stronger in favour of Popery than of Episcopacy. During the far greater 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 he be taken out of the way. And then shall that wicked be revealed." Popery appeared early, 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 ourselves to work to fabricate others." Hence, says he, "all the opposition that has been made to Episcopacy." This is a notable reason for opposition. Relieved from one necessity, we are under another necessity to find reasons for our conduct; and not finding any ready made, we fabricate them. How modest and charitable! I see no necessity in the case, but the preservation of a good conscience; nor do I believe that the non-conformists, the dissenters 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 sufficient incomes to support their dignities. Surely here was no apparent necessity to refuse a compliance, had there not been a secret monitor within to forbid them. I suppose that Cyprian means by Episcopacy being called in question "very lately," at the Reformation. He should have remembered, that there was no opportunity of effectually opposing it *These are sweeping assertions indeed! They would deprive the Christian Church of that powerful support which her fundamental doctrines derive from their having been universally received by the great body of Christians in all ages. Many learned Divines have bestowed no small labour to prove that the Christians of the early ages were universally Trinitarians. But, according to the author of Miscellanies, they bestowed their talents and learning to a purpose worse than in vain; for the proof of the fact, for which 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 Popery appeared in the apostolic age! Shameful is the sophistry by which the author of Miscellanies endeavours to evade the force of the argument in favour of Episcopacy, founded on its universal reception in all ages of the Church. If he mean to assert that the errors of Popery generally prevailed in the Church in the first ages, he admits what is contradicted by the records of those ages, and what no Protestant ever before admitted. If his meaning merely is that some of the errors of Popery made their appearance in the early ages, but did not generally pervade the Church for several centuries, the parallel he attempts to run between Popery and Episcopacy will totally fail: for Episcopacy was received in the Church--semper, ubique, et ab omnibus, at all times, in all places, and by all Christians. Episcopacy thus possesses what the Church has always justly deemed a certain evidence of apostolic institution. Ed. until that time.* He proceeds to say, "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." 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 immediately after their decease, I utterly deny it. Episcopacy in England 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.t Bishop White has given the true origin of Bishops in the Episcopal 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 Prest byters choosing one from among themselves to be a stated President in their assemblies, in the second or third century." Expe rience shows 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 wonder that the presiding Presbyters would soon claim to be a distinct 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 address until the next paper. * What! Before the lapse of three centuries, every fundamental doctrine 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 lawless 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 reception 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 inconsiderately espoused!" Ed. †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 Apostles." BOCHART acknowledges that it prevailed "paulo post Apostolos," "a little time after the Apostles." And BLONDEL, another learned opponent of Episcopacy, acknowledges that it universally prevailed about forty years after the apostolic age. Ed. Admitting this statement, it does not follow that the Bishop did not possess the exclusive power of ordination. Ed. 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 happen that this "claim" was not resisted; that we find no record of this fundamental change from Presbytery to Episcopacy in the primitive historians? Ed. ΙΑ For the Albany Centinel. By the Author of "MISCELLANIES." No. II. AM diverted from my remarks on 66 Cyprian" by a late publication 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 been made in proper connection, no answer from me would be necessary; but as the matter stands, it requires immediate notice. It is asserted by "Vindex," that I have "represented Bishop White as regarding the Episcopal succession as a thing unnecessary, or of little consequence;" that I have "attempted to enlist him as the advocate of Presbyter;" 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 dẹparture 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 ceremony," when compared with the administration of divine ordinances-" a disputed point, and that relating only to externals”— a matter of external order." He fully and plainly gives up the notion of divine right and uninterrupted succession. Can any thing be more express than the following paragraph, which I quoted before? "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 respect they have in their favour unquestionably the sense of the Church of England, and, as 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 White 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 different the sentiments of the author of " A Companion for the Festivals," &c. quoted likewise before. He declares, that "it is necessary that the Episcopal succession, from the days of the Apostles, should be uninterrupted"-that "its interruption seems in * Did not the author of Miscellanies, in his twentieth number, expressly assert concerning Bishop White, that "no Presbyterian could argue more to the purpose?" Ed. deed, morally impossible"-that "if Presbyters, or Deacons, or Laymen, should assume the power of ordination, the authority of the persons ordained by them would rest on human institution, and therefore in the Church, where a divine commission is necessary to the exercise of the ministry, their acts would be nugatory and invalid;" yea, << that we can no more lay aside Episcopacy, and yet continue the Christian Priesthood, than we can alter the terms of salvation, 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 proposed 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 s f 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," &c. has said about divine right, and the necessity of uninterrupted succession.t 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 to preserve a Church by de 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 Church. It is acknowledged that the view of the Bishop was "to preserve their Church," 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 succession, and yet ❝ its interruption seems morally impossible!"} * The author of "A Companion for the Festivals" had no reference, in the above remarks, to those cases of necessity, in which some Episcopalians think that Presbyterian ordination may be admitted. Ed. † Ordinances 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. Ed. These were maintained as general propositions. No reference was had to cases of necessity, which do not fall under general rules. Ed. The author of Miscellanies affords room here to apply to him the charges of ignorance or disingenuousness. He ought to have known that, on the principles of Episcopalians, the Succession which is preserved in the order of Bishops, is not interrupted by any particular Church throwing off this succession. The Succession still remains in the Bishops of other churches; Into what vagaries and absurdities will men sometimes run to maintain 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 Episcopalian, and I a Presbyterian; but, I hope, in mutual good humour, and with mutual good wishes. For the Albany Centinel. By the Author of " MISCELLANIES." No. III. TO" AN EPISCOPALIAN.” THOUGH my remarks on " Vindex," published in the last Cen tinel, might suffice as an answer to your letter, yet I think it my duty to give you a particular and respectful attention. "Vindex" says that your "letter may be considered as an important document, illustrating the meaning and tendency of the pamphlet in question." Why it should be considered more important than what has hitherto appeared, 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 commentary 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 ignorant of them, how disingenuous is his attempt to fix the imputation of absurdity and inconsistency on the author of the "Companion for the Festivals and Fasts!" Ed 199 *No indeed; because even in the pamphlet the author maintained that Jesus Christ lodged an Episcopal power with his Apostles, which was by them communicated to the superior order of the ministry, called Bishops. See the opinion of the author of this pamphlet, at p. 177 of this collection. Ed. |