while the "Miscellaneous author," "Clemens," and his friend? Mr. "Umpire,"* seldom make even an attempt at argument, but endeavour, to awaken the prejudices and blind the understandings of their readers, by low invective and ridicule, or by bold assertion. To detect their numerous errors and misrepresentations, though an easy, is not a pleasant business. The drudgery, however, must be submitted to.

These gentlemen boldly assert, in their usual manner, without an attempt at proof, that the Church of England, at the time of the Reformation, did not consider Episcopacy as a divine institution. I aver that the Church of England, at the time of the Reformation, was Episcopal both in fact and in theory.

That she was Episcopal in fact cannot be doubted. Her Bishops reformed from the errors of the Church of Rome, and thus preserved to her the divine succession of the Priesthood. The Miscellaneous author and his friends may laugh at the doctrines of divine right and uninterrupted succession. In doing this they laugh at their bible: for we are there told, that "no man taketh this honour" (the office of the Priesthood)" to himself but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." Aaron held his Priesthood by divine right. So, says the Apostle, must every Christian Priest. And as no person is now immediately commissioned from Heaven, how can a divine right to the Priesthood be obtained, but from an order of men authorised in succession to transmit this power from the great Head of the Church?

The Church of England was Episcopal at the Reformation from choice. Calvin, Beza, and the other foreign Reformers congratulated her on possessing a primitive Episcopacy. The proofs of this may be found in Dr. Durel's view of the Churches beyond the seas. The anathema which Calvin denounced against all who should not reverence and submit to a primitive Episcopacy, such as the Church of England possessed, is well known, and was cited by the Layman in his first address. Beza says, "if there be any, which you shall hardly persuade me to believe, who reject the whole order of Episcopacy, God forbid that any man in his wits should assent to the madness of such men." He calls the Episcopacy of England, a singular blessing," and prays that "she may ever enjoy it." With what face then can the Miscellaneous author assert, that the Church of England was Episcopal at the Reformation through "prejudice, through interest, and a secret love to the Romish Church?" Was he aware that he was casting a base calumny on the venerable Reformers of the English Church? Was he aware that he was grossly misleading the opinions of his readers?

The Church of England then was Episcopal in fact. This is of primary importance, since it proves that she preserved the divinely instituted mode of perpetuating the Priesthood. In the confusion indeed attending the reformation and organization of the Church, there were some few instances of persons, holding for a short time livings, who were not Episcopally ordained. But this irregularity

* At the time of writing this, it was not known that " Clemens” and "Umpire," as well as the "Inquirer," were written by the author of Miscellanies. Ed.

was soon corrected by public authority; and the very correction proves the solicitude of the English Church to preserve Episcoрасу.

The Church of England at the period of the Reformation was Episcopal also in theory, in her public doctrines and formularies.

For some time previous to the Reformation, the inordinate advocates of Papal power sought, as much as possible, to destroy Episcopal authority. What congeniality between them and certain persons in modern times! With this view they endeavoured, as much as possible, to degrade the order of Bishops to a level with Presbyters. In this attempt, the Papal advocates were steadfastly resisted, particularly by the Bishops of the Spanish and Gallican Churches.

This Popish error, however, on the subject of Episcopal authority, appears, at the outset of the Reformation, to have tainted the minds of some of the Reformers; who, though Episcopalians in fact, maintaining steadfastly the Episcopal Priesthood, were yet disposed to sink as far as they could the Episcopal claims. Let it be remembered, however, that they maintained these erroneous opinions before they had completely renounced the errors of Popery, while indeed they held many of its most obnoxious doctrines. The Miscellaneous author and his friends are welcome to their testimony at this period, as it will only prove what is on all hands conceded, that one of the errors of Popery was to lessen, as much as possible, the spiritual authority of Bishops, that the Pope might be exalted on their ruins. On a further inquity, however, into primitive antiquity, Cranmer and his associates renounced whatever erroneous sentiments they may have been disposed to entertain on the subject of Episcopacy, and set forth and vindicated its just preten sions.

"The institution and erudition of a Christian man," two books drawn up by Cranmer, and others, assert that Bishops are authorised by our Saviour to continue the succession, and to perpetuate the hierarchy; and that the gift of orders is conferred by consecration and imposition of the Bishop's hands. In a Catechism that Cranmer published afterwards, he fully owns, according to Bishop Burnet, "the divine institution of Bishops and Priests.” And his well known sermon on " the power of the Keys" is considered as containing high Church notions.

But what puts the Episcopacy of the Church of England and of the Reformers beyond all doubt, is the preface to the book of consecrating and ordering Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, which was drawn up by Cranmer and the other Reformers, and still remains part of the faith of the Church of England, and of the Protestant Episcopal Churches in America. This preface begins thus: "It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been three orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons." Here the Episcopal hierarchy is made to rest not only on "ancient authors," on the testimony of the Fathers, but on "holy scripture." And the preface goes on to state, that no man is to be considered as a lawful Minister who is not ordained according to that book, in which the power of ordaining is vested in Bishops, or "hath had Episcopal consecration and ordination. If now the Miscella

Р

neous author should insist that some Divines of the Church of England do not maintain that "the holy scriptures," as well as "ancient authors," establish the Episcopal hierarchy, it will only follow, that these Divines have departed from the faith of their Church. He

is welcome to their testimonies. But let me remind him, in his own language, “ No General would think himself safe in an army of deserters." They will not add much to his strength in the day of battle. Let me remind the Miscellaneous author, that if he considers the private sentiments of Divines as determining the public faith of a Church, the Church of Scotland, notwithstanding the high Calvinism of her Confession of Faith, is not Calvinistic; since it is a notorious fact, that many of her most distinguished Divines renounce the principal tenet of Calvinism.

But the most singular attempt of the Miscellaneous author is his attempt to injure the Episcopal cause by the testimony of a distinguished Bishop. It is singular indeed, that Bishop White, who took unwearied pains to procure the Episcopal succession, who joined in repeated applications to the English Bishops for this purpose, and at length went himself to England to bring the Episcopacy to this country, should yet be represented as its enemy, as denying entirely the necessity of Episcopal ordination, and as disposed to form his Church upon the Presbyterian model. I think Bishop White will not consider this very inconsistent representation which the Miscellaneous author gives of him, as counterbalanced by the very handsome compliments which are bestowed upon him. It happens that I am in possession of the pamphlet to which the Miscellaneous author alludes, and I think it will be in my power to place in a proper light the conduct of Bishop White in this business.

At the close of the Revolution, the situation of the Episcopal Church was imminently critical. Deprived of some of her best Clergy, depressed, and in some places obnoxious, serious were the apprehensions concerning her which agitated the bosoms of her friends. Jarring opinions also were to be reconciled. While some of her members were the zealous friends of Episcopacy, others of them were more lax in their opinions on this subject. The distressing situation of the Church was increased by the doubt whether it would be in her power, for some considerable time at least, to ob tain the Episcopal succession. Two objects, therefore, appeared of consequence: To reconcile the dissonant opinions of her members on the subject of Episcopacy, and to preserve the Church until the Episcopal succession could be obtained. These difficult and important objects, Bishop (then only Dr.) White, animated both by the warmest affection for his Church, and by that spirit of conciliation which has always distinguished him, attempted in his pamphlet to accomplish. To sooth the jealousy of some persons concerning the Episcopacy, he sometimes represents it as a ceremony, as a disputed point, as a matter of external order. All which is true. For the conferring of orders is a ceremony; Episcopacy unfortunately has, since the time of Calvin, been disputed; as Episcopacy relates to government and discipline, it is a matter of external order. To satisfy persons of a different description, he speaks of a departure from Episcopacy, which he expressly main

tains is an apostolic institution, to be justifiable only in cases of necessity; and therefore he proposes to obtain the Episcopal succession as speedily as possible; and he suggests a plan of Church government, to be observed till the regular Episcopal authority could be obtained. That he proposed a temporary departure from Episcopacy only on the ground of necessity, is evident from various passages of his pamphlet, and particularly from page 30, where, speaking of the opinion of Archbishop Usher, he says, "What part of the Christian world could the learned primate have named of which it could have been so properly said as may be of ours," that "ordination of Bishops cannot be had?"

The case of necessity is certainly a very difficult and delicate one. But it by no means follows, that they who admit the plea of necessity for a departure from Episcopacy are disposed to lower its high claims. Hooker, who admits this plea, and allows that matters of government or discipline are changeable, nevertheless holds this strong language concerning Bishops, from which it evidently appears that he considered them to be of divine authority. "And shall we think that James was made Bishop of Jerusalem, Evodius Bishop of the Church of Antioch, the Angels in the Churches of Asia Bishops, that Bishops every where were appointed to take away factions, contentions, and schisms, without some like direction and instigation of the Holy Ghost? Wherefore let us not fear to be herein bold and peremptory, that if any thing in the Churches' government, surely the first institution of Bishops was from Heaven, was even of God: the Holy Ghost was the author of it."*

But of what use will the plea of necessity be to the Miscellaneous author and his friends? Do they mean to justify by this plea their departure from Episcopacy? Do they mean to plead that it is not in their power to obtain Bishops? Let them come forward with this plea, and we shall know what answer to make to them. The author of "The Companion for the Altar," and "for the Festivals and Fasts," whom the Miscellaneous writer holds up as so intolerant and arrogant, expressly admits unavoidable causes as an excuse for a departure from Episcopacy.

* Hooker's Eccle. Pol. Book vii. Sec. 5.

When Hooker says that Church government is changeable, he does not use the term in its most extensive sense, as including the officers of the Church, the orders of the ministry; but in a more confined sense, as relating only to matters of discipline, to rites and ceremonies. The Puritans maintained that these were unchangeable, on the ground, that they ought to be founded on scripture only. In opposition to their opinion, Hooker and others maintained, that in respect to discipline, rites, and ceremonies, there was no certain form of Church government established in scripture; and that the Church had a right to prescribe rites and ceremonies, and to alter her discipline. But that he did not mean that Church government is changeable in respect to the orders of the Ministry, is evident from the above quotations, and from the whole strain of his work, which is relied on as the bulwark of Episcopacy. The same observations will apply to many other Divines of the Church of England. And the not attending to the different senses, in which, on different occasions, they use the term Church government, has given rise to frequent misrepresentation of their sentiments. Ed

The "Irenicum" of the famous Bishop Stillingfleet, is a favourite book with the advocates of parity. But let them remember that he wrote this book at a very early period of his life; and that he afterwards not only "retracted," but " refuted" the objectionable passages. His sermon, preached when Dean of St. Paul's, at a public ordination, from the charge of St. Paul to Timothy, "Lay hands suddenly on no man," contains as able a defence of Episcopacy as its advocates need desire. The Miscellaneous author will, I think, be satisfied with one or two quotations from it. "I cannot find (says the learned Stillingfleet) any argument of force in the New Testament to prove that ever the Christian Churches were under the sole government of Presbyters." Speaking of the seven Churches of Asia, he says, "The Bishops succeeded the Apostles in the government over those Churches." And again-" There is as great reason to believe the apostolical succession to be of divine institution as the canon of scripture, or the observation of the Lord's Day."

The Miscellaneous author omits no opportunity of sneering at the advocates of Episcopacy as the friends of arbitrary power in the Church-it always delights him to speak of Bishops as "Lords in God's heritage." Let me recommend to him the following remark in this much admired tract of Bishop White, p. 18. "Had Rome been governed by a Presbytery instead of a Bishop; and had that Presbytery been invested with the independent riches and dominion of the Papal See; it is easy to conceive, of their acquiring as much power over the Christian world as was ever known in Gregory or Paul."-What! a Presbytery, a meek, unassuming Presbytery may be even worse than Bishops; they may even vie in ambition and tyranny with the Pope himself. What does the Miscellaneous writer think of this remark of Bishop White? He will no doubt admit it to be highly "judicious and seasonable," Let me also recommend to him another remark of this distinguished Bishop, in a sermon preached at the last General Convention of the Episcopal Church, "It seemed good to the Apostles to appoint some of these with a supereminent commission, of which there were instances in Timothy and Titus; and the persons so appointed have handed down their commission through the different ages of the Church. This is the originally constituted order."

In the obnoxious sentiments selected by the Miscellaneous writer from the works of the author of "The Companion for the Altar," &c. there was no personal invective, no bitter sarcasm, no low ridicule. The opinions expressed were in the language of the primitive Fathers, and of some of the most eminent Divines of the English Church. The application of his general principles that author never presumed to make to particular individuals. The sincere inquirers after truth, he placed within the embrace of the merciful Judge of the Universe, of that gracious Parent who " knoweth whereof we are made, and remembereth that we are but dust." I have carefully perused the obnoxious volumes, and such I declare to be their general spirit, What has been the course pursued by the Miscellaneous author? With every number his propensity to personal invective and bitter sarcasm appears to have increased. In one of his last numbers [No. XVIII.] he compares some worthy