the same ground from which they have again and again been beaten by the champions of primitive discipline. From the days of Origen, Celsus and other infidels have brought forward objections to the truth of Christ's gospel. Every objection has been fairly obviated; every argument has been completely confuted by Origen, and those who have succeeded him in the good fight of faith; and yet, Tom Paine, in the present day, will write with unblushing effrontery; as if the truth of Christianity had never been maintained in former ages, against all opposition; as if there were not now in existence a Watson to expose his ignorance, and chastise his blasphemy. Precisely in the same manner acts this writer of MiscelJanies. The fact is, it is too apparent, that the chief aim of him and his abettors is not to search for truth, but to increase a party. The arguments of Potter in his Treatise on Church Government, and of Slater in his Original Draught of the Christian Church, have never been answered, and I will venture to affirm, never can be answered in the way of dispassionate reasoning; and yet, this boasting Miscellanist comes forward with a bold front, and even with triumphant language, as if the cause of Episcopacy were completely baffled and laid low in the dust.

It is disgusting to every ingenuous mind to trace him and others of the same description through all their arts of misrepresentation. Their chief skill is in exciting the passions of the people, and thus diverting their minds from a calm attention to the merits of the case in dispute. If we insist upon the necessity of Episcopal ordination, immediately they raise a clamour about High Dutch and Low Dutch, Presbyterian and Methodist; and all parties are called upon to unite in opposition to the insolence of Episcopalians. And is it, then, insolent to teach our own people the doctrines of our own Church? Is this a question which is to be decided by numbers? Even if numbers were the proper criterion by which to determine the dispute, the truth is evidently on our side, if we take into view the whole Christian Church. But, supposing this were not the case, does truth become falsehood, when the majority happens to be opposed to it? In the institutions of civil government, the voice of the majority may determine what is right and what is wrong; but in matters of religious concern, I have yet to learn that the vox populi is the vox Dei. It was said by them of old time, follow not a multitude to do evil. It seems to be the opinion of our opponents, that the multitude can never do evil, and that if they have the multitude on their side, they may go on in perfect security. I wonder what would have been the fate of Christianity, had the first preachers of the gospel acted upon this Presbyterian maxim. What shall we now say to Mahometans and Pagans? The disciples of Mahomet are more numerous than those of Christ. Is Mahometanism therefore true, and Christianity false? The Pagans are more numerous than even the followers of Mahomet. Are we therefore, to make no attempt to convert them from the error of their ways? St. Paul was virulently assailed by Jews and Gentiles, as a setter-forth of strange gods. When he was at Ephesus, the Craftsmen of the Goddess Diana made no small stir, and filled the whole city with confusion, alleging that the Apostle's doctrine led to the despising of the temple and destroying the magni

ficence of a Deity whom all Asia and the world worshipped. But was the advocate of God's truth appalled by their numbers, or overborne by their violence? No; he persevered through evil report and good report, through perils by sea and land, among gentile robbers and false brethren, who called themselves Christians; and truth, which is mighty, finally prevailed over all opposition. Now, in order to excite popular resentment, I know it will be said by our adversaries, that I am making the advocates for Presbyterian parity no better than Mahometans and Pagans. Be it remembered, that I mean no such thing. My argument is simply this; when a proposition of great moment to the Christian world is held forth to our consideration, it is our bounden duty not to be swayed by the numbers who have already decided against it; but dispassionately to weigh the arguments which are adduced in support of it; and then to follow the heavenly guidance of truth, however numerous the hosts may be which are set in array against us. Is it not reasonable to suppose that the primitive Fathers of the Church must have been well acquainted with the mode of ecclesiastical government established by Christ and his Apostles? Now, their testimony is universally in our favour. What course, then, have the enemies of Episcopacy, for the most part, pursued? Why, they have endeavoured by every art of misrepresentation to invalidate this testimony of the Fathers. Ignatius was born before the death of St. John. Seven of his Epistles have been proved by Bishop Pearson to be genuine, to the satisfaction of the whole learned world. In these Epistles he repeatedly mentions the three orders of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, and speaks of the order of Bishops as necessary in the constitution of every Christian Church. All this has been done; and still, the Presbyterian teachers mislead the people, by artfully insinuating that none of the writings are genuine which go under the name of Ignatius. Another artful method pursued by our opponents is to collect all the errors into which the Fathers have fallen, with respect to particular points of doctrine; to paint these errors in the blackest colours; and when they have thus prejudiced the minds of the people against them, boldly to go on to the preposterous conclusion, that the testimony of these Fathers is not to be regarded when they stand forth as witnesses to a matter of fact. But is this fair dealing? May not a man of sincerity and truth be liable to errors, as to matters of opinion; and still be a true witness, as to things which he has seen and heard?

Pursuing the usual mode of artful misrepresentation, our Miscellanist has endeavoured to represent Jerome as favouring the Presbyterian scheme of Church government; and with the same spirit, he abuses the Church of England as too nearly bordering on Popery. After seeing what has been published on these subjects, if your opponent has any spark of modesty remaining in his bosom, he will never produce the testimony of Jerome in support of his cause, nor will he dare to reproach the Church of England as inclining to the errors of Popery. The fact is, that the Pope of Rome (as is evident from the history of the Council of Trent) is as great an enemy to genuine primitive Episcopacy, as the most violent Presbyterian can be. Knowing the Church of England to be

the firmest bulwark of the Protestant cause, he is more afraid of her than of any other reformed Church; he has endeavoured to weaken and confound her by open assaults, and by insiduous attempts to sap her foundations; and among other arts to effect his purpose, he has employed emissaries, who assumed the Presbyterian puritan character, and went about England in the time of Queen Elizabeth, declaiming against established liturgies and forms of prayer, and clamouring vehemently for a farther reformation. And are the people still to be misled by their teachers boldly asserting or art. fully insinuating that the Church of England bears too great a resemblance to that of Rome, and that her Daughter the Protestant Episcopal Church of this country, in her most prominent features, is very like her Mother?

You shall hear farther from me on this subject; in the mean time, I remain your very affectionate friend,

CORNELIUS.*

THOUGH

For the Albany Centinel.

MISCELLANIES. No. XXII.

HOUGH I had often heard of Bishop White's pamphlet, yet I never saw it until lately. The copy which I use was printed in Philadelphia, by David C. Claypole, 1782. The plan of government proposed by the Bishop was in general adopted; at least so far as respected the division of the continent into larger and smaller districts; but that part which related to ordination was omitted, in consequence of the strong prejudices of some.† Of this the Bishop was aware when he wrote. "To depart," says he, " from Episcopacy, would be giving up a leading characteristic of the communion; which, however indifferently considered as to divine appointment, might be productive of all the evils generally attending changes of this sort." Rather than to run any risk of evils which the change might occasion, it was determined to obtain the ordination of Bishops from the Bishop of London; as this, however indifferently considered as to divine appointment, would comport with certain prejudices. No one can misunderstand the Bishop, who reads what follows:

"It cannot be denied, that some writers of the Church of England apply very strong expressions to Episcopacy, calling it a divine

The foregoing letter was sent to the printers of the Albany Centinel, who, from a wish not to extend the controversy, declined inserting it. The friends of Episcopacy will regret that in consequence of this circumstance no other productions of this writer appear in this controversy.

Ed.

Episcopal ordination was adhered to, not from "the strong prejudices of some," but from the general principles of Episcopalians. The plan of the pamphlet was founded on the presumption that the Episcopal succession could not be obtained. As soon as there appeared a prospect of obtaining it, Bishop White was among the first to propose and to unite in the measures that were adopted for that purpose. Ed.

*

appointment, the ordinance of Christ, and the law of God, and pronounce it to be of divine right. Yet, in reason they ought to be understood as asserting it to be binding, wherever it can conveniently be had; not that law and gospel are to cease rather than Episcopacy." The Bishop shows that Mr. Hookert and others clearly make this distinction; and he gives the words of Archbishop Whitgift, quoted by Bishop Stillingfleet, as asserting that "no kind of government is expressed in the word, or can necessarily be concluded from thence." The last paragraph of the chapter is full and explicit. It is as follows:

"Now, if even those who hold Episcopacy to be of divine right, conceive the obligation to it to be not binding when that idea would be destructive of public worship, much more must they think so, who, indeed, venerate and prefer that form as the most ancient and eligible; but without any idea of divine right in the case. This the author believes to be the sentiment of the great body of Episcopalians in America; in which respect they have in their favour unquestionably the sense of the Church of England; and, as he believes, the opinions of her most distinguished prelates for piety, virtue, and abilities."

The Bishop, in order to render his reasoning the more perspicuous, and so as not possibly to be misunderstood, has put some words in italic. Let the author of " A Companion for the Festivals," &c. and all his abettors read, and ponder in their hearts. Bishop White "believes it to be the sentiment of the great body of Epis copalians in America," that Episcopacy is not of divine right." In which respect," says he, "they have in their favour UNQUESTION ABLY the sense of the Church of England; and, AS HE BELIEVES,

A

This is a true representation of the sentiments of the generality of the eminent Divines of the Church of England on the subject of Episcopacy. There is no inconsistency between these sentiments, and the exception some of them are disposed to make for "a case of inevitable necessity." Ed. †The quotations already adduced from HOOKER prove, beyond all doubt, that, whatever allowance he might be disposed to make for a case of " in evitable necessity," he expressly maintained that Episcopacy was of divine appointment. The following quotation is added as further proof on this point: "I may securely, therefore, conclude, there are, at this day, in the Church of England, no other than the same degrees of ecclesiastical orders, namely, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, which had their beginning from Christ and his blessed Apostles themselves." Hooker's Eccl. Pol. B. 5.

Sec. 78.

Ed.

Archbishop Whitgift, in this quotation, uses the term government in the sense in which the Puritans, whom he opposed, used it, as including all the particulars of discipline, as well as rites and ceremonies. See the note concerning Whitgift, at p. 87, 88; and also the note at p. 107, concerning the sense in which Hooker, and other advocates of Episcopacy, sometimes use the term Church government. In his letter to Beza, Whitgift uses language, which puts beyond all cavil his sentiments as to the divine and apostolical institution of Episcopacy. "We make no doubt," says the Archbishop in this letter, "but that the Episcopal degree which we bear, is an institution apostolical and divine; and so always hath been held by a continual course of times from the Apostles to this very age of ours." Dr. Chandler's Appeal Defended, Ed.

35. T

See

the opinion of her most distinguished prelates for piety, virtue, and abilities."* Do I misrepresent the passage? Who is so hardy as to charge me with this? Reader, judge for yourself. The passage is written in the 28th page of the pamphlet.

Will any ask, Who is Bishop White, that his sentiments should have so much weight? Let me ask such a person, Who is he who contradicts that for which there is such ample proof? The Bishop believes on good foundation. He gives a reason for his faith. He is surrounded with a cloud of witnesses. He has produced a sufficient number, and he could easily produce many others. He is, notwithstanding, a true Episcopalian;† and he moves with dignity

* When the author of the pamphlet here quoted asserts, that "the most distinguished prelates of the Church of England venerate and prefer Episcopal government as the most ancient and eligible, but without any idea of divine right in the case," it is presumed he must mean absolute divine right, without any allowance for a case of " inevitable necessity;" for, with this allowance, Hooker, whom the author of this pamphlet professes to take as the guide of his opinions, expressly maintains that “the institution of Bishops is from God, the Holy Ghost is the author of it." That a departure from Episcopacy in a case of necessity is allowable, does not prove that Episcopacy is not a divine institution: for all will admit that the neglect of the divine institutions of Baptism and the Lord's Supper may be allowable in cases of necessity. What these cases of necessity are, it may be difficult to determine; and must finally be left to the decision of that gracious Being, who, wherever he finds a sincere desire and endeavour to know and to do his will, will not be "extreme to mark what is done amiss."

Even the author of the pamphlet here quoted, who only justifies a departure from Episcopacy in "an extraordinary exigency," and where "ordination by Bishops cannot be bad," holds out the doctrine that "the Episcopal power was lodged by Christ and his Apostles in the superior order of the Ministry." For in his first letter, signed An Episcopalian, which will be found in the subsequent pages, he assumes as his own, the Episcopalian opinion as stated in his pamphlet. And this opinion is in the following words: "There having been an Episcopal power lodged by Jesus Christ with his Apostles, and by them exercised generally in person, but sometimes by delegation, (as in the instances of Timothy and Titus) the same was conveyed by them, before their decease, to one pastor in each Church, which generally comprehended all the Christians in a city, and a convenient surrounding district."

Ed.

"A True Episcopalian!” And yet, according to this writer, "no Presbyterian could argue more to the purpose." [See Mis. No. XX.]

According to the author of Miscellanies, a "true Episcopalian" is one who places Episcopacy, not, as his Church does, on the ground of " Scripture and ancient authors," but merely on the footing of expediency and preference.

According to this author, a "true Episcopalian" is one, who, instead of maintaining with his Church in the offices of ordination, that “ Almighty God, by his Holy Spirit, appointed divers orders of Ministers in the Church,” refers their authority merely to Apostolic practice.

According to the author of Miscellanies, a“ true Episcopalian" is one, who, though his Church acknowledges none as" lawful" Ministers, with sufficient authority, but those who have" Episcopal consecration or ordination," maintains that those Presbyterially ordained have sufficient authority.

If these be the principles of a “true Episcopalian," pray, how is he to