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 first four hundred years, EPISCOPAL in principle and in practice. I trust it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of every unprejudiced reader, that the three orders of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, which are, at this time, the standing officers of the Episcopal Church, were instituted by Christ and his Apostles. I would fain hope also, that from this brief examination of the subject, it has been proved, that the Bishops were invested by the Apostles with supreme authority in the Church as their successors; that they always enjoyed preroga tives peculiar to themselves; that they alone possessed the power 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 hundred years. It is only very lately that they have been called in question. Calvin pleaded necessity for attempting to establish a Church in which the Episcopate formed no part of its organization; and his followers, when that plea will no longer serve to be urged in their justification for continuing their separation from us, are obliged to set themselves to work to fabricate others. Hence all the opposition that has been made to Episcopacy.

The same principles and the same discipline which prevailed in the primitive Church, prevailed also in the CHURCH OF ENGLAND at the time of the Reformation. This will not be denied by any one who is acquainted with the history of those times. We are prepared to show, by indubitable proof, that the sentiments of most of our Reformers were decidedly Episcopal. We are prepared to show that they maintained the divine right of Bishops. BANCROFT was by no means, as is boldly asserted by the author of "Miscellanies," the first who broached these opinions. The same opinions were entertained by CRANMER, by HOOPER, by PARKER, by BILSON, by WHITGIFT, and many others. It is not to be wondered 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 Christianity. But as soon as they had settled themselves permanently in those great principles upon which the Reformation was founded, these Episcopal opinions, we maintain, were connected with them. We assert, with perfect confidence that we shall not be contra→ dicted, that at the period of the Reformation, and at every succeeding 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 States, these sound principles have found amongst her sons also, able and successful champions. A SEABURY, a CHANDLER, a BOWDEN, and a MOORE, have zealously come forward in their defence-have attracted to themselves signal honour, whilst they were ministering the most important service to their Church. The judicious and amiable Prelate of Pennsylvania, although at a very critical and hazardous season, he was willing to relax somewhat from the rigor of his principles, and by

Z

a temporary departure from them, make an effort to save his Church from the ruin that seemed to threaten her-yet, let it be remembered that he has never abandoned these principles. He still adheres to them. These principles and no others are maintained by the author of the "Companion for the Altar;" an author who, in this early effort, has afforded his Church a flattering presage of his future activity and usefulness in her service, and whose talents and virtues no one who has the happiness of being acquainted with him will hesitate to acknowledge. Had the "Miscellaneous writer," instead of venting his resentment against the "Companion for the Altar," and the "Companion for the Festivals and Fasts," gone to the Epistles of Ignatius and the writings of the primitive Fathers, he would have found more abundant fuel to support the flame of his indignation and to enkindle the prejudices and passions of his readers. He might have drawn from them a much more hideous picture of what he estimates as uncharitableness, bigotry, and intolerance.

The principles of Episcopalians, then, those principles that distinguish them from all other denominations of Christians, are simply the following. They maintain that the three orders of Minis ters, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, are of divine appointment. They maintain that the order of Bishops, the only lawful successors of the Apostles, have alone, through all ages, been invested with the power of transmitting the sacerdotal authority. They maintain that no ministrations in holy things are valid unless they are performed by those who have received their commission from them. In other words, the order of Bishops is the only channel through which the power to perform sacerdotal functions can be 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 feelings, and at variance with the opinions of other denominations of Christians. This is a circumstance which, we allow, is much to be lamented, but really it is an evil which we cannot remedy. 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 Philosophers 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 counsel of God. We wish not to obtrude our sentiments upon the atten

tion of those to whom they are obnoxious. We pretend not to hurl anathemas against the heads of those who differ from us in sentiment. We must, however, be indulged both in believing and in teaching what we estimate as the whole truth delivered to us by ! revelation from God. In requiring this, we exact from others only the same privilege which, in our turn, we are willing to yield them. Are not they permitted to hold the distinguishing tenets of their churches without molestation from us? Do we attempt to interfere with the doctrines they inculcate, with the principles they espouse? Is not the doctrine of 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 uncharitable in themselves-if there are any doctrines that would excite my zeal to extirpate them from the Church of Christ, they are the doctrines of election and reprobation as taught in the institutes of Calvin. Yet other men differ from me in opinion on these points. I am willing they should do so. Our difference of opinion need not diminish our charity for each other.

Such is the Episcopal Church at this time-such would she always be in this country-such has she ever been in every country. She has always been the mildest, the most tolerant and charitable in her spirit of any Church in Christendom. Let it not be imagined that because Episcopalians believe their own Church the only true one, on this account, they entertain uncharitable sentiments of their brethren of other denominations. They utterly disclaim all such unchristian 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 haven where we would be. We would entreat them, however, we would call loudly upon them to examine diligently the interesting subject of Church government. It is a most important and fundamental one. It is of the utmost importance to us all that we should be in the true Church, in the Church which was founded by Christ and his Apostles. In no other place can we obtain a title to the covenanted mercy of God. In the Episcopal Church we are assured that we are in perfect security. Her enemies themselves cannot deny that her doctrines are pure, her ministrations valid. Every other path but that which leads through her, is, to say the least of it, extremely perilous. Those who are in involuntary or unavoidable ignorance on this topic, no doubt,, will be excused by God. But let it be remembered, that the same indulgence cannot be supposed to be extended to those who, when they have been admitted to the light, have wilfully and obstinately closed their eyes against it.

I have now done; I leave what has been said to the consideration of our readers. If any of them, after an impartial examination of the subject, have come to a different conclusion from myself, I have no disposition to disturb them in the enjoyment of their opinion. It is to be hoped that nothing which has been advanced in this controversy, will beget any uncharitable sentiments in the breasts of the members of different denominations of Christians, either in this place or in any other place to which these papers may have extended. I hope we shall still continue as hitherto, to love cach other like brethren.

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 the highest respect and esteem. In all that I have ad, vanced in this discussion, I have scrupulously endeavoured to avoid wounding their feelings or those of their people, If I have failed in doing so, I beg them to excuse it. It has originated, if it exists, in zeal for the support of what I have been wont to estimate as truth, and not in a want of respect or affection for them. For the author of "Miscellanies" I profess to entertain similar senti, ments. I blame him for his mode of attacking the Episcopal Church. Let him assail us with arguments without any mixture of abuse, and we will hear him patiently. Nevertheless, as he also may be supposed to have felt a laudable zeal in a cause which he thought defensible, and as I am willing to extend to others the same 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 good wishes he has bestowed upon his opponents, I could most heartily wish him a good Episcopalian.

CYPRIAN.

For the Albany Centinel.

VINDEX. No. I.

To the Editors of the Albany Centinel.
GENTLEMEN,

IN the following letter, which I request you to insert in your paper,

may be 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 over the Episcopal Church in Pennsylvania. In this point of view, the letter may be considered as an important document, illustrating the meaning and tendency of the pamphlet in question. It obviously suggests the following remarks.

The author of the Miscellanies has represented Bishop White (whom he states is the author of the pamphlet) as regarding the Episcopal succession as a thing unnecessary, 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 approbation of Episcopacy, and a determination to procure the succession as soon as convenient. He only justified a temporary dispensation with the succession on the plea of necessity-a plea, which it is presumed will justify a dispensation with the sacraments of the Church, which are to be considered as necessary to salvation only “when they can be had.”

The author of the Miscellanies has also attempted to enlist Bishop White, in the same ranks with himself, as the advocate of Presbytery. The following letter expressly denies that any reasoning friendly to the cause of Presbytery appears in the pamphlet.

But the most important part of the subsequent communication, is a correction of several misrepresentations, in the numbers of the Miscellanies, of the sentiments of Bishop White (considered as the author of the pamphlet) relative to Episcopacy. The pamphlet professed to give a representation of the opinion in favour of Episcopacy. And this representation of the Episcopalian opinion, the following letter states “ought, in reason, to be understood as the author's own." Now, according to this opinion, the Episcopal power was lodged by Jesus Christ with his Apostles, and by them communicated to the superior order of the ministry now called Bi shops. Let the reader peruse the following letter and the extract from the pamphlet subjoined, and then judge whether the author of Miscellanies will be justified in considering a person who places Episcopacy on such a ground as hostile to its divine claims. The Miscellaneous author indeed, imputes to Bishop White, whom he considers as the author of the pamphlet, what is stated there as the opinion of the opponents of Episcopacy; who "conceived" it to be an "innovation," which took place, according to certain Divines quoted in Neal'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, which the pamphlet states to be impro bable, as the sentiment of its author! But let the reader peruse the letter and the subjoined extract, and judge for himself.

It was not the object of the pamphlet to exhibit a defence of Episcopacy. 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 had in view, the uniting of all descriptions of Church people, in a plan to preserve their Church till the succession could be obtained.

On the whole, it appears, that if Bishop White is to be considered as the author of the pamphlet, no imputation of being hostile to the claims of Episcopacy can be justly charged on him. In the tract ascribed to him, under the representation of the Episcopalian opinion, he maintained as his own, that the Bishops derived their Episcopal power from the Apostles, in whom it was lodged by Jesus Christ. He only pleaded for a temporary departure from Episcopacy, on the ground of necessity. The Episcopal succession was to be obtained as speedily as possible.

In conformity with these opinions, Bishop White was one of the most active and zealous in the measures that were pursued to obtain the succession. He left his family, his friends, and his country, and exposed himself, at a late period of life, to the dangers of a voyage across the Atlantic, to obtain for his Church that succession which was necessary to constitute her an Apostolic Church. His attachment to the truly primitive institutions of his Church is well