duct. There is, also, too much, far too much of exultation, at least for so early a stage of the controversy. It might have been well to have postponed this to the moment of victory. At all events, it should have been deferred until something like a regular system of reasoning had been presented to the consideration of the public. Positive assertion is easily made. There is no difficulty until you enter upon the business of proof. When I see a man exult in the prospect of victory, almost before he has had time to arrange his force; or, represent the arguments of his opponents as scarcely deserving of an answer," while he himself is dealing most largely in assertion, I feel strongly disposed to suspect weakness in his cause, and that he is endeavouring to compensate for the want of reasoning, by boldness of declaration, and confidence of manner. Let me be permitted to observe, that those arguments of which he speaks thus lightly, have been urged by men of the most distinguished genius, and the most profound erudition; men from whom he will never know too much to learn.

Our author is quite deceived if he supposes the attack upon Epis copacy to be alarming to its friends. While they court not controversy, I trust they will be ever ready to defend the rights and the doctrines of their Church. Mitres may strew the ground. They are no part of the Episcopal Hierarchy; and it is much to be regretted that this writer will continue to confound things that are distinct; or, in treating of the situation of the Episcopal Church here, will wander for ever to the Papacy of Rome. All this has certainly nothing to do with the question under discussion. The votaries of the Church are not filled with dismay. It will require much more powerful attacks to impress upon their hearts the sentiment of fear. The fortress of Episcopacy has never yet been stormed; and I trust, it will prove impregnable to every assault of the foe.

Let us proceed to consider the publications complained of, and see whether they offer any real injury or insult to other denominations of Christians. In order to form a correct judgment on this point, it will be necessary to read the works themselves. The extracts are very short, and it is impossible from them alone to arrive at a just conclusion. Deductions are separated from their premises, opinions from their proofs, and consequences from their qualifications. I desire every one, therefore, who feels interested in this business, to give to the publications in question a dispassionate examination; recollecting always, that Episcopalians are tolerated equally with other denominations in our country, and have the same right of maintaining, in decent language, those doctrines which they believe to be taught by the oracles of truth. Let it be recollected, then, in the first place, that the Companion for the Altar, and the Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, are intended, solely, for the members of the Episcopal Church. They are not addressed to the public at large; and but for the severe remarks which have been made upon them, it is probable they would have found their way into the hands of very few persons of other denominations. Besides, they are works which are very common in our Church, being designed as a preparation for, and as an illustration of her institutions and services. In truth, the

want of these publications in any country where our Church exists would be a great defect. Every Episcopalian ought to possess them. Into these treatises, indeed, is incorporated a summary view of the Priesthood of the Christian Church, stating its powers, and tracing them to the source from which they are derived. In illustrating the Festivals and Fasts, what could be more proper than to show the foundation of the authority that instituted them! In a work designed as preparatory to the most solemn ordinance of our religion, what more correct or more natural than to show the divine right of that Priesthood at whose hands it is received by the communicant! And if it be particularly objected that the question of ecclesiastical authority is thrown into a meditation, let it be remembered that, in the shape of a note or appendix, it would probably have received but little attention, and that it is a subject of great moment, involving nothing less than the due performance of the highest acts of worship known to the Christian dispensation. Bread and wine have no intrinsic efficacy to convey the graces of the spirit. We see, in them, the appointment of God; and it is from this that they derive all their value. The water of Jordan had no peculiar virtue to cleanse the leprosy of Naaman. It was the Divine command, which he followed, that gave efficacy to the application. And, certainly, in the Holy Supper, it is necessary to adhere to the system which God has established. Man has as much right to change the Sacrament, as to change the Priesthood by whom it is to be administered. Both are of Divine appointment; and any reasoning which shall prove human authority to be competent to an alteration of the one, will prove it to be no less competent to an alteration of the other. These opinions are most sincerely entertained by our Church; and to refuse her the right of maintaining them, is to refuse her the common privileges of religious toferation. In works, then, addressed to Episcopalians alone, the doctrine of their Church relative to the Christian Priesthood is illustrated and enforced. And can this, in justice, be made a ground of complaint? While we are permitted to exist, the right cannot be called in question, and the decent exercise of an admitted right ought not, surely, to draw on us a vindictive attack.

I observe, in the second place, that the discussions contained in the works under examination, are conducted in an unexceptiona ble style. There is nothing of abuse, of sneer, or of invective. The reader will not, I hope, form his judgment on this point from the short and unconnected extracts that have been laid before the public. Let any candid Presbyterian read the works themselves, and I will venture to submit it to his decision, whether they contain any thing more than a decent illustration and support of the doctrines of the Episcopal Church. It is not the manner, but the matter of these treatises that has given offence. And has the time arrived, when we are to be violently assailed for claiming and exercising the right of judgment on a subject the most interesting that can possibly engage the attention of the human mind? I trust not. We believe that Episcopacy is an apostolic institution; that it is the appointed mode of conveying the sacerdotal power; that this mode being established by God, can be changed only by God; and that all authority ceases the moment a departure takes place from the sys

tem ordained for its transmission. We consider Bishops as the successors of the Apostles, and as possessing alone that power of ordination by which the ecclesiastical office is continued and preserved. These doctrines we maintain-we have a right to maintain them. And no reasonable man can consider such conduct as giving just cause of offence. How do Presbyterians themselves act in this particular? Are they not in the continual practice of illustrating and enforcing their distinguishing tenets? Take, as an example, the rigid doctrine of election and reprobation, which represents Christ as having died only for a particular number; excluding the rest of mankind from even the possibility of salvation. This is as obnoxious to us, as the doctrine of the divine right of Episcopacy can possibly be to our opponents. And if they claim the right of representing us as having departed from the true faith, will they not allow us the right of representing them as having departed from the true Priesthood! But you unchurch us. This is the grievous complaint. It is this that raises all the difficulty, and kindles all the resentment. Attend now, for one moment, to the situation in which the Presbyterians would place us, and the most unreasonable demands which they make of us. They tell us, You believe it is true that a particular method of conveying the sacerdotal power was established by the Apostles, and that this, being a divine institution, can be changed only by that high authority which ordained it. You consider Episcopacy as the appointed plan, and conformity to it as a duty incumbent upon all. These are your sincere opinions, and you have a right to entertain them; (for, I trust, our sincerity and our right, in this case, will not be denied.) But pause-advance not one step further-let these opinions remain for ever dormant in your bosoms presume not to publish them to the world, least the conclusions which flow from them may affect, in public estimation, the basis on which we stand. Perform not the duty which you owe your people, by explaining to them what you deem an important part of the whole counsel of God, least you should offend us, in questioning the validity of Presbyterian ordination. What, then, does all this, in plain English, amount to! Think not for yourselves-renounce your opinions. At all events, venture not, at the hazard of our displeasure, to avow them to the world.

Let us see, once more, how the Presbyterians act. They believe the Priesthood, and the ordinances of baptism, and the holy supper, to be essential parts of the Christian dispensation. They consider baptism as the only mode of initiation into the Church of Christ, and as, generally, necessary to salvation. But do you presume to unchurch us? say the Quakers. Will the Presbyterian, then, give up the right of thinking for himself on the important subjects of the Priesthood, and the ordinances of the gospel; or, of decently supporting the opinions which he conscientiously entertains? Can he do so without debasing that rational faculty which God has given him, and neglecting the important duty of instructing his people in what he deems to be a most interesting branch of religious truth? He would say to the Quakers, We sincerely believe the Priesthood, and the ordinances which you have discarded to be essential parts of the Christian dispensation. We esteem it a duty to maintain, in proper language, their necessity. It is far from our intention to

F

give you offence. We only claim that right of thinking for our selves, and of inculcating our opinions which we are in the constant habit of exercising. Why, then, may not our Church talk to the Presbyterians, as they would talk to the Quakers? This is all that is contended for. The Presbyterians have departed from the divinely instituted Priesthood. The Quakers have gone a step further, and discarded the Priesthood altogether. In truth, we cannot maintain the divine right of Episcopacy, and admit the validity of ordination by Presbyters. The two things are utterly inconsistent with each other. To condemn us, then, for questioning the right of Presbyters to ordain, is to attempt to terrify us into a renunciation of our principles. What is this but the very spirit of persecution? To admit the validity of Presbyterian ordination is to abjure our faith ; for, we cannot admit it, and yet maintain the necessity of subordinate orders in the ministry, with distinct powers, the important prerogative of ordination being vested solely in the higher order. It is with real pain we find ourselves compelled to inculcate principles leading to the conclusion, that dissenters from Episcopacy are without authority from the Great Head of the Church. But we can never consent to give up the right of judgment, or of enforcing what we suppose to be taught by the sacred volume.

Let us follow the Presbyterians one step further, and see how they treat that Church, of whose want of charity, in persisting to think for herself, they so loudly complain. Take, as an example, the language of this very writer: "The Classical or Presbyterial form of Church Government is the true and only one which Christ hath prescribed in his word." "The custom of having diocesan Bishops is corrupt and injurious." All distinction and subordination in the ministry are declared, in confessions of faith that might be mentioned, to be unscriptural and antichristian. And this, permit me to add, has been the habitual language of dissenters, in every period of their history. What think you, then, of this loud charge against the Episcopal Church for denying the validity of Presbyterial ordination! The very men who thus reproach her hesitate not in representing her system of government as corrupt, as unscriptural, as antichristian. Indeed, indeed, this is singular conduct; presenting, certainly, one of the rarest specimens of contradiction that the annals of human inconsistency have ever exhibited. We will represent the Episcopal government as a corrupt and injurious innovation. We will set up our own system as the only one which is at all consistent with the revealed will of God; but, beware how you indulge in that liberty of speech which we exercise. Does not this look like intolerance of the most decided character? But I attri bute not this disposition to the writer whom I oppose. I sincerely believe him to be free from the spirit of persecution, and I know not how to account for his conduct, but by referring it to the almost irresistible force of early habit and prepossession. To this we are all deeply subject; and, while it should excite us seriously to examine our opinions, and conscientiously to seek for truth, it should read to us, at the same time, a lesson of forbearance and humility. The subject of this paper will be continued and concluded in my next address.

A Layman of the Episcopal Church.

35

For the Albany Centinel.

MISCELLANIES. No. XIII.

THE arguments which the sect of Episcopalians attempt to draw

from scripture, in support of their Bishop, scarcely deserve an answer. They deal chiefly in assertions, without producing one substantial proof.

It is presumed "that the Christian Priesthood is the completion and perfection of the Jewish; and that as the latter subsisted under three orders, of High Priest, Priests, and Levites, so the former is constitued under three orders resembling these." It is asserted "that what Aaron and his sons and the Levites were in the temple, such are the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in the Christian Church. These are appointed by God as those were, and therefore it can be no less sacrilege to usurp their office." Here is nothing but assertion of a very extraordinary nature. These are appointed, and those were appointed; but no proof is exhibited of these succeeding and resembling those. Nor is it said how far the model of the Jewish Church is to be followed, except in having three orders, and of their being appointed. No authority is quoted from the New Testament, no direction of Christ and his Apostles is mentioned.*

This loose and wonderful argument is answered, merely by saying that the whole Jewish dispensation was typical, and was completely fulfilled and abolished at the coming of Christ. "The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father. The hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him." The argument, however, being much relied upon by the Romish Church, and adopted by the Episcopalians, who have not dissented from her as to the article of orders and ordinations, there is a propriety in showing its absurdity. The Pope finds here his own dignity. Will any dare to dispute the title of one who is both type and antetype-who was typified by Aaron, the first High Priest among the Jews, and who was afterwards consecrated by Christ as his lawful successor? Will any one be so bold as to blame the splendour, pomp, and ceremonies of the Popish worship, or to blot one Saint or Holy day from the Calender, not excepting "Saint Michael and all Angels," or " All Saints Day," when the whole rests on such a firm foundation?

If the Episcopalians would prove any thing in their favour, they must show not that there are three orders in the Christian Church,

* The connection between the Jewish and the Christian Priesthood so generally acknowledged by Christian divines is ably explained and defended by the Layman in his eighth, and by Cyprian in his fourth number. Ed.

How then was the Jewish Priesthood "fulfilled," but in the institution of the Christian; which is, as the author of the Companion for the Altar observes, "the completion and perfection of the Jewish," and resembles it in its three orders?

Ed.