of the spirit in the bond of peace," yet his warmest friends must admit, that before he arrives at the conclusion of those he hath already presented to the public inspection, he indulges himself in representations of the Episcopal Church and her tenets by no means reconcileable with Christian charity or candour. His disingenuousness and illiberality have been already amply exposed in the answer he has received from a judicious layman: And I must be permitted to remark, that however deep may be the sentiments of respect and good will which I entertain for this gentleman, I find some difficulty in excusing him for the liberties he hath taken with the principles of that denomination of Christians to which I profess myself to belong. How shall I excuse him for bestowing upon Episcopalians the opprobrious epithets of prejudiced, of bigotted, of superstitious? These are hard names. They merit the severest reprehension. An attack so violent upon a large and respectable denomination of Christians, when unprovoked* too, can by no considerations be justified or palliated. Yes, if to hold in endearing estimation the memory of our blessed Saviour and all those words of eternal truth he hath delivered to us-if to pay an inviolable regard to all his sacred institutions be prejudice, be bigotry, be superstition-then do Episcopalians merit these opprobrious epithets. If to look to their Lord as the only legitimate source of all power and authority in his Church-if to adhere inflexibly to that form of government he hath transmitted to them through the hands of his Apostles, by an uninterrupted succession of Church officers to the present day-if to estimate as worthy of credit the testimony of the Universal Church for 1500 years-if these things be prejudice, be bigotry, be superstition, then Episcopalians claim these reproachful epithets. If to adhere to Episcopacy be prejudice, be bigotry, be superstition, then is Christianity a venerable error, a system of bigotry, a prejudice, a superstition.

But this writer asserts that "the Classical or Presbyterial form of Church Government is the true and only one which Christ hath prescribed in his word, and is best adapted to the people of the ⚫ United States, and most conformable to their institutions of civil government. In the first part of this proposition, our antagonist takes possession, to be sure, of a broad and elevated ground. From this ground, however, he may be assured, had he an able adversary to contend with, he would soon find himself obliged to retreat with precipitation. Methinks he had better chosen at once, as

* I say this attack is unprovoked-for although I have read the publications to which this gentleman alludes when he endeavours to justify himself, yet I am by no means of opinion that they exculpate him for having recourse to this mode of assailing the Episcopal Church, of retorting what he, it seems, has considered as an injury. I beg this writer to remember, that the Companion for the Altar, and the Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, are intended solely for the use of Episcopalians. Surely we have a right to instruct our people in what we esteem as the whole counsel of God. While we are tolerated, this privilege will not be denied As to the Bishop of this State, I know him to be warmly attached to the principles of his Church, and always competent to the task of defending

us.

them.

some of the ablest champions of his cause have done, a more limited and a more tenable situation. Instead of rushing thus impetuously into the field, he had better retired at once into the citadel. Should he and his adherents meet with a defeat in the open field of argument, they may possibly find themselves too much weakened and exhausted to defend, at last, the citadel itself.

Of the last part of this proposition, as proceeding from that gentleman, I confess I do not know what opinion to entertain. Can it be the deliberate intention of this writer, by representing the Episcopal form of Church Government as hostile to the civil institutions of this coun→ try, to excite an illiberal, an uncharitable, and an unfounded prejudice against her? And who could have anticipated an insinuation of this kind from the writer of a preceding number on the subject of Demagogues-a writer who had given to the malignant some colour for suspecting that he does not entertain sentiments of very high admiration for a form of civil government which gives so loose a rein to these turbulent and mischievous members of society? I candidly confess that this is a part of his production which I do not comprehend. I will not ascribe to him unworthy motives-I am sure he is above them. Episcopalians feel an attachment as sincere and ardent as the rest of their fellow-citizens to the politi→ cal institutions of their country. They are grateful to the Author of all good for that inestimable blessing of civil liberty which we enjoy. One of the wishes nearest to their hearts is, that their civil and religious liberties may be long preserved. They admire that form of government sketched out in the constitution of their country. They would use any exertions to preserve it in its purity and vigour. The only apprehension some of them entertain on the -subject is, that the materials of which it is composed are not sufficiently durable. They fear that it will fall into too speedy decay and dissolution. All that they exact of their rulers is, to impart to it in their administration, that stability and energy, which are essential to the promulgation of its existence, which are essential to the happiness and prosperity of the nation. All that they would warn them against, is, any attempt at touching with a rude and sacrilegious hand, that sacred instrument, our constitution, the palladium of our rights, our ark of safety. These are the sentiments of perhaps most of us on political subjects. We perceive not, that an adherence to our ecclesiastical institutions tends, in the smallest -degree, to diminish our attachment to our civil. We feel not the justness of this writer's observations, that the Presbyterial form of Church Government is more conformable than our own to our institutions of civil government.

In fact, what incongruity can subsist between the Episcopal <form of Church Government and our institutions of civil polity? Is there not, on the contrary, a striking analogy between them? Does not the elevation of the order of Bishops to supreme authority in the Church strikingly correspond to the political arrangements of our country? Have not the United States-has not State in this union, a supreme magistrate, possessed of high and peculiar prerogatives? Have not these magistrates the power of commissioning subordinate officers to aid them in the administration of government? And with what powers of any importance are our Bi

every

D

shops entrusted, but the power of commissioning subordinate officers of the Church? They can obtain no undue influence over their Presbyters, their Deacons, or their people. They can establish no spiritual tyranny; their Presbyters, their Deacons, even the delegates of the people must co-operate with them in all measures of sacred legislation. Where, then, is this formidable authority of our Bishops with which some gentlemen would frighten the good people of this country? Where is that terrible power lodged in the hands of our highest order of Ministers which this gentleman, imitating some of the principal abettors of the same cause, has, very disingenuously endeavoured to represent as the first step, which was taken by the primitive rulers of the Church in their ascent towards the chair of papal supremacy?

And here, I trust I shall be indulged in remarking, that it is much too common, and, unfortunately for us, much too popular an artifice made use of by our enemies, to endeavour to create a prejudice amongst Protestants against the Episcopal Church, by connecting her cause with that of Roman Catholics, by representing her as allied in her structure to the Church of Rome. What artifice could be more unfair, more illiberal, more unwarrantable? Upon Episcopacy, it is true, that pure, and simple, and primitive form of Church Government was constructed, in process of time, the gigantic, the gloomy, and tremendous despotism of the Pope. But what has this form of government, organized by Christ and his Apostles, to do with the corruptions of the Church of Rome? Shall the Episcopal authority be thought to have been impaired by that immense pile of extraneous matter which was heaped upon it during the dark ages? Shall Christianity be made accountable for those enormities that, at different periods of the world, have been perpetrated under her hallowed name? Shall she be made to answer for that blood with which her misguided sons have stained her sacred standard? Shall the constitution of England be thought accountable for those usurpations of authority that were witnessed during the reigns of her arbitrary princes? Neither should we feel ourselves justified in abolishing those authorities Christ has constituted in his Church, because at some periods they have been instrumental to evil purposes. As well might we overturn all civil government, because sometimes it has been known to degenerate into tyranny. No, Episcopacy, pure as the sacred fountain from which it flows, has never been contaminated by any admixtures with the impurities of papal Rome. And what have the dignities and emolu. ments which, in some countries, where an alliance between Church and State is estimated as sound policy, are connected to the Bishop's office, to do with his ecclesiastical pre-eminence? These are only the habiliments with which Episcopacy is cloathed-they are by no means essentially connected with it. Episcopacy, as the judicious "Layman" has remarked, is the same in this country and in England. It is the same throughout Christendom. It was the same during the time of the Apostles and their immediate successors, as it was during the most splendid eras of papal power, when the pretended Vicar of Christ extended his sceptre over the world. It was the same during those gloomy seasons in which the Church, like her blessed Head and Founder in Gethsemane was made to

sweat blood under the agony inflicted on her by the fury of her persecutors, and during her triumphant progress through the Roman empire, under the auspices of Constantine, sheltered by the sword of civil and military power. Episcopacy has been the same through all ages, in every nation. The Reformers of the Episcopal Church did not think proper to reject the whole of Christianity, because it was found blended with unnumbered superstitions in the Church of Rome. They did not renounce the Sacrament because the monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation was grafted on it. They did not reject the inspiration of the scriptures, because the mischievous belief of the Pope's infallibility had arisen out of it. Neither did they think proper to renounce Episcopacy because it had been the ladder by which the Bishop of Rome ascended the throne of Papal dominion. They carefully separated the fundamentals of Christianity which were always contained in the Church of Rome from those additions which had been made to them by the hands of men. They endeavoured to re-organize the Church of Christ upon the primitive model. They endeavoured to restore her to her primitive simplicity and beauty. And with triumph we avow that they have been successful in the efforts which they made. They have restored to us in the Episcopal, the Church of Christ in her primitive organization, in her primitive simplicity and beauty. Shall we then still be accused of being too much assimilated in our structure to the Roman Catholic Church, of having imbibed too much of her spirit and temperament?

Shall that Church which at every period has made the most bold and successful stand against the assaults of Papal power; that Church, which, in every age of her existence, has nourished and matured in her bosom, as her pride and ornament, those sons that, have proved the ablest champions of the Reformation? Shall she be accused of having imbibed the corruptions of the Church of Rome? What! shall that Church which has passed through the furnace enkindled by the breath of persecuting Rome, be accused of retaining her corruptions, her impurities? Shall not the blood of Cranmer, of Ridley, of Latimer, her illustrious Reformers, wash her from the stain of so unjust and foul an imputation? But on these preliminary points of this writer I have done. Perhaps I have already said more than is necessary. I was afraid that some improper impressions might be made on the public mind by his piece, and I have undertaken to remove them.

CYPRIAN.

I

For the Albany Centinel.

MISCELLANIES. No. XII,

CONSIDER these strictures on Church Government as no more than necessary self-defence. If any thing appears like an attack upon Episcopacy, and if its friends are alarmed lest its strong holds be demolished or taken, the war on my part is still purely defensive, and the laws of nations justify my conduct. They

are to blame who gave wanton provocation,* by setting up their own Church as the only true one upon earth, and attempting to batter down all others. Could not the Episcopalians be contented with framing a constitution according to their own mind, and peaceably enjoying it, without insulting other denominations, treating them as if they were "aliens from the commonwealth of Isreal," and assuming airs of dignity and superiority?+ Who was calling in question the validity of their administration of ordinances? Why not allow others the same privilege which they have taken to themselves? Is it not wonderful that they reckon all out of the Episcopal Church no better than Heathen men and Publicans, and call this charity; and then brand all who resist their pretensions, with uncharitableness? Be it known, that if the fortress of Episcopacy be stormed; if mitres strew the ground, and if their affrighted votaries fly in confusion and dismay, the evil has been of their own seeking. As soon as they will cease to annoy their neighbours, and will mind their own business, the sword which is drawn in self-defence, will return to its scabbard.

To show that my strictures are not unprovoked and useless, I might have sooner referred the reader particularly to two publica tions made, during the last year, by a Minister in the communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church. The one is entitled, " A Companion for the Festivals and Fasts," &c. the other " A Companion for the Altar," &c.|| The writer asserts, that those who officiate, not being Episcopally ordained, are guilty of "sacrilege"-that Bishops "succeeded to the Apostolic office," and that this succession is "uninterrupted"-that Bishops "are at the head of the Church," and that "through them ministerial authority is conveyed" that "without power derived from him, (the Bishop) it is not

This "wanton provocation" was an attempt to explain, in books designed for Episcopalians, the principles of their Church, and to point out to them the danger of leaving it! Ed.

cr

†The Episcopalians have "framed a constitution," and wish " peaceably to enjoy it." But they are not to be allowed to explain and defend this constitution from scripture and primitive writers! This would be "insulting other denominations!"

Ed.

When have they denied to other denominations the privilege of adopting whatever mode of church government they may deem proper? When have they denied to other denominations the privilege of defending and inculcating their own principles, and opposing those opinions they may deem erroneous? No, it is the author of Miscellanies who would deny this pri vilege to Episcopalians; thus verifying the maxim, that those who inveigh most bitterly against bigotry, are themselves often the most bigotted.

Ed.

"A

The titles of these books are here more fully inserted, in order that the reader may see they were intended only for the use of Episcopalians. Companion for the Festivals and Fasts of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, &c. By John Henry Hobart, A. M. an assistant Minister of Trinity Church, New-York."-"A Companion for the Altar; consisting of a short explanation of the Lord's Supper, and Medi tations and Prayers proper to be used before and during the receiving of the Holy Communion according to the form prescribed by the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. By John Henry Hobart, A. M. an assistant Minister of Trinity Church, New-York." Ed.