sweat blood under the agony inflicted on her by the fury of her persecutors, and during her triumphant progress through the Roman empire, under the auspices of Constantine, sheltered by the sword of civil and military power. Episcopacy has been the same through all ages, in every nation. The Reformers of the Episcopal Church did not think proper to reject the whole of Christianity, because it was found blended with unnumbered superstitions in the Church of Rome. They did not renounce the Sacrament because the monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation was grafted on it. They did not reject the inspiration of the scriptures, because the mischievous belief of the Pope's infallibility had arisen out of it. Neither did they think proper to renounce Episcopacy because it had been the ladder by which the Bishop of Rome ascended the throne of Papal dominion. They carefully separated the fundamentals of Christianity which were always contained in the Church of Rome from those additions which had been made to them by the hands of men. They endeavoured to re-organize the Church of Christ upon the primitive model. They endeavoured to restore her to her primitive simplicity and beauty. And with triumph we avow that they have been successful in the efforts which they made. They have restored to us in the Episcopal, the Church of Christ in her primitive organization, in her primitive simplicity and beauty. Shall we then still be accused of being too much assimilated in our structure to the Roman Catholic Church, of having imbibed too much of her spirit and temperament?

Shall that Church which at every period has made the most bold and successful stand against the assaults of Papal power; that Church, which, in every age of her existence, has nourished and matured in her bosom, as her pride and ornament, those sons that have proved the ablest champions of the Reformation? Shall she be accused of having imbibed the corruptions of the Church of Rome? What! shall that Church which has passed through the furnace enkindled by the breath of persecuting Rome, be accused of retaining her corruptions, her impurities? Shall not the blood of Cranmer, of Ridley, of Latimer, her illustrious Reformers, wash her from the stain of so unjust and foul an imputation? But on these preliminary points of this writer I have done. Perhaps I have already said more than is necessary. I was afraid that some improper impressions might be made on the public mind by his piece, and I have undertaken to remove them.

CYPRIAN.

I

For the Albany Centinel.

MISCELLANIES. No. XII,

CONSIDER these strictures on Church Government as no more than necessary self-defence. If any thing appears like an attack upon Episcopacy, and if its friends are alarmed lest its strong holds be demolished or taken, the war on my part is stil! purely defensive, and the laws of nations justify my conduct. They

are to blame who gave wanton provocation,* by setting up their own Church as the only true one upon earth, and attempting to batter down all others. Could not the Episcopalians be contented with framing a constitution according to their own mind, and peaceably enjoying it, without insulting other denominations, treating them as if they were "aliens from the commonwealth of Isreal," and assuming airs of dignity and superiority?† Who was calling in question the validity of their administration of ordinances? Why not allow others the same privilege which they have taken to themselves? Is it not wonderful that they reckon all out of the Episcopal Church no better than Heathen men and Publicans, and call this charity; and then brand all who resist their pretensions, with uncharitableness? Be it known, that if the fortress of Episcopacy be stormed; if mitres strew the ground, and if their affrighted votaries fly in confusion and dismay, the evil has been of their own seeking. As soon as they will cease to annoy their neighbours, and will mind their own business, the sword which is drawn in self-defence, will return to its scabbard.

To show that my strictures are not unprovoked and useless, I might have sooner referred the reader particularly to two publications made, during the last year, by a Minister in the communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church. The one is entitled, " A Com❤ panion for the Festivals and Fasts," &c. the other " A Companion for the Altar," &c. The writer asserts, that those who officiate, not being Episcopally ordained, are guilty of "sacrilege"-that Bishops แ succeeded to the Apostolic office," and that this succession is "uninterrupted"-that Bishops" are at the head of the Church," and that "through them ministerial authority is convey ed"—that “without power derived from him, (the Bishop) it is not

* This "wanton provocation" was an attempt to explain, in books de. signed for Episcopalians, the principles of their Church, and to point out to them the danger of leaving it!

Ed.

†The Episcopalians have "framed a constitution," and wish "peacea bly to enjoy it." But they are not to be allowed to explain and defend this constitution from scripture and primitive writers! This would be "insulting other denominations!"

Ed.

When have they denied to other denominations the privilege of adopt ing whatever mode of church government they may deem proper? When have they denied to other denominations the privilege of defending and inculcating their own principles, and opposing those opinions they may deem erroneous? No, it is the author of Miscellanies who would deny this pri vilege to Episcopalians; thus verifying the maxim, that those who inveigh most bitterly against bigotry, are themselves often the most bigotted.

Ed.

The titles of these books are here more fully inserted, in order that the reader may see they were intended only for the use of Episcopalians. "A Companion for the Festivals and Fasts of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, &c. By John Henry Hobart, A. M. an assistant Minister of Trinity Church, New-York."-" A Companion for the Altar; consisting of a short explanation of the Lord's Supper, and Meditations and Prayers proper to be used before and during the receiving of the Holy Communion according to the form prescribed by the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. By John Henry Hobart, A. M. an assistant Minister of Trinity Church, New-York."

Ed.

lawful to perform any ecclesiastical act"that" in the primitive age every Bishop was the head of a diocese consisting of several separate congregations"-that "should Presbyters assume the power of or dination, the authority of the persons ordained by them would rest on human institution, and their acts would be nugatory and invalid" that "Bishops were successors to the Apostles," and that “it is only through a succession of Bishops as distinct from, and superior to Presbyters, that authority to exercise the ministry can be derived from the divine Head of the Church"-that "the unity of the Church is violated when any presbyter separates from the communion of his Bishop, and sets up an independent government in the Church, and when the people separate themselves from the communion of their duly authorized Ministers, and from the government of the Church"-that this is "schism," and "answers to the sin of Korah"-that "sacraments not administered by the Bishop [of the Episcopal Church] or those commissioned by him, were not only ineffectual to the parties, but moreover, like the offerings of Korah, provocations against the Lord"-that "Presbyters ought not to baptise without the Bishop's allowance"-that "none but Bishops [of the Episcopal Church] have authority to ordain Ministers in the Church, and none but those who are ordained by them can be truly said to have a divine commission, or any authority to minister in the Christian Church"-that "the merits and grace of the Redeemer are applied to the soul of the believer in devout and humble participation of the ordinances of the Church, administered by a priesthood [the Episcopal] who derive their authority by regular transmission from Christ" that it is "essential to the efficacy of the Lord's Supper to be administered by those [the Episcopal Priests] who have received lawful authority to administer it"-that not to maintain the necessity of Episcopal ordination is to "present salvation to men stripped of those conditions on which alone it is attainable"-that" every dispensation of divine grace has been confined to a part only of mankind"-that "the visible Church of Christ is known by adhering to the government of the Church, by Bishops, Priests, and Deacons"-that it is " the sacred duty of all Christians to preserve the unity of the Church, by continuing in the Church [Episcopal] if by God's grace it is our happy lot to be already in it; or by coming into it, if it be our misfortune hitherto to have kept ourselves out of it."-Here let the reader take breath, and compose himself*

I

• The candid reader will be cautious of forming his opinion concerning these books from the above disjoined and mutilated extracts. The Layman, who in his third and fourth numbers ably defends these works, very justly observes concerning these extracts-"Deductions are separated from their premises, opinions from their proofs, and consequences from their quali fications." How could the author of Miscellanies reconcile it with candour, with truth, with Christian justice, to withhold the important remark with which the author of the obnoxious works qualifies the opinions there advanced; that God will extend "mercy to all who labour under unavoidable ignorance or involuntary error ?"—And surely error, which is the result of honest conviction, and not of wilful prejudice, or of a neglect to search for the truth, is involuntary and excusable.

In the works in question, the author endeavours to prove from scripture,

could give many more quotations, and refer to the page; but it is unnecessary. Let any one only open "A Companion for the Festi

that Christ commissioned his Apostles to institute the Priesthood of the Church; that they instituted three orders, and gave the power of ordination exclusively to the first; that to these orders the apostolic injunctions of obedience to those who have the spiritual rule over us apply; and that by communion with them we must maintain the unity of the Church. These opinions, he endeavours to prove, are sanctioned by the concurring testimony of all the primitive fathers; and it is solemnly averred that all the obnoxious expressions in those books have this sanction. Ignatius, a venerable martyr to the faith, was the disciple of the beloved Apostle St. John. And what stronger language can be used than that used by this holy Father in his epistle to the Smyrneans. "He that honours the Bishop shall be honoured of God; but he that does any thing without his knowledge, ministers unto the devil." This quotation is taken from the genuine epistles of Ignatius; acknowledged as genuine by the generality of learned men, many of them (among whom the celebrated Dr. Lardner, author of the Credibility of the Gospel History, ranks) not Episcopalians. Many other quotations equally strong might be adduced from the epistles of Ignatius, and the writings of the Fathers.

Several of theobnoxious expressions also are quotations from the writings of some of the most pious and learned divines of the Church of England. The sentiments concerning episcopacy there advanced are supported, among many others, by the venerable names of Bishop Andrews, Bishop Sanderson, Bishop Hall, Bishop Taylor, Archbishop Potter, of Hooker, of Hammond, of Leslie; and in more modern times, of Bishop Horne, Jones of Nayland, of the profoundly learned Horsely, of Daubeny, the able defender of primitive faith and order.

The piety and learning of Bishop Beveridge are universally acknowledg ed. His works are held in high estimation by the pious of all denominations. Let the following quotation from his sermon, entitled, Christ's Presence with his Ministers, be seriously perused. "And as for schism, they certainly hazard their salvation at a strange rate, who separate themselves from such a Church as ours is, wherein the apostolical succession, the root of all Christian communion, hath been so entirely preserved, and the word and sacraments are so effectually administered; and all to go into such assemblies and meetings as have no pretence to the great promise in my text, Lo I am with you alway,' &c. For it is manifest that this promise was made only to the apostles and their successors to the end of the world. Whereas, in the private meetings, where their teachers have no apostolical or episcopal imposition of bands, they have no ground to pretend to succeed the Apostles, nor by consequence any right to the spirit which our Lord here promis

eth."

Will the author of Miscellanies rank the pious Bishop Beveridge, and the other venerable divines above mentioned, among the "fanatics" who hold to the uninterrupted line of succession from the Apostles; among the intolerant bigots who maintain the divine institution of Episcopacy? If the author of "the Companion for the Altar" and for "the Festivals and Fasts" is to be considered as a fanatic, a narrow and intolerant bigot, it ought to be known that he stands in company whom indeed he resembles only in holding the same opinions, but with whom any divine, however superior. his talents, his learning, or his piety, might be proud to be ranked.

"The divine right of episcopacy" (to use the language of a Layman of the Church of England who wrote in the last century) "is plain from scripture, and was never called in question by any considerable number of

vals," &c. and read under the head of " Preliminary instructions concerning the Church," and he will be at no loss about pages. He should read the whole, in order to understand what Episcopacy would-be in this country. In "A Companion for the Altar," &c. I would recommend a perusal of the extraordinary meditation for the "Saturday evening" immediately preceding the communion; not indeed by way of preparation for that solemn business; for I think that he ought to have other things in his head and heart, than what he will find there discussed.* A long quotation from it shall appear hereafter.-At present, I shall conclude with a few short

remarks.

1. The sentiments quoted would be unfairly charged to Episcopalians, were they not advanced by one who is an assistant to his Bishop in the same congregation. Would he have published them without the advice, direction, or countenance of his Bishop? Has he received any censure? Nay, the Bishop has confirmed every sentiment by his own practice. He has re-ordained and even rebaptised. At the same time, I verily believe, that Episcopalians, in general, do not avow these principles, and that they are not aware of their being so diligently and solemnly propagated.f

men till within these last two hundred years: and must we now lay it aside, for fear of opposing new upstart notions and opinions? God forbid! Must our holding fast the sound doctrine of Christ and his Apostles be called uncharitable and unkind, because it does not suit with the temper and disposition of other people? Cannot we still keep our charity for them by be lieving that God will dispense with the very want of the Christian sacraments, and bestow even the supernatural graces of them, to those who labour under invincible ignorance or involuntary error,' or else under an impossibility of receiving those sacraments, when they do all that lies in their power to fulfil his blessed will? Certainly we may; for God can dispense with his own institutes, and give the spiritual graces annexed to them to whom he pleases." (Laurence on Lay Baptism.)

Ed.

*The author of Miscellanies thinks that all inquiries concerning the authority of those who are to administer the holy communion are unnecessary and improper. Let the reader attend to the following extract from "the Christian Sacrifice," a work designed as a preparation for the Holy Communion, and written by the pious NELSON, a Layman of the Church of England. "And since we live in an age that is inclinable to make all the inherent powers in the priesthood, to be the effects of priestcraft; and that others take upon them to sign and seal covenants in God's name, who have no commission for the purpose; it will be fit for any man that prepares him→ self for this holy ordinance, to consider who has the power of administering this holy sacrament; whether laymen as well as clergymen who have received their commission from the Apostles. This consideration, I am sure, will be of great comfort to the faithful members of the CHURCH OF ENGLAND, which has preserved the ancient apostolical government, and the primitive orders in a due subordination, whereby they are secured of a right and truly canonical ministry.”

Ed.

If "Episcopalians in general do not avow these principles," it is certainly the duty of the Clergy to inculcate them with the greater assiduity and earnestness. For the Episcopal Church, adopting the language of the holy Ignatius, the contemporary of the Apostles" that it is not lawful without the Bishop either to baptise or to celebrate the holy communion;" and the language of the Church Universal, maintains, in the preface to the