Romish Church, yet they might have gone to other places for them. And, if this had drawn upon them a more marked and severe persecution, they would have suffered for what they acknowledged as a most important truth. This conduct, then, incorrect in itself, laid the foundation of schism in the Church, which has been regularly producing the most bitter fruits from its origin to the present time.

I have said that the Protestant Episcopal Church derives her authority from Christ, through the medium of the Apostles in general, placing them all upon a perfect level with respect to each other. Nor does this circumstance favour the idea of parity; for still there were three orders, our Saviour, while he was on earth, the twelve Apostles, and the seventy Disciples. After the ascension of our Saviour, there were the Apostles, the Elders, and the Deacons : so that, in every period of the Church, distinct orders have existed in her ministry. This remark is made incidentally here. Should circumstances render it proper to pursue the inquiry, this part of the subject shall receive a regular examination.

The Episcopal Church, then, professes not to derive particularly from St. Peter. She ascribes to him no supremacy over the other Apostles. I have been more full, perhaps, than was necessary, on this point; but it appeared to me important to show, at some length, the inaccuracy of such a charge, it being of a nature to operate strongly on the public mind.

There is another point of view in which the passage under consideration requires to be placed. "Here the Apostle Peter, from whom the Romish and the Protestant Episcopal Church pretend to have derived their authority, calls himself not a Bishop but an Elder, claims no pre-eminence over his brethren."

Our author seems here to place Peter upon a perfect level with every Minister existing in the Church; which, indeed, is only following up the mode of reasoning, from the promiscuous use of names, to its true conclusion. Nevertheless, towards the close of the number, the apostolic office is represented as purely extraordinary. I wish, then, to understand him on this point. Does he maintain that the Apostles had no spiritual jurisdiction over the Clergy in general? Does he maintain that they were upon a perfect level with the Elders of Ephesus, having no more power over those Elders than those Elders had over them? Is he willing explicitly to avow, and decidedly to`support this doctrine? I cannot but thus understand him; for he expressly tells us that Peter, addressing the Presbyters, claimed no pre-eminence whatever. And all this, least there should be "lords in God's heritage." This lofty hatred of subordination, ah! how opposite is it to the humility of the gospel what mischief hath it not operated both in Church and State!

If you carry the principle of liberty so far as to make it inconsistent with the existence of a spiritual authority in the Apostles, and their successors the Bishops, over the other orders of the Clergy, you put into the hands of your adversaries a weapon, with which they will very easily demolish the whole order of the Priesthood. The wild plan of rendering every thing common in the Church. giving to any one who imagines himself qualified, the right of preaching, and of administering the ordinances of the gospel, withput an external commission, to the utter destruction of all regular

and spiritual authority over the laity, in an order of men set apart for the purpose of officiating in holy things, is to be completely justified by the language of our author; and is, indeed, only pursuing the reasoning of the advocates of parity to its natural conclusion. The whole body of Christians are the heritage of God. And shall there be a distinct set of men invested with authority to lord it over them? This mode of speaking is just as applicable to the power of the Clergy over the laity, as to that superintending authority, with which the Bishops are invested, in relation to the subordinate orders of their brethren. If the idea of distinction and subordination among the Clergy be inconsistent with liberty, why is not the idea of distinction and subordination between the Clergy and laity equally inconsistent?

Are there not distinct orders of civil magistrates in our country; and does this interfere with the rights of the people? Why then should distinct orders among the Clergy, involve any such interference? Our author has no objection to subordinate offices in the state. He thinks it very proper that there should be a chief magistrate of the Union, and chief magistrates of the individual communities. He sees nothing in this, or in the various grades of office, inconsistent with liberty. Why then is the idea of subordination, in the government of the Church, so very odious to him?

In opposition to the opinion of our author, I venture to say, that the constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church of this country is more congenial than the Presbyterian system, with its civil institutions. The first, certainly, bears most resemblance to a government composed of distinct branches; the last, to one which concentrates all its authority in a single body. But, this is a subordinate consideration. We are to inquire what form of government is prescribed in the scriptures of truth; not what is most suited to the varying institutions of men. And I believe it can be made to appear, that the constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church is equally founded in scripture, and in the nature of the human mind. The apology, founded on two publications that have recently appeared in the city of New-York, shall be particularly considered in my next address.

A Layman of the Episcopal Church.

For the Albany Centinel.

THE LAYMAN. No. III,

I PROCEED to consider the charge brought against the Episco

pal Church founded, particularly, on two publications that have recently appeared in the city of New-York. Extracts from these publications are introduced in the twelfth number of the MiscelJanies; and in a way calculated, I fear, to excite the passions of the public. I think I have a right to find much fault with the language employed in ushering the works, so severely complained of, into public notice. It is of a nature to kindle indignant feelings, and, of course, to preclude a dispassionate consideration of the case on which our author founds the justification of his present con

duct. There is, also, too much, far too much of exultation, at least for so early a stage of the controversy. It might have been well to have postponed this to the moment of victory. At all events, it should have been deferred until something like a regular system of reasoning had been presented to the consideration of the public. Positive assertion is easily made. There is no difficulty until you enter upon the business of proof, When I see a man exult in the prospect of victory, almost before he has had time to arrange his force; or, represent the arguments of his opponents as "scarcely deserving of an answer," while he himself is dealing most largely in assertion, I feel strongly disposed to suspect weakness in his cause, and that he is endeavouring to compensate for the want of reasoning, by boldness of declaration, and confidence of manner. Let me be permitted to observe, that those arguments of which he speaks thus lightly, have been urged by men of the most distinguished genius, and the most profound erudition; men from whom he will never know too much to learn.

Our author is quite deceived if he supposes the attack upon Episcopacy to be alarming to its friends. While they court not controversy, I trust they will be ever ready to defend the rights and the doctrines of their Church. Mitres may strew the ground. They are no part of the Episcopal Hierarchy; and it is much to be regretted that this writer will continue to confound things that are distinct; or, in treating of the situation of the Episcopal Church here, will wander for ever to the Papacy of Rome. All this has certainly nothing to do with the question under discussion. The votaries of the Church are not filled with dismay. It will require much more powerful attacks to impress upon their hearts the sentiment of fear. The fortress of Episcopacy has never yet been stormed; and I trust, it will prove impregnable to every assault of the foe.

Let us proceed to consider the publications complained of, and see whether they offer any real injury or insult to other denominations of Christians. In order to form a correct judgment on this point, it will be necessary to read the works themselves. The extracts are very short, and it is impossible from them alone to arrive at a just conclusion. Deductions are separated from their premises, opinions from their proofs, and consequences from their qualifications. I desire every one, therefore, who feels interested in this business, to give to the publications in question a dispassionate examination; recollecting always, that Episcopalians are to lerated equally with other denominations in our country, and have the same right of maintaining, in decent language, those doctrines which they believe to be taught by the oracles of truth. Let it be recollected, then, in the first place, that the Companion for the Altar, and the Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, are intended, solely, for the members of the Episcopal Church. They are not addressed to the public at large; and but for the severe remarks which have been made upon them, it is probable they would have found their way into the hands of very few persons of other denominations. Besides, they are works which are very common in our Church, being designed as a preparation for, and as an illustration of her institutions and services. In truth, the

want of these publications in any country where our Church exists would be a great defect. Every Episcopalian ought to possess them. Into these treatises, indeed, is incorporated a summary view of the Priesthood of the Christian Church, stating its powers, and tracing them to the source from which they are derived. In illustrating the Festivals and Fasts, what could be more proper than to show the foundation of the authority that instituted them! In a work designed as preparatory to the most solemn ordinance of our religion, what more correct or more natural than to show the divine right of that Priesthood at whose hands it is received by the communicant! And if it be particularly objected that the question of ecclesiastical authority is thrown into a meditation, let it be remembered that, in the shape of a note or appendix, it would probably have received but little attention, and that it is a subject of great moment, involving nothing less than the due performance of the highest acts of worship known to the Christian dispensation. Bread and wine have no intrinsic efficacy to convey the graces of the spirit. We see, in them, the appointment of God; and it is from this that they derive all their value. The water of Jordan had no peculiar virtue to cleanse the leprosy of Naaman. It was the Divine command, which he followed, that gave efficacy to the application. And, certainly, in the Holy Supper, it is necessary to adhere to the system which God has established. Man has as much right to change the Sacrament, as to change the Priesthood by whom it is to be administered. Both are of Divine appointment; and any reasoning which shall prove human authority to be competent to an alteration of the one, will prove it to be no less competent to an alteration of the other. These opinions are most sincerely entertained by our Church; and to refuse her the right of maintaining them, is to refuse her the common privileges of religious toleration. In works, then, addressed to Episcopalians alone, the doctrine of their Church relative to the Christian Priesthood is illustrated and enforced. And can this, in justice, be made a ground of complaint? While we are permitted to exist, the right cannot be called in question, and the decent exercise of an admitted right ought not, surely, to draw on us a vindictive attack.

I observe, in the second place, that the discussions contained in the works under examination, are conducted in an unexceptionable style. There is nothing of abuse, of sneer, or of invective. The reader will not, I hope, form his judgment on this point from the short and unconnected extracts that have been laid before the public. Let any candid Presbyterian read the works themselves, and I will venture to submit it to his decision, whether they contain any thing more than a decent illustration and support of the doctrines of the Episcopal Church. It is not the manner, but the matter of these treatises that has given offence. And has the time arrived, when we are to be violently assailed for claiming and exercising the right of judgment on a subject the most interesting that can possibly engage the attention of the human mind? I trust not. We believe that Episcopacy is an apostolic institution; that it is the appointed mode of conveying the sacerdotal power; that this mode being established by God, can be changed only by God; and that all authority ceases the moment a departure takes place from the sys

tem ordained for its transmission. We consider Bishops as the successors of the Apostles, and as possessing alone that power of ordination by which the ecclesiastical office is continued and preserved. These doctrines we maintain-we have a right to maintain them. And no reasonable man can consider such conduct as giving just cause of offence. How do Presbyterians themselves act in this particular? Are they not in the continual practice of illustrating and enforcing their distinguishing tenets? Take, as an example, the rigid doctrine of election and reprobation, which represents Christ as having died only for a particular number; excluding the rest of mankind from even the possibility of salvation. This is as obnoxious to us, as the doctrine of the divine right of Episcopacy can possibly be to our opponents. And if they claim the right of representing us as having departed from the true faith, will they not allow us the right of representing them as having departed from the true Priesthood! But you unchurch us. This is the grievous complaint. It is this that raises all the difficulty, and kindles all the resentment. Attend now, for one moment, to the situation in which the Presbyterians would place us, and the most unreasonable demands which they make of us. They tell us, You believe it is true that a particular method of conveying the sacerdotal power was established by the Apostles, and that this, being a divine institution, can be changed only by that high authority which ordained it. You consider Episcopacy as the appointed plan, and conformity to it as a duty incumbent upon all. These are your sincere opinions, and you have a right to entertain them; (for, I trust, our sincerity and our right, in this case, will not be denied.) But pause-advance not one step further-let these opinions remain for ever dormant in your bosoms-presume not to publish them to the world, least the conclusions which flow from them may affect, in public estimation, the basis on which we stand. Perform not the duty which you owe your people, by explaining to them what you deem an important part of the whole counsel of God, least you should offend us, in questioning the validity of Presbyterian ordination. What, then, does all this, in plain English, amount to! Think not for yourselves-renounce your opinions. At all events, venture not, at the hazard of our displeasure, to avow them to the world.

Let us see, once more, how the Presbyterians act. They believe the Priesthood, and the ordinances of baptism, and the holy supper, to be essential parts of the Christian dispensation. They consider baptism as the only mode of initiation into the Church of Christ, and as, generally, necessary to salvation. But do you presume to unchurch us? say the Quakers. Will the Presbyterian, then, give up the right of thinking for himself on the important subjects of the Priesthood, and the ordinances of the gospel; or, of decently supporting the opinions which he conscientiously entertains? Can he do so without debasing that rational faculty which God has given him, and neglecting the important duty of instructing his people in what he deems to be a most interesting branch of religious truth? He would say to the Quakers, We sincerely believe the Priesthood, and the ordinances which you have discarded to be essential parts of the Christian dispensation. We esteem it a duty to maintain, in proper language, their necessity. It is far from our intention to

F