2. The charge of uncharitableness lies wholly at the door of Epis copalians. Brazen must be the front of that man who attempts to bring it against Presbyterians.

3. If the doctrines contained in the works quoted be true, then the first Bishop of the Episcopal Church in this State was never baptised. He never had any other baptism than what was administered by a Minister of the Reformed Dutch Church. This Mi nister was not episcopally ordained he was only a Dutch Presbyter, or, if you please, a Dutch Bishop, and, consequently, his act was 66 nugatory and invalid." The present Bishop has declared it to be so, by re-baptising children who had been baptised by a Lu theran Minister.*

ordination services, that no man is to be considered as a lawful Minister who hath not bad Episcopal consecration or ordination.

The Episcopal Minister who has provoked the unappeasable ire of the author of Miscellanies, inculcated these principles, not in newspaper addresses, not in pamphlets inviting general perusal, but in books addressed to Episcopalians. If, however, these principles are erroneous, let them be exposed; if they are opposed to the tenets of other denominations, let those denominations be warned against them; but let this be done by fair argument, with decency and candour; and not with the weapons of misrepresentation, ridicule, and invective.

Ed.

*As a general proposition it is true, that the administration of ordinances by those who have not received their commission through the regular apostolical succession, is "nugatory and invalid." But certainly circumstances may sometimes qualify general truths. It may be presumed, that when a person who has received baptism from irregular authority, afterwards submits himself to the regular authority of the Church, by receiving confirmation or the holy eucharist, the deficiency of his baptism, in respect to the authority of those who administered it, is then supplied. This is the opinion of many divines of the Church of England, who deservedly rank high for their attachment to Episcopal principles; and particularly of the learned Bingham, the author of Ecclesiastical Antiquities. This class of divines, however, deny that any person has legitimate authority to administer baptism, but those episcopally ordained. Accordingly their maxim is, fieri non debet, factum valet. It is not lawful to be done; when done, it is valid.

Another class of Episcopalians contend, that all baptisms administered by those who have never received a commission through the " originally constituted order" are invalid. This opinion is maintained with singular force and perspicuity of argument, in a treatise, entitled, "Lay Baptism Invalid," published by R. Laurence, A. M. a layman of the Church of England. He contends, that three things, all instituted by Christ in his memorable commission to his Apostles, are necessary to a valid baptism; the matter, the form, and the authority. The matter, the name of the Trinity; the form, water; and the authority, a commission given to the Apostles and their successors—“ Go YE, and baptise-Lo, I am with YOU alway, even to the END OF THE WORLD. These three things being instituted by Christ, are equally and indispensably necessary; and the deficiency of any one of them renders a baptism invalid. Hence it follows that a baptism administered by one who has not received a commission from those authorised as the successors of the Apostles, is not a valid baptism. This tract, independently of the important subject of which it treats, is well worthy of general perusal, on account of the singular ingenuity and

4. The writer quoted speaks of his being "humble in attainments;" but I think he bids fair to rival if not eclipse Archbishop Laud himself.

force of its reasoning. On these principles, the Lutheran Minister acted in applying to the Bishop to baptise his children.

The author of Miscellanies several times insinuates, that some persons have been ordained Priests, and one a Bishop who had not Episcopal baptism. Admitting the truth of his assertion, of what advantage is it to his cause? Admitting that the seal of authority, in which alone their baptism was deficient, was not supplied when they received confirmation, or the Holy Eucharist, from the hands of Christ's authorised Ministers; what insuperable impediment was there to their receiving the ministerial commission? This commission, deriving all its efficacy from the power of Christ, is independent of the qualification's of the Minister. Holiness of heart and life is certainly as indispensable a qualification in a Minister as a valid baptism. And yet we find that Judas, who was " a traitor, and had a Deyil," was one of the highest order of Ministers. The author of Miscellanies, surely, will not maintain that the absence of vital holiness in a Minister renders nugatory his administration of the ordinances. Neither can he contend that any defect in the baptism of a Minister renders nugatory the exercise of a valid ministerial commission.

The following extract from "Laurence on Lay Baptism," the treatise above-mentioned, will set this subject in a just light. Baptism itself being no constituent essential part of his commission or ordination, he who is destitute of baptism is not, by reason of that want alone, destitute of Holy Orders. If it be objected, that while he is unbaptised, he is out of the Church; and how can he who is not of the Church, admit another by baptism into the Church? I answer; though he is out of the Church with respect to any benefits himself, yet not with respect to the spiritual benefits which he has authority and commission médiately to convey to others. A man may be a true messenger to carry that good to another, which he himself neither does, nor ever will enjoy. A master of a family may send a neighbour, or a stranger who is not of his family, and give him full power and authority to adopt into his family some poor destitute orphan children whom he commiserates. And though that stranger be not of the family himself, yet his adopting those poor children into that family, stands good; because the master of the family sent and empowered him to do it. This I take to be very parallel to the case in hand; and, therefore, he who is not of the Church, because unbaptised, may as truly admit a person into the Church by baptism, as he, who, (though baptised) through his wickedness, is destitute of the Holy Ghost, can convey the gift of the Holy Ghost by his ministration of sacraments to others. For as it is not the personal boliness of the administrator that conveys holiness to me in the ministration of any sacrament, so neither does his having received that sacrament signify any thing to me for the validity thereof, when he administers it to me by virtue of a divine commission explicitly given to him. This COMMISSION ALONE is that which makes the ministration not his, but God's own act; and, as such, without any other appendant cause, it is good and valid. Hence our blessed Lord called both unbaptised and unholy men, viz. his Apostles, who cannot be proved to have been baptised in the name of the Trinity before his resurrection; and one of them, Judas Iscariot, a thief, a devil in his disposition-to the administration of holy things; as if he would thereby teach us to look with faith on HIS AUTHORITY ONLY, without confiding in any of the best accomplishments of those on whom he has conferred it. And if we do but look back to the condition of the

E

POSTSCRIPT.

Since the above was written, I have read a continuation of the address by "A Layman of the Episcopal Church." I repeat the assurance that the word BY is not included by me in the quotation of the Apostle's words to Timothy, that the passage is not in “a mutilated state," and that it was far from my thoughts to substitute BY for WITH. This would defeat my own purpose, when I come to explain the text. Upon this, and another in the second Epistle to Timothy, taken in connection with other parts of scripture, I am willing that the whole controversy should rest. I hope to give a more natural and just interpretation of them than he has given. I wish he had spared the following words: "I feel strongly disposed to.suspect weakness in a cause, when I find such expedients employed to defend it." I forbear any retort. If he be the person I suppose him, I love him too much readily to believe that he can be otherwise than ingenuous. I wish the Episcopal Church had many laymen and preachers of his talents and virtues. A great deal of what he says, is, no doubt, true; but it is not properly applied, and does not support his cause. All that is necessary by way of reply, will be found in the course of my numbers, without a particular reference to him.

Let me add farther, that the reader will certainly justify much greater severity than what I shall use. The provocation given to non-episcopalians has been wanton and great. There can be no objection against the Episcopalians managing their own affairs in their own way. Had they not treated other churches with indignity and insult had they maintained their Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and plead divine authority,* and not charged others with the sin of schism, and as having neither Ministers nor ordinances, I had never written a word on the subject. I wish them more humility and charity, as being the way to greater prosperity.

Jewish Church, during their forty years sojourning in the wilderness, we shall find that none of them were circumcised in all that space of time. Though the uncircumcised were, by God's own appointment, to be cut off from among his people, yet the ministry of those priests and scribes who were born in the term of those forty years, was not annulled and made void for their want of circumcision; which, doubtless, was as much necessary to qualify them for holy orders, as baptism is now to qualify our Christian Priests."

Ed.

* How strangely inconsistent is this gentleman! Though he here allows Episcopalians to plead "divine authority" for their order of Bishops; yet the moment they attempt to exercise the right which he grants them, to inculcate their principles, and to act upon them by ordaining those who have not been episcopally ordained, they are considered as treating other churches with indignity and insult." Though he here allows Episcopalians to plead "divine authority" for Episcopacy; yet, at the close of his twenty-third number, he warmly censures them for offering this plea. This is his language in that number. I have no objection to their preferring Episcopal ordination, provided that they will cease to assert it on divine right; for I think that this is untenable, offensive to their fellow Christians of other denominations, and injurious to themselves." This author frequently accuses the advocates of Episcopacy of having written incautiously and with precipitancy. He certainly affords many specimens of the care and consideration with which he has composed his Miscellanies. Ed.

For the Albany Centinel.

THE LAYMAN. No. II,

Ir was my wish to have said nothing more on the subject of Ec

clesiastical Government. The circumstance, however, which led me to take up my pen continues to exist: I still feel it a duty to correct such views of the Church, as appear to me to be inaccurate; and to endeavour to prevent any improper impression which they may have a tendency to make on the public mind.

The cause of religion has been deeply injured by the angry contests of its professors. If the friends of Christianity are occasionally involved in controversy, let not a spirit of bitterness in the management of it give reason of triumph to their foes.

The professions which I have made, of regard for the writer whom I oppose, are sincere. I have long been in the habit of admiring his talents, and revering his virtues. If I have said any thing that has wounded his feelings, or that may have appeared to him not perfectly consistent with delicacy, I entreat him to ascribe it to zeal in the support of a cause which I deem important; to any thing, rather than a want of that esteem and respect for his character which it is equally my happiness to feel and to express.

When individuals or bodies of men get engaged in controversy, nothing is more common, or more natural, than for each to think the injury inflicted solely by the other, and to indulge his feelings, excited and nourished by this partial view of things to which the human mind is so prone. When, therefore, I observe expressions in the numbers of this writer, which appear to me to be exceptionable, I recollect this quality in man, and find no difficulty in ascribing to honest zeal what, upon a more narrow view, I might consider as involving a departure from Christian charity. Let me entreat him to cherish a similar disposition towards the Episcopal Church. I sincerely believe she has never given the other denominations of Christians just cause of offence; and, I even indulge the hope, that a dispassionate examination of the works against which he objects, will present them to his view in a point of light very different from that in which he has been accustomed to consider them. Upon this part of the subject I now enter; begging leave, however, to take notice, in the first place, of a passage in the tenth number of the Miscellanies, which appears to me to call for some animadversion. "The Apostle Peter, from whom the Romish and the Protestant Episcopal Church pretend to have derived their authority."

When did the Protestant Episcopal Church profess to derive her power from the Apostle Peter? Has she not invariably and strenuously opposed that imaginary distinction among the Apostles, upon which the Church of Rome founded her usurped supremacy? Papacy and Episcopacy are as inconsistent as are Episcopacy and Parity. The Papists have departed on the one side; the Presbyterians on the other.

The supremacy of the Pope is supported by representing him as the successor of St. Peter, and by representing St. Peter as the Prince of the Apostles. The passage of scripture relied upon for

this, is that which contains the promise of the keys; but, it has been thoroughly explained, by some of the ablest writers of our Church, as being a mere promise, not actually delegating any power at the time, but fulfilled, when our Saviour said to his Apostles, "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." This last declaration was made to no one particularly, but to all generally. It placed the Apostles upon a perfect level with respect to each other. Beside, the whole history of the primitive Church bears equal testimony against the Papal supremacy and the Presbyterian harity. This reasoning is used by the writers of our Church. It will be found, if names are necessary to be mentioned, in Chillingworth and Barrow. I cite these particularly, because they have urged it with peculiar force.

No, the Protestant Episcopal Church waged open war with all the false doctrines, and all the corruptions of Popery. It is indeed strange, that such a charge should be brought against a Church so highly admired by the first reformers; a Church reformed by CRANMER and RIDLEY, and cemented with their blood.

Our Church, then, professes to derive her power from Christ, through the medium of the Apostles in general; not through that of any one of them in particular. She rejects, utterly, the distinction for which the Papists contend; and, along with it, the senseless jargon of supremacy and infallibility with which the Romish Church so long insulted the world. Episcopacy, indeed, she retained, because she considered it as a divine institution; and, on this point, was most cordially congratulated by Calvin, Beza, and other illustrious reformers of the time. They prayed earnestly to God that it might be preserved in the Church of England; lamenting the necessity of their situation, which precluded them from it, as the greatest of their misfortunes. Strange that the ardent admirers of these men should condemn, as "corrupt and injurious," an institution which they viewed with so favourable an eye! Calvin declared, in strong terms, that he opposed not the Episcopal Hierarchy, but only the Papal, which, aspiring to an universal supre macy, in the See of Rome, over the whole Christian world, usurped upon the prerogative of Christ. And he anathematised all those who, having the Episcopal Hierarchy in their power, should refuse, to reverence it, and submit themselves to it with the utmost obedi"If any such shall be found, si qui erunt," says he, "I will readily confess that they are worthy of all anathemas;" evidently declaring that he knew no such persons, and owned none such among his followers. How fatal is the influence of irregular example! Calvin, and the reformers who acted with him, established Presbyterian Government, alleging the impossibility of doing otherwise, without going to the Church of Rome; still, however, expressing the highest respect and reverence for the Episcopal authority. Those who profess to follow these men have departed entirely from their declarations; renouncing the whole order of Episcopacy as a "corrupt and injurious" innovation. Indeed, Calvin and his associates had no sufficient excuse; for, although they could not procure Bishops in their own countries, without receiving them from the

ence.