to conform to it, can she be blamed for urging it with charitable zeal? At all events, can she be found fault with for inculcating upon her members those doctrines which she has professed in every age, and which appear to her to be an important part of the Christian dispensation? To require her to act differently, is to require her to become hypocritical, and to sacrifice her principles at the shrine of policy. To this she can never consent. While it will be her endeavour to treat with becoming respect the sentiments of her fellow Christians, she must insist upon the right of contending for that system of government which she believes the Apostles established, and whose divinity is attested, as she thinks, by the uniform testimony of the Church universal for fifteen hundred years. She blames not those who think and who maintain that Presbyterial government is the only one which Christ has prescribed in his word. While this opinion is supported in language not insulting nor disrespectful, she sees nothing but the fair exercise of that right of judgment with which God has invested his rational creatures. The writer upon whom I am remarking believes the divinity of Jesus to be essential to the Christian dispensation, and that no one can be considered as in covenant with God who absolutely rejects that fundamental doctrine. Suppose the Socinian should loudly complain; would not our author reply very much in the language which I have used on this occasion? Very well: while the Episcopal Church rejoices that she can so cordially unite with her brethren of the Presbyterian persuasion, on the essential principle of the divinity of our blessed Saviour, she thinks the evidence of Episcopacy, from the scripture, and from history, no less strong; and the justification which our author would urge, in relation to the Socinian, she humbly hopes she may apply to her own conduct, Passing over, for the present, what has been said on the Jewish Priesthood, I proceed to the remarks upon the Epistles to Timothy, much reliance appearing to be placed on them. I flatter myself Í shall be able to support the interpretation I have given, and to show that the observations of the writer take for granted what must ever require proof, and advance hypotheses that are entirely new, being as unsupported by commentators as by the plainest maxims of construction. A Layman of the Episcopal Church. For the Albany Centinel. MISCELLANIES. No. XV. I HAVE admitted in my last number, for the sake of giving Epis copalians more than their due, that Paul was present at the ordination of Timothy; that he presided, and laid on his hands with the Presbyters. But I contend that in the ordination itself, he acted merely as a Presbyter; and that it was in conferring the miraculous gifts that he acted as an Apostle, and was superior to the other Presbyters. Since both dia and meta are used in the same verse, the former connected with prophecy, and the latter with the laying on of hands, I am of opinion that the best translation of the latter, in this place, is together with; and that the conferring the miraculous gifts, and the setting apart to the ministry, are to be considered as two distinct things, which took place either at the same time or the one immediately succeeded the other. "By prophecy;" that is, by the act which conferred prophecy; the thing signified being put for the sign. The sign was the putting on of the Apostle's hands, which was done in the ordination, and the gift then conferred, Paul acting both as an Apostle and a Presbyter; or, the Apostle put his hands singly on Timothy either just before or after his ordination. The words dia and meta are thus allowed respectively an appropriate meaning; though the latter, as has been shown, might also be translated by, and signifies often the same thing as dia. The thing signified by putting on of the Apostle's hands, was prophecy, the very gift which Timothy is exhorted not to neglect, but to stir up. The Episcopalians allege that the text in the second Epistle, where the Apostle speaks of putting on hands, refers to ordination. Let the context be examined. 2 Tim. i. 5, 6, 7. "When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice, and I am persuaded that in thee also. Wherefore I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power and of love, and of a sound mind." Where is there any thing about ordination?* Nothing but the words, by the putting on of my hands, could have suggested the idea. The text is a better proof that the Apostle confirmed Timothy, than that he ordained him. The Episcopalians would be wiser to quote it for what they call the "Apostolic rite of confirmation," which is done too by putting on of their Bishop's hands; for the practice of such confirmation needs itself some confirmation.† I barely mention, without laying much weight upon it, that the word dia is used here; the same word which is connected with prophecy in the first Epistle; and therefore, that this is the gift which was conferred by the putting on of the Apostle's hands. The interpretation which I have given is strengthened by considering other passages of scripture. Acts viii. 11, 17. "When the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." Acts xix. 6. "And when Paul had laid his hands upon There is as much about ordination here as in the other text. The expressions, "Stir up the gift that is in thee," and "neglect not the gift that is in thee," have evidently the same meaning. Ed. † Does the author of Miscellanies recollect that confirmation is a rite handed down from the Apostles' times; that CALVIN himself bore decided testimony in its favour; and that CALVIN and BEZA both refer to it the imposition of hands mentioned by the Apostle in the sixth chapter and second verse of the Epistle to the Hebrews? If he is in doubt on the subject, let him peruse the nineteenth chapter and the fourth book of Calvin's Institutes; and the comment of Calvin and Beza on the verse in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Ed. them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongue's and prophesied." No one will say that these converts w were ordained to be officers in the Church. The Episcopalians endeavour to prove by the texts their practice of confirmation. Is it not evident that the purpose for which the Apostle laid on hands was to confer the miraculous gifts of the Spirit? "They spake with tongues and prophesied.* If this is undeniable from those places in the Acts, why should not the text in the second Epistle to Timothy be understood in the same manner? All upon whom the Apostles laid their hands were made partakers of extraordinary gifts in a greater or less degree. There never was an exception. It could not be the saving and ordinary influences of the spirit which they conveyed, because these had been enjoyed, or were supposed to be enjoyed by persons before they were baptised.† Simon the sorcerer, who was baptised, but not regenerated, would not have offered the Apostle Peter money to obtain the power of conferring the Holy Ghost, had there been nothing more than what was ordinary and secret. It is true that all who were baptised did not exercise extraordinary gifts; nor did the Apostles lay hands on all; but on whomsoever they did lay hands, these gifts invariably followed. With respect to those at Ephesus upon whom Paul laid his hands, we are expressly told, that "they spake with tongues and prophesied." Thus have I carefully examined the passages in the Epistles to Timothy, and the result is, 1. That in one the Apostle refers both to the gift of the Holy Ghost and to ordination; in the other to the gift of the Holy Ghost alone. 2. That the Holy Ghost was given to Timothy by the imposition of Paul's hands, and that the ordinationi or setting apart to the ministry of the word was by the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery. 3. That these were performed at the same time, or immediately succeeded one another. 4. That though the Greek word meta, when it governs the genitive case, has equal meaning and force with dia, and may, on the highest authority, be translated by ; yet in this place, together with is to be preferred. 5. That even the presence of Paul at the ordination of Timothy cannot be inferred with certainty from the words, "the putting on of my hands," seeing they refer to the conveyance of extraordinary powers. 6. That so far as Paul was actually engaged Is it said that the Samaritan converts “spake with tongues and prophesied!" This author asserts, but does not prove, "that all upon whom the Apostles laid their hands were made partakers of extraordinary gifts." Ed. But are there not different degrees of grace? And may not these be conferred at different times, and in different ordinances? Ed. Simon had received "the washing of regeneration," but not " the renewing of the Holy Ghost;" which are considered by the Apostle as distinct. By his baptism Simon was translated into a new state, in which he received conditionally a title to the blessings of the Christian covenant; and in this sense he was regenerated. Regeneration, in the sense of scripture and the primitive Church, is distinct from renovation, or the change of mind and heart effected by the operations of the Holy Spirit. And the former term, in its appropriate signification, is applied to baptism; which is the divinely instituted mean of translating us from our natural state into a state of grace, in which we are to "work out our salvation." Ed. in the ordination, separately considered, he laid on his hands as a mere Presbyter; and that, probably, he presided among his fellow Presbyters on the occasion. When a person is to be ordained, the Presbyterians appoint a Minister to deliver a sermon, another to preside, and another to give a charge to the person when ordained. Sometimes two or all of these services may fall to the same member of the Presbytery; but generally they are divided. The Minister who presides explains briefly the nature of the business, receives the vows of the candidate, and then by solemn prayer and imposition of hands, the Presbyters laying on hands together with him, the person is ordained, or invested with the sacred office. The same power which the Presbyters possess they convey. They have no apostolic power, and they convey none. They are Presbyters, or Pastors, or Bishops and Governors of the Christian Church, and they invest others with the same office. Acting by the authority of Christ and his Apostles, what they have received they "commit to faithful men. * I For the Albany Centinel. HAVE not forgotten my promise of an extract from the remarkable meditation for the" Saturday evening" preceding the communion, in "A Companion for the Altar," &c. But having lately read a pamphlet entitled, "An Address to the Ministers and Congregations of the Presbyterian and Independent Persuasions in the United States of America," it will be useful to furnish my readers with a few short extracts from this. It was printed in 1790, and is ascribed, on good authority, to the late Bishop Seabury. His design. professedly is to persuade those whom he addresses to forsake their schismatic courses, and join the Episcopal Church, as being the only true Church. "She" [the Episcopal Church] says the writer, supposes. that Presbyterians and Independents have departed from the true government of Christ's Church, and are essentially deficient in the matter of ordination. Unless the Presbyterians can be prevailed on to give up this point, all my labour is lost, and my hopes are at an end," p. 43. Again, "Whoever needlessly breaks this unity, by departing from this communion, [the Episcopal Church] that is, when he could continue in it without sinning against God, is guilty of schism, and ought to repent of his wickedness, and return to the * And what is it which these" Presbyters, or Pastors, or Bishops," have "received," and which they "commit to faithful men?" Without doubt, this author means the ministerial commission. And how can they receive this commission from "Christ and his Apostles," by whose "authority" he says they act? Certainly in no other way than by uninterrupted succes sion. Here we have another example of the consistency of this gentleman, of the care and consideration with which he writes. At one time he ridicules the doctrine of succession, at another he makes it the foundation of all his reasonings. Ed. Church of Christ from which he has strayed." p. 50. Again, "Let me ask the gentlemen for whose benefit these charitable efforts are principally intended, why, if they can effect a re-union with the Church on reasonable and liberal terms, and in her bosom do away the odious imputation of schism, and obtain valid orders for their Ministers, they should not do it? Many of their Ministers, as well as people, must have doubts and misgivings of mind concerning their ordination. It is their misfortune too that those doubts and misgivings are well founded." p. 51. Again, "They may put a bold face on the business, and think to brave it out; and as they first assumed the title of Presbyters, and the style of Reverend, so they may, in imitation of Dr. Stiles and his brethren of Connecticut, usurp the title of Bishops, and it may be the style of Right Reverend (pray who then would be Reverend ?) it will all end like those plays of children which they call make-believe. Their doubts and misgivings will continue, and, like a perpetual blister, keep them for ever uneasy and wincing. The people will see it and laugh. They see it already; and the number of those who return to the Church is daily increasing. Think me not censorious; my words are the words of truth and candour." p. 52. Again, "You ask, Have we no authorized Ministers? no valid sacraments? To these questions, I fear I shall return disagreeable answers. You have Ministers of the people, I confess; and if I may be allowed to make a supposition (and I have made a good many without any leave at all), I must suppose, that such as your Ministry is, such is your sacraments." p. 52. Again," Most of the original settlers to the southward had never separated from the English Church. If many of their descendants have done so, it has been owing to the arts and example of the Presbyterians of New-England, and of their new-fangled brethren of Mr. John Wesley's mission. Mr. Wesley, in his dotage, being eighty-two years of age, a certain Dr. Coke prevailed on him to confer the Episcopal character on him the said Coke. This was done privately at Bristol." p. 54. I shall produce only one ex-tract more at this time. "You would give up an ill-founded Church government, and an unauthorized Ministry and sacraments, and you would obtain a government, Ministry and sacraments, according to the institution of Christ, the example of his holy Apostles, and the practice of the primitive Church, in its purest period. You would give up an unjustifiable separation, and heal a breach which the intemperate zeal of your forefathers made in the unity of Christ's Church. You would get rid of extempore prayers in public worship," &c. p. 54. Such is the language which the Bishop uses when persuading men to join the Episcopal Church. One would think that he might have found what was more conciliatory, and more likely to have produced the effect which he professes to have had in view. I have given his words merely to show the haughty pretensions, and imperious tempers of these men, who with benevolence, candour and charity in their mouths, contemn, ridicule, and abuse their fellow Christians.* A Bishop sets the example, and a Priest soon apes his superior. * In judging of the extracts from this performance, the reader should take into consideration the circumstance that the minds of Episcopalians in |