Presbyterian Minister. In conjunction with the Elders he admits to communion, inflicts censures, and manages the spiritual concerns of that church of which he has the oversight; he forms new congregations, and organizes them in places which have never enjoyed the ordinances of the gospel; he is an equal with the other Ministers, and so far from being "a Lord in God's heritage," he is subject 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 though he pretends not to be a successor of the Apostles, who were extraordinary officers, qualified and appointed to establish the Church; yet his office is divine, instituted by the Apostles, who knew the mind of the great Head and Lawgiver. The consideration of some other passages of scripture must be deferred until a future number.

POSTSCRIPT TO MISCELLANIES No. XI.

Which was on political topics.

THE writer who has attacked me on the subject of Church Go

re

vernment, will see that I still act according to the title of "Miscellanies." He professes to "have long known me, and to have long felt for me sincere respect and esteem." I have not the happiness to know him; but nothing appears, at present, why the " 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 proper to complain of "the uncharitable manner" in which I have attacked his Church. Has he read two late publications; the one entitled, "A Companion for the Festivals and Fasts," &c. and the other "A Companion for the Altar," &c? Does he know that the Bishop of the Episcopal Church in this State acts upon these principles? That he holds no ordination, and no administration of ordinances to be valid, but those of the Episcopal Church? If he is acquainted with these things, the charge against me of uncharitableness 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 exceedingly averse to quoting this text accurately. It is, "with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.' Ed. † How can he derive his commission from Christ, if, according to this writer, there is no succession of persons appointed to convey this commission from the Apostles, on whom it was conferred by Jesus Christ? Ed.

This author here very properly 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 office is divine, because instituted by the Apostles, who knew the mind of the great Head and Lawgiver." Let this be remembered. Ed.

I am astonished at his assertions, that "the dissenters from Epis copacy bear no sort of proportion to those who adhere to it"-that 66 now, the whole Christian world is Episcopal, except a few dissenters, who, within two or three hundred years, have arisen in the western Church”—that if "the Roman Catholics be struck entirely out of the calculation, the advocates of parity constitute but a very trifling proportion of the remaining part of the Christian world." I deny the facts, and shall show hereafter that they do not exist.*

As to my using by instead of with, I am not conscious of any "unfairness." It is not included in the quotations, and I laid no weight upon it. When the ordination of Timothy is discussed, it will, indeed, appear that WITH is an important word. Both it and BY will be allowed their due force; and I trust that it will be evident that Timothy was not ordained after the Episcopal, but after the Presbyterian mode. If the writer will only patiently indulge me in my miscellaneous course, I promise him all proper attention.

IA

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 religious controversies is always dangerous, is seldom if ever productive of any good.† On all points connected with religion, especially on so important and fundamental a one as that of Church Go vernment, the feelings of men are peculiarly delicate. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to avoid, in the discussion of them, wounding the feelings of some. This writer himself (whose good sense and ingenuity I do not hesitate to acknowledge) affords us an additional proof of the correctness of this observation. Although he commences his strictures with the fairest promises, and, no doubt, with the most sincere desire, to preserve the "unity

* This promise has never been performed.

Ed.

† 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 imperfection of human nature, appears unavoidable. Evils no doubt attend it; and yet these will generally be counterbalanced by the advantages that result from it. Experience proves, that at those periods, and in those places where religion is made a subject of discussion, its truths are more generally disseminated and understood. Where a spirit of false liberality places all opinions upon a level, and reprobates the divine injunction of "contending earnestly for the faith," there it has always been found that the essential characteristics 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 which called forth his pen. Ed.

of the spirit in the bond of peace," yet his warmest friends must 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 candour. His disingenuousness and illiberality have been already amply exposed in the answer he has received from a judicious layman: And I must be permitted to remark, that however deep may be the sentiments of respect and good will which I entertain for this gentleman, I find some difficulty in excusing him for the liberties he hath taken with the principles of that denomination of Christians to which I profess myself to belong. How shall I excuse him for bestowing upon Episcopalians the opprobrious epithets of prejudiced, of bigotted, of superstitious? These are hard names. They merit the severest reprehension. An attack so violent upon a large and respectable denomination of Christians, when unprovoked* too, can by no considerations be justified or palliated. Yes, if to hold in endearing estimation the memory of our blessed Saviour and all those words of eternal truth he hath delivered to us—if to pay an inviolable regard to all his sacred institutions be prejudice, be bigotry, be superstition-then do Episcopalians merit these opprobrious epithets. 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 prejudice, be bigotry, be superstition, then Episcopalians claim these reproachful epithets. If to adhere to Episcopacy be prejudice, be bigotry, be superstition, then is Christianity a venerable error, a system of bigotry, a prejudice, a superstition.

But this writer asserts that "the Classical or Presbyterial form of Church 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 adversary to contend with, he would soon find himself obliged to retreat with precipitation. Methinks he had better chosen at once, as

* I say this attack is unprovoked-for although I have read the publications to which this gentleman alludes when he endeavours to justify himself, yet I am by no means of opinion that they exculpate him for having 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 remember, that the Companion for the Altar, and the Companion for the Festivals 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 we are tolerated, this privilege will not be denied As to the Bishop of this State, I know him to be warmly attached to the principles of his Church, and always competent to the task of defending

them.

some of the ablest champions of his cause have done, a more limited and a more tenable situation. Instead of rushing thus impe tuously into the field, he had better retired at once into the citadel. Should he and his adherents meet with a defeat in the open field of argument, they may possibly find themselves too much weakened and exhausted to defend, at last, the citadel itself.

Of the last part of this proposition, as proceeding from that gentleman, I confess I do not know what opinion to entertain. Can it be the deliberate intention of this writer, by representing the Episcopal form of Church Government as hostile to the civil institutions of this country, to excite an illiberal, an uncharitable, and an unfounded prejudice against her? And who could have anticipated an insinuation of this kind from the writer of a preceding number on the subject of Demagogues-a writer who had given to the malignant some colour for suspecting that he does not entertain sentiments of very high admiration for a form of civil government which gives so loose a rein to these turbulent and mischievous members of society? I candidly confess that this is a part of his production which I do not comprehend. I will not ascribe to him unworthy motives-I am sure he is above them. Episcopalians feel an attachment as sincere and ardent as the rest of their fellow-citizens to the political 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 country. They would use any exertions 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 sufficiently durable. They fear that it will fall into too speedy decay and dissolution. All that they exact of their rulers is, to impart to it in their administration, that stability and energy, which are essen→ tial to the promulgation of its existence, which are essential to the happiness and prosperity of the nation. All that they would warn them against, is, any attempt at touching with a rude and sacrilegious hand, that sacred instrument, our constitution, the palladium 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 this writer's observations, that the Presbyterial form of Church Government is more conformable than our own to our institutions of civil government.

In fact, what incongruity can subsist between the Episcopal form of Church Government and our institutions of civil polity? Is there not, on the contrary, a striking analogy between them? Does not the elevation of the order of Bishops to supreme 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 power of com- . missioning subordinate officers to aid them in the administration of government? And with what powers of any importance are our Bis D

shops entrusted, but the power of commissioning subordinate officers of the Church? They can obtain no undue influence over their Pres byters, their Deacons, or their people. They can establish no spiritual 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 popular an artifice made use of by our enemies, to endeavour to cre ate a prejudice amongst Protestants against the Episcopal Church, by connecting her cause with that of Roman Catholics, by representing her as allied in her structure to the Church of Rome. What artifice could be more unfair, more illiberal, more unwarrantable? Upon Episcopacy, it is true, that pure, and simple, and primitive form of Church Government was constructed, in process of time, the gigantic, the gloomy, and tremendous despotism of the Pope. But what has this form of government, organized by Christ and his Apostles, to do with the corruptions of the Church of Rome? Shall the Episcopal authority be thought to have been impaired by that immense pile of extraneous matter which was heaped upon it during the dark ages? Shall Christianity be made accountable for those enormities that, at different periods of the world, have been perpetrated under her hallowed name? Shall she be made to answer for that blood with which her misguided sons have stained her sacred standard? Shall the constitution of England be thought accountable for those usurpations of authority that were witnessed during the reigns of her arbitrary princes? Neither should we feel ourselves justified in abolishing those authorities Christ has constituted in his Church, because at some periods they have been instrumental to evil purposes. As well might we overturn all civil government, because sometimes it has been known to degenerate into tyranny. No, Episcopacy, pure as the sacred fountain from which it flows, has never been contaminated by any admixtures with the impurities of papal Rome. And what have the dignities and emolu ments which, in some countries, where an alliance between Church and State is estimated as sound policy, are connected to the Bishop's office, to do with his ecclesiastical pre-eminence? These are only the habiliments with which Episcopacy is cloathed they are by no means essentially connected with it. Episcopacy, as the judicious “Layman” has remarked, is the same in this country and in England. It is the same throughout Christendom. It was the same during the time of the Apostles and their immediate successors, as it was during the most splendid eras of papal power, when the pretended Vicar of Christ extended his sceptre over the world. It was the same during those gloomy seasons in which the Church, like her blessed Head and Founder in Gethsemane was made to