name of Bishop to those who succeeded to the Apostolic office." No argument then can be founded on the promiscuous use of names. This mode of reasoning proves too much, destroying itself by the extent of the consequences which it draws after it. If it deprive the Bishops of their superiority over Presbyters, it equally deprives the Apostles of their superiority over Elders. 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 determined 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 themselves. I should trespass too long on the patience of the reader in going through these cases. Let it suffice to examine the situation of the Church of Ephesus. Of this Church Timothy was the Governor. Both Clergy and Laity were subject to his spiritual jurisdiction. "Against an Elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses." "And I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no strange doctrines." 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 primus inter pares. Very well-Give our Bishop the same power over the other Clergy that was exercised by Timothy, and we shall not contend about a word. Let him be called primus inter pares, or by any other name.

The writer in question ridicules the idea of an uninterrupted succession from the Apostles, calling it a tale which obtains currency only among fanatics. This is strange language to apply to a principle susceptible of the strictest demonstration. All power in the Church is derived from Christ. The Apostles received their commission 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 uninterrupted 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, except 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 Presbyterians as to us. Why then are they so opposed to it? It is, that not a single Presbyter in the world can trace his succession up to the Apostles; while, among Bishops, it is a very common and easy thing. The chronology of the Church has been computed, in the succession of the Bishops, its chief officers; not in that of Presbyters, who are of a subordinate grade: Just as the chronology of a city is computed by the succession of its Mayors; not by that of its Bailiffs. Nothing improper is intended by this comparison. It is purely for the sake of illustration.

C

This writer declaims on the subject of the civil dignities, com nected with the Church of England, and attempts to confound them with Episcopacy. 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. Episcopacy 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 difference 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 dignities constitute no part of the government of the Church. They are a mere adjunct which has existed in particular ages and countries. If the author had been treating on the subject of religious toleration, 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 comprehend.

Popery is brought forward on this occasion. This is a common practice. It is certainly high time that it should cease. The Protestant Episcopal Church is now, and ever has been, the firmest bulwark of the cause of the Reformation. The sacerdotal authority is not impaired by having descended through the Romish Church. If it is, the scriptures are equally 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 introduced, but she pretended not to create a new priesthood any more than new sacraments.

Notwithstanding the length to which this piece has been extended, I cannot help introducing here the testimony of that great man, whom the Presbyterians so highly admire, in favour of Episcopacy. 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 applauded most highly the Episcopal Hierarchy of the Church of England. "If they would give us," says he, "such an Hierarchy, in which the Bishops should so excel as that they did not refuse to be subject to Christ, and to depend upon him as their only head, and refer all to him, then I will confess that they are worthy of all anathemas, if any such shall be found, who will not reverence it, and submit themselves to it with the utmost obedience." Such is the language of Calvin. He appears to have differed very widely in opinion with some of his modern admirers.

I took up my pen in this business with great reluctance; and, if I know my own heart, from a conviction of duty. It appeared to me entirely improper, that a representation which I think so very erroneous, should go forth without correction, to operate on the minds of those who may not have had it in their power to give attention to the subject of ecclesiastical government. I have no disposition to embark in controversy; nor do I believe I shall again come forward in reply to what may possibly be called forth by this address. The mode of communication too I dislike extremely.

I can truly say, that I feel much respect for the gentleman on whose production I have been commenting, and that I wish well to the denomination of Christians of which he is a member. I most sincerely bless my God, however, that he has led me to the Episcopal Church. I love her worship. Her liturgy is most precious to my heart. Of her authority there is no doubt. The Presbyterians in denying it, would destroy themselves; for they derive ultimately from Bishops. This is an all-important consideration. The members of the Episcopal Church are certain that the priesthood, at whose hands they receive the ordinances of the gospel, have a real authority from God. The authority of the priesthood being of divine origin, can be preserved only by adhering to the mode established for its transmission. If that mode be departed from, all authority ceases. We bless God that he has given our Church a priesthood, whose authority is so unquestionable, and we undertake not to judge those who have departed from what we conceive the only mode of conveying the sacerdotal power.

A Layman of the Episcopal Church.

IT

For the Albany Centinel.

MISCELLANIES. No. X.

T may be asked, Do we not read of Bishops? Is it not proper then to have such an order in the Church? It is answered, Presbyterians 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 corrupt and injurious. It is not uncommon for a word, through length of time, to be misapplied and misunderstood. To determine the true meaning in this, and similar cases, we must always resort to the original. The English word charity is now limited in its signification; but in 1 Cor. xiii. it means love, in an extensive sense. The Greek word episkopos occurs five times in the New Testament, and signifies an overseer or inspector. It is translated in four places bishop, which comes from the Saxon word bischof, and in one place Overseer. The words episkopees and episkopountes are also found; the one translated "the office of a bishop," and the other "taking the oversight." If these places be examined, it will be clearly seen that Bishops and Presbyters are not distinct orders; that the same name, office, and work belong to both; and that a Bishop, such as is asserted by the Episcopal Church, receives no countenance. In Titus i. 5-7, the Apostle says, "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest ordain Elders in every city. If any be blameless," &c. "For a Bishop [episkopon] must be blameless," &c. The connection here shows beyond contradiction, that Elders or Presbyters are also Bishops. They are called by the one name and by the other. See also Acts xx. 28. Paul having assembled

the Elders or Presbyters [presbuterous] of the Church at Ephesus, addressed them thus: "Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers" [episkopous]. Take one instance farther in 1 Peter v. 1, 2. "The Elders or Presbyters [presbuterous] which are among you I exhort, who am also an Elder," &c. Here the Apostle Peter, 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 sumpresbuteros, 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 agreeably to our translation in other places, performing the office of Bishops. Peter asserts, that himself was an Elder, and that the Elders were Bishops. The Pope, notwithstanding, in process of time took to himself the title of Vicar of Christ, and there was marshalled a sacred regiment of Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Arch-Deacons, Deacons, &c.t 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 power to the other Clergy, is improper, and is a proof of words being sometimes perverted. No one is entitled to the appellation as the Episcopalians use it. They would discover more understanding, more regard to the sentiments of their fellow Christians, more of the spirit of the Apostles, and more unlimited obedience to the injunctions of their divine Master, did they dismiss such aspiring and uncharitable conduct. Jesus Christ alone is "the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls." Memorable was 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 superior to them? Ed.

Does this author here mean to insinuate that the Bishops date their origin at the time of the Papal usurpation? Ought he not to have known that the most learned opponents of Episcopacy date its origin within forty years of the Apostles?

Ed.

Episcopalians never pretended to rest their cause on the precarious and changeable application of names. They assert, that it appears from the facts and declarations of scripture, that the Apostles communicated their Episcopal power to an order of men distinct from, and superior to those called Presbyters and Elders; and sometimes in reference merely to their overseeing the Church, Bishops. And that to this order the name of Bishop became appropriate after the death of the Apostles.

Ed.

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 upon a Minister of New-York at his installation to the charge of a single congregation? If the miscellaneous author is consistent, he will not fail immediately to chide his brethren for this "aspiring conduct." Ed.

gave a solemn and affectionate charge to his disciples. "Grant," said the mother of Zebedee's children," that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom." She wished her sons to be promoted to places above the rest of the disciples, and to be consecrated Archbishops at least. "But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you."

The Episcopalians not having the semblance of an excuse for their practice from the term Bishop, let us consider next some passages of scripture which they labour to introduce as pleading for them.

Because we read of the ordination of Deacons, of Elders, and of Timothy and Titus being appointed to officiate in certain churches, it has been inferred, that from the beginning there were three distinct orders of Ministers. Let it be observed that the Presbyterians do not deny that there are three orders of officers in the Church; they only deny that there is any divine authority for an order superior to Presbyters or Ministers of the word. A plain distinction is made in 1 Timothy v. 17. between a ruling Elder and one who also teaches.* Timothy and Titus were, no doubt, Bishops; and so is every one who is set apart to the ministry of the gospel. They collected churches, and organized them by ordaining Elders, and those helps, governments 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 Presbytery, as the word is now understood, 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 partition 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 especially 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 distinction 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 application. It is not to the persons who have the charge, but to those who labour in it, οι κοπιώντεσ. And to this exposition as the far more natural, I entirely agree." See Dr. Campbell's Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 178. Ed. † 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 confined to assisting the Minister in ruling the Church. The Deacons 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 those denominations who rejected Episcopacy found it necessary to keep up at least the semblance of the primitive plan.

Ed.