Episcopal Clergymen to "deserters" and traitors, like Arnold; to "run-away servants;" to "thieves and robbers." May we not hope that he has arrived at the climax of scurrility, that his flight through the regions of invective and ridicule cannot be much far ther extended? Would it not be well for him to pause and seriously to ask himself, whether his mode of controversy be worthy of the sincere inquirer after truth; be worthy of the public teacher of a religion which forbids all rash invective? Above all, whether it will stand the test of that tribunal at which we must render "an account of every idle word?"

DETECTOR.

For the Albany Centinel.

THE LAYMAN. No. VIII.

It may be proper, now, to take some notice of that intimate con

nection which is admitted to exist between the Old and the New Testament.

On this point, however, it cannot be necessary to dilate. The Miscellaneous writer will admit all that I wish, under this head, to be admitted. He will, at once, acknowledge that the Mosaic dispensation was typical of the Christian, the Gospel being the law in substance, and the law being the Gospel in figure. The law, says the Apostle, was our school-master, to bring us unto Christ." Gal. iii. 24. And the Priests who offer gifts, according to the law, are represented by the same inspired writer, as being "the example and shadow of heavenly things." Heb. viii. 5, 4. In fact, it is impossible to look at any part of the Mosaic system without perceiving, clearly, that it pointed to something beyond itself. The rock smitten in the desert was Christ; and so, also, the serpent elevated on a cross, by looking at which the perishing Israelites were rescued from death. The manna that descended from Heaven to sustain the followers of Moses, was typical of that bread of life on which all the humble disciples of Jesus habitually feed. What was the Paschal Lamb but a most interesting emblem of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world! The sacrifices of the law, at what did they point, but the sacrifice of the Son of God! But on this subject I must not enlarge; for, to trace the parallels between the law and the gospel would require a volume. They furnish a most interesting, and most conclusive evidence of the truth of the Christian dispensation. Our Saviour was equally predicted by the prophets, and prefigured by the law. He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil.

Let us attend a little, however, to the comparison between the Jewish and Christian Church, in relation to the officers by whom they were respectively governed.

The twelve Apostles may well be considered as the patriarchal progenitors of the whole Christian people. St. Paul speaks of his Converts, as of his children, begotten by him to a new life, through

the preaching of the Gospel. In the Christian Church, then, there were twelve Apostles; in the Jewish, there were twelve patriarchs; and in the heavenly society, where both are united, St. John peaks to us of four-and-twenty elders seated round the throne of God. Beside the twelve Apostles, our Saviour commissioned other seventy also; the number seventy answering to that of the Elders who were appointed to assist Moses in his ministry.

We find three orders of officers in the Jewish Church; and, in the Christian, there have always been three orders answering to these. What Aaron, his sons, and the Levites were in the temple, that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are in the Church. Such is the concurring testimony of the primitive Fathers. Take that of St. Jerome, whom the advocates of parity are fond of quoting, and to whom, therefore, it is presumed, they will not object. "That ave may know the apostolical economy to be taken from the pattern of the Old Testament, the same that Aaron, and his sons, and the Levites were in the Temple, the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons are in the Church of Christ." It is too absurd to attempt to turn this parallel into ridicule. By the very same mode of proceed ing you may destroy the whole Christian dispensation. In all that he has said upon this point, the Miscellaneous writer has contri buted much more to the support of infidelity than of any other cause.

How far, then, do we carry this argument?

We say, simply, that the law being figurative of the Gospel, in all its important parts, the Jewish Priesthood was, of course, typical of the Christian. For this we have the express declaration of the Apostle Paul, and the advocates of parity will not pretend to con→ trovert the position. Well, then, the Priests of the law serving as "the example and shadow of heavenly things," the circumstance of there being three orders in the Jewish ministry, furnishes a strong presumption against the doctrine of parity. We do not rely upon this as proof. We merely state it as presumptive evidence entitled to real attention. It gives us, we contend, possession of the ground, and throws the burthen of proof upon our opponents.

Now, what says the Miscellaneous writer in reply to all this? He talks to us of the dress of the Jewish high Priest; asking, very sagaciously, where are the golden ephod, the breast plate, the em broidered girdle, in which Aaron and his successors were clad. I call upon him here to lay his hand on his heart, and say, whether this is just reasoning. He knows that it is not. What, the Jewish Priesthood not figurative of the Christian, because of a variety in dress! Is it necessary, in order that one thing be typical of another, that there should be no points of difference between them? No more than it is necessary that we should be able to rise to the perfection of the character of Christ, because we are called upon to propose him as the model for imitation, and to become holy as he is holy.

Is the Miscellaneous writer aware of the conclusion to which his mode of reasoning conducts? If he has proved that the Jewish Priesthood was not typical of the Christian, he has proved equally, that the law was not a shadow of the Gospel; thus destroying, effectually, all connection between the Old and New Testament. Is

there no difference between our Saviour and the Paschal Lamb by which he was prefigured? Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, were all types of Christ; but were there no points of distinction between these men and the Saviour of the world? Give to the infidel the wea pons of this writer, and how easily will he demolish, with them, the whole fabric of Christianity! If the points of difference which have been mentioned, between the Priesthood of the law, and of the Gospel, prove that the one was not typical of the other, they equally prove that our Saviour was never prefigured, and that that intimate connection, between the Jewish and Christian dispensations, which has been so much relied upon by the defenders of the faith, never existed but in the imaginations of men. But I feel as if I were insulting the understanding of the reader, in dwelling on this point. I dismiss it. therefore, especially as I have not been able to bring myself to believe that the writer had any thing more in view, in it, than a flourish of rhetoric to attract the vulgar gaze.

The Mosaic dispensation, then, was figurative of the Christian. The Priesthood of the law was typical of the Priesthood of the Gospel. The former consisting of distinct and subordinate orders, a strong presumption thence arises in favour of that distinction and subordination of office which, until the days of Calvin, characterized, without a single exception, the Christian Church. This we contend, as was said before, gives us possession of the ground, and throws the burthen of proof upon the advocates of parity.

So much then for the Jewish Priesthood. It was a shadow of the Christian Priesthood, according to the express declaration of the Apostle Paul. While the Miscellaneous writer does not venture openly to deny this, but rather seems to admit it, in representing the whole Jewish system as typical, he endeavours, nevertheless, in an indirect manner, to destroy all relationship between the Priesthood of the law and of the Gospel, by dwelling on the variety of dress, with some other subordinate points of distinction. Here he acts with his usual imprudence; tearing up, in his rage against Episcopacy, the very foundations of the Christian faith. A Layman of the Episcopal Church.

DR.

For the Albany Centinel.

MISCELLANIES. No. XX.

R. White, the present worthy Bishop of the Episcopal Church in Pennsylvania, proceeds, in his interesting pamphlet, to prove "that a temporary departure from Episcopacy would be warranted by her doctrine, by her practice, and by the principles on which Episcopal government is asserted."

"Whatever that Church holds," says he, "must be included in the thirty-nine articles of religion; which were evidently intended for a comprehensive system of necessary doctrine."* But what say

*It is to be presumed that the Liturgy and Offices of the Church are also the standards of her doctrine.

Ed.

these articles on the present subject? Simply, that "the Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and the ordering of Priests and Deacons, doth contain all things necessary thereunto; neither hath it any thing that of itself is superstitious and ungodly." [Art. xxxvi.] The canons speak the same sense, censuring those who shall" affirm that the government of the Church of England, by Archbishops, Bishops, &c. is anti-Christian, or repugnant to the word of God." [Canon vii.] And those who "shall affirm that the form and manner of making and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, containeth any thing in it that is repugnant to the word of God, or that they who are thus made Bishops, &c. are not lawfully made," &c. [Canon viii.]

"How can such moderation of sentiment and expression be justified, if the Episcopal succession be so binding, as to allow no deviation in a case of extreme necessity? Had the Church of England decreed concerning baptism and the Lord's supper, only that they were not repugnant to the word of God,' and that her offices for those sacraments were not superstitious and ungodly,' would she not be censured by almost all Christendom, as renouncing the obligation of those sacraments? Equally improper would be the application of such moderate expressions to Episcopacy, if (as some imagine) she considers it to be as binding as baptism and the Lord's supper."

"The Book of Consecration and Ordination carries the idea no further, except that the preface, as altered at the restoration (for it was not so in the old preface), affirms, that from the Apostles' times there have been these orders in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.' But there is an evident difference between this and the asserting the unlawfulness of deviating from that practice in an instance, extraordinary and unprovided for."

It is evident, from the foregoing passages, that Bishop White does not consider a deviation from Episcopacy to be forbidden, either by the articles, or the canons, or the book of consecration of the Church of England-that he does not consider it "to be as much binding as baptism and the Lord's supper"—and that the “moderation of sentiment and expression" show the meaning of his Church. He informs us that the preface to the book of consecration and ordination was altered at the restoration; but still does not condemn a deviation from Episcopacy in particular cases. Let us hear now what a later writer, even the author of "A Companion for the Festivals," says: "Men may with the same reason abolish the sacraments of the Church, and all other Christian institutions, as pretend that the functions of Church officers are mutable and temporary." This, and many similar declarations, would have been more modest, had they contradicted only Bishop White, and not been opposed to the standards of the Episcopal Church. The Bishop furnishes next precedents from the practice of the Church.

"Many of the English Protestants," says he, "during the persecution by Queen Mary, took refuge in foreign countries, particularly in Germany and Geneva. When protestantism revived at the auspicious accession of Queen Elizabeth, and at the same time a

See the remarks at the end of this number.

Ed.

cloud was gathering on the continent, in consequence of the Emperor's victories over the princes of the Smalcaldic league, many of the exiles returned to their native land; some of whom, during their absence, had been ordained according to the customs of the countries where they had resided. These were admitted without re-ordination, to preach and hold benefices: one of them [Whit tingham] was promoted to a deanery; but, at the same time, as several of them were endeavouring to make innovations in the established Church, it was provided in a law (13th Elizabeth 12) that whoever shall pretend to be a Priest or Minister of God's holy word, by reason of any other form of institution, consecration, or ordering, than the form set forth by act of parliament, before the feast of the nativity of Christ next ensuing, shall, in the presence of the Bishop, declare his assent, and subscribe to all the articles of religion agreed on,' &c. Here existed an extraordinary occasion, not provided for in the institutions for common use; the exigency of the case seems to have been considered; and there followed a toleration, if not implied approbation, of a departure in that instance from Episcopal ordination." The Bishop has inserted here the following note: "Bishop Burnet says (History of his own times, anno 1661) that until the act of uniformity, passed soon after the restoration, those who came to England, from the foreign Churches, had not been required to be ordained among us. If so, the argument founded on practice, extends further than it has been urged. The act of Elizabeth, however, had no operation beyond the Christmas next ensuing; neither, indeed, did it pronounce that a good ordination which would have been otherwise defective; but its being meant to comprehend those who were AT THAT TIME invested with foreign non-episcopalian ordination, is evident from their being actually allowed to preach and hold benefices, on the condi tion of their subscribing the thirty-nine articles."

* The reader is earnestly requested to peruse the following extract, from Dr. Chandler's Appeal Defended, page 43, &c. concerning those persons in Elizabeth's reign, who held preferments without being episcopally ordained. Dr. Chandler is replying to Dr. Chauncy, who had urged the above instances as proofs that the Church of England did not maintain the necessity of Episcopal ordination.

"The foreign Divines mentioned by the Doctor, viz. P. Martyr, M. Bucer, and P. Fagius, who were admitted, without re-ordination, not to ecclesiastical preferments in the established Church (excepting P. Martyr, who had been episcopally ordained, and was made at last Canon of Christ's Church), but to academical preferments in the Universities, came over upon the invitation of Cranmer, and were settled in their respective places before the Ordinal was compiled and established. As to Whittingham and Travers, the two other instances pointed out by the Doctor; the former was preferred in the early part of Elizabeth's reign, by the interest of the Earl of Leicester, the great patron of the Puritans. Upon the accession of that Princess, she found the affairs of religion in a confused, precarious state; and the great object of her attention was, first, to bring about quietly, if possible, the re-establishment of the Protestant religion, as it had been reformed in the reign of King Edward; and then to secure it against the attempts of the Papists. All her political address was requisite for conducting this important work, as it was foreseen that innumerable dangers

Q

1