. Of this impiety and urroounv.c-, the primitive Far thers were habitually guilty. Ed. 60 MISCELLANIES. No. XVII. 2. The persons ordained were Paul and Barnabas. Sejmrafe vie Barnabas and Saul. Though they had, before this, been com- missioned by Christ as Apostles, yet they were now separated or set apart to their woi-k. by the rite of ordination. We are assured that Paul was called to be the Apostle of the Gentiles. " Go thy way," said the Lord unto Ananias, " for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name befoi-e the Gentiles." When he was about to enter upon this mission, it seeined good to the Holy Ghost to have him and Barnabas set apart to it. This is the opinion of Dr. Taylor, a Bishop of the Chui-ch 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- ner 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 laands. These are used at ordination only ; and this is a proof that the passage is universally thus understood. Paul and Barnabas wei'e set apart in the same manner in which 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 the 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 firofi/iets and teachers. Their names are given, from whence it appears, that besides Paul and Barnabas, who v/ere the persons ordained, there wei-e three ; the number which, accoi'ding to the constitution of the Pi'esbyterian Church, form a Presbytery. Whoever these prophets and teachers were, they were all equally concerned in the ordination.* The direction was given to all, 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 hav^e been Bishops after the fashion of the Church of England, or diocesaii Bishops ; because there was a plurality of them. A diocesan Bishop is of such magniiude that there is not room for more than one in a city ; and he often fills sevei-al with a large extent of country. Let it be admitted that prophets are to be distinguished from teachers, docs it follow 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 pi-ophets here mean a standing order in the Chui-ch, superior to teachers or presbyters, it is incumbent on tliem to prove that Simeon, or Lucius, or Manaen, was of this descx-iption. The * This transaction is not considered by the most' judicious commentators (some of tliem not Episcopalians) as an ordination, but as a solemn desig- nation of two of the A])osiIt:s to the exercise of a particular mission. See this point proved by the Lavman in his 6lh, and by CAprianinliis 4th jiiiniber. iV. CYPRIAN. No.n. 61 F.piscc^alians must have one Bishop of then* Sort ; and he ought to be a very conspicuous one too ; for the pei'sons ordained wei'e no less than Pavil and Ravnahas, the predecessors (as they think) of all the Romish and English Bishops. Enough lias I^ecn said to convince any candid mind, tliat the Episcopahans ha\c no ground for their pretensions, and that Pres- byterian ordination is scriptural, safe and vahd. Whenever I come to examine ecclesiastical history from the days of the Apostles down to the establishment of Episcopacy in the isles of South-Britain and Ireland, the trutJi will shine with strong and irresistible light.* For the Albanxj Ccntincl, CYPRIAN. No. II. ,l\.FTER what has been already said, I trust we shall never again hear the charge of popery either openly or covertly alleged against the Episcopal Church. I trust wfe shall no longer hear it insinuated, that our ecclesiastical institutions are not conformable, arc 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 commences his attack on us quite in the gasconading style. Scarcely lias 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 fiying in dismay." Would it not have been as prudent to have waited until the period of victory before he claimed the privilege of a triumph ? Really he must excuse our want of discernment, when we a.vow that we have not as yet been able to recognize in him the features of so formidable an antagonist. We perceive no just cause of ajiprehension or alarm. The friends of Episcopacy fee! not tiie smallest propensity to fly before him in dismay. The arrows he hatli hithci"to directed against us, though empoisoned by much bitterness of sentiment, though levelled with his utmost force, have proved quite harmless weapons. Tlieyhave scarcely reached the mark. No. This writer extremely mistakes if he imagines that his efforts have awakened in the bosoms of Epis copalians, any degree of apprehension for the fate of their Churc' No. The fortress of Episcopacy is erected upon the same rock * This review of eci;lci,iastical history the author of Miscel'iinl' prudently declined. G2 CYPRIAN. No. 11. ■which Christianity itself is founded. It has hitherto stood unshaken by the attacks of the most powerful assailants. It will not now be demolished by his arm. Episcopacy rests upon Scrijiture, and upon the testimony of the firimitive Clnirch. 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 knoAvn in the Universal Church for fifteen hundred years. Whilst our Saviour remained on earth, he, of course, held supreme authority in his Church. The twelve ■were appointed by him as his subordinate ofiBcers. The seventy djsciples 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 tv/elve, and said, " As my Father hath sent me, so send I you," he transmitted to them the same authority which he himself had retained dui-ing his continuance amongst them. The twelve commissioned their Presbyters 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 was lodged in their hands 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 oi'der 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- vernment. He thinks that the existence of an order of Bishops ia the Church is incompatible witli 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 affec- tionate charge to his disciples. Grant, said the mother of Ziebe- 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 tlie 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- cise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them, Imt it shall not l)e so among you." Such is the pas- sage thi;; writer hath produced in order to sanction the idea that the \ CYPRIAN. No. II. 63 elevation of our Bishops to their present pre-eminence in the Church is a violation of the express and solemn injunction of our Saviour. Miserable subterfuge this, indeed, by which to evade the force of 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 i 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 writ will not bear 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 suboj-dina- 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, demagogue* and levellers may, in their most iniquitous transactions, shelter 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 mucli 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 well as the others ? Is an aristocracy the most mild 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 when there is no such distribu- tion, when all its powers are concentrated in a single department ? In short, may not Presbytei-ian 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 imbibed 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 v/ord, that his followers should not, 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 t«ost distinguished for acts of humility and condescension. He endeavours thus to im- piess them with more just sentiments than they entertained con- cerning the nature of his kingdom. He tells them in the word* following, that they must do "• as the Son of man who came not to. be ministered unto^ but to minister," Does not this last exprcssiou 64 CYPRIAN. Ko. 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 exeixise 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 of ordaining laws in the Church of Christ, of carrying their laws into execution ? Did they not reprove, I'ebuke, receive into com- munion, excommunicate with all authority ? But the idea is too unfounded and absurd to be longer dv/elt on. If our Saviour meant in this passage what this writer Avould have him mean, how dare the Presbyterian Ministers, at this time, assume any superiority over the rest of their brethren ? Plow 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 I" After what has been said, it is possible that it may still be maintained that the " mitre and the ci*ov/n are connected ;" but I trust it will appear tliat there is no foundation for the pi-overb, " No King, no Bishop," It seems there •was once a time in this country when our enemies could efl'ect 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 power of ordination, are of apostolic original, is proved incontestaI>ly 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 caur.c left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest ordain Elders in every city." Let us contemplate the circumstances that attended this transaction, and see v^liat inferences v/c can drav/ 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 was 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 iinagincd by any reasonable man, that St. Paul had converted LAYMAN. No. VI. 65 »o 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 ! 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 unpi'ejudiced 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 a 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 ti'ansaction in another point of light. St. Paul had made convei'ts, 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 ervery city ? After the ordination of a/f w, would not his 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 witliall 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 us ♦' 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 sliall proceed with the proofs from scripture in my next number, CYPRIAN, I For the Albany Ccntinel. THE LAYMAN. No. VI. HAVE been occupied, thus far, in noticing the arguments by ^vhich 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 K CO LATMAN. No. VI. Episcopacy rests, have been only cursorily attended to ; but it is my 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 forv/ard nothing that has not been a thousand times advanced, and as often refuted ; except, in- deed, that rare interpretation oi prophecy, 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 suificient 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 ail that the gentleman has, thus far, produced, and, judging of the future from the past, to all that he is capable of producing, can be a task of no very difficult execution. I think I may venture to pledge myself to expose, as he adv.mces, 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 of displaying wit, he would do Avell 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.t 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 to operate on the minds of those who have not given attention to the subject of ecclesiastical authority* " 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 thy left, in thy kingdom. And ivhen the ten heard it, tkey were moved •with indig?iatio7i against the tivo brethren. But Jesus called them. * The gentleman , it appears, has read a few books lately ; andfnds a very different interpretation put upon the-vcordsfroin that I'ohich he had given. Still, ho-wever, he retains a parental affection for his offspring ; being resohed, at all events, 7iot to let ii perish. Let us, then, paraphrase the passage accord- ing to this 7ie\u idea. " Neglect not the gift of prophecy that is in thee, 'which ivas given thee by the act that gave it to thee." The lucrds, " by prophecy," mean, says our author, the gift of prophecy bestcmed ipon Timothy. Then Fauf exhorted him to stir up the gift of prophecy that -was given him by prophecy ; or, in ths vjnrds af our author, by the act that covferred prophecy; that is, " Neglect not the g ft of prophecy that is in thee, which ivas given thee by the act by which it was given thee." This is the champion who threatens to- spread dismay through the Episcopal ranks. f " Another, residing either in the city of Schenectady, or some where in the adjacent country, was inade to strip off his methodistical coat, and to do pen- ance, for several months, in awhile shirt, before he coidd come near the altar to minister." This is the way in which he speaks of a most vespecrable and pious Clergyman of our Church. I refer it to the reader to decide how far such conduct c»n entitle him to the esteem of good men. LAYMAN. No. VI. SIT siHto him, and said. Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exer- cise dominion over them^ and thexj that are great exercise axitho~ rity iijlion them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever ivill be great amo?ig you, let him be your Miiiister ; and whosoever luill be chief among you, let him be your servant : Even as the Son of man ca77ienot 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 I Let it be remarked, in the first place, that they have no reference whatever to spiritual pswer. 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 effect, to correct their views on the subject. All his efforts to give them a tyue 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 two of his disciples, upon seeing their Master put to death, " that it had been he who should have redeemed Israel !" 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 vay just mentioned, immediately subjoins, " And I a/ijioitit imto you a kingdom, as my Father hath afifxointed unto me ; that ye may eat and drijik at my table, in my kingdom, and sit on thrones Jndgijig the twelve tribes of Israel." Luke xxii. 29, 30. This clearly shows the sense of the passages that go before, and that ouv Saviour had no design in them to deprive the Apostles of spiritual authority over their 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 was 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 minister." Matt. xx. 58. Or in the parallel language of St. Luke, " I am among you ashethatserveth." 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 Ujc Apostici. This conclusion necessarily follows, and it shows, 68 LAYMAN. No. VI. most deafly, that the passage has nothing to do with the govern* tnent of the Church, being designed merely as a lesson of humility to those to whom it was 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 fi-equently 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 suboi-dination in civil society fastens his atten- tion upon pai'ticular 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 repro\'e 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 ivords, it is probably to {,ome revelation made to Paul and Barnabas, to signify that they shoidd take a journey into several countries of Asia Mi?ior, to preach the Gospel there. But that they were now invested with the Apostolic office by these inferior Ministers, is a thing neither credible in itsef, nor consistent with what Paul himself says, Galatians i. 1. And that they now LAYMAN. No. VI. 6? received a fioiver, before unknown in the Churchy of jne aching to the idolatrous Gentiles, is inconsistent with Acts xi. 20, 21 ; and ufxon many other consideracio?i3, to be firofiosed elseiohere, afifiears 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 languageof 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 temfiorary mission. This, then, is one of the numerous examples of the boldness with which the Miscellaneous writer asserts, and of the weakness with which he argues. And, indeed, if the passage ;n 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 ajiostoUc 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 Afiostle, not of man^ neither by man, but by Jesus Christ." Galatians i. 1. Here he expi-essly 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 Bai-nabas, 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 wzy of conveying or of imploring a blessing. In this manner was it com- monly used by the Jews and primitive Christians. Jaco!) put his hands on the heads of Ephraim and Manasseh when he blessed them. And thus did onr Saviour act in relation to the little chil- dren who wet-e brought to him. In the case under consideration, Paul and Barnr.bas were plainly not invested with any office ; for whatever office 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, iiowever, 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 Barnaiias are represented as having/«//f//rrf the /2cr- ticular mission to which they had been designated, by tlic transac- tion at Antioch, and as returning to give an account of the same. fO LAYMAN. No. VI. *' ^nd thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been RECOiMMENDED TO THE GRACE OF GOD FOR THE WORK WHICH THEY FULFILLED." Now, take these two parts of sci-ipture, and compare them together, and all doubt about the nature of this transaction will immediately vanish. Paul and Barnabas fulfilled all that the transaction at Antioch related to. Can any thing more clearly show that it was not the afiostoHc office^ but a temporary 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. " And hence sailed to Antioch^ FROM 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 I'ecommended to the grace of God, in the particular mis- sion to which they Avere 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 *ipon a particular mission ; after fulfilling which they returned to Antioch, and gave an account of such fulfilment. They had fulfilled the particular mission, not the apostolic office. The imposition of hands was not, then, an ordination to office, but a solemn recom- mendation of them to the grace of God, in the mission which they Ttvere about to undertake. The writer then is very welcome to call this a Preshyterial ordination; for, according to Dr. Doddridge himself, it was no ordination at all. 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 which they have even a pretext for representing as a Preshyterial ordination. Now, in respect to the passages concerning Timothy, and Barnabas, and Paul, the utmost that can possibly be contended for, is that they are disputable 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 by the constant exercise of the power of commissioning by an order of men supe- rior to the Elders of Ephesus, upon two cases of doubtful 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 oi'dination by Presbyters can be produced from 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, Preshyterial ordina- tion would have been as unknown to us as it coni'essedly was to the Christians of the primitive times. But I foi-bear to go into this mat- ter here j intending to consider it more distinctly in a future address, ,i Layman of the Episcopal Church. ( 71 ) For the Albany Centinel, CYPRIAN. No. III. I, .F 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 th« controversy which had arisen in regai'd to the ciixumcision of Gentile converts, we find him pronouncing an authoritative sen- tence. His sentence, we may remark also, determined the contro- versy. " Wherefore my sentence is, says he, that we trouble not those who from among the Gentiles are turned unto God." In Acts xxi. 17 and 18, Ave ai'e told " that when St. Paul and his com-- pany were corns to Jei'usalem, 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 mii'aculous 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. Surely 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 ami Deacons, or of the Church of this place ; it is done in the name of James. Do not these considerations prove that 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 writers, the subject, I trust, will no longer ad- mit of a i-easonable 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 ns, " 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 inti-oduced 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, &c." 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 afterwards 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 te doubted that James was the first Bishop cf Jerusalem. 72 CYPRIAN. No. III. Tlie Apostolic authority was also manifestly communicated to Epaphroditus. 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 Avith 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, were single persons. They were not the whole Church or collective body of Christians. This is proved incontestably from these considerations. The whole Churches, or collective body of Christians, are represented by " seven candlesticks," which are distinguished from the " seven stars," that ai-e emblems of the Angels, the Bishops. They are constantly mentioned in the singu- lar number. " The 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 against thee." " Remember how thou hast heard." " Thou hast kept the word of my patience." This is the style 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 reward every one of you 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 cii-cumstance : 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 book of Revelation are single persons. That these persons possessed iuprenie iLUthority in the Churches, is also demonstrated frojn these CYPRIAN. No. Ill; n Considerations. These Epistles are addressed to them alone. The Churches are called candlesticks, and they the stars that give lig'he to the candlesticks. The seven Angels are praised for all the good which they had done, and blamed for all the evil Avhich 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 of imposture. The Angel of Per- gamos is reproved for having them " who hold the doctrine of Ba- laam, and he is severely threatened unless he repented." This shows tiiat 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 on him " as a thief; at an hour which he should not know." These circumstances demonstrate, that under the appellation of Angels^ and also under the emblems oi stars, are represented, in the Revela- tions of St. John, the Bishops 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 wei'e sevew supreme rulers 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 Epi'^tle 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 Ave 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 uninterrupted 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 thenri when Ignatius wrote his Epistle to them. He exhorts them to be dutiful to him. Polycarp, we are sure, was also about this time Bishop of Sm}Tna. Do >ve not derive from these facts that are well L 5-4 CYPRIAN. No. III. attested, sufficient evidence to convince us that there were seven men entrusted with the dignity and power of Bishops of the Chuixh in this part of Asia, at the time that St, John sent these Epistles to them ? Have we 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 tills part of the subject to a conclusion. The case of Timothy alone, had we no other evidence from scripture, would, when taken in connection Avith the testimony of ancient writers, be perfectly satisfactory to me. This alone de- monstrates all that we 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 Cliurch 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 ChuTch. " I besought thee," says he to Timothy, " to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that thou miglit- est charge some that they teach no other doctrine." Would Timo- thy have been commissioned to charge the Presbyters to teach 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 tliemselves 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 first proved, and then let them use the office of a Deacon, being found blameless." Here we find no mention made of the Presbyters of Epheaus, in the ordination of Deacons. Tliey are not associated ■with 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.'* 'ITiere is no such thing as a recognition even of the co-operation of Presbyters widi him. He seems to be the sufireme and the onltf agent in the transaction of these affairs. Now, 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 powei- of ordination, would not St, Paul have recognized tlieir 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 an 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 liste7i to accusatfOTH made against Pretdytcrs^ openly to rebuke ihevi, had CLEMENSb No. I. n not his authority transcended theirs ? Does not this single circum- stance vinquestionably cstabHsh 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 in 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 wiiich the Apostle could do in his own person, he commissions Timothy to pei form during his absence. He is to adjust the affairs of the Chxircli ; he is to prove and examine Deacons ; he alone is to ordam them ; he alone is recognized in the performance: of the task of ordaln'mg Jilders or Presbyters ; lie possesses perfect control over these Pres- byters. If tliey are guilty of any offences or misdemeanors, he is to iii/lict fiunishme7it u^on them, I cannot conceive of a case more satisfactory in proof of the apostolic original of the Episcopal form of Church Goverament. Had Timothy been of the same order with 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 well cal- culated to excite discontent and dissatisfaction amougst the remain- ing Presbyters or Elders? This cannot be imagined. Timothy was then undeniably intrusted with Episcopal authority in the Chureh of Ephesus ; he was the Bishop of that place. This is proved by the concurring voice of ancient writei's. Eusebius tells us " that he was the first Bishop of the province or diocese of Ephesus." The anonymous autlior 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 tlve 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 hi my next number. ClcTRIAN. /or the Mbany Centinel, CLEMENS. No. I. X HE author of " Miscellanies" has published nothing lately on the subject of Ciiurch 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 iaiowledge appears by no means to equal his zeal. It v/ill be useful • Df . Bowden, ia his answer to Dr. Stilrs. fS CLEMENS. No. I. to the public as well as to himself to point out a few mistakes in hi» last piece. He says that Episcopalians " rely upon the powers which Timo- thy 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," &c. 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," 8cc. I know how he interpi'ets scripture, but I cannot tell what Church history he has read. Let him take one example, until others are found for him : In the celebrated Church of Alexandria, Presbyters ordained even their own Bishops 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 oi-dination." 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 oi'dained 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 woi-ds, " with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery," he is right in giving u}i the cause at once, and not challenging persons to dispute with him. After all, this writer seems loath to part with nieta. He still asserts that " the two words dia and 7neta are opposed in the Epis- tles to Timothy" — " that dia signifies, pai'ticulai'Iy, the cause of a thing, and that meta is the preposition of concurrence." Now I * This text is there brought forward to explain and ascertain the meaning- <)f 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. Jid. :j: How disingenuous and quibbling is this writer, who, the reader will recollect, is the author of Miscellanies under a dillerent signature. By the nvorJs on which, the Layman asserts, the cause of parity rests, he evidently jneans, the vcords which are used as tides or names of office, and which change in their signification, and vary in their api)lication. Ed, CLEMENS. No. I. If lavcr that they are not o^ijiosed, that meta, with the genitive case, has frequently the same meaning and force as f/m, and that it must be construed 6y, or, bij means of. A few examples follow : Thucyd. Hist. Stephanus edit. ];rinted 1588. book ii. p. 197, folio ed. Kai meta kainoteetos men logon apatasthai aristoi meta dedohiniasmenoi de mee ziinepcslhai ethelein. Translation. Ye are easihj deceived by novelty qfsfieech, but hard to be prevailed upon to execute ivhaC i» laudable. In this sentence, the word meta is twice used for dia^ as will Ijc seen by attending to its grammatical construction. Thu^ cyd. same edit, book v. fol. 354. Dia teen ek tees Attikees potc meta dooroon dokousan anachorcesin. In this sentence, like that in Timothy, both the prepositions are used ; though in Thucyd. dici, is taken for /;ro///er, and governs the accusative. The translation is this : On account of his return from Attica, siipfiosed to have been occasioned by presents. Thucyd. book vii. folio 526. Meta ■misthou etthein; 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. Meta polloon kai kaloon kindunoon kteesamenoi^ &c. Having required it by maJiy and glori- t)us (or noble, or honourable) dangers or hazards. Plutarch, Leips, 1774, p. 16. Meta autou de ueetteeton ousan; But in his hands ^ or ivhen employed by him being inviyicible. With these authorities 1 leave the reader at present, to judge whether " the word 7neta 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 whatever " lexicons" he may consult, I protest that I had rather depend upon Thucydides, Demosthenes, and Plutarch, in this 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 shouklest set in order the things that are v/anting, 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. A3 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 wi-ote it. For my own part, I wish the writer, in passing along, had passed over this. " Paul appointed Titus to his office." How does this appear ? " I had appointed thee." Does this mean that Paul had ordained Titus ? Most assuredly not. The meaning evidently is, as I had directed thee, or had give7i thee in charge. It is a difl'erent word from that which is used in the same verse for ordain, and is projjcrly rendered in our translation appoint. This will be seen by any one v.ho examines the Greek Testament for the use of the word in other places. See Mat. xi. 1, and Luke viii. 55, where it is rendered conunanding and connnarided. But if Paul did ordain Titus, how is it '' a conclusive circumstance" that he ordained Timotliy ] Dees it liccessarily foUoWj that, because a man has or-« n CLEMENS. No. II. dained one, he must have ordained another ? " Nothing is said of the Presbytery in this case:" for this good reason, that the Apostle is not speaking of the ordination of Titus. When ordination is the subject, he expressly mentions " the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." If there be no other pi'oof than this, then may it safely be denied that Paul ordained either the one or the other. As to Timothy, I have some doubt whether he was so much as present at his ordination. CLEMENS. W, jFor the jilbany CentineL CLEMENS. No. IL HEN I wrote last, I did not point out half the inaccuracies ■which occur in a late piece of " A Layman of the Episcopal Church." I can mention now only a few more of the grosser ones. In one place he says, that certain circumstances '' prove as far as moral evidence can prove any thing, that the Presbytery, or Church officers mentioned in the Epistle to Timothy, were of the order of the Apostles." In another place he says, that *' the cir- cumstance of the Apostle using a word, in relation to himself, which denotes the instrumental cause, and, with respect to the Presbytery, a word, which, particularly as distinguished from rfzc, expresses agreement, shows clearly, that the authoritative power was vested in him, and that the act, in the part of the Presbytery, was an act of mere concurrence." Here is an apparent contradiction. First the Presbytery consisted of Afiostles^ and afterwards they arc changed into Presbyters, If they were Aposiles, where was the necessity of more than one laying on of hands ? Had they not all equal authority to ordain ? If they were Apostles, and the Bishops of the Episcopal Church are their successors, will it not follow that a number of Bishops must be present to ordain one of their Priests, as well as one of their Bishops, unless the text be disregarded alto» gether. I take it to be a good rule for a writer carefully to review his piece before he publishes, and to see whether all the pai*ts are consistent with one another. The " Layman" is of opinion that the practice " of Presbyters imposing hands in connection with the Bishop can do no harm." Now, I am of opinion that it does a great deal of good, and that the laying on of the hands of the Presbytei'y is the appointed mean of setting a man apart to the office of the ministry. What did the Apostles convey ? Surely not the Apostolic office. They ordained men to be Church officers. Are not Presbyters Church officers, and cannot they convey the office which they themselves possess?* This writer is anxious to have it remcmliered that Paul has been said to have acted at the ordination of Timothy (if present) as a jnere Presbyter. In what other way 'could he have acted? He •was not ordaining an Apostle, but a Presbyter j or, if this writer * Not unless the- had received power to convey itr hd. CLEMENS. No. U. 79 will have it so, " a Church officer, a grave man, or man ofautho' rity." At the same time Paul, as an Apostle, Avas superior not only to Timothy and Titus, but I verily believe to all the Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Archbishops, Bishops, &c. 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 conv. mentators are not undervalued nor neglected. The " Layman" speaks of " the uniform and uninterrupted tes- timony of the Church uniA'ersal 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." These 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 own Church, he 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 Cliurch of England as to Presbyterian ordination, together with the statutes of the realm ?t ^^ generous man would wish neither to • I3 it not astonishing that this nuthor will refer to Bishop Burnet, who, in his History of the Reformation, vol. i. p. 366, 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 very dregs of popery? And in his exposition of tlie articles he says, that " Christ appointed 2i suc- cession of Pastors, in different ranks ; and as the Apostles settled the Churches, they appointed different orders of Bishops, Priests, and Dea- sons." 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 necessity, never admitted as a general truth the validity of Presbyterian ordination. On the contrary, they maintained with the Church in tlie preface to the ordination services, that no man was to be esteemed a lavjful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, isiho had not Episcopal consecration or ordination. Even Bishop Burnet, to whom the author of Miscellanies refers, expressly says, that Archbishop Cranmer changed the " singidar opinions" winch, at the commencement of the reformation, while his sentiments on many fundamental doctrines were unsettled and erroneous, he was disposed to entertain concerning the equality of power 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 doctrine cf the Church, but laid aside as particular conceits of his awn ,• and it seems that afterwards he changed his opinion. For he subscribed tJie book that was soon afterwards set out, which is directly contrary to those opinions set down in these papert." Burnet's Hist. vol. i, p. 289. Ed. «0 CLEMENS. No. II. 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 and violent attack upon the Episcopal Church j 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 beconu ing an oppi-essed and persecuted sect.* All this would be pitiable in this free country, were it true. But nobody was meddling with their a/iostolic constitution and worship. It was expected that, like other sects, they would declare their sentiments, and practise accordingly.! I never heard a persoti 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 cliviiie right and imi7iterrujUed succession, and claiming an exclusive right to the administration of the word 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 com- mune with them (did circumstances require it) as well as admit them to commune with mG. 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 iu Connecticut, interests me little. If they have behaved ill, they deserve chastisement. I only plead that they may be shown mercy. CLEMENS. * And surely if they are not allowed to maintain their principles, because tnose prmciplrs may in their consequences affect other denominations, they are " in danpjer of becoming an oppressed and persecuted sect." £d. ■j- Why then does this very writer, towards the close of this address, warmly censure the Bishop in this State for ordaining those who had not been Episco])al!v ordained ? Is it not evident that the " viaintainhig" Episcopal ordination, and "practising" accordingly, is what has called forth tlie invective andvklicule, the " ojiposition and contenipt," of the author of Miscellasies ? Ed. ( 81 ) For the Albany Ccndnel, POSTSCRIPT TO THE LAYMAN. No. VIII.* OITUATED at a great distance from Albany,! it requires a nu™- 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 alisolute 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. Tlie Church of Ephesus, planted by St. Paul, and placed, by that Apostle, under the goA ernment of Timothy, was constructed upon a totally difterent principle. It had, in Timothy, a Bishop, possessing jurisdiction over the other Clergy, and exercis- ing all the pov/ers which are claimed for the Bishops of the Chuixh 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. What says Chrysostom ? " It is manifest Timothy was intrusted with a whole nation, viz. Asia." Hom. 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 Ephesus by St. Paul ; and in the council of Chalcedon, twenty-seven Bishops are said to have preceded him in the government of that Church. We are perfectly safe, then, so far as relates to Timothy, in resting our cause upon the situation which he occupied at Ephe- sus, and on the powers which he exercised there. The constitution of the Church of Ephesus was undeniably Episcopal. This part of the subject the advocates of parity do not choose to meddle with, running off constantly to the term Presbytery^ that poor word being the chief basis of their cause. We next show that tlierc is no proof of the ordination of Ti- • Tliis Postscript is hrre inserted separate froin the number to which it %va» annexed, ak it contains an answer to the remarks of Clemens. Ed. t The Layman removed from Albr^ny uficr he had Vt'ritten his twotirst niimbvs. . -"'i'^' M 82 POSTSCRIPT TO THE LAYMAN. No. VIII. mothy being Presbyterial, and that the evidence of scripture, even on this point, is decidedly in favour of the Episcopal sys- tem. But we do not rely on the verses wherein St. Paul ex- horts Timothy as to the gift that is in him, because the manner of the ordination of Timothy cannot be reduced from the evi- dence of scripture to absolute certainty. But in reference to tlie powers which Timothy possessed in the Church of Ephesus, and- to the Episcopal constitution of that Church, there is not a sha- dow of doubt. On this we rest our cause, contenting ourselves, in Illation to the manner of the ordination of Timothy, with showing that there is no evidence of its being Presbyterial, and that the tes-. timony of scripture goes strongly, if not with certainty, to prove that it was Episcopal. Having a certain proof to rely on, we do not rely on another which, though strong, is, nevertheless, not ab- solutely cei'tain. As an additional reason for this, the advocates of parity have no answer to make to the first of these proofs, while they evade the latter by dwelling upon names. It is in this point of view that the subject is placed in the Companion for the Festivals, and in the first address which I submitted to tlie public. The rea- der can turn to the pieces and judge for himself. Clemens tells us that the Presbyters of Alexandria ordained their Bishops for two hundred years. All I have to say is, that the Pres- byters of Alexandria never did ordain their Bishops. Why did not Clemens produce liis proof? The reason is very plain. He was aware that it is utterly insufficient, and will not bear examination. As soon as he attempts to substantiate his assertion, it will be time enough to go into that part of the subject. Clemens is not candid in relation to that part of my piece in- which I observe that Episcopalians have never relied upon names. He would lead the reader to suppose that they do not rely upon pas- sages of scripture. On these, indeed, the Episcopal cause is ground- ed. I said, and I repeat it, that the true question is as to the or- ders of Ministers that were established in the Church, and that this question is to be determined, not by names ov titles of office, but by the authorities exevcised. It is upon names or tit lea oj office that the advocates of parity rest their system* These are of general sig^ nification, and prove nothing on either side. But on this point I have already said enough, and more than enough. • I admitted that ineta is sometimes used for dia ; but I said, and 1' appeal to every Greek scholar for the accuracy of it, that dia is a much more appropriate term than meta to express the cause of a thing ; that dia emphatically denotes the instrumental cause, that meta emphatically denotes concurrence ; and that although meta is sometimns used for dia, yet the above is the reigning sense of the words, and the reigning distinction between them. But suppose I admit all that Clemens says about dia and meta^ of what avail will it be to his cause ? Let him prove that the Presbytery spoken of in the first Epistle to 'I'imothy were upon a level with the Elders of Ephesus. Let him prove that they were not Apostles. Until he does this, he does nothing ; and if he ventures upon the task, he will only give us the old story of names over again. As to the passage in the Epistle to Titus, " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things tliat are DETECTOR. No. I. 83 wanting, and ordain Elders in every city, as I had appointed thee," I have only to say, that it clearly conveys the idea of Paul having ordained Titus to his office, and that such is the construction of the most judicious commentators. Add to this, that the united voice of primitive writers represents him as having been ordained by the Apostle Paul. Clemens endeavours to make me contradict myself. " First the Pre&bytery coiisisted of yl/wstles^ and afterwards they are changed into Presbyters," It is not that I contradict myself, but that Clemens is disin- genuous. Of this let the reader judge. My object is to prove Ihat the passage in the first Epistle to Timothy docs not sup- port Presbyter ial ordination. In order to this, I show first, that the Presbytery spoken of, according to all the rules of just reason- ing, were Apostles : at all events, that it cannot be proved they ■were upon a level with tlie Elders of Ephesus, and that until this is proved, the cause of parity can receive no sort of support fi-om the passage. This is my first ground. I then suppose, for the sake of argument, that they were nothing more than Presbyters, in the modern sense of the term, and show, even under this idea, that the passage makes nothing for the cause of parity, since Paul con- veyed the authority, and the Presbytery merely expressed approba- tion. Is there any inconsistency here ? Surely not. No mode of reasoning is more common or more natural. As to the question of Clemens, '•'•Ifthey tvere Afiostles^ inhere was the necessity of more than one laying on hands ?" the answer is easy. One of them may have performed the act of ordination ; that is, one of them may have conveyed the sacerdotal authority, while the rest may have imposed hands, to give additional solemnity to tlie transaction, and as an expression of concurrence in the selection of character. For the Albany CentineU DETECTOR. No. I. X HE Episcopal Church is defended with such ability and zeal I)y ^' A Layman," and by " Cyprian," that its friends would probably not excuse me for attempting to share with these writers the honours of victory. The regular examination of the subject, hoAvcver, which they proposed, may probably prevent them from noticing, for some time, the observations of a new assailant of the Episcopal cause, Mark the following singular assertion of a writer who comes for- ward under the venerable name of " Clemens." " In the celebrat- ed Church of Alexandria, Presbyters ordained their own Bishops for more than two lumdred years, in the earliest ages of Christi- anity." In proof of this assei'tion, he refei-s to no authorities. lie would lead his readers to believe that it is an indubitable and uni- versally acknowledged fact. But had this writer knoum, ccndour *crt£UQly required tliat he should \ivfQ informed lus readers, that 34 DETECTOR. No. I. the only ecclesiastical writer of the five first centuries who affords even a shadow of authority for this assertion is St. Jerome, who lived in the latter end of the fourth, and beginning of the fifth cen- tury. And is his testimony to be opposed to the concurring usage and testimony of the ages before him i Would this remarkable fact have been passed over by Clemens of Alexandria, andOrigen of the same Church, Fathers of the second and third century, who had in- finitely better opportunities of knowing the state of their own Church than Jerome possessed ? But the truth is, that Jerome affords no authority for this asser- tion. In his Epistle to Evag. he says, " Nam et Alexandria; Marco Evangilista usque ad Heraclam et Dionysium Episcopos, Presby- teri semper unum ex se electum, excelsiori gradu coUocatum, Episcopum nominabant^ quomodo si exercitus imperatorem faciat, aut diaconi eligant de se quem industrium noverint, et archidiaco- num vocent." " At Alexandria, from Mark down to Heraclas and Dionysius the Bishops, the Presbyters always named one, who being chosen from among themselves, they called their Bishop, he being placed in a higher station, in the same manner as if an army should make their general, &c." Does St. Jerome here declare, as the fictitious " Clemens" asserts, that " the Presbyters ordained their Bishop?" No; Jerome mei'ely asserts that the Presbyters named, chose one to be their Bishop. Does it hence follow that they gave him his commission ; that they ordained him ? Does it always follow, that because an army choose their general, he does not receive his commission from the supreme authority of the State ? The custom at Alexandria, accoi'ding to Jei'ome, was the same that now prevails with us. The Conventions of the Church in the several States nai7ie, choose their Bishops. " Clemens" might hence infer and assert that the State Conventions ordained their Bishops. Whereas, in fact, though they choose, iiame persons for that office, they have no agency in ordaining the persons thus elected. This is performed by the Bishops — by them alone Epis- copal authoi-ity is conferred. Does it follow then, that because, siccording to St. Jerome (and he lived in the end of the fourth cen- tury, and preceding writers afford no authority for his assertion), the Presbyters of Alexandria chose their Bishop, that they also ordained him, vested him with the Episcopal authority i Such a construction of his words would make him contradict the unequivo- cal testimony of the pi'imitivc historians, from whom it apjjears that Bishops always ordained Bishops. Such a construction of his wordss would make him contradict himself : For he expressly says (and let the opponents of Episcopacy mark well his words), " Quid enim facit, excefita ordinatione, Episcopus, quod Presbyter non faciat?" " What does a Bishop do, which a Presbyter cannot, excefit ordination ?" It will l)e absurd to say, that though in the time of St. Jerome, Bishops alone possessed the power of ordination, yet that this was a change in the primitive institutions I When did this »-hange take place ? When did the Bishops usurp this power ? At what age did all the Presbyters in the Christian world thus basely relinquish their rights ? St. Jerome had quarrelled with ■■i. Bi'jhi'p of the Church ; lie was urged by his resentment t« MISCELLANIES. No. XVIIL %S degrade the Episcopal order as much as possible.* He strips them of every power, ordination excepted. This he dare not touch ; — this he does not charge as an usurpation ; — this he ad- mits as the sacred prerogative of Bishops. To suppose then that St. Jerome, who expressly excepts ordination from the power of Presbyters, designed in anotlier passage to give them this power — the power of ordaining even a superior order, would make him guilty of palpable contradiction and absurdity. What says he in other parts of his writings? "What Aaron, his sons the Priests, and the Levites are in the temple, the same are Bishops, Presby- ters, and Deacons in the Church." " The power of riches, or the humility of poverty, does not make a Bishop higher or lower ; but they are all successor.t of the Afiostles." This is his language in his Epistle to Evagrius. In his catalogue of ecclesiastical wri- ters he asserts, that St. James the just was ordained by the Apostles Bishop of Jerusalem, Timothy Bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul, and Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, by St. John. To impute to a writer, ■who speaks of Bishops as successors of the Afiostles^ and ordained by theiHy the extravagant and contradictory opinion that Bishops originally derived their power from Presbyters, would certainly entirely destroy the weight of his testimony. The public will now judge, what credit is due to a writer who, to support his cause, is compelled to rely on one of the Fathers at the close of the fourth century, and to distort and misrepresent his meaning. The plainest subjects may be darkened and perplexed. It is much to be lamented, that there appears no reluctance in the oppo- nents of Episcopacy to employ those arts, which, alas ! too often obscure the evidence of ti-uth, and perpetuate the reign of error. DETECTOR. For the Albany CentineU MISCELLANIES. No. XVIIL I HAVE never seen the constitution of the Lutheran Church in this country, and do not know how far it is conformable to that of the same denomination in Europe. I only knov/ that a Minister of the Lutheran Church was considered by the Bishop of the Episco- pal Church in this State as a mere Layman ; and that he was or- dained first a Deacon, and afterwards a Priest. The Bishop and his proselyte, in order to made sure work, went about also the baptism of two of the children of the new convert to Episcopacy, though they had been baptized before by a Lutheran Minister. From these circumstances I infer, that the Lutherans have not, in the opinion of Episcopalians, a duly authorized Priesthood in this country. I have heard it said -tliat the Rev. Dr. Kunze, who has * And he was also indignant at the attempt of seme Deacons to encroach on his office of Presbyter. From both these circumstances he -a as desirous, at much iis possible, to exalt his oflice of Presbyter. Edj 56 MISCELLANIES. No. XVIII. some rank in the Lutheran Church, and is a man of great learning and worth, had been preparinjy to publish on the subject, and to chastise the indignity offered him by his Episcopal neighbours, but that from some motive or other he had been induced to lay it aside. Much was expected from the acknowledged abilities of the Doctor, and no small dread had fallen upon the Episcopalians. Whether any compromise took place, and what it was, I have not learned. The French gentleman who preaches in the city of New-York took his degrees also from the Bishop of this State. As I never thouo-ht it worth the inquiry, so I cannot tell whether lie came front Geneva or one of the cantons of Switzerland ; whether he was or- dained before his arrival, or whether he ever ought to have beea ordained at all. It is certain that he did preach before he passed under the Bishop's hands, and so must have brought with him a sort of warrant for his conduct. It is as certain that the Bishop consi- dered him as having no commission, otherwise he would not have deposed him, and fitted him out anew. No regret has been ex- pressed by non-episcopalians for the loss of these two men, nor will it be expressed for any who depart in this manner. These words of the Apostle John are applicable here : " They went out from us, but they were not of us." Their absence will not be missed by those whom they have left, nor can they be any acquisition to those ■whom they have joined. No general would think himself safe in an army of deserters. The Apostle James says, " A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." When an Episcopal Priest, nov/ settled in New-Jersey, left the communion of the Romish Church, he published a justification of himself. The present Bishop of that Church, in Maryland, called him to an account, and belaboured him not a little. The Bishop alleged as a principal reason of the Priest's apostacy, that he wished to take unto himself a wife. With the Bishop's leave, thit ^vas no bad reason. The celibacy of the Popish Clergy is none of the smallest corruptions in their Church, against which every ortho- dox Clergyman will protest. I have seen no justification by either of the two persons who have been mentioned. Though the chief thing is to be persuaded in their own minds, yet it might have been useful to othei-s, to have briefly pointed out how they obtained light, and its operation upon them.' Charity towards their blinded bre- thren, and that zeal which commonly distinguishes those who change sides, would naturally lead to this. When Arnold, during the Re- volutionary war, went over to the British army, he pleaded consci- ence, and to show that he was sincere, immediately carried fire and sword into the State of Virginia. I grant that this was not quite a similar case; for had the Americans taken Arnold, they would have hanged him, and therefore it was wise to say his prayers in time ; but with respect to these ecclesiastical fugitives, nobody pursues ihem, nobody has offered as great a i-eward for their appi-ehension as he would for a run-away sei-vant. Some Methodist Episcopal preachers have been also re-ordained, Bishops Coke and Asbury not \v i th standing. I cannot think it politic in the Episcopal Priests to carry matters with such a high hand. The words of the Apostle Paul arc, " Hast tiiou faith ? have it to thyself before God," If tiiey believe that they MISCELLANIES. No. XVIII. tT are right as to their Priesthood, this is no reason why they should set up their Church as the only true one, and seek to deprive all ethers of the privilege of judging for themselves.* This isto do the very thing against which they protested in the Church of Rome. She imposed articles of faith and practice under the most dreadful pains, so that no honest man could live longer in the same house ■with her. Men were obliged to flee for their lives; and it seems that the Protestant Episcopalians did not depart empty handed ; they carried with tliem " the succession of Bishops," and the Pope has been advertising them ever since for thieves and robbers. It was not to have been expected that so late as in the nineteenth centuiy, particularly in this country, arrogant and exclusive claims would have been set up by any.f At the Reformation, when the Church was just emerging from popery, a divei-sity of opinion was natural. Settled prejudices, interest, and a seci-et love to the Ro- mish Church, had a powerful influence upon many. The Israelites, after their deliverance from bondage, " remembered the leeks, and' the onions, and the garlick which they did eat in Egypt." I^et it be considered, too, that the King of England became the head of the Church there, and it was so connected with the state, as to render a return to the primitive constitution extremely difficult. Even then^ the greatest and best of the Reformers admitted Presbyterian ordina- tion to be valid; and those who contended for Episcopacy did it not on the principle o{ divine rights but of cxfiediency or necesst'tij.jf. Dr. Bancroft, afterwards Bishop of London, and lastly Ardibishop of Canterbury, was the first who publicly maintained, in the reign of Elizabeth, that the Bishops of England were a distinct order from Priests, and had superiority over them by divine 7-z§'/iLl\ This v,'as at • Is it not enough that this author indulges in a constant vein of lidicuje and abuse of the Episcopal Clergy ; but will he persist in inisrepresenting them ? When have they sought " to deprive others of the privilege ot' judging for themselves:" Ed. t Tlicse " arrogant and exclusive claims" were avowed by the Church Universal for fifteen hundred years, till the time of Calvin. Is it not astonishing that a follower of Calvin will thus const?.ntly inveigh against •' arrogant and exclusive claims?" If it were proper to retort in the style cf this author, it might be asked, What claims moie arrogant and exclusive than thbse \yliich confine the grace andtnerry of God to the elect, while the- rest cf mankind are passed by, and, Kztbout any provision for their recovery ^ perinitted to perish in their sins? Alas ! how often do we notice the t)wtc that is in our brother's eye, and are ignorant of the beam, in our own i Ed. \ This perem])tory and imsupported asiertion the reader may be assured is unfounded; and he will find proofs of this in the notes to Clemens, No. II. in Detector, No. II. and in several cf the notes in the follow- ing pages. The candid reader will find the Church of England, and her best and most able divines, fully vindicated from the charge of deny- ing the divine right of Euibcopacy, by the late Dr. Chandler, of New- Jersey, in the various pamphlets which he published under the titles of " The Appeal," " The Appeal Defended," and " The Appeal further Defcniled." Ed. II This is another mistake of the author of Miscellanies. " Bancroft was the first who maintained that Bishops were superior to Priests by dixine right." Now, without relying en the I'piniou of Cranmer, who, according 88 MISCELLANIES. No. XVIII. that time a doctrine so new and strange as to give great offence t« many of the Clergy and of the Court. In the United States of Ame- rica there were not the same difficulties which were in the way of the first Reformers. How astonishing then to find sentiments advanced in this country, and at this day, in language bold, imperious, and as though on purpose, to insult and provoke other denominations I How much wiser to have followed the early advice of Dr. White, now the Bishop of the Episcopal Church in Pennsylvania ! The Reformed Dutch Church, if she may be allowed to speak for herself, agrees exactly with the Protestant Episcopal Church in the definition of the visible Church. The words are as follow ; «' The marks by which the true Church is known are these : if the pure doctrine of the Gospel is preached therein : if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ : if Church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin : in short, if all things are managed according to the pure word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected ; and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church."* She declares fm-ther, " As for the Ministers of God's word, they have equally the same power and authority wheresoever they are, as they ai'e all Ministers of Clmst, the only universal Bishop, and the only Head of the Church."! Still more express are these words, in the 18tli Explanatory Article of her government: " All Ministers of the Gospel are equal in rank and authority ; all are Bishops, or overseers in the Church ; and all are equally stewards of the mysteries of God. No superiority shall therefore be ever claimed or acknowledged by one minister over another, nor shall there be any Lords over God's heritage in the Reformed Dutch Churches."^: Here is nothing but a plain declaration of her faith, as to the orders in tlie Church, which she had an undoubted right to make, and has made without oiFence. Little did she think that in this country a sect would spring up who, because she has not a priesthood exactly after the Episcopal pat- tern cast in England, || denies the validity of her ordinances, charges to Bishop Burnet, " fully ov/ns the divine institution of Bishops and Priests," let us attend to the opinions of Whitgrift, the predecessor of Bancroft in the See of Canterbury. In a book which he published before he was advanced to the See of Canterbury, in answer to an attack upon the Church of England, he maintains, according to the declaration of one of the Puri- tans themselves, T/je superiority of ail the Bishops over the inferior Clergy froTTi God's own ordinance. Strype's Life of Whitgrift, book iv. chap. 3, p. 350. He dockired tlie same sentiment in his famous letter to Beea. ^Though Whitgrift, in opposing some erroneous notions of the Puritahs, contended that Church government, meaning to include under this term only, matters of inferior discipline, rites, and ceremonies, was changeable ; yet he certainly maintained the divine right of the Episcopal authority. Hd. * Confession, Art xxix. f Art. .x.xxi. \ Whom does the Retormed Dutch Church mean by " Lords over God's heritage.'" ^d. II This " sect sprang up" in the time of the Apnstle Paul, who consti- tuted Timothy and Titus the heads of the Churches of Ephesus and Crete, claiming tlie obedience of the other orders of Ministers whom they were to •rdain. This " sect sprang up" in th« tima of the Apostle John, who, un- Ti/MPIRE'. 89 her with the sin of schism, and denounces her Tinernbers unless they come into the Episcopal Church. The preachiDg of " the pure doctrine of the Gospel, the pure administration of the sacra-? ments," pass for nothing with the author of '" A Coir.p inicn fur the Festivals," h.c. without his Bishops, Priests and Der.cons.* Con- gregationalists and Independents, Lutherans and Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists, High Dutch and Low Dutch, all descrip- tions are mowed down by the hage scythe of this ecclesiastical giant. I'^or the Albany CentineL UMPIRE. A WRITER, under the signature of " Cyprian," having under- taken to prove, from scripture, and the testimony of the primitive Church, that " the fortress of Episcopacy is erected upon the same rock on which Christianity itself is founded," I wish he would be as perspicuous, consistent, fair, concise, and deal as little in mere assertions, as possible. There seems to be a defect in all these things in what he has already written. Not to mention what he says about the Avords of our Lord to his disciples on the occasion of the request of the mother of Zebedee's children, artd which he ought to review, let me instance only in what he says respecting the superiority of Titus over Presbyters. After repeatedly assert- ing in the strongest m?.nTier, that Paul had ordained Presbyters or Elders in Crete before he left Titus there, he confidently asks, " If thei'e were Presbyters, and tjiose Presbyters had the power of ordination, why was it necessary to leave Titus amongst them in order to perform a task that might as well have been accomplished without him ?" It would be a more proper question to ask, Where was the necessity to leave Titus at all in Crete, since Eiders had been already ordained ?t " Cyprian" is not aware of the absurdity der the title of ' Angels,' addresses the Bishops of the seven Churches of Asia. Here is the " pattern" after which the American Episcopacy was •'cast** — a " pattern" admired and enjoined by the venerable Ignatius, the disciple of St. John. Alas! that, in the present day, it should be a serious crime to vindicate a " sect" which has the Apostle Paul, that chosen vessel of the Saviour, the Apostle John, the heicmed of his divine Master, and the holy martyr Ignatius for its illustrious founders. Alas! that in these latter ages the Apostolic and Primitive "pattern" should be derided and rejected ; should be displaced by the sjjurious " pattern" cast in V.xe Jf^eernli cJ'^y century at Geneva. . E.!. * It is tlie express design of the author of the " Companion for the Fes- tivals," Sec. to enforce the preaching of the " pure doctrine of the Gospel," and " the pure administration of the sacraments ;" and, in order to this, he is desirous that the Gospel should be preached, and the sacraments admi- nistered by those who have received a rcPtdar cominission. For surely to the pure administration of the sacraments valid authority is necessary. £.d. t Were there no new Elders necessary in Crete, for the purpose of or- daining wljiom Titus was left there bv St. Paul; Ed. N 90 UMPIRE. in making the Apostle " ordain Elders in every country in which lift made proselytes — those who were absolutely necessary to transact the aiFairs of the Church during his absence, and then leaving Titus there that he might re-ordain them. Nor does he advert to the dis- tinction o{ /ireaching 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 liim authority over both Clergy and Laity, constituted him a diocesan Bishop. ThJs reasoning will not convince judicious and candid men. But it will be said, that the argument is this : Since Paul Iiad 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 shouldest 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, pi'o-. 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 si^Jreme ru- ler of the Church.'' He was to execute a particular business, which>^ ■when executed, his commission as to this ceased.* In giving the testimony of the primitive Avriters, it is hoped that *' Cyprian" will not miss Clemens^ Romanus, and Polijcarji. Their ■writings are tlie 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 iiv- terpretation of them, than the author of " A Companion for the Festivals," Sec. has done. When he enters upon the doctrine of uninterrupted siiccession, it will be expected that he define it with 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 * Rut why shonld Titus he sent to Ci-etc with a " commission" to ordain, if the Elders or Presbyters at Crete possessed the power of ordination ? Whether Titus afterwards changed his residence is of no consequence. The removal of a Bishop from one district or diocese to another does not invalidale his Episcopal authority. Ed. f The reader is requested to peiiise the following extract from the Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, which it is humbly presumed botli (Iciints the doctrine of unintinrupted succession and " proves its exis- tence." " As a divine commission is required to qualify any one to exercise the priestly office, there must be a succession of persons authorised from Christ to send others to act /;: /jis name, or there can be no authority in his Church. For if that tuccession which conveys a divine comnussioii for the ministry UMPIRE. 91 Rome. Here will be an opportunity for him to show, if he caa, 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 difference of sentiment and conduct of many of the English Bishops then, from the sentimeat and conduct of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States— why the former did not hold that Bishops were suf>erior to Presbyters by divine right,* and why they admitted the validHy of Presbyterian ordination, while the latter strenuously contend for the one, and to- tally reject the other. UMPIRE. •ke once broken, people must cither go into the ministry of their own accord, or be sent by those who received wo povcer to send them. And it is surely ■evident that those persons cannot be called ministers of Christ, be consi- - lic worship and the morals of a ]x:ople, comljine to urge the adopt- ing some bpcedy measures to provide for the public ministry in these Churclics. *' It would be to the greatest degree surprising, if the Church of England, acknowledged by all Protestant ChurcJiesto lay a sufficient stress on the essential doctrines and duties of the Ciospel, should be found so immoderately attached to a matter of external order, as must, in some cases, be ruinous to her comnumion. Hut, tar trotn this, it will not be difficult to prove, that a temporary dcpartum from Episcopacy in the present instance would be warranted by iher doctrines, by her practice, and by the principles un whicb Episcopal government is assei"ted." The reader will find nothing here of divine rights and uninter^ ru/Utd succrssioTi. Episcopacy is called a cerimomj when com- pared with the adnnnislration of divine ordinances — a disputed Jioint — a matter of external order: and the Bishop proves, as will be seen in further extracts, that a tem/iorarij dcfmrture from Efns- copacxj is warrantable, and often necessary. What then are we t» think of the assertions of the author of " A Companion for the Fes- tivals," See. who was born a little before the Bishop in Pennsyl- vania wrote his pamphlet ? He boldly declares, that " it is neccs* sary that the Kfiiscofiul succession, from the days of tlie Apostles» should l)e uninterruJUcd" — that *■'• its interruption seems indeed morally imi>ossit>le"— that " if Presbytersy or Deacons, or Laymen^ should «ssw/«e the power of ordination, the authority of the persons ordained by them would rest on /n(ma7i institution, and therefore' in tlie Church, where a dixiine cotnmission is necessary to the exer- cise of the Ministry, their acts would \x nugatory and invalid"— that " the continuance of the commission, and, of course, the autho- vity of the Priesthood, depends upon the continuance of the tnode ap- pointed to convey it" — yea, " that we can no more lay aside Ji/iiaco- pacy, and yet conthme the Christian Priesthood, thtui we can alter the terms of salvation, and yet bein covenant with God." If this be true, then in vain did the Bishop propose ordination by Presbyters, ii) vain think of " a temporary departure from Episcopacy," and worse than in vain did he attempt to prove his proposition. We shall see in the next number what he has to say for liimsclf. [Remarks, by the Editor, on the preceding N'umber.'] The remarks cjuoted in the above number from the Companion for the Festivals and Fasts may be true in ffcneral, and yet admit of aa exception in a case of nccorssity, in which alone Bishop White tlioughv REMARKS ON MISCELLANIES^;. No. XIX. ST " of a temporary departure from F-pisf/jpacy." I^t any person, throwing asuJc all prejudice and pre-cr)nccivf;(l opinionii, p<;nj'ie the reasfjning; an iheccniMitutionof thppo»!ng the claims of uiiauthorised preachers of the gospel, b« brings forward the rune of Corah and his com/iany, which waH quoted with reprobati'"ni from tlK; Companion for the Festivals, &c. by the autJKjr of Miscellanies. Ihc following arc the words of l)r. Lath ROT" at page 112 of his pamplet.* " The Ap^jttle Jude illustrates their character by comparing them to the an- cient Corah/ tc*. Vhrij have /tirrithed in the c^ainxayinff of Cn, whicS* had been consecrated to this holy •ervice. They said, ' Ye take tf^> much uptjn you, secin;; all the congregatifm arc holy, and the Lord is among them: Wherefore lift ye u{) y(iu.rs*;lvcs above the congregation ^ They called 'the standing order' of Ministers a tyra»)ny, a usurpation of rigJits com- mon to all tlie ly^rd's peoi>le. They ]>retcnded that every man who pleased might oRicia'c in the Priesthood. Moses says, ' God hath brought you ncrar to him, to do the service of the tal;ernriclc, and do you seek the Priesthood also? Ye take too nuich upon you, ye »oiis frf lAvi.' How their presumption issued, you well reni<;.nl)er. Now the Apo«tlc says, these false teacherf., who crept into the Church unawares, were guilty of tlw; gainsaying of Corah. They had assumed the sacred cflice like him, vncaUcd an as present- ing them in the way best calculated to make an impression upon the mind ; yet, to do him justice, he has touched, in the course of his numbers, on tte different modes of reasoning, and declarations of scripture upon which the most learned advocates of parity havQ been in the habit of placing their cause. He threatens us, too, with convincing evidence from the history" of the Church. This, however, can be nothing moiT than a threat* That man must indeed be bold who, after having diligently exa- mined ecclesiastical annals, will venture to tell us that they yield even a semblance of support to the system of government which Calvin, against his own better judgn>ent, introduced into the Church. No ; if there be an historical fact more clearly attested than any other, it is that of the existence of distinct orders in the Christian Minis- try, without a single exception, in any part of the world, from the Apostolic age, until the establishment of the system of parity, at Geneva, in the sixteenth century. And at that period the great founder of the principle justified him'self upon' the plea of necessity alone. It never entex'ed into his head to set up Presbyterial gov-» ernment as " the o?ily one /irescribed in the word of God." He considered it as a system that nothing but the urgency of circum- stances could render admissible, denouncing, with characteristic violence, all those who, having the Episcopal hierarchy in their power, should refuse to yield to it the most scrupulous obedience. Such, also, was the language of many other illustrious reformers ; and it was in the same way that the Hugonots of France, and the reformed Churches in Holland, and other parts of the world, de- fended their conduct. I have mentioned this before ; but it deserves to be repeated, and repeated ; for it is of a nature to carry convic- tion to every ingenuous mind, and ought to cover with confusion those bold critics who venture to tell us that Presbyterial govern- ment is the true one prescribed in the sacred volume. No ; it is a modern invention. There is no trace of it, eitlier in scripture or antiquity; and the first individual who undertook to broach the sys- tem was branded as a madman by the writers of the age. This individual was Aerius, of the fourth century, a man of unprincipled ambition. Disappointed in his project of becoming a Bishop, he laboured to excite commotion in the Church, advancing the novel principle of parity among the Ministers of the word, which drew upon him the severest reprehension from the great and pious men who flourished at that period. If Presbyterial government be of divine institution, can it be possible that all trace of it would have LAYMAN, No. VII. 9^ been so far lost, wUhin two hundred years of the Apostolic age, as to subject one who pleaded in favour of it to the universal charge of insanity ? When it is recollected too, that the different Churches had their records, and could trace up their officers, in regular succession, to the Apostles themselves ? No ; it is impossible. A wilder idea never took possession of the human imagination. But I forbear to enter upon this part of the subject at present, reserv- ing what I may have to say on it for a future address. It may be well, before proceeding to state the evidence on which Episcopacy rests, to take a rapid review of the numbers of the Miscellaneous writer, presenting, in as short a space as possible, the whole strength of the Presbyterian cause, that the public may be ena- bled to perceive, at once, what degree of support it may be justly con- sidered as deriving, from the plain declarations, or from the fair construction of scripture. Upon what, then, does this gentleman ground the defence of his system ? He grounds it on the address of our Savioqr to his Apos- tles, recorded in the twentieth chapter of Matthew, He grounds it on the promiscuous use of names. He grounds it on the manner of ordination of Paul, Barnabas, and Timothy. Let us see how far these things siipport his position. And it is proper, here, to remark, that the burthen of proof lies en- tirely on the advocates of parity. Calvin found the whole Christian workl in possession of the Episcopal form of government. The most learned supporters of the opposite doctrine scruple not to admit that Bishops existed, universally, in the Church, as distinct from, and superior to Presbyters, within forty or fifty years after th« last of the Apost'e«. Such is the concession of Blondel^ of Salmasius^ of BocliartHs., of Baxter^ of Doddridge, Some of them, indeed, carry it up to a much earlier period ; Salmasius going so far as to admit that Episcopacy prevailed shortly after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, and long before the death of St, John. It is surely incumbent on those who advocate a form of govern- ment admitted to be thus nevj, and thus opposed to the early^ uni- versal, and uyilnterru/ited practice of the Church, to give us the most convincing and unequivocal proof of the divinity of their sys- tem. More especially when it is recollected that they can produce no record of a change ; but are obliged to imagine one", in opposi- tion to the uniform testimony of the primitive Fathers of the Church. The age in which they suppose a change to have taken place was a learned age, abounding in authors of the first eminence. The most minute events are recorded, and yet not a word is said of the revo- lution, which some men talk of, so fundamental in its nature, and so interesting in its consequences. The change, too, which they imagine, must have been both instantaneous and universal ; and this at a time when there were no Christian princes to promote it; when no general council had met, or could meet to establish it ; and when the fury of persecution cut off all intercourse between dis- tant Churches; leaving their Clergy, also, something else to attend to than projects of usurpation. Such are the strange and almost incredible absurdities into which men will run, rather than give up a system to which they have become wedded by education and by Ijabit, 100 LAYMAN. No. VII. I say, then, the burthen of proof lies upon our opponents. Let them show that Presbyterial government is the true and only one which Christ hath prescribed in his word. It is not sufficient to cite passages, or to state facts, from scripture, which simply favour their idea. Where probability is opposed to probability, the prac- tice of the Church universal, for so long a period of time, ought in all reason to decide. Should it even be admitted, contrary to every sound rule of construction, that the scriptures determine, neither in favour of Episcopacy nor parity, the Presbyterian cause must inevitably perish ; for, under this idea, that firm and universal possession of the ground which Churchmen maintained, from the time of St. John to the sixteenth century, must be admitted to de- cide the dispute. I trust, however, I shall be able to show that the evidence of Episcopacy, from scripture, is irresistible ; and that there are not circumstances strong enough to furnish even a remote probability in favour of that doctrine of parity, flattering, indeed, to the pride of man, on vrhich a small portion of modex-n Christians insist with so much pertinacity. The Miscellaneous writei*, following the example of those who have laboured, before him, in the same cause, produces the ad- dress of our Saviour to his Apostles, called forth by the application in favour of James and John, that they should sit, the one on the I'ight hand, the other oh the left, in his kingdom. This address has been I'elied upon, as excluding the idea of subordination among the governors of the Church. Surely the advocates of parity, in thus acting, have been very much off their guard, or have been driven to extremities for argument. I trust I have completely shown that the application, in favour of James and John, related to temporal eminence, and that our Saviour, in his address, only inculcated upon his disciples the principle of Christian condescension and hu- mility. " Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your aervant ; even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto^ but to miniater." The plain desig-n of all which is to recommend to superiors a mild and condescending deportment, and to preserve themselves humble amid the exercise of authority. Take the in- terpretation for which our opponents contend, and Jesus Christ him- self is effectually deprived of all spiritual power. Nay, this inter- pretation not only destroys subordination as between Clergy and Clergy; but, also, as between Clergy and Laity. It annihilates the whole order of the Priesthood, as ;.onsisting of " Lords in God's heritage" to whom free men ought to 1^ too proud to submit. A mode of reasoning that might have been expected from the illumi- nated philosophists of the age; but, surely, could not have been looked for from a venerable Divine. I forbear to say any thing more on the point, as it was fully considered in the last address, and my design now is, simply to take a brief review of all that the Miscellaneous writer has advanced. In the second place, reliance is put upon the promiscuous use of names. This sort of argument lias, I trust, been sufficiently ex- posed. Men may quarrel for ever about terms. The true in- quiry is not concerning ivords, but lliingt. Ejiiskojios^ Presbute- ijos, Diakonos^ are all appellative. Each of them is capable of be- tig applied, and is actually appUed to all the orders of the Priest- LAYMAN. No. VII. iOl hood. DiaHonos is applied to Christy to the A/xostlcs, to the seven Deacons of Jerusalem. And vei-y pi'operly, for they were all Mi- nisters. The same observation may be made of Efilskofios . It is applied to our Saviour^ to his A/iostles^ to the Elders oi £/i/iesus. They were all overseers, Presbuteros is a name indiscriminately given to the Apostles, and those whom they governed. Very justly too ; for Presduteros signifies a ruler, and there mav be rulers of an inferior as well as of a superior order. To say that Efiiskofws and Presbuteros are sometimes used, the one for the other, is no- thing to the purpose. Tlie point is to prove that each of them is used in an invariable sense ; Efiiskofios always 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 Efiisko/ios, as applied to Christ.^ as appUed to his AjiostleSy as applied to the Elders of Efihesus, denotes precisely and exactly the same officer, I will give up this controvers)'. The question is, as to the orders of Mi- nisters that were established in the Church, and this question is to be determined, not by the names used, but by the fioivcrs exercised. In the tliird 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 meie 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 havingfulfilled, and as returning to Antioch, " frora ivhcnce they had been recommended to the ^race ofGodJor the work" to give an account of such fulfilment. This completely proves that it was not to the aliostolic office they ■were set apart, and that the laying on of hands was 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 that it was after the Presbyterial mode. The two passages in tlie Epistles of Paul are to be taken toge- ther. Most commentators consider the text, in the second Epistle, lis referring to ordination, as well as to the supernatural gifts of the Spirit. Of the six writers whom I have consulted, four are decid- edly of this opinion. If the two passages are taken together, the natural construction is that Timothy was oi'dained by the laying on of the hands of Paid, with the laying on of the hands of Presbyters ; the former conveying power, the latter expressing concurrence in the selection of character. But let us lay aside the passage in the second Epistle. " Neglect not the gift tliat is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the iiands of the Pres- bytery." Take this text alone. Does it give any support to the system of parity ? I am persuaded that it does not. Some commen- tators, among whom are Jei'ome and Calvin, consider P/rsAw/mou, the Greek term which is here rendered Presbytery, as referring to the gift bestowed on Timothy, not to the maimer of his ordination. <• Neglect not the gift of Presbytery, that is, the office of Priesthood, \ S02 LAYMAN. No. VII. which 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 tliat enables them to make the passage give even a t^our of support to their mode of ordination, is the use oi the term P7'esbuteriou: and here they have recourse to the old mode of arguing from names, a mode of arguing which is, literally, good for nothing. Prcsbutei-os., as we have already observed, is an appellative term, and is applied to the Apostles as well as to the inferior Clergy. And, in respect to the particular word here used, Fresbutgriou, 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 ; denoting the Jewish Sanhedrim, or Great Council. In the Latin translation it is rendered seJiatus, which exactly answers to the Greek term. Upon what possible principle, then, 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, there 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 Great Council at Jerusalem, and is rendered into Latin by a word which designates the cfticf officers of the Roman Commonwealth. But the true meaning of the Greek word Presbitteriou^ is put out of all doubt by referring to ec- clesiastical history, which informs us that the practice of Presby- ters, uniting with Bishops in the imposition of hands, has never prevailed in the Greek Church, and was not introduced into the V/estern, until the latter part of the fourth century. In the fourth council of Carthage it was decreed, that " in the ordiJiatisji of JPre&di/ters, all the Prefibyters firescnt should lay on their hands ^ near the Bishofi'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, was not considered to depend on the Presbyters imposing their hands. And by the veiy 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 Presbuteriouy 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 word. And why so ? Because, to be sure, the term Presbutcriou is used. The gentleman had better tell us at once, tl>at they laid on their hands as iricnubci's of the Jewish San- DETECTOR. No. II. loi hedrim, or as Roman Senators ; for, thus is the Greek term ap- plied. It is a noble way of I'easoning this, for there is nothing oa earth 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. Ignatlwi, as Chrij- tostom tells us, was ordained by the Apostle Peter ; and Ireneus in- forms us that IJnus 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, luitil 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 the 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 resemblance as to mode of proof, between the advocates of papal supremacy and of Presbyterian parity ! 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 miiform testi- mony of ecclesiastical history. So act the advocates of the Presby- terian cause. The address, 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 rests the system of parity. Sui-ely it is too weak a basis to support my 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. A Layman of the Efiiacofial Church. For the Albany Centinel, DETECTOR. No. II. V/LEMENS, and his friend, who, from the decisive ground which he takes against Episcopacv, exhil)its very curious pretensions to the character of an " Umpire" in this controversy, charge '' Cy- prian" with dealing only in 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- nicnt, and supports, by cogent argument, whatsoever he advances ; 20-4 DETECTOR. No. II. ■while the " Miscellaneous author," '• Clemens," and his fr'.end Mr. " Umpire,"* seldom mal:e even an attempt at argument, but 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 aiv 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 Jact and in theory. That she Avas Episcopal in fact cannot be doubted. Hef Bisho/is 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 di- ■vine right and uninterrufited succession. In doing this they laugh at their bidie : 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 divine right. So, says the Apostle, must every Christian Priest. And as no person is now immediately commissioned from Heaven, how can a di-vine 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 seas. The anathema which Calvin denounced against all who should 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 his 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 ?" Was he aware that he was casting a base calumny on the venei'able Reformers of the English Church ? Was he aware that he was grossly migleading the opinions of his readers ? The Church of England then Avas Episcopal in/act. This is of primaiy impci'tance, 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 few instances of persons, holding for a short time livings, who were not Episcopally ordained. But this irregularity • At the time of writing ^his, it was not known that " Clemens" and •' Umpire," ui well as the " Inquirer," were written by the author of Miv ctllanies. £'^- DETECTOR. No. 11. 1» was 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 public doctrines slivI formularies. For some time previous to the Reformation, the inordinate advo- cates of Papal power sought, as much as possible, to destroy Epis- copal authority. What congeniality between them and4ftrtain per- sons in modern times ! 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 Galiican 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 Pi-iesthood, were yet dis- posed to sink as far as they could the Episcopal claims. Let it be remembered, however, that they maintained these erroneous opi- nions before they had completely renounced the errors of Popery, ■while indeed they held many of its most 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 further inquiry, however, into primi- tive antiquity, Cranmer and his associates renounced whatever er- roneous sentiments they may have been disposed to entertain on the tubject of Episcopacy, and set forth and vindicated its just preten- sions. " The institution and erudition of a Christian man," two books drawn up by Cranmer, and others, assert that Bishops are authoris- ed by our Saviour to coJilinue the succession, and to Jierfietuate the hierarchy ; and that xhcg-ift of orders is coif erred by consecra- tion and imposition of the Bishofi's hands. In a Catechism that Cranmer published afterwards, he fully owns, according to Bishop Burnet, " the divine institution of JSisho/is and Frieuts." And his well known sermon on " the ponver of the Keys" is considered as containing high Church notions. But what puts the Episcopacy of the Church of England and of the Reformers beyond all doubt, is the preface to the book of consecrating and ordering Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, which was drawn up by Ci-anmer 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 holy scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' 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 SIS a laivful Minister who is not ordained according to that book, in which the power of ordaining is vested in Bishops, or " hath had Episcopal consecration jind ordir.aticn. If now tke Miicella- P 1J06 DETECTOR. No. 11. Bcous author should insist that some Divines of the Church of Engs 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 tlie faith of their Church. H» is welcome to their testimonies. But let me remind him, in hia own language, '• A'b General would think himself sa/c in an army of deserters." 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 determining the public faith of a Church, the Church of Scotland, notwithstanding tha high Calvinism of her Confession of Faith, is not Calvinistic ; since it is a notorious fact, that many of her most distinguished Divines renounce the principal tenet of Calvinism. But the most singular attempt of the Miscellaneous authop is his attempt to injure the Episcopal cause by the testimony of a distinguished Bishop. It is singular indeed, that Bishopt White, who took unwearied pains to procure the Episcopal suc- cession, who joined in repeated applications to the English Bishop* for this purpose, and at length went himself to England to bring the Episcopacy to this coimtry, sliould yet be represented as its enemy, as denying entirely the necessity of Episcopal ordination, and as- disposed to form his Church upon the Presbyterian mode".^ I think Bishop White will not consider this very inconsistent representa- tion which the 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 iiv this business. At the close of the Revolution, the situation of the Episcopal Church was imminently critical. Deprived of some of her bes» Clergy, depressed, and in some places obnoxious, serious were th» apprehensions concerning her which agitated the bosoms of her friends. Jarring opinions also v/ere to be reconciled. While some of her members were the zealous friends of Episcopacy, others oi them were more lax in their opinions on this subject. The distress- ing situation of the Cliurch was increased by the doubt whether ic •would be in her power, for some considerable time at least, to ob- tain the Efiisco/ud succession. Two objects, therefore, appeared of consequence : To reconcile the dissonant opinions of her member* 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 persona concerning the Episcopacy, he sometimes repi'eseuts it as a cere- mony^ as a difiliuted fioint^ as a matter of external order. All which is true. For the conferring of orders is a ceremony; Episcopacy unfortunately has, since the time of Calvin, been dis/:uted ; as Episcopacy relates to government and discipline, it is a maftcr of exter7ial order. To satisfy persons of a different description, he speaks of a depax'tuve from Episcopacy, wUich he expressly main* Dl?rECTOR. No.n. lor tarns is an afiofstoKc institution, to be justifiable only in cases of nc- tessity ; 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 l^e obtained. That he proposed a tcm^iorarij drjiarlure 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, *' Whatpart of the Christian world could the learned primate have named of which it could have been so properly said as may be of (burs," that " ordination of Bishops cannot be had ?" The case of necessity is certainly a very difficult and delicate *ne. 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 Avhere were appointed to take away factions, contentions, and schisms, without some like direction. and instigation of the Holy Ghof't ? Wherefore let us not fear to bo herein bold and peremptory, that if any thing in the Churches' go- vernment, surely the first institution of Bisho/ts was from Heaven.^ •was even of God : the Holy Ghost ivas the author of it."* But of what use 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 jjlea, and we shall know 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 C'ourcb govenimfnt is changeable, he does not use the term in its most extensive sense, as including the officers of the Church, the orders of the nninistry ; but in a more conjined sense, as relat- ing only to matters of discipline, to rites and ceremonies. The Puritans maintained that these were unchangeable, on the ground, that they ought to be founded on scripture only, in oj)position to tlieir opinion. Hooker and others maintained, that in respect to discipline, rites, and ceremonies, there was no certain form of Church government established in scripture ; and that the Church had a right to prescriije rites and ceremonies, and to alter her discii)line. But that lie did not mean that Church government is changeable in respect to the orders of t/jc Ministry, is evident from the »bove quotations, and from the whole strain of his work, wliich is relied on as the bulwarii of Episcopacy. The same observations will apply to many other Divines of the Church of England. And the not attending to the different senses, in which, on diflerent occasions, they use the term Church government, lioe given rise to frequent misrepresentation of tiicir i|c|iti:ueuts. i;VA IW DETECTOR. No. IT. The " Irtnicum" of the famous Bishop Stillingflcet, is a favourit* book with the advocates of parity. But let them remember that he wrote this book at a very early period of his life ; and that he af- terwards not enly " retracted" but " refuted" the objectionable passages. His sermon, preached when Dean of St. Paul's, at a public ordination, 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 satisfied with one or two quotations from it. " I cannot find (says the learned Stillingfleet) any argument of force in the New 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 Afiostlet in the government over those Churches." And again — " There is as great reason to believe the apostolical succession to be of divine institution as the canon of scrifiturey ©r the obseii'ation of the jLord's Day." The Miscellaneous author omits no opportunity of sneering at 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 recommend 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 much power over the Christian world as was ever known in Gregory or Paul." — What ! a Presbytery^ a meek, unassuming Presbytery may be even worse than Bishops ; they may even vie 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 me 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 supereminent commission, of which there were instances in Timothy and Titus ; and the persons so appointed have handed down their commission through the different ages ef 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 were in the language of the pri- mitive Fathers, and of some of the most eminent Divines of the Znglisli Church. The application of his general principles that author never presumed to make to particular individuals. The sincitre inquirers after truth, he placed within tlie embrace of the merciful Judge of the Universe, of that gracious Parent who " know- cth whereof we are made, and remembereth 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 invective and bitter sarcasm appears to have increased. In one of his last numbers [No. XVIII.] he compares some worthy LAYMAN. No.vm. 109 Episcopal Clergymen to " deserters" and traitors, like Arnold ; to *' run-away servants;" to " thieves and robbers." May we not hope that he has arrived at the climax of scurrility, that his flight through the regions of invective and ridicule 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 tlic sincere inquirer after truth ; be worthy of the public teacher of a religion which forbids all rash invective ? Above all, whether it will stand the test of that tribunal at which we must render " an ac- count of every idle word ?" DETECTOR. For the vilbany CentineL THE LAYMAN. No. VIIL J.T 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, however, 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 us unto Christ." Cal. iii. 24. And the Priests who offer gifts, according to the law, are represeated by the same inspired writer, as being " the rxaviplc atid shadoiv of heavenly thhig's." 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 of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world ! The sacrifices of the law, at what did they point, but the sacrifice of the Son of God ! But on this subject I must not enlarge ; for, to trace the pa- rallels between the law 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 v/as equally prrdicied by the prophets, and prefigured by the law. He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil. Let us attend a little, however, to the comparison between the Jewish and Christian Church, in relation to the officers by whom they were respectively governed. The twelve Apostles may well be considered as the patriarchal progenitors of the whole Christian people. St. Paul speaks of his converts, as of his children, begotten by him to a new life, through no LAYMAN. Ko. \Tn. the preaching of the Gospel. In the Christian Church, then, there ■were twelve Apostles ; in the Jewish, tliere were twelve patriarchs ; find in the heavenly society, where both are united, St. John speaks to us of four-and-twcnty elders seated round the throne of God. Beside the twelve Apostles, our Saviour commissioned other scA^enty also ; the number seventy answering to that of the 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 Fathers. Take that of St. Jerome, whom tlie advocates of parity are fond of fjuoting, and t? ■^vhom, thei'efore, it is presumed, they will not object. " That tvemay know the afiostQlical economy to he takeri from the fiat tern cf the Old Testa7ne7it, the mmc titat Aaron, and his sons, and the j^evitcs were in the Temjile, the Bishops, Presbyters, and Dea- cons 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 argimnent ? We say, simply, that the law being figurative of the Gospel, in all its important parts, the Jewish Priesthood was, of course, typical of the Christian. For this we have the expi'ess declaration of the Apostle Paul, and the advocates of parity will not pretend to con- trovert the position. Well, then, the Priests- of the law serving as *' the example and shadow of heavenly things," the circumstance of 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 thi'ows the burthen of proof upon our opponents. Now, what says the Miscellaneous v;riter in reply to all this ? He talks to us of the dress of the Jewish high Priest ; asking, very sagaciously, where are the golden e/ihod, the breast filate, tiie em- broidered 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 variety in dress I 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, because we are called upon to propose him as the model for imitation, and to become holy as he IB holy. Is the Miscellaneous writer aware of the conclusion to wliich his tnode 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 betweeu Uje Old and New Testament. I« MISCELLANIES. No. XX. 1H there no difference between our Saviour and the Paschal Lamb bj v.Iiicli he Avas prefigured? Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, were* all types of Christ ; but were there no points of distinction betweca these men and the Saviour of the world ? Give to the infidel the wea- pons of this writer, and how easily will he demolish, with them, the ■whole fabric of Christianity 1 If the points of difference which have been mentioned, between the Priesthood of the law, and of the Gos- pel, prove that the one was not typical of the other, they equally prove that our Saviour v/as 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 were insult-i ing the understanding of the reader, in dwelling on this point. I dismiss it, therefore, especially as I have not been able to bring myself to believe that the writer had any thing more in view, in it, than a flourish of rhetoric to attract the vulgar gaze. The Mosaic dispensation, then, was figurative of the Christian. The Priesthood of the law was typical of the Priesthood of the Gospel. The former consisting of distinct and subordinate orders, a strong presumption thence arises in favour of that distinction and subordination of office which, until the days of Calvin, characteriz- ed, without a single exception, the Cliristian Church. This we contend, as was said before, gives us possession of the ground, audi 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 of the Apostle Paul. While the Miscellaneous writer does not venture ojicnly to deny this, bnt 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 otlver subordinate points of distinction. Here he acts with his usual imprudence ; tearing up, in his rage against Episcopacy, the very foundations of the Christian faith. ^ Layman of the Ejiiscofial Church, D, For the Albany Centineh MISCELLANIES. No. XX. 'R. WHiite, the present worthy Bishop of the Episcopal Church in Pennsylvania, proceeds, in his interesting pamphlet, to provne *• that a temporary departure from Episcopacy would !)e warranted by her doctrine, by her practice, and by the principles on which P^piscopal government is asserted." " Whatever that Churcli holds," savs he, " must be included in the thirty-nine articles of religion; which were evidently intended for a comprehensive system of necessary doctrine."* But what say * It is to be presumed t'lttt the Liturg/ and Oifices of the Church ara also the siaudurdg cf her doctiine. E tht substance also abolisiied 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, tlie 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 v/ith 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 the Jew- ish. Christ came, not to cleat roy^ but to fulfil the lav/ and the prophets. It is true, that in many respects God accommodated himself as a merciful and wise Legislator, to the peculiar circumstances of the Jewish nation, and thereby rendered the law a school-master, that prepared tliem, by its instructions, for the coming of Christ. But all the fundamental principles of the systems he pursued to- wards the Jewish and Christian people, were precisely the same. From these great principles there Asaa no necessity that he should stoop, 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- blislied l)y 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 abolisiied his own institution, where no imperious necessity, as in the case of the rites and ceremonies, and peculiar usages of the Jewish Church, seemed to require it, be- fore he could usher in the new dispensation ? It is true, indeed, we possess not tiie Jewish form of Church government. We possess one, hovvcvcr, v.hich is the consummation of tlie Jewish — a govern- no CYPRIAN. No. IV. ment of which the Jewish was an imperfect image. We possess at, Priesthood more glorious than the Levitieal, 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 was the shadow. What 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 coriclusion to which the data affi^rded 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 aiFected not its great and cardinal principles. We say that the Jewish 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 Rhcgium 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 the analogy cannot be traced through every minute point. As well might the infidel attempt to prove that none of the types which are 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 ■i'emaining obsei'vations 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 are the arguments which we derive from Scrifiture^ 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 tlie advocates of parity endeavour to evade the force of this sti-ong and accumulated evi- dence ? By a few expressions of scripture, almost too inconsiderable to merit a moment's examination. From the pi'omiscuous use of the terms Bishop and Presbyter in the sacred scripture — from its being mentioned in one place, that Timothy was ordained " with CYPRIAN. No. IV. 121 the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery" — from the transaction that took place between Paul and Barnabas, and the men of Anti- och — from such considerations as these, do tliey endeavour to coun- teract the evidence which we derive from the most clear and ini- doubted facts. After what has been already advanced on these points, it is altogether unnecessary that I should dwell upon them. The argument which tlic advocates of parity mice 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 exllorts Timothy " to stir Up the gift v/hich v/as in him, v/hich was given hin\ by prophecy, with tlie laying on of the bauds of the Presbytery;" I wish to be indulged only in a fev/ remarks. There can be no doubt that when St. Paul speaks of the gift v/hich was imparted to him by the laying on of /i.'s liands, it refers to the same transaction. St. Paul then, at any rate, was himself present at the ordination of Timothy. This is all that is necessary to every purpose which we wish to accomplish. This pas-sage does not f;how that Presbyters alone ever possesied the power of ordination* St. Paul was, in this instance, obviously associated with them. But the author of " Miscellanies," i;)efore he enters on this part of his subject, offers up a petition, Avhich certainly merits our very serious attention^ He prays that the same spirit which 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 which he of- fered up his solemn petition was dispensed to him, surely it would be rashness, it would Ije presumption in us to proceed a step fur- ther. VViio shall dare make one inspired paimnn contradict or even misunderstand another ? Nevertheless, since after the inter- pretation he hath given to the yjhrase " by prophecy," there seems to be no internal evidence of his having really received tliis super- natural power, and since he hatli not as yet afforded us any exter- nal proof on which to found pretensions of this kind, we hope we shall be excused for our infidelity, when we reject, as unv/orthy 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 thorougiily 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 l)y tlie transaction which took place between Paul and Barnabas, and the 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 J that their " ignorance" is " unavoidable," their " error involuntary," ot their " prejudices invmcible ?" Now may not the Quaker and the Sccii^ian urge against the author of Miscellanies, the same charges of arrogame, of bigotry, and intolerance which he 60 frequently and charitably applies to the author of the " Companion for the Festivals," &c ? In regard to the different style of this book, and of the pairfphlet, it may MISCELLANIES. No. XXI. lU " 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 unaltei'ably 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 tlie 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 apfioinOnent ; and—/ro7n the ^fio8~ ties' time, there have been in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.f 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 principles of the Church ; the design of the other was to conciliate and to reconcile opposite opinions; and prejudices, and to unite all parties in a plan which 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 was 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 concerning; the author of the " Companion for the Festivals," Sec. Ed. • See the last paragraph of the remarks at the end of this number, ^d. 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 an- tient authors, that from the Apostles' times, the doctririe of the Trinity has been received in the Church ; would not the natural interpretation of this sentence be, that the Church had always received a doctrine which waa established in Holy Scripture, and supported by the testimony of ancient authors ? Is it i>ot 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 say that they are proved by Scripture and ancient author:, an expressiom always understood as equivalent to t/iwif authority or appointment? The prayers, however, in the offices of ordination already quoted, put the sense of the Church, as to the divine appointment of Bishops, Pkiests, and Dea.- 80NS, beyond all doubt. In regard to the sentiments of Bishop Hoadly, see the remark* at the end of this number. Ed, 124 MISCELLANIES. No. XXL foundation than ancient and apostolic firactice^ 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 agiees with Bishop Hoadly, and both de- clare that three orders are not of Divine afj/iointment, and that this is not the sense of their Church in the v/ords of the preface to the Ordinal. Bishop White insists that there should be fiodti-ve pre^ ce/it^ as well as a/iostolic practice^ to make Episcopacy invariably binding. In this he has gone further, perhaps, than I v/ould go * His meaning, however, 1 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 is undoubtedly right ; and the distinc- tion between the first constitution of the Church and the practice to be followed afterwai'ds 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 tliat concerning which there could be produced no positive precept v/hatever» Bishop White gives the sentiments of several writers of his Churcli, 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 tl^e subject before us the censures he will sometimes meet with, which have in view, not merely tlie 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 apoito/ie practice is not a grouvid of obligation in institutions v.hich are evidently not local and temporary, but general and permaneut , in their design and uses. Ed. f Wers not the gift of miracles, the gift of tongues, &c. extraordinary powers? and did these die with the Apostles? Were tlipv not continued among many of the primitive Christians ? Does tlie IViu^eJlaneous autlior mean to assert that the j)ower of ordination, and the power of governing the Church, died with tlie Apostles? Did ilicy not communicate these j)owers to their successors ? Ed. ^ It appears from the Epistles of St. Paul to Timod-.y and Titus, that Jhey were scut to Ephesus and Crete, to ordain Elders and Deacons. Now, if llie Elders v.'ho were at Ephcs:!s and Crete, before Timothy and Titus were sent there, possess'^d tLr- power of ordination, v.-as it not worse than »";eless — was ii net an aJ.'Voiit lo liiose Kldeis, lo send'l'iinothy and Titus fi' t'MTcite liiii power? E/^. MISCELLANIES. 'Ko. XXL 125 l-stablishcd Church, in all things not contrary to the law of God. Thus Bishop Stillingfleet, ^vho, 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 tlie 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 dissentinjj 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 oppositiow to the lawful settled method.' Dr. Henry Maurice also, who has written with gi-eat learning and re- jnitation in defence of Episcopacy, makes the same distinction ; observing, that the ' Dissenters do foi'eign churches great injustice >vhen they concern them in their quarrel,' the ordination of the latter being not only without, but in opposition to Bishops, against all the established laws of this Church,' Sec. Even where the same distinction is not expressed, it is genei'ally implied, "f Bishop White has given the main argument to some of the most learned and able writers in fa^'our of Episcopacy. They do not contend for it as of dhnne rij^ht^ but as being established by laws. They do not deny the validity of Presbyterian ordination otherwise tlian as its being" in opposition to the lawful settled method" in the realm. I The following note of Bishop ^^'hite is worthy of regard lor its justness and candour. • Bishop Stillingfleet, in his sermon preached at St. Paul's, and alrcadj <^v.oted in Detector, No. II. certainly denied ilie rij.';ht of Presbyters to or- »iain, and maintained that the apostolical succession, in the order of Bishops, stood on the same ground of obligation with tiie- canon of scrijiture and the observance of the Loid's day. £,d. f There v.as certainly a diiTcrcr.ce betv.-cen the foreign churches and the Dissenters of England. The one pleaded tlic necessity and the peculiar circumstances of their situation as an excuse for their departure from Epis- copacy ; the other acted in direct oppositioi: to the authority of Bishops. Dr. Maurice, while he makes this distinction, is steadfast in maintaining that Christ and his Aposdes instituted Bishops in tlie Church ; vested them with the exclusive power of ordination ; and placed tlK-m over congregations, and over the other orders of Ministers, with the power of governing them. 'Ihese are palpably the positions which, with great force of learning and reasoning, he maintains, in his treatises on Diocesan Episcopacy, against Clarkson and Baxter. Even the most strenuous asseners of the divine right of Episcopacy spoke v/ith delicacy el" the situation of some of the fc'ixign churches, solely, however, on the principle tliat they departed from Episcopacy on the ground of necessity ; that their en or was uiiavoldahlc , and might therefore be excusable. Ed. \ It is most astonishing that Divines of the Church of England, who maintain that the Apostles, under the direction of Christ, instituted three orders of the Ministry, and ve;>ii.il the first order with the power of ordi- nation, should be repicLCnted as " no otherwige denying the validity of Presbyterian ordination, than as its being in opposition \.o the lawful settled method in the rralm." Let the reader j)enise the rc;v.ai!.& on this extra- oi Jiu-iry usiiertlon at ihc cad of lids nurabcr. £id. 126 REMARKS ON MISCELLANIES. No. XXL " In England, the members of the established Church consider the Dissenters as blameable in not conibrming 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 ! 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 JViiinber.'\ The author of Miscellanies, in the preceding number, and ia 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 merely as established by human lanvs ; and that of course they did not deny the validity of Presbyterian ordination. To disprove this assertion by examining all the writers in favour of Episcopacy, can hardly be expected. As Hooker, however, has been represented as of the opinion above stated ; and as from his profound learning, and unrivalled strength of talents and rea- soning, his authority would have great weight, it may be proper t» examine how far the charge applies to him. The reader has already seen, in Detector, No. 2, that Hooker, * It is presumed they also thought Dissenters blameable in not con- forming to orders of the Ministry, which " it is evident unto all men dili- gently reading Holy Scripture ar, i ancient author* had been in Christ's Church from the Apostles' times." £d. f It is to be presumed, that in order to maintain the Divine institution of Episcopacy, it is not necessary to violate the dictates of " charity and mu» tual forbearance," or to indulge in any inexcusable " bitterness." Ed. I Must the author of Miscellanies again and again be told, that the principles which he calls " intolerant" were avowed, during the primi- tive ages, by some of the most meek and humble men that ever adorned the Christian Church — men who patiently bowed their backs to the scourge, and, without a murmur, gave their bodies to the fires of the stake ? Ed. REMARKS ON MISCELLANIES. No. XXI. 127 who is represented by the opponents of Episcopacy as allowing in general terms the validity of Presbyterian ordination, boldly asserts that the " institution of Bishops is from God^ the Holy Ghost is the author of it." This surely is contending for Episcopacy as of Divine right. In regard to the power of ordination, Hooker explicitly vests it in Bishops alone. " The power of ordaining' both Deacons and Presbyters, the power to give the power of order unto others, this also hath been always peculiar unto Bishops. It hath not been heard oJ\ that inferior Presbijters were ever authorined to ordain." Eccle. Pol. book vii. sec. 6. Speaking of the decree of the coun- cil of Carthage, in the fourth century, when, for the first, Presbyters •were associated with Bishops in ordination, he says, " The asso- ciation of Presbyters is no sufficient proof that the power of ordi- nation is in them ; but rather that it 7icver was in them, we may hereby understand ; for that no man is able to show either Deacon or Presbyter, ordained by Presbyters only, and his ordination ac- counted lawful in any ancient part of the Church ; every where examples being found both of Deacons and Presbyters, ordained by Bishops alone oftentimes, neither even in that respect thought insufficient." Eccle. Pol. book vii. sec. 6. Is it possible for any man to be more explicit in maintaining that the power of ordination is vested in Bishops alone ? And in what case does Hooker dispense with Episcopal, and admit Presbyterian ordination ? Only in those cases in which every man •would be disposed to permit a departure from any positive institu- tion ; " when the exigence of necessity doth constrain to leave the usual ways of the Church, which otherwise we would willingly keep ; where the Church must needs have some ordained, and neither hath, nor can have possibly a Bishop to ordain," A case «f extreme, of inevitable necessity can alone, in the opinion of Hooker, justify a dej)arture from Episcopal ordination. On account of this case of necessity, he admits, '' VVe are not simply and without exception," to insist on Episcopal ordination. But it is evident that, •with this exception alone, we may, according to Hooker, urge " a iineal descent of power from the Apostles, by continued succession of Bishops in every effectual oi'dination." For in the strongest lan- guage, he excludes, in every other case, all ordination but Episco- pal. " These cases of inevitable necessity a/on(r excepted, iioNE MAY ORDAIN BUT ONLY BisHOPS." See Hookcr's Eccie. 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 necessity can never sanction Ti 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 oi inevitable ne- cessity. Let us no more then be told, in the language of the author cf 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 the " lawful settled me- thod in the realm ;" that they " do not contend for Episcopacy as of divine right, but as being establiahtd by laws." They maintain. 128 REMARKS ON MISCELLANIES. No. XXI. Tvith Hooker, that the " institution of Bishops is of God^ the Holy Ghost is the author of it;" and they admit of » 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 «e-- cesaity excepted, none may ordaiii but only liis/w/is P" 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, woultj be healed. Christians would all be united as one fold, under one Shepherd. The prayer of Christ for his followers would be ac- complished, " May they all be one, as thou Father 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 heax*- tily its friend. He contends for Episcopacy in the first place, on the ground of "/2?Y'scrzy///o?:, and the lawfubicss 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 Apostles' 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 /lersoJis SUPERIOR X.o 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, that " no such I'ight 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 officer acthig su'iicrior to the ordi- nary teachers of those days." Bishop Hoadly next supports Episcopal ordination " from the rules concerning ordination in the Nev/ Testament ;" observing, that ther^ are no rules on " the point of ordination but what are given to persons sujierior to the Predryters^ and ordinary teachers of those days." He considers the instances of Timothy and Titus as conclusive in fiivour of Epi.xopal ordination ; observing, that it is " a very remarkable thing, that when there were Presbyteks already settled at Efihcsus and at Crete,, and such as were without doubt as fit to ma.nage the business of ordination as any in later ages, that St. Paul should not think fit to entrust this affair witl\ them and their Presbyteries, but should devolve it ncholly on Timothy and Titus ; and instead of sending his directions to the * Hf^aclly's " Brief Dc Fence of Episcopal Ordination." The qucta'.ions arc taken iVoni '.he tiist ch:ii;ter. y REMARKS ON MISCELLANIES. No. XXI. 12f teachers already m those ftlaces, 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 a/iosiolical institution ; alleging, explicitly, " that the Apostles left the power of ordaining Presbyters in the hands of fixed BiahfjjKs." He says, that " the main point to be proved is, that Episcopacy is of a/wstolical institut.io7i. 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 vjill of the Ajioslles^ as that it should never be performed without their inspection and their hands." Bishop Hoadly then pi'oceeds 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 Efiis- 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, tliat the /iower 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.^ sujierior to Presbyters — that all the rules in the JVew Testament concerning the ordinaticn of Presbyters^ are di- rected to persons superior to these Presbyters, to be executed by them ONtr — and that Episcopacy and, Episcopal orcVniation are of afiostolical institution (these are the very v/ords of Bishop Hoadly) — that any person who holds such language in regard to Episcopacy and Episcopal ordination, should yet carry so far the spirit ofcoiii- pliance, as to concede that Episcopal ordination is only " a matter of decency and regularilij," is. most extraordinary indeed : yet this concession does Bishop Hoadly make in the veiy 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 tlie 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 tlien the Pres- byters were to exercise this power, would it not be usui'pation ; 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 Presljyters (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 which appear contradictory to his other principles, 130 REMARKS ON MISCELLANIES. No. XXI. expected to induce the Dissenters to conform to the Church, havr greatly was he disappointed ? It is matter indeed of astonishment and regret, that Bishop Hoadly should afterwards become the champion of principles tliat 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 tlie house of Bishops. His character has been thus drawn 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 Sochii- ans ; which, by an artful turn, 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 ojihj 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 of /azV/i in the meritorious dtath of Christ o. He published a discourse, in which, among other things, he set forth, that it matters not so much ndiat our religious principles are, as it does that we be sincere in them ; reducing in a manner the ivhole duty of man to that of sincerity, of which he had given the world so bright an example in liis cwn practice and profes- sions." Christ delegated his power in the Church to his Apostles. " All power is given unto rne in heaven and in earth. As my Father sent iTie, even so send I ynu." Whatever the Apostles did, had there- fore the sanction of Christ. What thcij did as the i7ifytert of Ephesia of Crete, to take lo CORNELIUS TO CYPRIAN. 13S 7. What was the particular offence given to Bishop Scabuiy ■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," Sec. 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 writingsof the Fathers, merely because they relate facts, that Bishops are a superior order to Presbyters, may we not also pro\ e, from the writings of the Old Testament, that kingly government is of divine right ?'\ 10. In case a dispute ai'ose, 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 pi'oof ? 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 " nugatoiy and invalid ?"| AN INQUIRER. A LETTER FROM CORNELIUS TO CYPRIAN. Dear Brother, X HAVE attended, with much interest, to the controversy which you and tlie Layman are now so well maintaining against the writer of Miscellanies and his coadjutor, respecting the ILpiscopal govern- ment of the Christian Church. It is astonishing to l)ehold the con- fidence with wliich the advocates for Presbyterian parity traverse themselves the njpces appropriated in the forcmentloned Epistles, to a supe- rior order of men." Hoadly's Def. of Epis. eh. i. Ed. * As Timothy and Titus v.'cre commissioned by the Apostles, succeeding Bishops derived their commission, through them, from the A[)ostles. Ed. f Kingly government stood nniong the jfetus on the ground of dhvine rigbt, because it was instituted by God. Episcupacy among Cliristians stands on divine authority, because it was instituted by the .ipostli..;, who were di- vinely commisiioned to establish the orders of the Priesthood. Until the au- thor of Miscellanies can prove that kingly gnvernnient was prescribed to Christians as well as the yeivs, his insiduous and disingenuous comparison between it and Episcopacy will receive the indignation it desen-es. Ed. ^ I'his writer will, on this point, Hnd satisfactory information, if he is disposed to seek it, in the note on hi& Miseellanicii, at [>. 24, Sic. Ed. 134 CORNELIUS TO CYPRIAN. the same ground ft-om Vvhich they luive again and again been beaten by the champions of primitive discii)line. From the daysofOri- gen, Celsus and other infidels ha\ e brought forward objections to the triuh 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- teiy ; as if the truth of Cliristianity had never been maintained in former ages, against all opposition ; as if there vvere 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 jtoo 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 Go'vernmenty and of tilater 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 baffled and laid low in the dust. It is disgusting to every ingenuous mind to trace him and others ©f the same derscription 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 insi:-.t upon the necessity of Ejiiscofial ordi- nation, immediately they raise a clamour about High Dutch and Low Dutch, Presbyterian and Methodist; and all parties are cal- led upon to unite in opposition to the indolence of Episcopalians. Arid 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 numbei's 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 %Yhat is wrong ; but in matters of religious concern, I have j'et to learn that the vox /lofiufi is the vox l)ei. It was said by them of old time, follow not a multitude to do evil. It seems to be the opinion of our opponents, that the multitude can never do evil, and that if they have the multitude oji t!)eir side, they may go on in perfect security. I wonder what would have been the fate of Christianity, had the firit preachers of the gcv^pel acted upon this Presbyterian maxim. What shall v/e now say to Mahometans and Pagans ? The disciples of Mahomet arc more nuuierous than those of Christ. Is Muhometanism 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 the J )• ways ? St. Paul was virulently assailed by Jews ;aid Gentiles, as a setter-forth of strange gods. When he was at Ephesus, the Craftfimcn of the Goddess Diana made no sinall stir, and filled the whole cit;, with confusion, alleging that the Apostle's doctrine led to the despising of the temple and destroying the magni-? CORMELIUS TO CYPRIAN. 15J licence of a Deity whom all Asia and the world worshipped. But was the advocate of God's truth appalled by their numbers, or overborne by their violence ? No ; he j^crsevered through evil report and good report, through perils by sea and land, among gentile robl^ers and fa'ne brethren^ Avho called themselves Chri'j- tians ; and truth, which is mighty, finally prevailed over all opposi- tion. Now, in order to excite popular resentment, I know it v/ill be {iaid I)y our adversaries, that I am making the advocates for Pres- byterian parity no better than rvlahnmetans and Pagans. Be it re- membered, that I mean no such tiling. 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 vviio have already decided against it ; but dispassiona.tely to weigh t!ie arguments whicii are adduced in sup- port of it; and then to follow the hea\cnly guidance of truth, how- ever numerous the hosts may be which arc set in array against us. Is it not reasonable to suppose that the j)rimitive 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 favoui". What course, then, have the enemies of Episcopacy, for the most ])art, 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. SeA'en of his Epistles have been proved bv Bishop Pearson to be genuine, to the satisfaction of the v^iiole learned world. In these Epistles he repeatedly mentions the three orders of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, and speaks of ihe order of Bishops as necessaiy in the coiistitution of every C'aristiau Church. All this has been done ; and still, the Presbyteri;in teachers mislead the people, by artfully insinuating tliat none of. the writings are genuine which go under tlie name of Ignatius. Another artful method pursued Ijy our opponents is to collect all the eiaors into %vhich the Fathers have fallen, with respect to particular points of tloctrine; 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 cor.clusion, that the testimony of these Fathers is not to i;e regarded when they stand fyrth as v/it- nesses to a matter of fact. But is this fair dealing? Mav 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 which he has seen and iieard ? Pr.rsuing the usual mode of artful misrepresentation, our Mis- cellanist has endeavoured to reprej;ent Jerome as favouring the Presbyterian scheme of Church government; and with the same spirit, he abuses the Cluirch of England as too nearly bordering on Popery. After seeing what has been published en these subjects, if your opponent has any spark of modesty remaining in his bosom, lie will never pvodnce the testimony of Jerome in sup])ort of jiis 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 tiie history of the Council of Trent) is as great an enemy to genuine 7)rimitive Episcopacy, as the moit vio- lent Presbyterian can be. Knowing the Church of England to b& 15G MISCELLANIES. No. XXII. the firmest bulwai-k 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^hr the ~4lba7iy Centinel, MISCELLANIES. No. XXII. T A 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 when he wrote. " To depart," says he, " from Epis- copacy, would be giving up a leading characteristic of the com- munion ; Avhich, 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, hoive-uer indif- fereiithj considered as to divine ajifiointmeyit, would comport with certain prejudices. No one can misunderstand die 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 foregoing letter was sent to the printers of the Albany Centinel, who, from a wish not to extend the controversy, declined inserting it. Tlie friends of E])iscopacy will regret that in consequence of this circumstance nootlier j)rocluctions of this writer appear in tliis controversy. lUd. f Episcopal ordination was adliered to, not from " the strong prejudices of some," but from the general principles of Episcopalians. The plan of the pamphlet was founded on tlie presumption that the Episco]5al succession cmdd not be obtained. As soon as there appeared a prospect of obtaining it, Uishop Wliite was among the first to prop'jse stnd lo uiiitc in the measures iliat wfre adopted for tlsat purpose. Kd. MISCELLANIES. No. XXIL Uf appointment, the ordinance of Christ, and the law of God, and pronounce it to be of divine right.* Yet, in reason they ouglit to be understood as asserting it to be binding, wherever it can conve- niently be had ; not that law and gospc! are to cease rather than Episcopacy." The Bishojj shows that Mr. Ilookerf and others clearly make this distinction; and he gives the words of Arch- bishop Whitgift, quoted by Bishop Stillingflcet, as asserting that " no kind of government is expressed in the word, or can necessa- rily be concluded from thence. "| Tiie 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, mucli 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 ihe author believes to be the sentiment of the great body of Episcopa- lians in America; in which respect they have in their favour wn- gueationably the sense of the Church of England ; and, an he believes^ the opinions of her most distinguished prelates for piety, virtue, and 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 " belie-vefi it to be ihe sentiment of the great body of lifnu- cofialians in jimerica" that Episcopacy is not of divine right. " In nvhich resfiect" says he, " they have in their favour unquesTion- jBLr the sense of the Church of England ; and, as he believes^ • This is a true representation of the sentiments of the generality of the eminent Divines of the Church of England on the subject of Episcojjacy. There is no inconsistency between these sentiments, and the exception jome of them are disposed to make for " a case of inevitable necessity." Ed, f The quotations already adduced from Hooker prove, beyond all doubt, that, whatever allowance he might be disj)osed to make for a case of" in' evitable necessity," he expressly maintained that E]jiscoj)acy was of divi/ie 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 orher than the same degrees of ecclesiastical or- ders, namely, Bi^ho{)s, Pritits, and Deacons, which had their be^iimin^ frani Christ and his blessed Apostles themselves." Hooker's Eccl. Pol. B. 5. Sec. 7». 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 rf discipline, as well as rites and ceremonies. Seethe note concerning Whitgift, at p. 87, 88; and also the note at p. 107, concerning the sense ii\ which Hooker, and other advocates of Episcopacy, sometimes use the term Church gmernvieiU. In his letter to Beiia, Whitgift uses language, whicli puts beyond all cavil his sentiments as to the divine and apostolical institution of Episcopacy. " We make no doubt," says the Archbishop in this letter, " but that the Episcojjal degree which we bear, is an institution apostolical and di-cine ,- and so always hath been held by a continual course of times from the Apostles to this very age of ours." See Dr. Chatidler's Appeal Dcfcudeu, p 35. Ed. T 138 MISCELLANIES. No. XXII. the ojxinion of her most distinguished fir elates for piety ^ vir/ue,and abilities."* Do I misrepresent the passage ? Who is so hardy as to charge me with this ? Reader, 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 surrounded with a cloud of witnesses. He has produced a suffi- cient number, and he could easily pi'oduce many others. He is^ notwithstanding, a true Episcopalian ;t and he moves with dignity • When tlie author of the pamphlet here quoted aisserts, that " 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 qf Bishops'vs 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 prove that Episcopacy is not a divine institution : for all will admit that the neglect of the divine institutions o? Baptism and the Lord's Supper may be allowable 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^ wherever 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 bj Bishops cannot be had," holds out the doctrine that " the Episcopal poiver luas lodged by Christ and his Apostles in the superior order of the Ministry.'* For in his first letter, signed An Episcopalian, which will be found in the subsequent pages, he assumes as his oim, the Episcopalian opinion as stated in his pamphlet. And this opinion is in the following words : " There having been an Episcopal poiver lodged by ^esus 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 was conveyed by them, before their decease, to one pastor in each Church, which generally com- prehended all the Christians in a city, and a convenieftt surrounding dis' trict." Ed. t " A True Episcopalian !" And yet, according to this writer, " no Pres- byterian could argue more to the purpose." [See jMis. No. XX.] According to the author of Miscellanies, a " trus Episcopalian" \son^ 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 Kcly Spirit, appointed divers orders of Ministers in the Church," refers their authority merely to Apostolic practice. Accordmg to the author of Miscellanies, a" true Episcopalian" is one, who, though his Church acknowledges none as " lawful" Ministers, with tufficient auth^ority, but those who have " Episcopal consecration or ordina- tion," maintains that those Presbyter ially ordained have sufficient autho- rity. If thci; bs ths principles of «^ " true Episcopalian," pray, how is he to MISCELLANIES. No. XXIL 13J ■Hhd usefulness in the highest order in his Church. He venerates and prejers her form of government as the most ancient and eligU Lie, Against this, Pi*esbyterians have no objection.* They freely j'ield to others that privilege which they claim for themselves. They wish to stand at a distance from all bigotry and ccnsorious- «ess. May the lawn sleeves of Bishop White be always as unsul- Iie«i as is his character ! May those on whom he puts his hands, in confirmation^ receive divine blessings ! May those whom he or- dains, with his Presbyters, be "ambassadors for Christ 1" 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 ! Finally, may he be approved by the great " Shep- herd and Bishop of our souls !" As he does nv)t believe Episcopacy to be of divine right, 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. This is necessary for the preservation of order ; but still he has no superiority of power farther than what arises from the office to which he is appointed. He is stiil 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 wou'd there have been a reasona!)le 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 distinjjiiished from a " true Presbyterian?" Happily the character of !i " true Episaipalian" is not to be determined by the standard of the author of the Miscellanies, nor the opinions of Bishop 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 is the true and onlv one which Christ prescribed in his word." How then can Episcopal governnient be the most ancient and eligible ? Ed. t But may not the Bishop, in addition to t\\i% povier of presiding, have possessed the power of ordination, 8cc. ? Does the author of the pamphlet assert, that he liad not the c.vclusivc power of ordaining- to the Ministry ! Ed. \ The author of Miscellanies here attribufes to the authjr of the pam- phlet what is not fjis opinion but the opinion of certain Dissenters whom he had quoted, (referring to Ncal's history as his authority) called the " Smec- tymnuan Divines!" • Kd. 140 MISCELLANIES. No. XXIL At present I shall conclude with an extract from " A Disccursd of Religion," by Sir Mathcw 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 intelligent person ; and yet I do not think that the essence of Christian religion ponsists 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 fin<} some highly devoted to this or that particular form of government, as if all the weight of the Christian i-eligion 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 Avill 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 miscari-iages 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 cMence of the Christian religion con- sists in this or any other particular form of government ?" May not Epis- copacy be o£ divine appointment, and binding upon Christians, without being the essence of religion ? Ed. •{• The'' rash people" to whom Chief Justice 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 imchitrch any of their fellow Christians. Episcopacy, till the time of Calvin, was the uniform and sacred 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 unchurched themselves. Let us hear again what tha •' judicious Hooker," who, some anti-Episcopalians would have us be- lieve, gives up the necessity of Episcopacy to a true and /)er/ec( Church — let us hear v/hat 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 some Jew Churches, hut ihc ivhole 'world universally became subject there- unto ; insomuch as they did not account it to be a Church ivhich •aras not sub- ject unto a Bishop. It was the general received persuasion of the ancient Christian world, that Ecclesia est in Episcopo, the outivard Being of a. Church, consisted in the having of a Bishop." It is to be presumed that the general received opinion of the ancient Christian world w'lW be considered as of at least as much uulhority as the opinion of Lord Chief Justice Hale. Ed, MISCELLANIES. No. XXIL 141 tkal government."* [Hale's Contemplations, vol. i. p. 448. Edmb. 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, English Episcopalians. '■'■Home rash /ico/ile ;' such as the author of " A Companion for the Festivals," Sec. and his followers. " Un- church all the reformed Churches which are not under E/iiscoJiaL t(overnment; " just as the Episcopal Priests in this State have done. Bishop White shall be my advocate, and 1 will have the cause tried before Lord Cluef Justice Hale. f • Let these remarks fall on those who deserve them. Every true " sou of the Churcli" will disclaim their ji«sf/i-c, and will question their im U 145 CYPRIAN. No. V. tei-prize-^hc, who, when commanded to Iilaspheme 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 andl 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 ? 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 would have witnessed ih^se. d-dringnsurfiations M'ith indiffer- ence? Would they have made no effort to save themselves and their brethren from the control of so undue and illegitimate an autho- vity ? 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 Chm-ch ? Would not the period of suclv an innovation have become a marked and peculiar sera in her ex- istence ? Can the advocates of parity show any thing in the history ef man analogous to their supposed change in ecclesiastical govern- ment at this time ? 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 was 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 would 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 overtheii* brethren, is it probable, is it possible, that this took place at the same time over the universal Chuixh ? Can sucii a singular coin- cidence of circumstances be reasonably imagined ? The Church had, at this time, widely extended herself over the Roman empire. Did, then, the Churches of Africa, of Asia, of Europe, l)y a mira- culous unanimity of opinion, enter at the same moment into the de- termination to change their form of government froan 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, however, suppose the most that our adversaries can de- sire. Let us supjwse tl.at the primitive rulers of the Church were destitute of principle. Let us suppose them devoid of attachment to the institutions of Christ. Let us su])posc that they waited every opix>rtunity to promote their own aggrandizement. Let us suppose •the diiiicultica ii;moYcd that opposed them in their ascent towards MISCELLANIES. No. XXIII. UT 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. Tiie Church was on a.l hands encountered by the bitterest enemies. By elevating them- selves, therefore, to the pre-eminence of Bishops, they only raised them: elves 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 jilbany Centinel. MISCELLANIES. No. XXIIL HILE the extracts from Bishop White's pamphlet may have 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 right and imiiiterru/Ued successio?i ; but on exfiediency^ or a fireference 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 hitle prudence, and 'vvith too slight an examination of the subject. f Bishop White con- * Does not the preface to the ordination services " rest" Episcopacy on Scrip- ture and ancient aiithom? Do not the prayers in the ordination services set ibrtli that Almlgljty God, by his holy Spirit, appointed the orders cif'tLe Priest- ■hood? Does not Hookek, who stands at the head of the venerable list of the advocates of Episcopacy, inaintain, that " the institution of Bishops wa» from God, the Holy Ghost was the author of it ?" Does not Bishop White himself maintain, that " the Apostles appointed some with a supcremineut comviission, and that the persons so apj)ointed have handed doxi-n their commission through the different ages of the Church ?" What founda- tion then has the assertion that " the defence of Episcopacy dcos not rest on divine right and uninterrupted succession, but on expediency or prefer- enct?" Ed. t Let the justice of this last charge be tested by the present discusr sion. As to the charge of " aspiring minds ;" there may be as much pride in opposing Episcopacy, as in advocating its claims. There is not a little truth in the observation of the Layman in his second address : " This Jofty hatred of subordination, ah! how opposite is it to the humility of civil government of Britain, and an op- position to the independence of the 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 Festiv^als," S;c. and " for the Altar," Sec. The one speaks of " the benefit of the sacraments'* * What is the design of this insinuation ? Episcnpalians will yi<^ld t« none in attachment to the goveinmeut of their country, an'I in zeal for its indepeitdence. True Chuichmeu will always be i'ouvA u\c supporters of order and rood L'overiur.c.ii. i,V. MISCELLANIES. No. XXIII. 149 «\flrainistered by those who shoiiid be ordained in the manner which tie had proposed, and without the ^' Episcopal succession ;" the other declares that the administration of ordinances by such, would be '' nugatory and invalid." He puts these words into the mouth of a comnmnxant : " Let it be, therefore, thy supreme care, O my soul, to receive the blessed sacrament of the bo>.!y 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 tiie sacraments but those who have received a commission from the Bishops of the Church." Indeed the sentiment runs through his books, which he seems to have written on purpose to inculcate it. There is likewise some difference between the Bishop and the Priest as to their notion 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^ i?ivincihle prejudices^ imperfect reason- ings, ^nd. mistaken judgments ;"* and even in these, he seems un- willing to make any " alloivayice" 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 lias much more charity for the Heathen than for non-Episcopa- lians, as appears by his saying, " In every nation he that fecireth God and ivorketh 7'ighteousness, 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 of the Bishop is remarkable in accounting for the attachment of Episcopalians to their own mode of woiship. " Perhc/is," says he, " from education, but as they ccnceive, from its being most agreeable to reason and scripture," 8cc. He does not magisterially pronounce that they are right ; but they conceive that they are ; they have been educated in ihis opinion ; and he is vv'illing to make the same allowance for others, VVith 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 wliole. 1. It may be said that Bishop White pleads only for " a tempo- rary departure" fi-om Episcopacy, and that in cases of '•'necessity." I answer, that his reasoning is as strong for a total as for a temjio- * Wiiat more charitable excuKes can b? made for the errors of men, than by assign i Pig these errors co unavoidahk ignorance, to invincible prejudices, or to those causes to which the greatest and the best of men arc exposed, imperfect reason i'l^i- and miiit.i/eii judgvients? Ed. t Why did the author of MiGc:.:;lanies omit the sentence which imme- diately follows ihe above, in which ttnavordable igiimcince, and iwDoiuntarv error, are admitted as e\cu3es fur beparation tVoni the d'Jy authorised Priesthood of tlie Church ? Ed. I The author of Miscellanies here repeats the very candid remarks which he before made in his 21st luiniber. Let the read'jr see there the note u[>on tbcin, p. 1.'2, 123. £d. 150 MISCELLANIES. No. XXIII. rary departure.* How long is the departure to last ? It will be an- swered, as long as the necessity. This may be for ever. The Bi- shop was of opinion when he wrote, that it might be a considerable time. " Are the acknowledged ordinances of Christ's holy reli- gion," says he, " to be suspended for years, perhaps as long as the present generation shall continue, out of delicacy to a disputed point", and that I'elating only to externals?" But, let me ask, of what ad- vantage would Ministers be, ordained in the manner proposed by the Bishop, if, as the author so often referred to asserts, there •would be no " duly authorized Priesthood," and the administration of ordinances by them would Ixs " inefficacious?"! If it would be departing from the Bishoji^ violating the unity of the Church, and interrupting the " uninterrupted succession ?" Not to spend many %vords with my opponents ; do they give up the notion that Epis- copacy is of divine right, and do they contend for it on the same principles with Bishop White ?"| Do they admit the validity of Presbyterian ordination, and acknowledge that there are other true Churches besides their own ? If so, all controversy, on my part, is at an end. 2. It is a happy circumstance for Episcopalians that Bishop White published his pamphlet, and that it is still to be found. They might otherwise be deemed the most intolerant sect which has ever existed. [I In justice to themselves they ought to have the pamphlet re-printed ; for large as my extracts have been, there would be a superior advantage in reading the whole. 3. There is reason to lament that Episcopalians did not improve the opportunity which the revolution gave them. Had they formed 4he government of their Church on the plan recommended by Bi- shop White, and then invited non-Episcopalians to a friendly con- ference, some ground might have been found on which to meet. Even the idea of permanent presidents might have been listened to ; but to insist upon the divine right of Episcopacy, and upon an order of Bishops having extraordinary powers, and uninterrupted succession from tlie Apostles, was to bar the door against all ac eommodation. 4. I believe that Bishop White will say that I have not misrepre- sented his meaning. If in any place I have been so unfortunate as to misunderstand him, I shall, upon the least notice, correct it; and if I find others misrepresenting him, I shall consider myself tinder obligation to defend him. * Let us hear what the author of the pamphlet himself savs on this point. •' Surely with a man who believes there have been three orders from the beginning, the necessity of a temporary departure does not involve that of •i. final abrogation." See his letter signed " An Episcopalian." Ed. t " A case of inevitable necessity" may be an exception to a general principle. Ed. \ W^ill the author of Miscellanies adopt Episcopacy on the principles of B'shop White, and admit that the Apostles constituted an order of the ini^ nistry viiih a su/ierejuincnt comtnission, -ivhich has been handed dovm tbrougk sucreeding ages ? Ed. IJ VV hat spirit does this charge display ? To style a sect intolerant, for exercising a jjrivilege which they enjoy in cotsmon with other denomina- tions, and maintaining the principles of their Church I Ed. MISCELLANIES. No. XXIII. 15 v ir. Should I continue to write, I shall examine the testimony of the Fathers ; though I consider this as altogether unnecessary. They have been repeatedly examined by those who had the best opportunity, and they do not prove, in the early ages of Christianity, the existence of cliocrsan Bisl\ops. The very utmost that can be drawn from them, is, that Presbyters were chosen to preside, either for a time, or permanently, in their ecclesiastical assemblies.* The Epis-copacy of the primitive Church was widely different froni that established in the Churches of Home and of England. I shall, however, cease for a time, and allow my opponents, if they be sa inclined, to come up with me. • Let us see now what Bishop Hoadi.y, who cannot be suspected of partiality, says on this point. " Some otlier learned men see such manifest footsteps, in the highest antiquity, of the supereminency of one person in the Cburc/jes, that they are obliged to own it : but then they say that at first this was only a Prime-Fresbyter, a President in the meeting of the Presbyters, not invested with any authority, properly so called, over them in their cures, but voluntarily chosen by them for the better management of their assemblies, &c. This hath been said by the learned Blondel, and others. But I fear this will be found only an evasion, in order to avoid his acknowledging such Bishops in the very iirst years after tlie Apostles, as he confesses to have been universally settled less than forty years after them. For, " The instances in antiquity which he achto~^i>lea'gcs to prove this, do indeed prove a great deal more. The Angels of the Churches in the Peve- lations, are persons to whom the care of those Churches was in a particular manner committed; and of whom an account of the miscarriages and de- fects in them, is in a particular manner required. These, he saith, were Prinie-P) esbyiers, not Bishops : though it will be hard to give a reason, un- less he will draw an argument from hence, that all parts of the Episcopal office are not here expressly attributed to them. And it will be hard like- wise, to show, how a Prime-Preslnter , by being only chosen Presiclcr.t of the Collie of Presbyters for the mere orderly management of their joint- counsels, should become chargeable with x\\s faults of their Churches, with which, according to this supposition, he had nothing to do. For it is ma- nifest he could be no more accountable for diV.y congregation but his own, than any of the otl'.er Presbyters, had he not the care of others com.niitted to him in some peculiar manner. And this he could not have, if he were only Prime-Presb,ter in th.e College. For as such he v/as only responsible for his own failings in his duty in that post: and as for other faults, an account of them should rather have been demanded of those Presbyters Vvdio were the teachers and governors of the particular congregations. But if a Prime- Presbyter were one whose duty it was to inspect and take care of those Churches, in which there Vvcre Presbyters also fixed, as, accordhig to Blonde/, he must have been ; then it is evident that this Prime-Presbyter was in truth a Bishop with subject Presbyters under him. And since he freely grants that these Pri^m- Presbyters had the superintendency over many churches or congregations with their Presbyters: and was after such a manner responsible for them ; and this by the constitution of the Apos- tles, or their discip'xs before the death of them all ; what is this but to giva them the domirrion of a Bishop over their brethren? and what reason can be given why it should not be acknowledged that Episcopacy was settled in the churches in those early days ? Kspecially considering that this Prime- presbyter rcmaiiicd in his cfBce during his life. " Hoadly's Def of F.n's. Ord." >:■-:. 152 REMARKS ON MISCELLANIES. No. XXIIL 6. The charges have been brought against me of having taken! tip a prejudice against the Episcopal Church, and of liaving writ- Ten with bitterness. Nothing has ever occurred to excite my pre- judices against that Church; ixnd the writings of many of hef Clergy are to me invalu:il)le. I esteem theii* book of " Common Prayer ;" and as to tlie Episcopalians in this State with whom I am acquainted, both Clergy and Laity, I have a high respect for them. Some of my expressions may have been too playful, and bordered on ridicule; but as to personal resentment, bitterness, I reject them, because I never felt them. — With the author who has been the oc-« casion of my writing, my acquaintance is small. I know, however, enough to make me respect his talents and his virtues. As to my principal opponents, " A Layman" and " Cyprian," I wish that the former may soon become a good Priest, and the latter, in due time, a good Bishop. I have no objection to their preferring Epis- copal ordination, provided that they will cease to assei-t it on divine ri^ht ; for I think that this is mitenable, offensive to their felloW Christians of other denominations, and injurious to themselves. i^Remarks, by the Editor.^ on the iircccding J^umber,'\ It is certainly the duty of every Episcopal Minister to enforce?' what his Church inculcates; that " Almighty God, by his holy Spii'it instituted divers orders of Ministers in his Church ;" that " it is evident unto all men diligently reading holy scripture and ancient authors," that these orders " are Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ;" and that " no man is to be esteemed a /a-r^w/Ministerj ivho has not had Episcopal consecration or ordination." Prudence may be exerted in the manner in which this is done, but certainly cannot absolve liim from the duty itself. To the charges of uncharitableness and intolerance which may be brought against him, let him reply in the language of one of the most able de- fenders of evangelical truth and primitive order that the pre- sent age has produced:* " As a Minister of the Church, it is my duty to speak of it an it is. I cannot alter the nature or form of it, to accommodate it to tlie case of those who are se- parated from it. Firmly persuaded with Hooker, that Efiis- cofiacy is the primitive afiostolical institution,, I must consider obedience to it to be a matter of Christian obligation. Every en- deavour, therefore, to persuade my fellow Christians to a confor- mity to that government which appears essential to the promotion of the object which (Jod may be sa])posed to have had in view at its original institution, namely, that of Jireaerving the unity of the Church in the bond of peace,, ap))car!i to me to be one of the great- est acts of charity a Christian Minister can perform." — " At the same time, with respect to those who are in an actual state of sepa- ration, we say with the Apostle, ' what have wc to do to judge ; • Rev. Cliarlcn Dauber;!', now Arcbfj?':icon of Sarum. See the rix'h 'lletter of his " Appendix to liis Guide," and the preface to the *ccc«i cJi- tipa of the " Guide to the Cliurch." LAYMAN. No. IX. 153 tliem that are without; them that are withoat God judgeth ;' they are in the hands of that all gracious and all merciful Being wlio judgeth righteous judgment; and to him we leave them." How far the maintaining of Episcopacy may be " injuriou&" to Episcopalians in a worldly sense, is a consideration which ought to have no force on the conscience of her Mirii'^ters. But surely the viuthor of Miscellanies does not mean to insinuate that Episcopa- lians are to be, in any shafie^ the subjects of fiersecution for exer- cising a privilege possessed by ail denominations, for maintaining tenets wliich have been handed down from the csirliest ages of the Church ; tenets which, in the opinion of one by no means partial to them, " have been from the beginning favourable to jicace and good order."* That the inculcating of Episcopacy has been injurious to the Episcopal Church in a sfdrilual sense, is contrary to fact. As a afiiritual society^ slie has always flourished most, when her Minis- ters have not only faithfully inculcated her evangelical docfrincy and strictly adhered to her firiinitive ivomhiji, but liave also main- tained, with firm and prudent zeal, the Divine comminsion of the orders of her ministry, Jid, For the Albany Centinel. THE LAYMAN. No. IX. X HE question of Episcopacy, is a question of fact, to be deter- mined by a sound interpretation of the sacred volume. Let us attend to the situation of the Church while our Saviour ■was upon earth. Let us attend to its situation under the government of the Afios-^ ties, who were sent by the Son, as the Son had been sent by the Father. Jesus Christ commissioned twelve and the seventy, but he gave them no authority to commission others. The high power of ordi- nation was exercised by himself alone. Here, then, were three orders ; our Saviour^ the great Head of the Church, the twelve A/iostles, and the seventy Disciples, The twelvTi were superior to the seventy, both in dignity and/?owrr. They were superior in dignity. The Apostles are evei-y where spoken of as the constant attendants of our Lord. VVe are ex- pressly told that they were ordained, that they might be with Jesus, as well as that he might send them forth to preach. Mark iii. 14. The seventy were appointed simply to preach, and were sent before our Lord into the cities, " whither he himself would come," to pre- pare the people for his reception. The commission of the Apostles was much more general, directing them to preach the gospel to all the Jews. Again — The inauguration of the twelve was much more solemn than that of tlie seventy. In relation to the first, we find our Sa- * Smi'IiN Wca'th cf Nations. Book v cliao. 1. Part iii. Art 3. • X ■ . * ■ isi LAYI\iAN. No. IX. viour directing his disciples to pray to God to send labourers into the harvest. We find him continuing himself a whole night in prayer. In the inauguration of the seventy, there was nothing of all this solemnity. The Apostles were, likewise, superior in /iower. They alone received the commission to offer the eucharistic sa^ crifice of bread and wine. To them were twelve thrones appointed, whereon they should sit, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. On them -was to rest the fabric of the Church ; " the wall of the city havhig tivel-ve foundations, and in th^m the names of the tivebve Afiostles of the Lamb" Revelation xxi. 14. Upon the happen- ing of a vacancy, by the apostaey of Judas, Matthias was raised to his Bishopricli, being numbered Avith the eleven Apostles, and taking a part of their Ministry. Acts i. Matthias had been one of the seventy. For this we have the testimony of Eusebius, of Jerome, of Epiphanius. Mark, Luke, Sosthenes, with other Evangehsts, as also the seven Deacons, were of the seA^enty, if the primitive Father* of the Church be at all to be rehed upon as witnesses of facts. And these persons, even after their promotion, were still inferior to the twelve, being under their government. The twelve Apostles^ and the seventy disci/iles, then, were dis- tinct orders, whether we have respect to their dignity or their power. Let us proceed to consider the situation of the Church, under the government of the Ap.ostles^ their Master having ascended to heaven. The eleven met our Saviour, on a mountain in Galilee, accord- ing to his express appointment. " And Jesus came and sfiake unto them., sayings Allpower isginen unto Tne, in heaven, and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, bajitizing them in the 7iafne of the Father, and of the Son,andofthe Holy Ghost : Teachi?7gthem to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: And lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world," Matt, xxviii, 38, 19, 20. " Then said Jesus to them again. Peace be unto you : As mij Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them. Receive ye the Holy Ghoit. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unt» the7n ; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." Johnxx. 21, 22, 23._ Our Saviour, then, constituted the Apostles Governors of his Church, authorizing them to exei'cise the powers necessary to re- gulate its affairs, and to pi-ovide for its continuance. This, of course, involved the right of ordaining such inferior officers as might appear to them to be requisite. Indeed, the commission ex- pressly says, "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." Jesus was sent by the Father, with jjower to send others ; and, of course, the Apostles were sent with a similar authority. In pursu- ance of their commission, they ordained the two inferior orclers of Elders and Deacons; and, before their departure from the world, they created a higher order, investing it with their own Apostolic authority of ordaining Ministers, and of governing the Church. Into all this let us briefly inquire. LAYMAN. No. IX. iss Were the Apostles invested with spiritual authority over lay Christians ? Did they possess any control over the Ministers whom they or- dained? Was their office an extraordinary one, or was it designed for permanent continuance in tlie Church ? in other words, have they had Successors ? It cannot be necessary to say much to prove that lay Christians were subject to the spiritual jurisdiction of the A/wstlcs. Did any ofthelawsof Christ require explanation, recourse wasliadtothe Apostles, and their sentence every where obeyed. They, likewise, prescribed such rules as wei-e necessary to the peace of the Cliurch, or the order and. decency of divine worship. In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians we find laws, many of which were never expressly enjoined by Christ, and to some of which the Apostle requires obedience on the avowed pi'inciple of his own authority, " And the rest nviU I set in order ii-licn I come." '■'• Andso ordain I in all Churches," In the same style Paul addresses theThessalo- nians, " JVe have confidence that ye both do, and will do the thing's %vhich tve command you." — " When ti}e were with you, tve ccin- manded yo7i," — " •A'bw ive commandyou brethren." 2 Thes. iii. It would be easy to produce a great variety of passages on this point ; but it cannot be necessary. Let it also be remarked, that the power of prescribing rules was accompanied vvith thepov/er of en- forcing their execution by suitable punishments. In his Epistles to the Corinthians, Paul threatens to use shai-pness, to come with a rod, and to revenge all disobedience. The same Apostle delivered Hymeneus a.nd Alexander unto Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme. He condemned, even in his absence, the incestuous Corinthian; requiring sti'iclly that his sentence be put in execu- tion. With the power of inflicting punishment was connected that of pardoning the condenmcd ; a power exercised by St. Paul in the case of the Corinthian, which has just been mentioned. We have seen that the commission which Christ gave to his Apostles invested them with power to ordain Miiiisters in his Church. This power they accordingly exercised. Tiie twelve together • rdained the seven Deacons. Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every city. As the Apostles were subject to Christ, so were the Ministers wliom the Apostles or- dained subject to them. Whilst our Saviour was upon earth, the Apostles were his attendants, and were sent forth by him to preach. And after his ascension, the Apostles received a similar attendance and obedience from the inferior ofiicers whom they appointed. For example, Mark was Minister to Paul and Barnabas ; afterwards to Barnabas alone. At Epiiesus, St. Paul was attended by Timotheus and Erastus, whom he sent, before him, into Macedonia. But cases showing the superior authority of the Apostles occur conti- nually in the New Testament: I can enumerate but a few of them. Paul calls the Elders of Epiiesus to Miletus, and gives them a most solemn charge. Tliis shows clearly that they were under his go- vernment. At Corinth, the same Apostle, although absent, excom- 156 LAYMAN. No. IX. municates, absolves, enacts laws. Some of these laws too were binding upon Ministers who had been endued even with supei'natu- ral gifts. " Let the Jirojihets sfieak two or three, and let the rest judge." — " If anil man think himself to be a profihet, or sjiiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write unto ijou are the commandments of the Lord." 1 Corinth, xiv. Ministers who re- fused to pay due obedience and respect to the Apostles, are cen- sured as hereticks, and as disturbers of the peace of the Church. An example of this kind occurred in DiotrefiheSy who resisted thfe authority of St. John, representing him, no doubt, as " a Lord in God's heritage." The Apostle threatened to punish his contumacy. The Afiostles, then, were the supreme governors of the Church. Both Clergy and Laity were subject to their jurisdiction. They alone exercised the power of ordination, by which the sacerdotal authority was continued and preserved. I am not going to enter into the case of Timothy, about which the advocates of parity so obstinately dispute. We know that the Apostles ordained, for we are expressly told so in different parts of scripture ; and ecclesias- tical history attests the fact as perfectly as any fact that it records. Let our opponents pi-ove that the term Presbytery, that term on ■which they build so much wretched sophistry, designates an assem- bly of Elders like those of Ephesus. This they can never prove ; and until they prove it, the passage avails them nothing. Now, let us inquire whether the afiofstolic office was purely ex- traordinary and personal to the twelve ; or whether it was de- signed ioY permanent co7itinuance in the Church. " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." How will those who contend that the Apostles have had no succes- sors reconcile this passage with their doctrine ! The individuals whom Jesus addressed, continued not beyond the ordinary term of human life. The promise is intelligible only when considered as embracing those who should throughout all time succeed to the apostolic office. But I forbear to dwell on this passage, since we have evidence on the point amounting to absolute demonstration. The apostolic office was not personal to the twelve. ]t did not cease with them. It was extended to others. If these positions be not correct, then is there no truth in the Nev/ Testament. Upon the apostacy of Judas, did his office expire ? No ; Mat- thias was put in his place, being numbered with the eleven Apos- tles. " And his Bishoprick let another take." Acts i. 20. Barnabas was an Apostle. He exercised the powers of an Apos- tle, and the name is expressly applied to him. He is even placed, in the history of the Acts, before St. Paul. Epaphroditus, Andronicus, and Junius, are called Apostles. The translation, it is true, is messenger ; but the Greek term 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, An- dronicus, Junius. The cases of Barnaijas 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 presumed to bestow it on others. >" LAYMAN. No. IX. 157 If from scvlptuve we go to the primitive Fathers^ wc find therrt bearing the ni(jst decisive testimony against the principle foi- which our opponents contend. Ireneus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, all speak expressly of Bisho/m as the successors of the Afiostles. How, then, do the advocates of parity support their doctrine in this point ? They talk to us of the miracles which the Apostles performed, 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 office? Surely not: if they did, then Apostles existed in every congregation. Supernatural gifts were very common among the primitive Christians; being i)estowed 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 confirmed. In all this they exercised powers of per- petual necessity in the Church. Where, then, is the pretext for representing them as officers purely extraordinary ? Was preach- ing an extraordinary act? was baptising, was the administration of the Holy Supper, was ordaining ? No ; the Apostles wei'e 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 jl/iostles, then, were regular officers of the Church of Christ. They have had successors, 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 go-uernment. We proceed to observe that, before their departure fi-om the world, tlieij constituted an order of Ministers, in whom they in- vested these powers, giving them authority to rule the other Cler- g\-. 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 •Icrusalem, of Timothy, of Titus, of Epaphroditus, of the seven Angels of pro-consular Asia. Primitive history most completely establishes the fact. Clemens Komanus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Ire- neus, C'emens of Alexandria, Tertuilian, Origen, Cyprian, all prove it in the most unequivocal manner. Look for one moment at Euscbius. He composed his history in the beginning of the fourth century, about two liundred years after the death of the Apostle John. All the necessary records of the churches were put into Jiis hands Ly the order of the Emperor Constantine, and from, these he compiled itis work. Docs he give any account of a change from Prcsbyterianism to Episcopacy ? So far from it, that he has inserted the names of all the Bishops who had succeeded t'lch otlier, in the principal churches, beginning with tlie indivi- 4m\% whom the Apostles appointed, and descending, regularly, 158 LAYMAN. No. IX. to his own time. Let the advocates of parity produce a single pri- mitive histoi'ian 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 oi-ders. 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 compels 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- ner, to examine the principles on which they stand, I can sincerely say that I feel disposed to put the best construction on their con- duct. There are excellent men of all denominations ; and great allowance, we humbly hope, will be made for error by the righ- teous Judge of the earth. Let it be recollected, hov/ever, that error is venial only in proportion as it is involuntary. How then shall that man excuse himself who, having been Avarned of the defect of the ministry at whose 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 ministrations, even its most inveterate opponents are obliged to acknowledge. In the Efiiscopal Church there is ccTtaiiiUj cf being in covenant with God. Its Priesthood has a valid authority to act in the 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 mercv. 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 witli 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 disbcnters 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 the prin- ciple for which we contend be examined ; recollecting, always, that the institution which we maintain has been laid aside by a ^ ery tri- fling proportion of the Christian world; the dissenters from Epis- copacy being confined to the western Churclt, in which Churcli 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 tliis eomes from men who make the doctrine of absolute decrees almost fundamental to the system of the gospel, representing all who re- ject it as half Christians, Vi-hose 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. When the Apostles proclaimed the religion of Jesus, declaring that there was no other name given under heaven whereby maa could be saved, might not the same charge of bigotry have been preferred against them? And may not Episcopalians contend for that system of government which the Apostles established, and which they never in\ested man with the power to change. While we maintain that Episcopacy is essential to the Church of Christ, and that those who have de])arted from it have no spiritual autho- rity whatever, have no Ministers, and no ordinances, we presume not to judge of their motives, or to determine on their future con- dition. Tliese we leave to the eternal Judge, who will deal justly and graciously with all men. Where the true fai'.h 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 tlic duty of every man to enter the Church of Christ, and to conform to the divinely instituted government of that Cliui'ch. Schism is Ktill, in the language of the Apostle, a carnal sin. This is the only way in which charity on the one hand, can be reconciled witli a sacred adherence to Christian truth on the other. Do you ask us to give up Episcojjacy ? What reply will you make to the Quaker, who accuses you of bigotry in refusing to renounce the ordinances of Baptism and the liolV Supper, as essential parts of the Christian dispensation? Ta!;e 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 mca term bigotry that you have to a])prei'.end danger. No ; it is a loose ispirit, tending to the breaking dov.n of all government, that threat, ens the Christian world with destruction. Lay preachers will prove }our bane; and their ijre'-mnption is ihe genuine result of 160 CYPRIAN. No. VI; those loose principles on whicli your departure from Episc6pacy is^ grounded. In truth, loose principles never fail to return, in time, to torment their inventors. There is as much right to ofliciate without any commission, as with one derived from an invalid authority; and the reasoning adopted by the advocates of parity leads directly to the conclusion, that all pretenders to a spiritual call may enter at once, Avithout any outward commission, upon tlie 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 tlirown 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 thej Miscellaneous writer. This I trust I have done. It would take me a long while to go through the evidences of the divine institution of Kpiscopacy. 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. ^ Layman of the E/iiscoJial Church. For the ^'llbanij CentmeL CYPRIAN. No. VI. L, (ET us now leave the sacred records, and examine the proof* >vhich the early Fathers aflbrd us of the existence of the EjdscoJiaL form of government in the primitive Church. Here 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 well aware, indeed, arc our adversaries of the powerful aid which we derive from them, that they have been compelled, in self-defence, to resort to the very unjustiliable expedient of making an attempt to invalidate their authority, to diminish the weight of their testimony. When the 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. I'.ut no sooner are they discovered to contain any thing that militates against these opinions, than they are no longer considered as au- thentic — they are no longer worthy of credit. CYPRIAN. No. VI. 161 The credibUitxj of the early Fathers, as tlie reporters of matters of Jhct, cannot, without outraging tlie .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 reasoninp,-. 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 inthcir nature. They cannot be misun- derstood. In the relation of facts, the mo»t illiteraic are not sub- ject to error or misapprehension. The early Fathers, then, as the reporters of facts, cannot be consideied 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 tlie testimony of the priini- tive Church, will proportionably weaken the foundation on which Christianity rests ? Is it not upon thefde/ity of the primitive Church that we must depend for the purity and integrity of the canon of scri/iturc ? Is it not vipon her testimony that we must establish the divine institution of infant bajuistv? Is it not upon the usage of the primitive Church that we justify ourselves for the observation of the sabbath of the first day 7 Let tlicse 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 rc- jiortcrs 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, Bis/io/is, Presbyters, and Deacons. Does the testi- mony of the primitive Fathers go towai'ds the estahlishment 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 lias, indeed, with a degree of exultation and triumph, challenged us to produce the testimonies of Clemens Romanus and of Polycarp. What was the object he had in view, when 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 vei-y 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, will not operate as an argument in our favour or against us. It happens, however, that we have the sentiments of Polycarp enlisted on our side bv this strong and conclusive cir. 162 CYPRIAN. No. VI. cumstance. He recommends to the Churches, to which he ■Writes, the Epistles of Ignatius, Now, in the Epistles of Ignatius, the three orders of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, arc 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 Romanus and of Poly- earp, there is nothing decisive to be met with on the subject of Church government. Nevertheless, even in them wc 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, " Fot'' the chit-f Priest has his proper services; to the Prier.ts their proper place is appointed, and to the Levitcs 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 Chuixh of Christ. He, therefore, asserts three distinct orders. What are Ave to think of the place in which Clemens asserts that the " Apostles went about preaching through countries and cities, and appointed the first fruits of their conversions to be Bishops and Deacons," 8cc. 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 advantag-eous to our scheme. I> regard to Polycarp ; 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 which runs thus: " Polycarp, and the Presbyters that are with him, to the Church of God which is at Philippi." Does not this intimate his Episco])al pre-eminence ? Docs not this slight hint (and slight we are willing to admit it is) tend to corroborate that strong and con- clusive evidence which avc derive from the Revelations of St. John, and from the testimony of ancient writers, in proof thnt Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna ? Clemens Romanus and Polycarp, then, fur- nish our adversaries with no wcaixjos with which to assail us. We acknowledge, that from their silence on this to))ic, wc 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 niadc 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. Tha 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 tlie jjroductions 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 :^x])licit, to deter- mine thiscouli'oversy. Let us, then, collect a few of the most strik- ii:2 passages of his Epistles that relate to this subject. To detaiL CYPRIAN. No. VI, 165 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 exhorts the people to yield onedi- ence to their spiritual rulers, and the Presbyters and Deacons to be in subjection to their Bishoj). In the Epistle to the Magiiesians, he mentions Damas their Bishop, Bassus and Apolonius their Pres- byters, and Sotion their Deacon. He praises Sotion, the Deacon, for his su!)jection to the Bishop and Presbyters, and exhorts them all to reverence their Bishop. In his Epistle to the Trallians, he speaks of their Bishop Polybius, and tells them, " that whilst lliey live in subjection to their Bisliop 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 v/lthout 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 anotlier 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 defiled." 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 Bishop, 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: "When 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 I3eacons." 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 docs the Father, and the college of Presbyters as the Apostles, and reverence the Deacons as the commandment of God." Again he says, " Let that eucharist be accounted valid which is ordered by the Bishop, or by one whom he appoints." " Without the Bishop it is lawful neither to bjiptize 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," 8cc. And afterwards, addressing the people of that place, he says, " May my life be a ransom for those who are 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, Bishofis, Prcsbijtcra^ and Deacons. The Biifio/is are obviously conudeved as the su- 1«4 CYPRIAN. No. VII. fireme 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 Trallians,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 influenced by any si- nister view in exalting the office of the Bishop. If motives of per- sonal aggrandizement, if any worldly considerations had ever mingled themselves with the incentives that propelled him to ac- tion, they had, surely, at this time, ceased to oj^erate. 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- worthy motives. Would he have proceeded as he did, exultingly, on his way to the place of martyi'dom, rejoicing in the anticipation of being oflfered 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 with 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 they never will be able to refute or invalidate them. CYPRIAN. A) For the Albany Centinel. CYPRIAN. No. VII. -FTER the abundant proof in demonstration of the divine in- stitution of Episcopacy, which has been extracted from the Epistles of Ignatius, ii 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 whole stream of antiquity flows strongly in our favour. Ikkneus, the celebrated Bishop of Lyons in France, who was CYPRIAN. No. VII. 165 n\e disciple of St. Polycarp, gives us also his testimony in confirma- tion of those truths which had been delivered by Ignatius. He asserts the uninterrupted succession of Bishops in all the churches, to the period in Avhich he wrote. He urges this circumstance as an argument by which to refute the opinions of the hei-eticks, wlio had arisen in his day. " We," says he, " can reckon up those v/hom the Apostles oi'dained to be Bishops in the several churches, and who tliey were that succeeded them down to our own times. And had the Apostles known any hidden mysteries which they im- parted to none but the perfect (as the hereticks pretend), they T/ould have committed them lo those men, to whom thsy 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 afiostolic 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 of Ireneus. To prove the same point, goes the testimony of Hegesippus, 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 Presliyters 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, sliall 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 says, " that the power of baptising is lodged in the Bisho])s, 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 can draw from each of the Fathers ; I must, therefore, pass rapidly from one to another. Origen, \A\o was the scholar of Clemens Alexandrinus, and who lived in the last of the second and beginning of the third cen- tury, lends his aid also in confirmation of our doctrine. Speaking of the dei)ts in the Lord's Prayer, he fii-st insists on the debts or duties, " coromon to all Christiaus;" and tlieu adds, " Besides i-QS CYPRIAN. No. VII. these general debts, there is a debt peculiar to widows Avho arc 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 Nov^tian, 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 Roman 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 Bisho}i at the same time in a Church, lie maintains, that Bishojis are of our Lord's apfiointment^ and derive their office by succession from the Apostles. " The Church," he says, " is built upon the Bishops, and all acts of the Church ai'C governed and directed by them." He speaks of the Christians un- der his chai-ge, 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 some of his Presbyters had arrogated powers to which they had no claim. He 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 write 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 Euskbius, 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 ti*acesback the succession of Bisliops 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, which could be collected by the aid of Con- stantine the Emperor of Rome. He lived only two 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. Mark, 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 tliat 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, and his new opinicn repreiiented " as full of folly and madiiess, beyoud CYPRIAN. No. VIT. 18f ivhat humaif nature is capable of." Could the Church, then, at this period, have been in an\- degree verging towards these equalizing principles that have since gained admission into her ? Thus btrongl}' does the current of antiquity run in favour of Episcopal principles. Tlie 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, to 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. Jei-omc 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 v,'ho lived nearer the time of the Apostles. It happens, however, that St. Jerome, so far from having advanced any thing that militates against our opinion, has said a great deal in confirmation of it. His v/oi'ds are these : *' Having observed that 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 was no dis- tinction between their offices, but that Apostle, Bishop, and Pres- byter, were only different names for the saaie thing ; and that the churches v/ere then generally governed by a college of Presbyters, equal in rank and dignity to one another. Afterwards divisions I)eing occasioned by this parity among Presbyters, when every Pres- b) ter began to claim as his own particular subjects those whom he had bai;)tised ; and it was said by the people, ' I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cejjhas ;' to remedy this evil, it was decreed all the world over, that one of tlie Presbyters in every Church should be set over the rest, 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 ]>arity place so much reliance, and which they represent as fraught witli 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- aards a conjecture, which lie thinks probable on this subject ; and as he, as well as ourselves, in matters of o/iinion is fallible, we are left to judge of the degree of probability on which his conjecture vests. But St. Jerorne builds this conclusion on the promiscuous use of the terms Apostle, Bishop, and Presbyter in the Scripture, "Which has already been shown to be too weak a foundation to sup- port its superstructure. Chrysostom and Tlieodorot had remarked the same commtmity 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 dijf'crtnt orders of Ministers. But let us admit that all that St. Jerome i,ays on this subject is well founded. Let us admit that his premises are just, his conclusion legitimate. Let us admit that first there was no distinction between the iMinisters of tlie Church of Christ, but that all its concerns were managed solely by a Col- Itge of Presbyters. What is the concluiion thiit can be drawn froiu 168 CYPRIAN. No.VllI. these concessions •which will prove in any degree inimical to us? This is the only inference wliich 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 Aliostles^ 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 noted, that this is sa.id to have been done by the Ajiostlen. The ox'der 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 Ave iiold it. The same imperious rea- son will 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 resentment of the venerable Father ; and whilst under the influence of these 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 business of ordination^ Bishofis are sufierior 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 parity. I might go through the other Fathers from whom they have en- deavoured to derive succour. But if their principal support fails 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 cA-idence as this on her side, the Episcopal Church has any thing to fear from the assaults of her adversaries. CYPRIAN. For the Albany CentineL CYPRIAN. No. VIII. J. 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 of that strong foundation which supports the principles of Episcopalians. I have not been able to enter into a minute or thorough investigation of the sul ject of Church govern ment. CYPRIAN. No, VIII. 160 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 Jint J'ouj- hundred ye,\rs, Episcopal \n firin- ci/ile and in /ircctice, I trust it has been demonstrated to tlie sa- tisfaction of every unprejudiced reader, that tlie three orders of Bishops, Frcsbytt-rs., and Deacons, which ate, at this time, the standing officers of the Episcopal Church, were instituted by Christ and his yl/iostles. I would fain hope also, that from this brief examination of the subject, it has been proved, that tlie Bishops were invested by tlie Ai)ostles with su/ireinc authority m the Church as their successors ; that they always enjoyed preroga- tives peculiar to themselves ; that they aione possessed the /loiver of ordination ; and, I might add also, the privilege of administering the sacred rite of confirmation. These are opinions which were held in the Universal Church for fifteen hmidred years. It is oidy very lately that they have been called in question. Calvin pleaded necessity for attempting to establish a Church in which the E[>isco ■ pate formed no part of its organization ; and his followers, when that plea will no longer serve to be urged in their justification foi' continuing their separation from us, ai'e obliged to set themselves to work to fabricate others. Hence all tb.e opposition that has been , made to Episcopacy. The same principles and the same discipline which prevailed in tlie primitive Church, prevailed also in the Church of Ejjgland ut the time of the Reformation. This will not be denied by any one who is acquainted wil-i the history of those times. We are pre- pared to show, by indu!)itable proof, that the sentiments of most of our Refor.iiers were decidedly Episcopal. We are prepared ta show that they maintained the divine right oi Bishops. Bancroft was by no means, as is boldly asserted by the author of " Miscel- lanies," the first who bi-oached these opinions. The same opinion?. were entertained by Cranmek, by Hooper, by Parker, by RiLsoN, by Whitgikt, 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 fluctuated in their sentiments on many of the fundamental doctrines of Christi- anity. But as soon as they had settled themselves permanently ia those great principles upon which the Reformation was founded, these Episcopal oj)inior.s, 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 contended for the doctrine which we advocate. Fortunately for the Episcopal Church in the United Sta'es, these sound piinciples have found amongst her sons also, able and successful champions. A Sea-. BURY, a Chandler, a Bowdf.n, andaMooHE, have zealously- come forward m their defence — havfj attracted to themselves signal honour, whilst thev wnvc ministering the most important service to their Church. Th'i judicious and amiable Prelate of Pennsyl- vania, althouc;h 'iX a very critical and liazardous season, he was willing to relax soxewhat from tiie rigor of his principles, aud b/ irO CYPRIAN. No. VIU. Vtemporary 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 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 ■who, in this early effort, has afforded his Church a Blattering 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 ■yvith him will liesitate to acknowledge. Had the " 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 Ignatiua and the writings of tlie primiti-ue Fathtrs, he would have found more abundant fuel to sup- port the flame of his indignation and to enkindle the prejudices and pas: ions 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 apfioiiit- inent. They maintain that the order of BisAo/is, the only lawful successors of the Apostles, have alone, through all ages, been invested with the /lower of transmitting, the sacerdotal authority. They maintain that no minibtrations in holy things are valid unless they are performed by those who have received their commission from them. In other words, the order of Bishojis is the only channel through which the power to perform sacerdotal functions can be conveyed. These are their sentiments, and they must be indulged in entertaining them. They wish not to judge or offend 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 fee ings, 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 abandon 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 account. We 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. We wish not to obtrude our sentiments upon the atten- CYPRIAN. No. vm. in tion of those to whom they are obnoxious. VVe pretend not to hurl anathemas against the heads of those Avho 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 arc 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 predestination, 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 Chuixh at this time — such would she always be ;in t/u's 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. We trust we shall at last meet many of them in that ha- ven where we would be. We would entreat thcHi, 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 be in the true Church, in the Cbm-ch 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 lier 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 Avho are in involuntary or unavoida- ble ignorance on this topic, po 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 diff"event denominations of Christian ^, either in this place or in any other place to which these papers miy li^ve ex- tended. I hope we shall still continue as hitherto, to love each, other Ukc brethren. 172 VINDEX. No. I. For myself, I profess to feel a sincere and ardent charity for all denominations of Christians. For the many learned and eminent gentlemen who attend the ministrations of the sanctuary amongst them, I feel tlie highest respect and esteem. In all that I have ad- vanced in this discussion, 1 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 indulgence 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 with 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 r,ood wishes he has bestowed upon his opponents, I could most heartily wish him a g-ood Episcoliulian, CYPRIAN. For the Albany CcntincL VINDEX. No. I. To the Editors of the Albany CentineL Gentlemen, I N the following letter, v/hich I request yo\i to insert in your paper, may he easily discerned the style and spirit of a pamphlet from which the author of Miscellanies, in his late attack on Episcopacy, has made copious extracts ; and which he attributes to the Rt. Rev. Prelate who presides o^xr the Episcopal Church in Pennsylvania. Tn this point of view, the letter may be considered as an important document, illustrating the meaning and tendency of tlie 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 thingunnecessary, or of little consequence. But, on the contrary, the author of the pamphlet, as stated in the following letter, proposed to include in his plan a general apfirnhc- iion of Episcopacy, and a determination to procure the succesnion an soon as convenient. He only justified a temporary dispensation with the succession on the plea of necessity — a plea, which it is presun'ied will justify a dispensation with the sftcraments of the Church, which are to be considered as necessary to salvation only " nvheJi they can be had." VINDEX. No. I. ir3 The author of the Miscellanies has also attempted to enlist Bi- bhop White, in the same ranks with himsielf, as the advocate of Pi-es- i)ytery. Tlie following letter expressly denies that any reasoning fi-iendly to the can e of Presbytery appears in the pamphlet. But the most important part of the subsequent communication, is a correction of i-everal misrepresentations, in the numbers of tlie Miscellanies, of the sentiments of Bishop White (considered as the author of the pamphlet) re;ative to Episcopacy. The pamphlet professed to give a representatif-n of the opinion in favour of t^iiscopacy. And this representation of the K/iidCoJialian ojiiniony the following letter states " ought, in reason, to be understood as the author's oivn." Now, according to this ophiion, i/ic Ejihcolml jioiver was /edged by Jcmm Chriat nuith his ^i/iostles, and by ihern. communicated to the sujierior order of' the iiihiistry now culled Bi^ iho/is. Let the reader peruse the foi.lowing letter and tlie extract from the pamphlet subjoined, and then judge whether the author of Miscellanies will be justified in considei-ing a person who places Episcopacy on sucli a ground as liostile to its divine claims. The Miscehaneous 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," v/hich took place, according to certain Di- vines quoted in Ncal's history of the Puritans, in the second or third century. Now, though the author of the pamphlet expressly speaks of the " improbability" of such an innovation, and quotes from Neal merely to prove the time when, according to the opponents of Episcopacy, the innovation took place, the Miscellaneous writer considers this very opinion, Avhich the pamplilet states to be imjiro- bai)lc^ as the sentiment of its author! But let the reader peruse the letter and the subjoined exti'act, and judge for himself. It was not the object of the pamphlet to exhi!)it a defence of Epis- copacj'. Its author was studiously desirous to avoid controversy. Its style, 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 which the author Lad in view, the uniting of all descriptions of Church people, in a plan to preserve their C!iin-ch 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;wz, that the Ehhojis derived their £fnsco/}al flower from tlie Ajiostles^ in wh(nT» it was lodged by Je- ans Christ. He only pleaded for a tcm/iorary departure from Epis- copacy, on the ground of necessity. The Efuscojial succession was to be obtained as speedily as possible. In conformity with tliese opinions, Bishop Wliite v/as one of the most active and zealous in the measures that were 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 danjjersofa voyage across tlic Atlantic, to obtain for his Church that succession which was necessary to constitute her an Apostolic Church. His ittichment to the truly prijnitivp institutions of his Church is wclj 174, AN EPISCOPALIAN. known, and has been often manifested. And as the Miscellaneous authoi' is willing to take Bishop White as his advocate, let him sub- sci-ibe to the following sentiments, advanced by the Bishop in hia sermon before 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 Timo-. thy and Titus ; and, the persons so appointed, liave handed down their commission through the diflferent ages of the Church. This is the originally constituted order. And, therefore, without judging those who have departed from it, we may nuish and fir ay for its 7-e- storation in all Christian Churches ; as one mean for the restoring of godly discipline, for the having of our ' hearts knit together in love,' and ' that we may with one heart and one mouth, glorify 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*'* SIR, XN some of your late publications, you have given copious extract* 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 i-esult of the comparison. You seem to have done no injustice to the author, in represent- ing him as asserting the lav/fuhiesj of a iemfiorary 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 particulat's, which 1 pro- ceed to mention, I take the liberty of representing to you, that youi" statements are materially (though, as I trust, unintentionally) incorrect. The prominent proposal of the pamphlet, and as such printed in larger letters than the rest, is, '» to include in the prof loscd form of gox'ernjnnU, a ge?2eral aJiproba'Jon of lipiscojtacy, and a declara- tion of an intention to jirocure the succession as soon as convent-' ently may be ; but, in the mean time, to carry the plan into eftect, without waiting for the successicr.." In your nineteenth number, AN EPISCOPALIAN. 175 you take np the latter part of his proposal, rrspccting the immedi. ate execution, without any notice of the former j^art, which seems essential to the exhibiting of the design of the publication. The effect of the thus separating of two nmtters 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 jjurpose ;" meaning than the author of the pamph- let. To wliat purpose ? It must have been intended by you, as the connection shows, to dispensing with Ejiiacojial ordination; as in the instances in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Now, thei-e is no rea- soning in the pamphlet to that i)urpose. There is a mere state- ment of the 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 would produce in favour of a parity in tlie Mi- nistry. What you say in your twenty-first number, concerning the state- ment in the pamphlet, ^f the grounds on which Episcopacy is de- fended, appears to me to convey a representation of the sentiments oftheaullior the. very re-verse 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 tl\e author's viev/s 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 intimatioii 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 comparative merits of Episcopacy and Presbytery. To the purpose of the author of the pamphlet, it Avas sufficient that Episcopalians •'thought" as he defines; whether they thought rightly or not on the question between them and the anti-Episcopalians. Thirdly, Althoup;h by contrasting what you approve of as mode' ration in the pamj^lilet, with what you censure as positiveness in another performance, you seem to imply that tlie 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 theop- posite was intended to be intimated. If you designed to convey this idea, there is no warrant for it in the performance ; v/hich ought, in reason, to be undei-stood as conveying, under the representation of the Efiiscofialian ofiiniony the author's ovjn ; although in a way the least likely to ht^ construed into a challenge to a theological dis- putation, wliich might perhaps be unpeasant to the author at any time, but for whicli, I will venture to say, he could not have found so nnacaaonable a time as that of the publication of this performance^ As on this part only of your productions 1 am at a loss, in sons' 175 AX EPISCOPALIAN. respects, for your meaning, I shall subjoin the entire paragraph of the pamphlet, thus giving an oj^portunity to any one so disposed, to compare it with what appears in your pubhcation. In your same twenty-iirst number, after repeating a quotation of tho parapliiei from Bishop Hoadly, you represent him and the author of the pamphlet as declaring, ■^vhat I cannotfindeither of them declare, that three orders are not of divine afi/iointment ; and then you go on to state wliat you suppose to be the meaning of the autlior 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 tlie distinction between a fact, and an o/iinion connected witli it in the minds of some. Bishop Hoadly thought that Dr. Calaniy 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 tlie quotation in evidence of a distinction between Apostolic practice, and a matter of indispensable requisition. In your twenty-second number you deliver, as the o/iinion of th6 author oj the pum/ih!et, what he had cited as the ojiinion of others j put in contrast witli what should be supposed his own. In stating the Episcopalian opinion, he had occasion to refer, for the sake of precision, to that of tlieir opponents, ii> regard to the date of the introduction of Episcopacy ; and tlien, 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 evidefices of the truth of the case, but of the sense of their coimnunion. The part of your production alluded 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 which statement, I refer to tlie extract which I have already promised to subjoin. In your twent)-third number you assert, that therea?^oningsof 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 who believes that there have been three orders from the beginning, the necessity of a temporary de- parture dees not invohe that of a fnal abrogation ; and if so, it is not correct to represent the reasonings of the pamphlet as applying to both these points alike. In the same number you lament, that the government of the Episcopal Chtirch was not founded on tlie 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, you would have perceived, X\M\t Xhs. ground on which the plea for a teinporury departure rested, was soon done away. The pamphlet ;s dated in 1782 ; the prelin>inaries 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 kncnvn that negociations were begun. After this, the necessity ceased, and the author's persisting in his pro- posal would hive been little to the credit of his sincerity. You have liberally declared. Sir, that if you have misunderstood BY THE AUTHOR OF MISCELLANIES. No. I. l7r 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 thft jpamphlet quoted by the author of Miscellanies. " Let us take a view of the ground on which the authority of £/iisco/iacy is asserted. " The advocates for this form maintain that there having been an E/iisco/ial /lower lodged by Jesus Christ with his J/iostlcsy and by them exercised generally in person, but sometimes by delegation, AS in the instances of Timothy and Titus; the same nvas conveyed by them before their decease to one pastor in each Church, which generally comprehended all the Christians in a city and a conve- nient surrounding district. Thus were created the ajiostolical 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" (pai'ti- cularly in the twentieth chapter of the Acts, where the same per- sons are called " Episcopci" and " Presbuteroi") became a/2/jro- 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 the 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." I For the Albany Centinel, fiy the Author of " Miscellanies." No. I. 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 willing that my opponents should have every advantage, as well as that what had been already written by me, appeared to be more than sufBcient. • " The original of the order of Bishops was from the Presbyters choos- ing one from among themselves to be a stated President in their assemblies, in the second or third century. Smectymnuan Divmes, ai quoted in Neal's history of the Puritans, Anno. 1640." 3 A 378 BY THE AUTHOR OF MISCELLANIES. No. I. . My assailants have been numerous. They began early, and havo continued long. Probably an end of tliem is not yet seen. If pub- lishing much is any proof, they certainly have the best of the argu« ment. Many, however, will be of opinion, that it shows both their alarm and their weakness. Somewhat similar was the uproar ■which happened at Ephesus, ■when Paul preached there, among those who " made silver shrines for Diana." Those of the occu- pation, huvhig been stirred up, " all v/ith one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians." Th« Episcopal writers have complained of the controversy being ma- naged in a newspaper ; but they have freely used the mode, and have been allowed every indulgence. Whatever have been the defects on my part, they are all to be charged to myself. Except a few Greek quotations which a learned friend sent me at my request, from books which were not within my reach, I have received no counsel nor assistance. Auxiliaries were not necessary. There was no danger of my cause sufTering, tliough numbers set themselves in array against me. Ingeniou& and long-winded as they may be, they cannot change the nature ot truth, nor deprive mankind of common sense. As the pieces came out, now from " A Layman," then from " Cyprian," and thirdly from " Detector," I laid them aside, in- tending when they had done, to take such notice of them as they seemed to deserve. " A Layman" has sailed for Europe, after giving a solemn commission and charge to " Cyprian" to have a care of the Church ; so that the latter must be held accountable for the mistakes and misrepresentations of the former. " Cyprian," to do him justice, has been industrious, and has now breathed his last. As to " Detector," he may, for any thing known to me, have ran clear off, after having discharged his double-barrelled-gun. ° I'hc attentive reader will have remarked, that many things which I have advanced, have been either evaded, or not answered by my opponents ; that they have introduced new matter ; and that I am obliged more than ever to act upon the defensive. Had they not denied the validity of any ordination except that of the Roman Catholic Church, and of their own ; asserted that ordinances ad- ministered by any except those thus commissioned, were " nuga- tory and invalid;" unchurched all other denominations, and re- presented them as in a worse condition than the heathen world, I should never have written at all. Or could I have brought then> to retract these sentiments, and to maintain such Episcopacy as Dr. White, the present Bishop in Pennsylvania, maintains, I should not now write. I hope the public will indulge me in a short reply, which the conduct of my opponents has forced from me. I promise to remark only on a few of the principal things, in as few words as possible ; and that, on a proper intimation from the printer, I shall entirely desist, and seek, if so inclined, another mode of publica- tion. I begin with the concluding number of *' Cyprian." He alleges that Episcopacy prevailed " in the universal Church for fifteen hundred years ;" that " it is only very lately that it has been called in question ;" and tliat *' Calvin pied necessity for attempting to establish a Church" on a diflerent plan. This argument is mucli fiY THE AUTHOR OF MISCELLANIES. No. L 179 fittongcr in favour of Popery than of Episcopacy. During the far grcattr part of fifteen hundred years the corruptions of Popery had been introduced ; and, during half that time, the Bishop of Rome was supreme, was both a temporal and spiritual prince. Even in the Apostolic age the spirit of Popery began to show itself. " The mystery of iniquity," says the Apostle, " doth already work : only he who now letteth will let, until lie be taken out of the way. And then shall that wicked be revealed." Popery appeared eariy, and increased gradually to its monstrous size. No age was wholly pure; either in doctrine or government after the death of the Apostles.* Nothing can, with certainty, be depended on but what is found in the holy scriptures. They are the only and the perfect rule of our faith and practice. What the necessity was which Calvin pled, I know not. Whatever it was, " Cyprian" acknowledges that the *' plea will no longer serve to be urged," and that we " are obliged to set our- selves to work to fabricate others." Hence, says he, " all the op- position that has been made to Episcopacy." This is a notable rea- iion for opposition. Relieved from one necessity, we are under another necessity to find reasons for our conduct; and not finding any ready made, vicfabHcate them. How modest and charitable! I see no necessity in the case, but the preservation of a good con- science ; nor do I believe that the non-conformists, the dissen- ters in Britain, and Calvin himself, ever pled any other. Some of them might have been spiritual lords, with the title of " Right Reverend Father in God," if not of " Your Grace," with suffici- ent incomes to support their dignities. Surely here was no appa- rent necessity to refuse a compliance, had there not been a secret pionitor within to forbid them. I suppose that Cyprian means by Episcopacy being called in question " very lately," at the Reformation. He should have re- membered, that there was no opportunity of effectually opposing it • Tliese are sweeping assertions ind»ied ! They would deprive the Chris- tian Church of that powerful .sui)port v/hich her fundamental doctrines derive from tlicir having lic-cii universally received by the great body of Christians in all ages. Many learncil Divinea have bestowed no small la- bour to prove that the Cliristians of the early ages were univeraaily Trin- ituriant. But, accordiuf'; i:o the author of Miscellanies, they bestowed their talents and learning tu a purjjose worse tlian in vain ; for the proof of the fact, for v.liich they have contended, would, in his judgment, be a much stronger argument in favour of Popery than of the doctrine of the Trinity ; since the errors of Pojjcry appeared in the apostolic age! Shameful is the sophistry by which the author of Miscellanies endeavours to evade the force of tlu; argument in favour of Ej)iscopacy, founded on its universal reception in all ages of the Church. If he mean to assert that the errors of Poj^ery generally prevailed in the Church in the first ages, he admits what is C'jutradicted by the records of those ages, and what no Frote.:tavt rver before admitted. If his meaning merely is that some of the errors of Popery made tlieir appearance in the early ages, but did not generally pervade the Church for several centuries, the parallel he attempts to run between I'opery and Epi-scopacy will totally fail: for Episcopacy was received in the Churcli — xeinpcr, ubique, et ab omnibus, at all limes, in all places, and by all C/^istiam. Episcopacy thus possesses what the Church has always juiitly deemed a certain evidence of apostolic iiKtitution. Ed. 180 BY THE AUTHOR OF MISCELLANIES. No. I. until that time.* He proceeds to say, " the same principles aad the same discipline which prevailed in the primitive Church, pre- vailed also in the Church of England at the time of the Refoi'ma- tion." If he mean to extend the primitive Church through the space of fifteen hundred years, I admit his assertion ; but if he mean the days of the Apostles, and the formation of the Church imme- diately after their decease, I utterly deny it. Episcopacy in Eng- land has never been what it was in the purest age. It is tainted ■with the corruptions which very soon took place. An order of Bishops, as distinct from Presbyters, was not known in the Church until a considerable time after the Apostles.f Bishop White has given the true origin of Bishops in the Episcoj)al Church. " 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 President."^ Again : " The original of the order of Bishops was from the Pres- byters choosing one from among themselves to be a stated Presi- dent in their assemblies, in the second or third century."(| Expe- rience shov/s how natural and easy it is for men of ambition and ta- lents to establish a pre-eminence in this way. There needs be no %vonder that the presiding Presbyters would soon claim to be a dis- tinct order; and that, if the practice was universal, the claim •would likewise become universal.§ This is the great objection to such a plan. I defer some important remarks on " Cyprian's" valedictory ad- dress until the next paper. * What ! Before the lapse of three centuries, every fundamental doc- trine of the Gospel had been denied by the fearless heretics of those ages ; and yet no virtuous son of the Church could be found to arraign the law- less power of the Bishops, those usurping lords in God's heritage ! Amidst all the heresies and schisms that at various periods agitated the Church, Episcopacy maintained its ground, firm in the confidence and universal re- ception of Christians ; and no opportunity occurred of opposing this " corrupt and injurious usurpation," till the fifteenth century ! May not the language which the author of Miscellanies applies to the advocates of Episcopacy be retorted on himself! " Into what vagaries and absur- dities will men sometimes run to maintain a cause which they have incon- siderately espoused!" £e?. f The author of Miscellanies, it seems, has ascertained a fact of which the most learned opponents of Episcopacy were ignorant. He asserts that Episcopacy did not prevail " until a considerable time after the Apos- tles." BocHART acknowledges that it prevailed " paulo post Apostolos," " a little time after the Apostles." And Blondel, another learned op- ponent of Episcopacy, acknowledges that it universally prevailed about forty years after the apostolic age. Kd. \ Admitting this statement, it does no*- follow that the Bishop did not possess the exclusive power of ordination. Ed. II The reader will recollect that this is not Bishop White's opinion, but the opinion of certain dissenting Divines, which he quotes from Neal's history of the Puritans. Ed. ^ But how does it haj)pen that this " claim'^was not resisted; that we find no record of this fundamental change from Presbytery to Episcopacy in the primitive historians ? Ed. I ( 181 ) For the Albany Centinel. By the Author of " Miscellanies." No. II. AM diverted from my remarks on " Cyprian" by a late publi- cation under the signature of " An Episcopalian," prefaced by a letter signed " Vindex." I am blamed by both for unfairness in my quotations from Bishop White's pamphlet, and ascribing to him sentiments which he does not hold. Were the pamphlet in the hands of the readers, or could they turn to the numerous and large quotations which have l>een made in proper connection, no answer from me would be necessary j but as the niatter stands, it requires immediate notice. It is asserted by " Vindex,'' that I have " I'epresented Bish<^ While as regarding the Episcopal succession as a thing unnecessary, or of little consequemce ;" that I have " attempted to enlist him as the advocate of Presbytery ;" and have insinuated that he was *' hostile to the claims of Episcopacy." These things are not correct.* I contended only for what " Vindex" himself acknowledges; that the Bishop " justified a temporary dispensation with the succession on the plea of necessity ;" that he " pleaded for a temporary de- parture from Episcopacy on the ground of necessity.'' This, no doubt, is the intention and drift of his pamphlet, and it is enough for me. At the same time, he speaks of Episcopacy as a " cere- fnony" when compared with the administration of divine ordi- pances — " a disputed point, an4 that relating only to externals"-— *' a matter of external order," He fully and plainly gives up the potion of divine right and uninterrupted succession. Can any thing be more express than the following paragraph, which I quoted before I " 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 Episcopalians in America ; in which resjiect they have in their ifavour unquestionably the sense of tl^e Church of England, and, ai he believes, the opinions of her most distinguished prelates for piety, virtue, and abilities." The words in italic are so marked in the pamphlet. I never believed, nor said that Bishop Wliite was a Presbyterian, I rejoice that he is an Episcopalian ; because he is an ornament and a blessing to his Church. With such an Episcopalian, it is easy *' to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." How dif- ferent the sentiments of the author of " A Companion for the Fes- tivals," &c. quoted likewise before. He declares, that " it is ne- cessary that the Episcopal succession, from the days of tlie Apos- tles, should be uninterrupted'' — that " its interruption seems in- * Did not the author of Miscellanies, in his twentieth number, expressly assert concerninp; Bishop White, that " no Presbvrerian could argue more 10 tl;c purpose ;" F.d. 182 BY THE AUTHOR OF MISCELLANIES. No. II. deed, morally impossib;e"™that " if Presbyters^ or Deacons., or Laymen, should assume the power of ordination, the authority of the persons orda'ned by them would rest on human institution, and therefore in the Church, where a divine commission is necessary to the'exercise of the rainistr)^, their acts would be nugatory and in- valid;" yea, " that we can no more lay aside Efiiscofiacy^ and yet continue the Christian Priesthood, than we can alter the terms of sa'vation, and yet be in covenant with God." Nothing can be more evident than the opposition of this author to the Bishop.* The sen- timents of the former are in direct contradiction to the plan pro- posed by the latter. Does " Vindex," when he says that the plea of necessity " will justify a dispensation with the sacraments of the Church, which are to be considered as necessary to salvation only, when they can. be had" mean, that Bishop White intended that Ministers ordained in the manner which he proposed, should not administer the sacra- ments ? If so, he is chargeable with gross misrepresentation. The words of the Bishop are, " Are the acknowledged ordinances of Christ's holy religion to be suspended for years, perhaps as long as the present generation shall continue, out of delicacy to a disputed point, and that relating only to externals?" Beyond all dispute, the design of the Bishop was, that the Ministers ordained on his plan should have equal authority to perform every office with those ordained by the Bishop of London. Their ministrations were to be considered as valid and efficacious ; whatever the author of " A Companion for the Festivals," See. has said about divine righty and the necessity of uninterrufited succession.-^ The Bishop, says *' Vindex," " had in view the uniting of all descriptions of Church people, in a plan to preserve their Church till the succession could be obtained." Is it not a strange way X.o fire serve a Church by rfe- stroying it ? For this must have been the effect, if no ordination is valid, and no ordinances effectual to salvation, but those derived from Bishops of the Episcopal Churcli.l It is acknowledged that the view of the Bishop was " to preserve their Cliurch," and that, *' as long as the present generation shall continue ;" and yet there •would be no Ministers duly authorized, and all the ordinances would be " nugatory and invalid ;" a Church without an uninterrupted Buccession, and yet " its interruption seems morally impossible l"|f * The author of " A Companion for the Festivals" had no reference, ia the above remarks, to those cases of necessity, in which some Episcopalians think that Presbyterian ordination may be admitted. Ed. f Ordmances administered by those Episcopally ordained, are " valid and efficacious" in all cases; while, even on the plan attributed to Bishop White, a case of necessity alone was to render " valid and efficacious," or- dinances administered by those who had not Episcopal ordination. £d. I These were maintained as general propositions. No reference was had to cases of necessity, which do not fall under general rules. Ed. II The author of Miscellanies affords room here to apply to him the charges of ignorance or disingenuousncss. He ought to have known that, on the principles of Episcopalians, the Succession which is presei-ved in the order of Bi/bops. is not interrupted by any particular Church throwing off this succession. The Succesiicr. ciill rciiuiin: in the Bisbopt of other churches; BY THE AUTHOR OF MISCELLANIES. No. HI. 183 Into what vagaries and absurdities will men sometimes run to main- tain a cause which they have inconsiderately espoused ! I have not seen Bishop White's sermon before the last General Convention. What " Vindex" has quoted from it, does not alter what is contained in the pamphlet.* The Bishop, doubtless, prefers the Episcopal mode of government. I observe that he admits that there are other " Christian churches" besides his own ; which is more than the Episcopal Priests in this State admit. Whether I am incorrect or not, in asserting that Dr. Provost " supplied some facts for the pamphlet," will appear in time. If I have been mistaken or misinformed, I shall freely acknowledge it; though wholly immaterial in the argument. A line from either Dr. Provost or Dr. White would receive full credit, and give ample satisfaction. I know my informer ; and my present impression is, that the facts, or the communication where to find them, did not arrive in season. I shall, in my next, examine what is said by " An Episcopalian,'* whom " Vindex" has so ceremoniously introduced to me. I foresee that we will part, he an Efiiacofmlian^ and I a Presbyterian ; but, I hope, in mutual good humour, and with mutual good wishes. For the Albany Centinel. By the Author of^^ Misceli anies.'* No. III. TO « AN EPISCOPALIAN." Sir, J. HOUGH my remarks on " Vindex," published in the last Ccji^ tmel, might suffice as an answer to your letter, yet I tiiink it my duty to give you a particular and respectful attention. " Vindex" says that your " letter may be considered as an important docu- ment, illustrating the meaning and tendency of the pamphlet in question." Why it should be considered more important than what has hitherto appeai'ed, I cannot conceive, unless it was written by Bishop White himself. He may be allowed to know the meaning of his pamphlet better than any other man ; and yet he (if the Bishop) could not be permitted to tell his meaning, except his com- mentary was accompanied with a commentary by " Vindex." You do me justice in alleging that my mistakes must have been and any Church which may have thrown it ofF, may obtain it from those Churches which have preserved it. These truths are familiar to all who have examined, with moderate attention, the subject of Church government. And if the author of Miscellanies was not ii^norant of them, how disinge- ntiout is his attempt to fix the imputation of absurdity and inconsistency on the author of the " Companion for the Festivals and Fasts 1" £d. * No indeed; because even in the pamphlet the author maintained that jfesus Chtist lodged an Episcopal pfrirer witb bis Apostles, •a.iicb vim by tbein comtnunicated to tho superior order of the ininistrj/, called Bishops. See the •pinion of tiie author of this parriphlct, at p. \77 of this collection. £d. 184 BY THE AUTHOR OF MISCELLANIES. No. Ifl.' ♦' unintentional," and that if convinced of any, " I will think my-* self pledged to an acknowledgment." I trust that I would not make an unfair quotation, or be guilty of misrepresenting an au- thor's sentiments, for a much greater reward than to be made the Pope of Rome, or Archbishop of Canterbury. The numbers of *' MisQellanies," to which you refer, and the pamphlet, are now before me. You complain, that in my nineteenth number, " I take up the latter part of the Bishop's proposal, without any notice of the for- mer part." In that number, I give a general and just account of the plan. When I begin, professedly, to quote, it is at the begin- ning of a paragraph which runs, " The other part of the propo- sal," &c. This implies that there is a preceding part, I wished) and once thought to have published the whole pamphlet. What injustice is done to the Bishop here ? " Not to wait for the succes- sion," is the very spirit of his plan. Not to wait, implies, that he would have preferred the succession, could it have been obtained ; and the necessity of constituting a Church without it, is explicitly avowed. To remove, however, the least ground of complaint, 1 here give the plan as it stands in the first place where it is intro» duced : " The conduct meant to be recommended as founded on the preceding sentiments, is to include in the proposed frame of go* vernment a general approbation of Episcopacy, and a declaration of an intention to procure the succession as soon as conveniently may be ; but in the mean time, to carry the plan into effect without waiting for the succession." I observe that your introducer and commentator, " Vindex," has changed the words " a declaration of an intention" into " a deter- viination." This is admissible in a paraphrase ; for I verily be- lieve that the Bishop's declaration is the same with his determN nation. You will remember, at the same time, that a Church was to be constituted, and that immediately, " without waiting for the succession." Take these woi'ds aAvay, and there is no plan at all^ You remark, that in my twentieth number I say " No Presbyterian could reason more to the purpose than Bishop White;" and you ask, " To what purpose ?" You have answered the question your-» self. It is that Episcopal ordination has been, and may be dis- pensed with in certain cases. To say that the Bishop has given " a mere statement of the fact," and that " there is no reasoning," looks very like an evasion. Why are the instances in the reign of Queen Elizabeth mentioned ? You acknowledge that they " seem to have been designed to apply in this way;" that is, for dispensing with Episcopal ordination ; and that the Bishop argues in favour of " an exigency much greater." This matter is so obvious to every reader as to require no further remark. You go on to say, " On perusing the pamphlet, I do not find a sentiment which I can suppose an anti-Episcopalian writer would produce in favour of a parity in the ministry." What then ? Is there no sentiment v/hich shows that Episcopal ordination has been dispensed with by the Church of England, and ought to be dispensed ■with in some cases ? Is there no sentiment which will forcibly ap- ply against those who contend that " unintennipted succession" is absolutely necessary— that an hiterruption is " morally impossible'' BY THE AUTHOR OF MISCELLANIES. No. III. 185 •—that ordinances administered by any but those ordained after the manner of the Church of England, are " nugatory and invahd" — and " that we can no more lay adde Efiiscopacy, and yet continue the Christian Friesf/iood, iU^n we can aUer the terms of salvation, and yet be in covenant witli God ?" Why does the Bishop reason from the doctrines, the practice, and the principles of liis owrt Church in favour of his plan ? Why does he call Episcopacy a ♦' ceremony" — a " din/iutedfioiiit" — a " matter of external order ?" &c. Why does he, in expiess words, give up divine right, and declare that it is given up by the most distinguished Divines in his own Church ? See the paragraph as quoted in " Miscellanies," and again, in my reply to your prolocutor, " Viiidex." Do you still ask, " To what purpose I" Be assured, that in whatever man- ner I would argue " in favour of a parity in the ministry," no ar- guments are sounder and better for the purpose they have been used, than those furnished me by Bishop White.* He is an Episcopalian with whom I have no controversy. He has completely overthrown the system which some Episcopal Priests in this State have vainly and arrogantly set up. In my twenty -first number, I have, inadvertently, misunderstood the Bishop, and applied the words " as some conceive," to Episco- pa'ians instead of applying them to their opponents. I am the less excusable in this, as in a pamphlet which offered so much matter for my pui'pose, there was no necessity to quote the paragraph at all. I am glad that j-ou have subjoined the whole of it. I began to quote from the latter part, only so much as seemed necessary to mtroduce the reasoning of the Bishop which immediately follows, and which is given at considerable length in three distinct para- graphs. Except that I have not quoted the part of the paragraph in which " the grounds on which the authority of Episcopacy is as- serted," which begins with, " The advocates for this form main- tain," 2cc. and which you say " ought in reason to be understood as conveying the author's own" opinion, I have not broken the sense or connection; but every reader is fully enabled to judge without any comment of mine. I have more reason to complain of you for subjoining a paragraph, and omitting those which immediatelv fol- low, and which are absolutely necessary in order to understand the Bishop's pamphlet. The mistake in misapplying the words " as some conceive," and whatever has particularly arisen from it, I readily acknowledge, and hope that the Bishop will excuse me. The reader will perceive that, had I been inclined to misrepresent, there was no temptation in this instance ; as "iLere were so many passages in the pamphlet express to my purpose, and a misrepre- sentation would be worse than useless. With respect to the fault which you find in my use of the quota- tion from Bishop Hoadly, I submit to the judgment of every candid • And yet Bishop White, in this pamphlet, which is attributed to him, maintains, that yestts Christ lodged an Epincopal power in tl-.e Apostles, by whom it was conveyed to the bijljest order of the minstry, called Bishops. In his sermon before the General Convention, he maintains, that tlie Apos- tles constituted an order of Minhters with a supereminent cotntnhsion, which 1x21 been banded duv.Ji thiough succepding ages ! iiV. 2 B IBS BY THE AUTHOR OF MISCELLANIES. No. IV. person. If he and Bishop White do not assert, that there are not " three distinct orders in the Church by divine appointment " the inference is at least natural, that such was their opinion' ; especi- ally when the connection is considered together with other parts of the pamphlet. In a preceding page Bishop White shows this very thing ; that the doctrines of his Church do not teach that Epis- copal ordination is " as much binding as Baptism and the Lord's Supper ;" and he surrenders, in a subsequent page, in as plain and strong words as possible, the idea of divine right. I confidently refer the reader to the passages which have been quoted in " Mis- cellanies," and to the scope of the whole pamphlet. Lest I should be tedious, I shall defer farther remarks until ano- ther opportunity. Had it not been for the intrusion of " Vindex," I could have furnished by this time, all I have to say. Your senti- ments are conveyed with sufficient perspicuity and precision, with- out any elucidation and enforcement of his. A brace on the table is pleasant enough ; but a brace of antagonists is not very eligible. I really cannot see any strength which Episcopacy, as held by the high-flyers in this State, is to gain by your letter. If your in- tention was merely to point out some mistakes which you dihcerned in my publications, I am sincerely obliged to you. Admitting these mistakes to be far more numerous than you pretend, do they alter the nature of the pamphlet ? Do they aifect, in tlie smallest degree, the cause for which I contend against my opponents here I Must you not be sensible that the sentiments of Bishop White have been produced with great propriety and force ? I never meant to say that he is not an Episcopalian — that he pleads for " parity" — and that he is not conscientiously attached to the form of government in his own Church. I believe otherwise j and I pray that Episcopa- lians may ever have such Bishops. For the Albany Centincl. By the Author of " Miscellanies.'" No. IV. TO " AN EPISCOPALIAN." Sir, X HASTEN to answer the remainder of your letter. You are not satisfied with my quoting a note from the pamphlet, as expressive of the Bishop's own opinion. Having mistaken the meaning of the words, " as some conceive," the other mistake naturally followed ; especially as the note is not marked as a quo- tation from Neal's history, and the same opinion is delivered in a I^receding part of the pamphlet, which is quoted by me, in connec- tion with the other. The express words of the Bishop are, p. 18, *' In the early ages of the Church 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 President." Where is BY THE AUTHOR OF MISCELLANIES. No. IV. ISf the difference between this and the note complained of? " The ori- ginal order of Bishops was from the Presbyters choosing one from among themselves to be a stated president in their assemblies, in the second or tliird century." Would not any man, after reading the Bishop's own words, conclude that he approved of the opinion he has quoted from the Sinectynviuan Divines ? I mention this not to justify, but to excuse myself. The first quotation is sufficient for my purpose ;* and I am content to surrender the note, as expres- sing the opinion of anti-Episcopalians, believing that the worthy Bishop thus intended it. The assertion in my twenty-third number, that the Bishop's " reasoning is as strong for a total as for a temporary departure," you allege is groundless. You will observe, that I do not say that he thought so, or that he meant it to be so applied, but give it merely as my own opinion, and add some reasons, in " Miscel- lanies," on which my opinion is founded. I shall neither repeat these, nor produce any new ones. Whether my opinion is just or not, is of no consequence, as to the argument against my opponents. They admit of no departure from Episcopacy — of no necessity but that of uninterrufued succession. They insist, that " the divine Head of the Church has pledged himself to preserve the succession of his ministry (as held by Episcopalians) to the end of the world" — that an " interruption seems indeed morally impossible" — that the moment this change or interruption is made, human authority usurps the place, in the Church, of divine" — that " it must be essential to ilie efficacy of the Lord's Supper, as a means and pledge of divine grace, that it be administered by those who have received lawful authority (from the Bishops of the Episcopal Church) to administer it," &c. Sccf Now, the Bishop strenuously pleads for a temporary departure — -is for constituting a Church, " without v/aiting for the succession" — thinks that the word preach- ed, and ordinances thus administered, would be effectual to salva- tion, " perhaps as long as the present generation shall continue" — . calls Epi'^copal succession " a disputed point, relating to externals," &c. — gives up explicitly and fully the idea of divine right — states and urges, from the doctrines, the practice and the principles of his Church, that a departure from Episcopacy, in certain cases, is •warrantable and necessary. Where then is the " moral impossi- bility of an interruption in the succession ?" Where the " pledge of Christ to preserve the succession? '| Where that unscriptura!, unreasonable, and uncharitable r,ystem which Episcopal Divines in this State are attempting tc set up ? If the Bishop be right, as he * What ! Does the first quotation prove that the Bishops originated in the second or third century ? Does the first quotation prove that the Bishop had not the exclusive pc)vvcr of ordination ? Ed. \ And have not some of the warmest advocater, of Episcopacy main- tained the same sentiments, and yet made an exception for what they con- ceive a case nf intxitabte necessity ? Ed. \ And must tlie au'-hor of Miscellanies again be told, that the succession is not interrupted when any particular Church throws off the succession \ iVhcrever the order of regulur Bishops exists, there is the succession un- interrupted. Ed, 188 BY THE AUTHOR OF MISCELLANIES. No. IV* indubitably is, in my mind, their saucy tenets are scattered liktt chaff before the wind.* I continue. Sir, to lament, " that the government of the Episco- pal Church was not founded on the plan represented in the pamph- let." There might have been then some prospect of an union of the Churches in this country ; a matter which has, formerly, been near my heart.f I believe nov/, that it is not the will of Providence, and I am resigned. I trust that I am no bigot. I am not quarrel- ling with Episcopal government, when put on the ground of expe- diency or of preference. I have been inclined to lean a little to the opinion, that there was no precise form of government prescribed in the scriptures ; but that it was to be accommodated to circum- stances. I would be cautious in asserting the divi?ie right, either of Episcopacy, or of Presbyterianism ; though, I think, that the latter has the superior claim. Is there not cause of complaint when a Church sets up exclusive pretensions, and will not extend to others the same privilege which is extended to her ? Is not this the very principle which has obliged us to protest against the Roman Catholic Church ? Is there any difference whether we are called to believe in the doctrine of transubstandation, or in the divine right of Episcopacy, under pain of being shut out from the king- dom of heaven 1\ " The ground," you say, " on which the plea for a temporary departure rested, was soon done away." It was so ; but surely, the sentiments of the Bishop remain. It is evident, that lie did not expect the necessity to be removed so soon ; because he speaks in one place of its continuing " perhaps as long as the present genera- tion shall continue." No matter whether the necessity was for one year, or a generation, or all generations, his plan was to co-extend with the necessiiy. His Church might have been still Episcopal^ and might have had three distinct orders ; for I could suppose a case in which " uninterrupted succession" is impossible ; and in which it would be the duty of a people to form such government as they preferred ; and the ordinances of the Gospel administered by those whom they appointed, would be as acceptable to the Head of the Church, and as effectual means of salvation, as when adminis- tered by those immediately appointed by the Apostles themselves. (| Let not this be construed as maintaining that the observance of • " Sauey tenets." Let the autlior of Miscellanies learn not to " speak evil" of those venerable Fathers of the Church, who maintained the tenets which he tlius elegantly characterizes. £ostles, in whom it was lodged by yesus Christ. The scntinients maintained by the author of the " Compa- nion for the Festivals," &c. and " his coadjutors," are suj)ported by the authority of uamce, thiit will yield to none ia talents, learning, and piety. Ed. 190 BY THE AUTHOR OF MISCELLANIES. No. V. Ministers and ordinances on the plan of Bishop White, would b« mockery, sacrilege, usurpation, schism, rebellion against Christ, and what was worse than to be in a state ol 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 perfcctness."t *' Cyprian" speaks of my " resentment against the Companion for the Altar," of the " flame of my indignation," and directs me. to the Epii^tles 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. :f Hear the words of Mosheim, that learned and impartial ecclebi- astical historian. " There arc yet extant several Epistles, attri- buted to him, concerning the authenticity of which there have been, howevei', 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 Ma.heim says, " the most of learned jnen acknowledge 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 sacred 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 Miscellanies persists in confounding; i)\t general state of the Church, in which Episcopal ordination is necessary to the exercise of 3. valid ministry, with those cases of " ine'vitable r,t;cessiiy " 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 nf necessity, where or- dinaticm by Bishops cannot he had (which Bishop White supposed was the situation of the Episcopal churches at the time when the pamphlet was written), may surely consistently maintain, that in all other cases. Episcopacy is essential to the Church, and Episcopal ordination essential to the exercise of a valid ministry. Ed. t Now Bishop White holds, that ^esus Christ lodged an Episcopal po^xer txith the Apostles, vihich tvas by them communicated to the order of Bishops : that the Apostles vested an order of' Ministers, among luhovi were Timothy and Titus, ivith a supereminent commission; that tliis commission has been band«d down through succeeding ages; that this is the Originally con- stituted oRor.R. Le. it be rcmemlxred then, that, according to the author of Miscellanies, this is an Episcopacy " consistent with reason, scripture, and that charity v/hich is the bond of perfectness." Ed. \ This is an easy way of destroying the authority of Ignatius. See the remarl;s at the end of this nun^ber. Ed. \\ From the Epistles aci-cnowledged, according to Mosheim, " by the most, of learned men," tobs genuine, v/eve the quotations of Cyprian taken. Ed, BY THE AUTHOR OF MISCELLANIES. No. V. 191 " Cyprian" makes with many of his assertions. " If our doctrine,'* Says he, " goes tp unchurch other denominations, it is much to be 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 sivch 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 remembered, 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 ihe Festivals and Fasts," &c. and the productions of " A Lavman," and " Cyprian"), have wilfully and obstinately closed their eyes against it." This is his charity 1 Who could expect, not- withstanding all this, to hear him talking of " a most since7-e 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) in 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 towards them. " Cyprian" says, 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 unchurck 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 the light !"t • Here is the great atlvantage of the Episcopal Church. Even its op- ponents cannot asF:ert tliut its " administration of ordinances is invalid.'* In maintaining that Episcopal ordination is necessary to the exercise of a valid ministry, Episcopalians contend for the faivh of the universal Cliurch for fifteen centuries. With the unpleasant consequences that may result from this opinion, they are not cliargeablc. They wish to "judge no man." " To his own master he staiv.letii 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 Socinian will contend for the praise of supe« rior charity with the author of Miscellanies, for he also can say, " God forbid that my charity should be able to find no other excuse for" those who deny the divinity of Christ, " than tliat they have wilfully and obsti- nately closed their eyes against the liglit !" Cyprisin did not aj/pl/ pcrttr.alty to any individual who opposed Episco- 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 Chuixh of Christ — they are the doctrines of election and reprobation as taught in the institutes of Ca'vin." The institutes of Calvin were written by an individual, and arc entitled to no other authority 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 ; and 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 has no connection with the controversy on hand, and I wonder how *' Cyprian" contrived to introduce it, I 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 i?rinciples 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 was " obstinate and wilful." Such ^lay surely characterize opposition to Episcopacy; it is therefore the duty of its advocates to caution its opponents against this inexcusable opposition. Who justl V merits tlie 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-- Tit 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 be 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 all denominations ; the humble, the penitent, and the obedient, wiiose errors are not voluntary and v/ilful, will be accepted N. BY THE AUTHOR OP 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 passage in the New Testament : " And when his dis-' ciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down 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 Churcii, 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, I contend for no other privilege to be extended to me, than what Cj'prian has promised, or than what I cheerfully extend to others. He most heartily ■wishes that I was a " good Kfiiscofialian." I sirycerely thank him. 1 think myself safer where I am; because I act according to my conscience, as he does according to his. Let him continue an £/its-^ cofialian, and me a Presbyterian ; and if we both improve 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 blGod."t by the gracious Parent of the universe, through the merits of that b'ood which was shed for all. These are the Eentiments expressly avowed in various parts of his books by the author of the " Companion for the Fes- tivals and Fasts," and " for the Ahar." £d. * Young as may be the advocates of Episcopacy to whom the author of Miscellanies here alludes, they surely deserve commendation for not indulg-. r.ag a propensity, common to youth, and which those whose " locks are silvered by age" have not always restrained, to :.tnke cut into nevi paths. Their object has been to find the " old paths, and to walk therein." They sought to drink at the deep and pure fountain oi prhnitiiexru\.h, not in the shallow and degenerate streams of later ages. The charges of self' wfficient and exciushe pretensions 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. t In this sentiment every Episcopalian can join, for though " in these coHtroversies, tnttb can be only on one side, sincerity may be on both." And where there has not been z-ailfu! rcglect of tlie means of information, nor a tuilful opposition to the truth, sincerity, ex-en ir. error, will be accepted by the mercilul Judge of the world. -i^*- 2C ( 194 y lEet7tark$f by the Editor, on the fire ceding JVumber.'] In the preceding number the author of Miscellanies makes two assertions which require particular notice : That the Epistles of Ignatius are not genuine ; and that the Articles of the Church o£ England are Calvinistic. Jn 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 Epistiesare now alone defended, and some others whiclv have been attributed to him are given up as spurious* These seven Epistles first appeared in a larger form than at pre- sent ; in which state though they were defended by many learned men, as in substance the production of Ignatius, yet ail 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 spurious, or not entitled to credit. Archbishop Usher at length published a Latin version of these Epistles, from two manu- scripts ; one of which he found in the University of Cambridge, and another in a private library. This version exactly agreed with all the pasr-ages recited lay 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 library at Florence, a Greek manuscript of these Epistles, in which the text exactly agreed with the Latin version published by Usher. These Epistles, as published by Usher and Fossius, and which are known by the name of the smaller 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 Blomdel, Salma- sus, Daille, learned opponents of Episcopacy, acknov/^Iege are the Epistles which Eusebius, the ecclesrastical historian of the 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 oiily by all the learned advocates of Episcopacy, but by other learned men who were not Episcopalians; by Grotius, by Le Glerc, 8cc. 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 altarations,"* What greater proof can we have of the genuineness of any writ- ings than that tliey were quoted by contemporary and succeeding writers. The Epistles of Ignatius, as published by Usher and Vossius, are quoted by Polycarp, who knew Ignatius, and by- • Sec Bishop KorGley's Letter in Reply to Dr. Priestley. Letter 5. REMARKS ON MISCELLANIES. 199 Ireneus, Origen, and Eusebius, of succeeding ages, blithe passages recited by them may be found, luordjbr word, in the edi« tions by Usher and Vossius. According to the learned Dupin, " This is true not only in the resemblance of one or two passages, but in a very great number that are cited by different auth-jrs; which makes it so much the more certain." "Besides," continues this leH.nied iiistorian, " there is nothing in these Epistles which drjcs not agree with the fiersori and time of Ignatius ; there are no dffects in the chronology, nor any anachronisms, which 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 divinity of Jesus Christ ; the tradition of the Church is confir.Tied according to Eusebius: he speaks of those gifts of the Holy Spirit that were visible in the Church, 8cc. Upon the whole natter, these Epistles are written with great simplicity, and bear an apostolical character."* Unable to resist the powerful evidence in favour of these Epistles, 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 which 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.f " The sum of the matter is this : Polycarfi, in his Epistle to the Philippians, the acts of Ignatius' martyrdom, and Ireneus, in the second century; On- gen, in the third ; Eusebius, Alhanasius, Chrysostom, ?LV\d Jerome^ in the fourth ; and a great number of writers down to the fifteenth century, all bear witness to these Epistles. | 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 ;|| 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 when he wrote," • Dupin's Eccl. Hist. vol. i. on the Epistles of Ignatim. f Dr. Bovjden, in his second letter to Dr. Stiles. \ To these may be added the names of the most learned men since the Reformation. Those marked in italics, are not Episcopalians. Usher, Vossius, Gratius ; Pearson (who wrote a learned vindication of these Epis- tles), and Hammond, Petavius, Ball, Wake, Cave, Cotelerius, Grabe, Du- pin, Tillemont, Le Clerc, Bochart, and the learned Fabricius, Professor at Hamburg, in the last century. II Blondel, Sahnasius, and Cbamier, acknowledge that, about one hundred and forty years after Christ, Epigcopacy prevailed. -E*^- i96 REMARKS ON MISCELLANIES. Writings attested by such powerful external and internal e^^- 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 give in favour of Episcopacy, are intereated in opposing them. The author of Miscellanies also asserts, that the articles of the Church of Englayid are Calvinistic ; and that the seventeenth ar- ticle in particular maintains the Calvinifetic doctrine of " election and reprobation ;" and that those Episcopalians who 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 fieculiar tenets of Calvinism, of appropriating exclu- sively to the religious system so called, the doctrines of the corrufi- tion and guilt of man — of the atonement and grace of Jesus Christ — oi Justif cation through a true and lively fa' th in him, as tlie only mediator betiveen God and man — of the sanctif cation of the soul through the grace of the Holy S/iirit. 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 fifth century, first introduced the doctrine of fiarticular 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 is peculiar to Calvinism, and distinguishes this system from all otlicrs, is the doctrine of particular abso- xuTE ELECTION. This doctrine is laid down in the institutes of Calvin, in terms that are revolting to every idea which reason or sci-ipture affords us of the attributes of God. He divides the whole human race into the Elect and the Reprobate; and thus lays down the decree of election and reprobation concerning them. " Non enim pari conditione crea/itur omnes : sed aliis vita ster- na, aliis damnatio asterna preordinatur." " For all are not created in like estate, but to some eternal life, to others eternal death is forcapfiointed." Cal. Inst. lib. iii. chap. 21. 5. " Quos vero damnation! addicit, his justo quidem et irreprehen» sibili, sed incomprehensibili ipsiusjudicio, vitx additum prccludi." ♦' But those whom he cpjiointeth to damnation, to them, we say, by liis just and irreprehensible, but also incomprehensible judgment, the ejiiry of life is blocked vp," Cal. Inst. lib. iii. chap. 21. 7. REMARKS ON MISCELLANIES. 19? *' Ergo si non jjossumus rationem assignave,cur suos misericordia idignetur, nisi quoniam ita illi placet ; neque etiam in aliis repro- bandis aliud habebimus quam ejus volunlatem." " Therefore if we cannot assign a reason ivhy he shoidd confer mercy on those that are his, but because thjis it pLcanPth him ,- nei- ther indeed shall we ha-ve any other cause in rejecting of others., than his own ivill." Cal. Ins. lib. iii. chap. 32. 11. " Quemadmodum sux erga electos vocationis efficacia, salutem, ad quam eos seterno consilio destinaret, perficit Dens ; ita sua ha- bit advcrsos reprobos judicia, quibus consilium de iilis suiim exe- quatur. Quos ergo in vitx contumeiiam ct mortis exitium creavit, ut irai sux organa forent, et severitatis excmpla ; eos, ut in flnem. suam pei-veniant, nunc audiendi verbi sui facultate priveat,- nunc eju- prsedicatione magis excxcat et obstupefacit." " As God by the effectualness of his calling towards the elect, per- fects the salvation to which by his eternal counsel he had afifiointed them ; so he hath h\s Judgme7its against the re/irobate, by which he executes his coun^xl concerning them. Whom therefore he hath created to the shatne of life arid destruction of death, that they may ie vessels of his wrath, and examp.les of his severity, them, that they may come to their end, sometime he deprives of the fiower to hear hit ivord, and sometime he more blinds and confounds^ by the preaching of it." Cal. Ins. lib. iii. chap. 24. 12. " Ecce vocem ad cos dirigit, sed ut magis obsurdescant : lucem accendit, sed ut reddentur coiciores : 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 may be rendered the more blind : he sliowetli forth doctrine, but thai they may be made more dull : he applies to them a remedy, iut no: that they may be healed." Cal. Ins. lib. iii. chap, 24. 13. Well might Calvin himself confess, that this decree of election nnd refirobation is a " horrible decree." "Decrctum quidem horribilefateor." Cal. Ins. lib. iii. chap. 23. 7. Well may Oi'firian have declared, " if there arc 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 tlie doctrines of election and rejirobation as taught in the insti- tutes of Calvin." And yet this horriclk decree, so contrary to the attributes of God, and to the explicit declarations of his holy word, 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 indix'i- duals, but to the spiritual privileges of nations and commwiities in the present world. This doctrine is thus laid dov/n in the Corfesfiinn of Faith of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. It is laid down 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 arc predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting- death." Conf. of Faith, ch. iii. sec. 3. 'i"hc nfxt section of this chanter of the Confession of Faith re- 1^8 REMARKS ON MISCELLANIES! presents the number of the predestinated and foreordained, as *' particularly and unchangeably designed," as " certain and defi« uite." 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 any Jbresig/il of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature tu conditions or causes moving him thereunto." The conclusion of the sixth section declares, " Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, efFeetualiy called, justified, adopted, ©r SHved, but the e/ect only." Tlie seventh section deserves particular notice, as it contains the doctrine usually distinguished by tl\e term Rephobation. " The rest of mankind, God «vas pleased, accordmg to the un- searchable counsel of his ov/n will, whereby he extendeth or with- draweth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to /lass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice."* On the subject of effectual ca'ding, the Confession of Faith de.- Clares, that it is »' not from any \.)\m^foreseen in man, who is alto^ gether fiassive therein." Chap. x. sec. 2, The third section of this chapter declares, that " Elect infants dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the spirit — so also are other elect persons, who 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 mini; try of the word, and may have some common operations of the spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore cc7»7io/ be saved." Here appears the reason why those finally perish ^vho " never tru- ly come to Chi-ist, and therefore cannot be saved;" they are "not elected." That none but the elect can be caved, is expressly de- clared in the sixth section of the third chapter, quoted above. And that those elected are not elected in consequence of God's /bre- seeing that they would imfirove the means of grace, accept the of' fers of salvation, and persevere wito 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 works, or fierseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature as conditions, or causes moving thereunto." The elect, therefore, are arbitrarily unconditionalhj 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 pei'sevcre therein to the end, and be eternally saved." • Calvin says, " Qiics Deus preterit, reprobat" — " whom God passes by, he reprobates." " Ac multi quidem, ac si invidiam a Deo repeilere vellcnt, electionem iia fatentur ut negent quenquam reprobari ; sed inscite nimis et pueriliter ; quando ipsa electio nisi reprobationi opposita non sta- tet." " And many 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 igr.orantly and childishly ; foratniucb as election ittelf "would not stand unieis it ivere tet contrary to reprobation." Cal. Iiwt. lib. iii. chap. 23. Iv REMARKS ON MISCELLANIES. 199 ■ The author of Miscellanres has been pleased to observe, in one of his numhers. that he beiieved Episcopalians in general were ip-no- rant that the tenets of Episcopacy were so seriously and solemnly propagffted. Perhaps it may with equal truth be asserted, that the great body of Presbvterians are not aware that the tenets of elec" tion and reprobation are thus explicitly and solemnly set forth ia the Confession of Faith of their Church. Now that the articles of ihr Church of England^ and of the Pro- testant Efi'scofiat Church in America, maintain these peculiar tenets of Calviti'fim, is absolutely and positively denied. The ilueentli article of the Church declares, that " Christ, by the sacr.fice of himself took away the sins of the ivorld." The six- teenth article declares, that '' after we have received the Holy Gh'ibt, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and, by the grace of God, we may arise and amend our Hvcs." The thirty- first article declares, that " the offering of Christ once m:ide is tfiat perfect redemption), propitiation", and satisfaction for a// the ains of the whole laorld, both original an