gospel Ministers or Presbyters. Could it be admitted that Paul refers to the ordination of Timothy when he says "by the putting on of my hands," still he ascribes the same power to the hands of the Presbytery in his first Epistle; and, consequently, there is the same reason to say, that the Presbytery ordained Timothy as that Paul ordained him. If Paul laid on hands at the ordination, in this transaction merely, he acted as a Presbyter, and could act as no other. As an Apostle he was superior to Presbyters, and, as such, has no successor. But as a Presbyter, he could commit to others this office. I will not say, that Presbyters are "successors of the Apos❤ tles;" because I think that such language savours of arrogance, if not of impiety; but I will say that Presbyters are the highest order to whom the Apostles, by the authority of Christ, have committed the administration of the word and ordinances of the Church.*

I proceed now to give another passage from the New Testament more circumstantial than the last, and which is left on purpose to guide the Church in the important matter of ordination. It is recorded in Acts xiii. 1, 2, 3. "Now there were in the Church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Se parate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." In this passage, let us attend principally to the following things:

1. The authority by which the ordination was performed. The Holy Ghost said. As the Apostle Paul, under the immediate guidance of divine inspiration, directed Timothy and Titus to ordain Elders, so, in the present case, there was an express command of the Holy Ghost. This was necessary in the first examples of ordination; otherwise the practice of the Church would rest upon the inventions of men. The command which was then given is now our authority, and the pattern which was then set we must now scrupulously follow. Though we have no immediate inspiration, yet we have that which was dictated by it, and this is our sure and only guide.

The author of Miscellanies bestows a great deal of labour on two texts of scripture, which have never been much relied on by the advocates of Episcopacy. When in proof of the power of Presbyters to ordain, the text is quoted," with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery," the Episcopalians produce the other text, "by the laying on of my hands," and say, that if even by Presbytery be meant a number of Presbyters, it is evident that Paul, who was of a superior order, presided and conveyed autho rity. But, granting the utmost; the texts taken together, if they do not prove any thing for Episcopal ordination, do not prove any thing against it. And, without relying on doubtful texts, the Episcopalian finds sufficient proof of Episcopacy in the superior powers, which Timothy and Titus possessed at Ephesus and Crete, of ordaining and governing the other orders of the ministry. There is surely nothing of "arrogance and impiety" in saying that Bishops are the successors of the Apostles, in their ordinary ecclesiastical authority. Of this impiety and arrogance, the primitive Fathers were habitually guilty.

Ed.

2. The persons ordained were Paul and Barnabas. Separate me Barnabas and Saul. Though they had, before this, been com→ missioned by Christ as Apostles, yet they were now separated or set apart to their work by the rite of ordination. We are assured that Paul was called to be the Apostle of the Gentiles. "Go thy way," said the Lord unto Ananias, "for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles." When he was about to enter upon this mission, it seemed good to the Holy Ghost to have him and Barnabas set apart to it. This is the opinion of Dr. Taylor, a Bishop of the Church of England. His words are, "He [Paul] had the special honour to be chosen in an extraordinary way: yet he had something of the ordinary too; for in an extraordinary manner he was sent to be ordained in an ordinary ministry. His designation was as immediate as that of the eleven Apostles, though his ordination was not." It is not the practice in the Church, when an ordained Minister is about to be sent on a mission, to use the same ceremonies here mentioned; fasting, praying, and imposition of hands. These are used at ordination only; and this is a proof that the passage is universally thus understood. Paul and Barnabas were set apart in the same manner in which Timothy was ordained, and in which he and they ordained others. We must therefore conclude with Dr. Lightfoot, that "no better reason can be given of this present action, than that the Lord did hereby set down a platform of ordaining Ministers to the Church of the Gentiles in future times."

3. The persons who were the ordainers were the officers of the Church of Antioch. Certain prophets and teachers. Their names are given, from whence it appears, that besides Paul and Barnabas, who were the persons ordained, there were three; the number which, according to the constitution of the Presbyterian Church, form a Presbytery. Whoever these prophets and teachers were, they were all equally concerned in the ordination.*

The direction was given to all, and all laid on their hands. If the prophets were superior to the teachers, it is evident that though Bishops in the scriptural sense, they could not have been Bishops after the fashion of the Church of England, or diocesan Bishops; because there was a plurality of them. A diocesan Bishop is of such magnitude that there is not room for more than one in a city; and he often fills several with a large extent of country. Let it be admitted that prophets are to be distinguished from teachers, does it follow that the former are a standing order in the Church? We may understand by prophets in the primitive Church those who exercised extraordinary gifts, and the same persons were prophets and teachers. These extraordinary gifts have ceased. But if any will insist that prophets here mean a standing order in the Church, superior to teachers or presbyters, it is incumbent on them to prove that Simeon, or Lucius, or Manaen, was of this description. The

* This transaction is not considered by the most judicious commentators (some of them not Episcopalians) as an ordination, but as a solemn designation of two of the Apostles to the exercise of a particular mission. See this point proved by the Layman in his 6th, and by Cyprian in his 4th number.

Ed.

Episcopalians must have one Bishop of their sort; and he ought to be a very conspicuous one too; for the persons ordained were no less than Paul and Barnabas, the predecessors (as they think) of all the Romish and English Bishops.

Enough has been said to convince any candid mind, that the Episcopalians have no ground for their pretensions, and that Presbyterian ordination is scriptural, safe and valid. Whenever I come to examine ecclesiastical history from the days of the Apostles down to the establishment of Episcopacy in the isles of South-Britain and Ireland, the truth will shine with strong and irresistible light.*

AFTER

For the Albany Centinel.

CYPRIAN. No. II.

FTER what has been already said, I trust we shall never again hear the charge of popery either openly or covertly alleged against the Episcopal Church. I trust we shall no longer hear it insinuated, that our ecclesiastical institutions are not conformable, are not as conformable as those of any other denomination of Christians, to our institutions of civil government. If the public will now indulge me so far (and I am afraid its patience is nearly exhausted) I will enter on a very brief investigation of the subject of Church Go

vernment.

I shall not follow the track of the Miscellaneous writer. This would not be consistent with clearness or perspicuity of arrangement. I shall, however, touch on all the principal points that relate to this subject, contained in those pieces he hath lately published, in which there appears even the semblance of argument. This writer seems to have formed a very exalted opinion of his own dialectic skill. He commences his attack on us quite in the gasconading style. Scarcely has he begun his hostile operations, when he beholds in imagination, "the outworks of Episcopacy demolished by him, her fortress stormed, mitres strewing the ground, and her affrighted votaries flying in dismay." Would it not have been as prudent to have waited until the period of victory before he claimed the privilege of a triumph? Really he must excuse our want of discernment, when we avow that we have not as yet been able to recognize in him the features of so formidable an antagonist. We perceive no just cause of apprehension or alarm. The friends of Episcopacy feel not the smallest propensity to fly before him in dismay. The arrows he hath hitherto directed against us, though empoisoned by much bitterness of sentiment, though levelled with his utmost force, have proved quite harmless weapons. They have scarcely reached the mark. No. This writer extremely mistakes if he imagines that his efforts have awakened in the bosoms of Episcopalians, any degree of apprehension for the fate of their Church. No. The fortress of Episcopacy is erected upon the same rock on

*This review of ecclesiastical history the author of Miscellanies very prudently declined.

Ed.

1

which Christianity itself is founded. It has hitherto stood unshaken by the attacks of the most powerful assailants. It will not now be demolished by his arm.

Episcopacy rests upon Scripture, and upon the testimony of the frimitive Church. These are the two pillars that support its superstructure. We trust they are immovable.

Episcopacy rests upon the strong foundation of the sacred Scriptures. It is an irrefragable truth, that the Episcopal form of Church Government is the only one Christ hath prescribed in his word; is the only one which was known in the Universal Church for fifteen hundred years. Whilst our Saviour remained on earth, he, of course, held supreme authority in his Church. The twelve were appointed by him as his subordinate officers. The seventy disciples constituted a still lower order. There existed, then, in the Church of Christ, at this time, three distinct grades of Ministers. When our Lord ascended into Heaven, when he breathed upon the twelve, and said, "As my Father hath sent me, so send I you," he transmitted to them the same authority which he himself had retained during his continuance amongst them. The twelve commissioned their Presbyters and Deacons to aid them in the administration of ecclesiastical government. Before their death they constituted an order of Ministers, to whom they conveyed that supreme authority in the Church which was lodged in their hands during their lives. To this order of men who succeeded the Apostles in dignity and authority, the appellation of Bishops was, in process of time, peculiarly appropriated. Ever since the times of the Apostles, this order has always possessed prerogatives peculiar to itself. It has always held, exclusively, the power of ordination, the privilege of communicating the sacerdotal authority. These are positions which may be established by an accumulation of evidence from scripture and the testimony of ancient writers, that will defy all opposition.

But before I proceed to bring forward this evidence, I must spend a few moments in refuting an objection of the Miscellaneous writer, which meets me in the threshold, and which, if it can be supported, will render this controversy altogether useless, since it would at once strike away the foundation of all civil and ecclesiastical government. He thinks that the existence of an order of Bishops in the Church is incompatible with the spirit of the gospel. He thinks s6 we should discover more understanding, more regard to the sentiments of our fellow Christians, more of the spirit of the Apostles, more unlimited obedience to the injunctions of our divine Master, did we dismiss such aspiring and uncharitable conduct. Memorable was the occasion, says he, on which he gave a solemn and affectionate charge to his disciples. Grant, said the mother of Zebedee's children, that these my two sons may sit, the one on the right hand and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. She wished her two sons to be promoted to places above the rest of the disciples, and to be consecrated Archbishops at least. But Jesus called them unto him and said, Ye know that the princes of the gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them, but it shall not be so among you." Such is the passage this writer hath produced in order to sanction the idea that the

elevation of our Bishops to their present pre-eminence in the Church is a violation of the express and solemn injunction of our Saviour. Miserable subterfuge this, indeed, by which to evade the force of that evidence we derive from scripture! Is not this writer perfectly aware that he is here endeavouring to mislead the understandings of his readers? Can he be otherwise than aware, that he is perverting the scriptures from their obvious signification, in order to answer his own purposes? Does he not know that this portion of holy writ will not bear the interpretation he hath given it? Does he not know, that to take it in so extensive a sense is to make it speak a language altogether inadmissible as the standard of truth? What! would our author make our Saviour prohibit, amongst Christians, the control of any constituted authorities, ecclesiastical or civil? Would he make Christ declare that amongst his followers there should be no distinctions of rank, no subordination, no discipline? This is precisely the interpretation that some Socinians have given to this passage; and will he admit it to be a just one? If it be admitted in this unlimited sense, demagogues and levellers, may, in their most iniquitous transactions, shelter themselves from reproach under a solemn injunction of the Saviour. This gentleman is thus placing a dangerous weapon in the hands of his political adversaries. It is obvious that Jesus Christ, in this portion of his word, does not intend to interdict the institution of civil or ecclesiastical government amongst believers. Besides, if these expressions be taken in this wide sense, do they not operate as much against the Presbyterians as ourselves? Against the existence of one order of Ministers as against the existence of three? May not a single order obtain and exercise as much undue authority in Christ's Church as three? May not the one become tyrants as well as the others? Is an aristocracy the most mild and the least odious of governments? Is there more danger that a government will degenerate into tyranny, when there is a wise distribution of its powers into different departments, than when there is no such distribution, when all its powers are concentrated in a single department? In short, may not Presbyterian Ministers as easily as Bishops become "lords in God's heritage?"

The meaning of our Saviour in the passage before us is as clear and unequivocal as in any other portion of sacred scripture. All commentators agree in their interpretation of it. The mother of Zebedee's children had imbibed the sentiment prevalent amongst the Jews, that the Messiah would establish a temporal kingdom. She sought for her sons civil dignities and honours. Jesus Christ, in his answer, wishes to repress amongst his disciples this spirit of ambition and vain-glory. He teaches here what he inculcates in many other parts of his holy word, that his followers should not covet the honours, the dignities, the empty distinctions of this world. Those who would merit his highest regard, who would be greatest in his kingdom, he tells them, must be most distinguished for acts of humility and condescension. He endeavours thus to impress them with more just sentiments than they entertained concerning the nature of his kingdom. He tells them in the words following, that they must do " as the Son of man who came not to be ministered unto, but to minister." Does not this last expression