For the Albany Centinel.

CYPRIAN. No. V.

WE have now seen the evidence which we derive from scripture

in support of the claims of our order of Bishops. It appears to me that this evidence alone is perfectly satisfactory.

As we advance, however, with the Church in her progress, and examine the writings of the early Fathers, our evidence accumulates at every step. At a very early period, it is placed beyond all possible controversy, that this form of government was established in the Church.

And here let me appeal to the common sense of every unprejudiced reader, to bear witness to the truth of the following proposition.

If we had only obscure hints given us in scripture of the institution of this form of government by the Apostles, and if at a very early period-as soon as any distinct mention is at all made of the subject, this appears to be the only form of government existing in the Church, have we not the strongest possible presumption, have we not absolute demonstration, that it was of Apostolic original? Who were so likely to be acquainted with the intentions, with the practices, with the institutions of the Apostles, as their immediate successors? If, then, we should admit for a moment (and really it is almost too great an outrage against sound reasoning, to be admitted even for a moment); I say, if we should admit, for the sake of argument, that "the Classical or Presbyterial form of Church government was instituted by Christ and his Apostles," at what period was the Episcopal introduced? When did this monstrous innovation upon primitive order find its way into the Church of Christ? At what period did the Bishops make the bold and successful attempt of exalting themselves into "Lords in God's heritage?" These are questions which the advocates of parity have never yet been able to answer, which they never will be able to answer. They tell us, indeed, of a change that must have taken place at an early period, that Episcopacy is a corrupt innovation; but they can produce no proof on which to ground these bold assertions. They are counte nanced, in these assertions, by none of the records of these times that have been transmitted to us. It is a mere conjecture, a creature of the imagination. It is conjectured that this change took place immediately after the Apostolic age. It must be that this change took place, or Presbyterian principles cannot be maintained. Thus a mere conjecture on their part is to overbalance the most solid and substantial proof on ours. In order to follow these ærial adventurers in their excursions, we are to desert the broad and solid bottom of facts, and launch into the regions of hypothesis and uncertainty.

We say, then, and I hope it will be well remembered, that from the earliest information which is given us concerning the institutions and usages of the Christian Church, it undeniably appears, that there existed in it the three distinct orders of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. We say, that this circumstance amounts to demonstrative evidence, that these three orders were of divine institu

tion-were of Apostolic appointment. And here, moreover, let it be remarked, that it is not incumbent upon us to prove that Episcopacy was not an innovation upon the primitive establishment. The presumption operates entirely in our favour. The burthen of proof on this point lies upon them. They are required to show that there is any foundation for the hypothesis that the government of Christ's Church underwent any such change at this early period.

But we do not stop here. We maintain that to suppose the form of government in the Church of Christ to have been so fundamentally altered at this time, is the wildest imagination that ever entered into the head of man. Let us contemplate the circumstances of this

case.

It is supposed that Christ and his Apostles instituted originally but one order of Ministers in his Church, equal in dignity and authority. It is imagined, that immediately after their death, a number of aspiring individuals abolished this primitive arrangement, elevated themselves to supreme authority in the Church of Christ. Concerning the time at which this innovation was effected, the advocates of Presbyterianism are by no means agreed. The most learned among them, however, admit that it must have taken place before the middle of the second century, about forty or fifty years after the times of the Apostles. BLONDEL allows that Epis copacy was the established government of the Church within forty years after the Apostolic age. BOCHART assigns as the period of its origin, the age that immediately succeeded the Apostles. He says it arose, paulo post Apostolos. SALMASIUS even allows that this government prevailed in the Church before the death of the last of the Apostles. And, in fact, this is the only period at which it can be supposed to have originated with any degree of plausibility. It shall be my task to show that it is altogether improbable, that it is almost impossible, that any innovation upon primitive order and discipline could have been effectuated at this early period.

Within forty years after the times of the Apostles, we are told, that the Bishops, by a bold and successful effort, trampled upon the rights and privileges of the Clergy, and elevated themselves ta the chair of supreme authority! What! Those who were the immediate successors of the Apostles-those who had received from these miraculous men the words of eternal truth, the institutions of God's own appointment-so soon forget the reverence and duty which they owed them-so soon, with a rash and impious hand, strike away the foundation of those venerable structures which they had erected! Would they not permit the Apostles to be cold in their graves before they began to undermine and demolish their sacred establishments? Would such iniquitous proceedings have been possible with men who exhibited, on all occasions, the warmest attachment to their Saviour and to all his institutions? Will it be imagined that the good IGNATIUs, the venerable Bishop of Antioch, he who triumphantly avowed that he disregarded the pains of martyrdom, so that he could but attain to the presence of Jesus Christwill it be imagined that he entered into a conspiracy to overthrow that government which his Saviour had established in his Curch? Would the illustrious POLYCARP, the pride and ornament of the Churches of Asia, have engaged in the execution of so foul an en

U

terprize-he, who, when commanded to blaspheme Christ, exclaimed, "Four-score and six years have I served him, and he never did me any harm; how, then, shall I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?" In short, can all the pious Fathers that succeeded these, be supposed to have co-operated in perfecting the atrocious work which they had begun? These things will not be credited.

But even supposing that these pious men, whose meek and una spiring temper renders it altogether incredible that they made any such sacrilegious attempt, were inclined to obtain this pre-eminence in the Church; can it be imagined, that the remaining Pres byters would have witnessed these daring usurpations with indifference? Would they have made no effort to save themselves and their brethren from the control of so undue and illegitimate an authority? Could none be found amongst them possessed of so much zeal in the service of their divine Master, so ardently attached to his holy institutions, as to induce them to resist such a bold and impi ous attempt? In short, would not such an attempt by a few Pres byters, according to the uniform course of things, necessarily have agitated and convulsed the Church? Would not the period of such an innovation have become a marked and peculiar æra in her existence? Can the advocates of parity show any thing in the history of man analogous to their supposed change in ecclesiastical government at this time? Could ever such a radical and important alteration have been produced in any government, civil or ecclesiastical, without being accompanied by violence and convulsion? We find that the congregations, at this time, were extremely jealous of the authority that was exercised over them. This jealousy made its appearance even during the times of the Apostles. Some took it upon themselves to call in question the authority of St. Paul, others that of St. John. From the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians, it would seem as if some disorders had arisen amongst them from a similar source. Is it to be supposed then that any number of Presbyters would have dared, would have proved successful had they dared, to endeavour to accumulate in their hands such undue autho rity as that which was claimed by Bishops? And even if we should allow that a few Presbyters might in some places have had the ta lents and address to elevate themselves to this superiority over their brethren, is it probable, is it possible, that this took place at the same time over the universal Church? Can such a singular coincidence of circumstances be reasonably imagined? The Church had, at this time, widely extended herself over the Roman empire. Did, then, the Churches of Africa, of Asia, of Europe, by a mira culous unanimity of opinion, enter at the same moment into the determination to change their form of government from the Presbyterial to the Episcopal? I will not do so much discredit to the understanding of any reader as to imagine that he does not at once perceive the inadmissibility and the absurdity of such a supposition.

Let us, however, suppose the most that our adversaries can desire. Let us suppose that the primitive rulers of the Church were destitute of principle. Let us suppose them devoid of attachment to the institutions of Christ. Let us suppose that they waited every opportunity to promote their own aggrandizement. Let us suppose the difficulties removed that opposed them in their ascent towards

the chair of Episcopal authority. What was there, at this period, in the office of Bishop to excite their desires, or to invite their exertions to obtain it? The veneration attached to it, as yet, extended no farther than to the family of the faithful. The Church was on all hands encountered by the bitterest enemies. By elevating themselves, therefore, to the pre-eminence of Bishops, they only raised themselves to pre-eminence in difficulties, in dangers, in deaths. Their blood was always the first that was drunk by the sword of persecution. Their station only exposed them to more certain and more horrid deaths. Was an office of this kind an object of cupidity? Is it to be supposed that great exertions would be made, many difficulties encountered to obtain it? But I need say no more on this part of the subject.

The idea that an alteration took place at this time in the form of government originally established in the Church of Christ, is altogether unsupported by any proof.

It is proved to be unfounded by unnumbered considerations. CYPRIAN.

For the Albany Centinel.

MISCELLANIES. No. XXIII.

WHILE the extracts from Bishop White's pamphlet may have

some effect in lowering the flight of certain Episcopalians, they will be to the great body cause of satisfaction and joy. It will be seen that the defence of Episcopacy does not rest on divine right and uninterrupted succession; but on expediency, or a preference for that particular form of government. Thus, it may be maintained with perfect toleration and charity towards other denominations. Let Episcopalians be assured that they are not, in general, blamed for unchurching all others. The charge is brought only against a few of aspiring minds, who have written with little prudence, and with too slight an examination of the subject.† Bishop White con

*Does not the preface to the ordination services "rest" Episcopacy on Scripture and ancient authors? Do not the prayers in the ordination services set forth that Almighty God, by his holy Spirit, appointed the orders of the Priestbood? Does not HOOKER, who stands at the head of the venerable list of the advocates of Episcopacy, maintain, that "the institution of Bishops was from God, the Holy Ghost was the author of it?" Does not Bishop White himself maintain, that "the Apostles appointed some with a supereminent commission, and that the persons so appointed have banded down their commission through the different ages of the Church?" What foundation then has the assertion that "the defence of Episcopacy does not rest on divine right and uninterrupted succession, but on expediency or prefer

ence 2"

Ed.

† Let the justice of this last charge be tested by the present discus sion. As to the charge of " aspiring minds;" there may be as much pride in opposing Episcopacy, as in advocating its claims. There is not a little truth in the observation of the Layman in his second address: "This lofty hatred of subordination, ah! how opposite is it to the humility of the Gospel! What mischief hath it not operated both in Church and in State!" Ed.

cludes his pamphlet with urging the same doctrine and the same pious sentiments with which he began; as will appear from the following:

"Perhaps, however, there would be little room for difference of sentiment among the well informed, if the matter were generally taken up with seriousness and moderation, and were to rest on religious principles alone. But unhappily there are some, in whose ideas the existence of their Church is so connected with that of the civil government of Britain, as to preclude their concurrence in any system, formed on a presumed final separation of the two countries. Prejudices of this sort will admit of no conviction but such as may arise from future events; and are therefore no farther considered in this performance, than with a sincere sorrow, that any persons, professing to be of the communion of the Church of England, should so far mistake the principles of that Church, as to imagine them widely different from what form the religion of the scriptures.

"As for those who are convinced that the United States have risen to an independent rank among the nations, or who even think that such may probably be the event of the war, they are loudly called on to adopt measures for the continuance of their churches, as they regard the public worship of God, the foundation of which is immutable; as they esteem the benefit of the sacraments, which were instituted by the supreme Bishop of the Church; and as they are bound to obey the scriptures, which enjoin us not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is.'

"It is presumed there are many, who, while they sincerely love their fellow Christians of every denomination, knowing (as one of their prayers expresses) that the body of Christ' comprehends the blessed company of all faithful people,' are more especially attached to their own mode of worship, perhaps from education, but as they conceive, from its being most agreeable to reason and scripture, and its most nearly resembling the pattern of the purest ages of the Church. On the consciences of such, above all others, may be pressed the obligation of adopting speedy and decisive measures to prevent their being scattered "like sheep without a shepherd," and to continue the use of that form of divine service, which they believe to be "worshipping the Lord in the beauty of holi,

ness.

From the above extract we are informed as to the cause of the prejudices of some against the system proposed by the Bishop; it was an attachment to the civil government of Britain, and an opposition to the independence of the United States.* Or, they conceived, that the existence of their Church depended on a continu-> ance of its former connection. But there is a remarkable opposition in what the Bishop pleads for, to the sentiments expressed by the author of "A Companion for the Festivals," &c. and " for the Altar," &c. The one speaks of " the benefit of the sacraments"

* What is the design of this insinuation? Episcopalians will yield to none in attachment to the government of their country, and in zeal for its independence. True Churchmen will always be found the supporters of order and good government.

Ed.