and usefulness in the highest order in his Church. He venerates and prefers her form of government as the most ancient and eligi ble. Against this, Presbyterians have no objection.* They freely yield to others that privilege which they claim for themselves. They wish to stand at a distance from all bigotry and censoriousness. May the lawn sleeves of Bishop White be always as unsullied as is his character! May those on whom he puts his hands, in confirmation, receive divine blessings! May those whom he ordains, with his Presbyters, be "ambassadors for Christ!" May the churches which he consecrates, be dwelling places of the Most High! May he preserve, until the end of life, that estimation in which he is held! Finally, may he be approved by the great "Shepherd and Bishop of our souls!" As he does not 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 president." 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 still a Presbyter. The Presbyterians call him Moderator or President; and they may call him Bishop, 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 constitution, and perpetuated by uninterrupted succession, there would have been no controversy with them. Then would there have been a reasonable prospect of union between them and other de◄ nominations. Now the other denominations are obliged to stand on their own defence. In my next number I hope to finish the extacts from Bishop White's pamphlet, and to make some reflections upon the whole. be distinguished from a “ true Presbyterian?" Happily the character of a "true Episcopalian" 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 only one which Christ prescribed in his word." How then can Episcopal government be the most ancient and eligible ? Ed. † But may not the Bishop, in addition to this power of presiding, have possessed the power of ordination, &c.? Does the author of the pamphlet assert, that he had not the exclusive power of ordaining to the Ministry? Ed. The author of Miscellanies here attributes to the author of the pamphlet what is not his opinion but the opinion of certain Dissenters whom he had quoted, (referring to Neal's history as his authority) called the " Smectymnuan Divines!" Ed. At present I shall conclude with an extract from "A Discourse of Religion," by Sir Mathew Hale, Lord Chief Justice of England. "That ecclesiastical government,” says this great and good man, "is necessary for the preservation of religion, is evident to any reasonable and considerate man; and that the Episcopal government constituted in England, is a most excellent form of ecclesias tical government, and exceeds all other forms of ecclesiastical government, 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 consists in this or any other particular form of government. * A man may be a good and excellent Christian under this or any other form of ecclesiastical government; nay, in such places where possibly there is no settled form of ecclesiastical government esta blished. "But if we observe many persons in the world, we shall find some highly devoted to this or that particular form of government, as if all the weight of the Christian religion lay in it; though the wise and sober sort of conformists know and profess this, yet there be some rash people that will presently unchurch all the reformed Churches beyond the seas which are not under Episcopal government. † That if they see a man, otherwise of orthodox principles, of a pious and religious life, yet if scrupling some points of ecclesiastical government, though peaceable, they will esteem him little better than a heathen or publican, a schismatic, heretic, and what not: on the other side, if they see a man of great fervour in asserting the ec clesiastical government, observant of external ceremonies, though otherwise of a loose and dissolute life, yet they will be ready to applaud him with the style of a son of the Church, and, upon that account, overlook the miscarriages of his life, as if the essence and life of Christian religion lay in the bare asserting of the form of ecclesias. Who has ever asserted that " the essence of the Christian religion consists in this or any other particular form of government?" May not Epis. copacy be of divine appointment, and binding upon Christians, without being the essence of religion? 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 inferior to him in talents, learning, and piety, do not unchurch 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 the "judicious HOOKER," who, some anti-Episcopalians would have us believe, gives up the necessity of Episcopacy to a true and perfect Church-let us hear what he says on this point. Speaking of the order of Bishops, he observes, (Eccle. Pol. B. vii. Sec. 5.) "Nor was this order peculiar unto some few Churches, but the whole world universally became subject thereunto; insomuch as they did not account it to be a Church which was not subject unto a Bishop. It was the general received persuasion of the ancient Christian world, that ECCLESIA EST IN EPISCOPO, the outward Being of a Church, consisted in the baving of a Bishop." It is to be presumed that the general received opinion of the ancient Christian world will be considered as of at least as much authority as the opinion of Lord Chief Justice Hale. Ed. tical government."* [Hale's Contemplations, vol. i. p. 448. Edinb. edit.] I have been charged with being "personal" and " vindictive;" but I have written nothing which can be called more personal and severe than this: "Wise and sober sort of conformists;" that is, English Episcopalians. "Some rash people;" such as the author of "A Companion for the Festivals," &c. and his followers. "Unchurch all the reformed Churches which are not under Episcopal government;" just as the Episcopal Priests in this State have done. Bishop White shall be my advocate, and I will have the cause tried before Lord Chief Justice Hale.t Let these remarks fall on those who deserve them. Every true of the Church" will disclaim their justice, and will question their modera tion and charity. No person can be guilty of the gross absurdity of main taining that the observation of "external ceremonies" will atone for a "loose and dissolute life." But does Chief Justice Hale, does the Miscel laneous author mean to assert, that a good life will save a man who neglects those positive institutions which God has established as the means of grace, and ranked among the conditions of salvation? This improper and invidious comparison between the essentials and cir cumstantials of the Church, is often made by the opponents of Episcopacy. Dr. Campbell has urged it in his lectures, and is thus replied to by DAUBENY: "All true religion, it is to be remembered, has its source in Reve lation. To that same source, the essentials, and, for the most part, the circumstantials of religion are to be traced up. Considered in this light, it is our duty to hold them in equal reverence. To make use of the observation of the judicious Butler- As it is one of the peculiar weaknesses of human nature, when, upon a comparison of two things, one is found to be of greater importance than the other, to consider this other as of scarce any importance at all, it is highly necessary that we remind ourselves, how great presumption it is, to make light of any institutions of divine appointment; that our obligations to obey all God's commands whatever, are absolute and indispensable; and that commands merely positive, admitted to be from him, lay us under a moral obligation to obey them; an obligation moral in the strictest and most proper sense!' Butler's Analogy, p. 270.” See Daubeny's Prelim. Dis. to his Discourses on the connection between the Old and New Testament, p. 142, &c. Ed. If Bishop White is to be the advocate of the author of the Miscellanies, he must give up the position which he repeatedly advances, that "there is no pre-eminence of one Minister above another; that all are equals." For Bishop White, in a late sermon before the General Convention, maintains, that the Apostles instituted an order of Ministers, with a supereminent commission; that this commission has been handed down to the present times; and that this is the "originally constituted order." If Lord Chief Justice Hale is to sit in judgment upon the author of Miscellanies, he will be reproved for his assertion, that " Diocesan Episcopacy is corrupt and injurious." [See his Misc. No. 10.] For Lord Chief Justice Hale, in the very extract above quoted by the author of Miscellanies, asserts, "that the Episcopal government, constituted in England, is a most excellent form of government, and exceeds all other forms of ecclesiastical govern ment!" At the tribunal which the author of Miscellanies has himself chosen, he stands condemned. Ed. 1. For the Albany Centinel. MORE QUERIES. IN giving the opinion of Dr. Doddridge on the passage in Acts xiii. 3, respecting the ordination of Paul and Barnabas, why did the "Layman" omit these words of the Doctor, in his paraphrase; "In token of their designation to that extraordinary office?"* Where does the Doctor say that "it was no ordination at all?"† Admitting that "they were not now invested with the apostolic office by these inferior Ministers,” as I think every judicious commentator will admit, yet may not a strong inference be drawn in favour of Presbyterian ordination? Does not the "Layman" himself yield the point, so far as can be expected, when he speaks of this and of the passage in the Epistle to Timothy, as of "doubtful construction?" Does not Bishop Pearce convey the same idea as Dr. Doddridge, when he adds, after the words "whereunto I have called them,' ‚” “that is, for preaching the gospel to the Gentiles ?" When persons are set apart for a particular work, in a particular manner, is it not a fair inference, that they are to be thus set apart for the work of the ministry in general?|| 2. On what authority does a writer, under the signature of "Cyprian," intimate that Epaphroditus was an Apostle ?§ I have The Layman was not guilty of unfair quotation, as this writer insinuates. He quoted the note of Dr. Doddridge on the passage; the words quoted by this writer are in the paraphrase. He could have had no reason for keeping these words out of view, for they only assert, what he maintains, that Paul, Barnabas, &c. did not then receive the ordinary office of the ministry, but were designated to the "extraordinary office" of preaching the Gospel to "several countries of Asia." Ed. Let the candid reader peruse the note of Dr. Doddridge on this passage, which is given entire by the Layman in his 6th No. and then determine whether Dr. Doddridge does not disclaim the idea that this was an ordination to the work of the ministry. Ed. Here we discover the characteristic candour of the author of Miscellanies. The Layman, willing to concede the utmost to the opponents of Episcopacy, states; that "in respect to these passages, the utmost that can be contended for, is that they are disputable passages." And then inquires, "Is it correct or safe to build up a mode of ordination unknown to the Church for 1500 years, and expressly contradicted by the constant exercise of the power of commissioning, by an order of men superior to the Elders of Ephesus, upon two cases of doubtful construction?" And this, to be sure, is yielding the point! What must a cause be that is supported by such pitiful sophistry! Ed. That is, a solemn commendation of those, who are already Ministers, to the grace of God, for the discharge of their ministry in a particular district, is proof of the mode by which they originally received the ministerial commission. Ed. § He intimated it on the authority of St. Jerome, which he supposed would be decisive with those who, on some occasions, are disposed to consider St. Jerome as an oracle; and because Epaphroditus was styled “an Apostle" by St. Paul. On the authority of the primitive writers, Hooker asserts, "they whom we now call Bishops, were usually termed at the first heard of Matthias being "numbered with the eleven Apostles;" and of Paul being "called to be an Apostle;" but I have never found such a commission for Epaphroditus. It is true that in Phil. ii. 25, he is called "humoon apostolon," properly translated your messenger; but I never knew that his being employed as a messenger to carry the churches' alms to Paul entitled him to a rank with Paul himself. If this be so, may not John Leland, who escorted the mammoth cheese to Mr. Jefferson, be also called an Apostle? 3. Do the Episcopal Priests expect to "be heard for their much speaking?" Or do they intend to write a folio as large as Caryl on Job," which would require twice the patience of Job to read? 4. How many Bishops does "Cyprian" think he can muster in the two first centuries, beginning with Timothy and Titus, whom he will fix, the one at Ephesus, and the other at Crete, whether the Apostle Paul will or not? Since he so freely quotes the Fathers now, in his arguments from scripture, what will be left for them to say when he expressly calls upon them? Had he not better confine himself to one thing at a time? 5. Would it not seem that the Church of England, in protesting against the Pope's supremacy, had not protested against his infallibility? Or rather, does it not seem as if she had transferred both to herself? Is not the conduct of certain Episcopalians in this State, in unchurching all who do not belong to their sect, and who do not believe as they believe, as to the order, power, and succession of Bishops, to set themselves up to be both supreme and infallible?* 6. What do Episcopalians mean when they speak of some churches having Presbyterian ordination through necessity ?† Can none of the English Bishops be spared to cross the Tweed into Scot→ land, or to take a tour into foreign countries, to "set in order the things that are wanting?" Were the Presbyters to come to them, would they not perform the same kind office which they performed for Americans? If there be real necessity and not choice, how is it possible then to keep the succession uninterrupted? AN INQUIRER. APOSTLES, and so did carry their very names in whose rooms of spiritual authority they succeeded." Eccl. Pol. B. 7. Sec. 4. Ed. * This writer must again be told, that "certain Episcopalians in this State" set up no claims in regard to the "order, power, and succession of Bishops," which were not avowed by the Church universal for 1500 years, The constant attempts of the author of Miscellanies to involve the Episcopalians in the odium excited against Roman Catholics are equally unfounded and ungenerous. An honest disputant, and above all, a conscientious inquirer after truth, should surely be ashamed of these arts. Ed. + Episcopalians have never made this assertion. They have only contended that the plea of necessity is the only plea, in the opinion of many celebrated advocates of Episcopacy, which can justify a departure from Episcopacy; and that Calvin and others made this plea in the first instance as a justification of their departure from it. Ed. The succession is not interrupted by any particular Church departing from Episcopacy. It could only be interrupted by a total departure from Episcopacy throughout the universal Church. The succession is preserved in the order of Bishops; and as long as any of this order remains, the suc cession is not interrupted. Ed. |