shing relative to the character of this gentleman, in reference to those who have the happiness of knowing him; but I feel it to be a duty which I owe to the cause of truth, to observe, that he possesses qualifications both of mind and of heart that are rare indeed, and that cannot be too highly valued or admired. Far, very far from his temper is the spirit of censoriousness. To be acquainted with him is always to esteem and love him.* Let his works be candidly examined, and it will be seen that, while he maintains the doctrines of his Church, in their full extent, he undertakes not to judge the members of other denominations. In proof of this, I would beg leave to submit to the reader a few passages, which ought, in candour, indeed, to have been presented by the gentleman who has thought proper to complain in a style of so much bitterness. "The Judge of the whole earth, indeed, will do right. The grace of God quickens and animates all the degenerate children of Adam. The mercy of the Saviour is co-extensive with the ruin into which sin has plunged mankind. And, in every nation, he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him." Again, "Separation from the prescribed government and regular Priesthood of the Church, when it proceeds from involuntary and unavoidable ignorance or error, we have reason to trust, will not intercept, from the humble, the penitent, and obedient, the bles sings of God's favour." Still further, "The important truth which the universal Church has uniformly maintained, that, to experience the full and exalted efficacy of the sacraments, we must receive them from a valid authority, is not inconsistent with that charity which extends mercy to all who labour under involuntary error." Once more, "But though we presume to judge no man, leaving all judgment to that Being who is alone qualified to make allowance for the ignorance, invincible prejudices, imperfect reasoning, and mistaken judgments of his frail creatures; yet, it must not from hence be concluded, that it is a matter of indifference, whether Christians communicate with the Church or not; or that there is a doubt upon the subject of schism, whether it be a sin or not."

Such is the language of the works under examination; and such, also, is the language of the Episcopal Church. Will the writer in question require more? Is he ready to express sentiments of greater charity? Will he admit that the grace necessary to repentance is given to all men? and that even the virtuous heathen will be saved?

Are we to give up the divinity of Jesus Christ because the Soci nians have denied it? Are we to lay aside baptism and the holy supper because the Quakers have discarded them? Are we to rer nounce the doctrine of the corruption of man, and of the absolute necessity of the operations of the divine Spirit to begin, to carry on, and to perfect the work of sanctification, because some of the followers of Arminius, departing from the tenets of their master,

* These remarks appear evidently dictated by the too partial spirit of friendship. The author of the works in question however ought certainly to consider himself much indebted to the Layman for the able vindication of those works from the charges brought against them.

G

Ed.

have denied the principle, asserting the capacity of man to turn, of himself, unto God, and be saved? We shall continue to declare the necessity of receiving the ordinances of the gospel at the hands of a Priesthood, which has derived authority from Christ by succession, in which way alone it can be derived, whatever abuse may be heaped upon us for so doing. While we undertake to judge no man, we shall persist in thinking for ourselves, and in inculcating, in decent language, whatever we suppose to be a part of the whole counsel of God.

Let it be supposed, for one moment, that a secession should take place from the Presbyterians; the Seceders setting up an administration of ordinances by mere laymen. Would not our author oppose this, and represent it as a departure from the plan of salvation detailed in the scriptures of truth? Would he not warn his people against being concerned in the schism? Surely he would. It would be his duty to do so. And how unjustly would he think himself treated, if assailed by a newspaper invective, for exercising an undoubted right, or rather for discharging an important obligation? If this gentleman then considered it necessary to defend the opinion which he holds on the subject of ecclesiastical government, what course of conduct did propriety require him to pursue? I answer; he should have given the subject a regular examination, respecting in others that right of judgment which he claims for himself. In this Episcopalians would have seen no cause of complaint; but, in the place of this, he commences a vindictive attack in the public prints; a measure that can be defended on no principle either of policy or justice.

From the way in which this writer speaks, a stranger would be lead to suppose that the doctrine maintained in the works under examination is perfectly novel. How great his surprise, upon being informed that the Church has contended for it in every period of her history! This has been the case particularly in the United States. Let me beg leave here to refer the reader to a very instructive account of the life of Doctor Samuel Johnson, the first President of Columbia College, in New-York, written by the late worthy and learned Dr. Thomas B. Chandler, of New-Jersey.* In this work will be seen a most interesting exhibition of the effect produced by a regular investigation of the subject of Episcopacy, with a single view to the discovery of truth. Dr. Johnson was, perhaps, the most learned man that this country has produced. In him was eminently united profound genius, with the most laborious and persevering application to study. He was educated as a Congregational Minister, and officiated in that capacity for some time; but his attention being called to the subject of ecclesiastical govern, ment, he entered upon it, under a deep conviction of duty, persevering in the inquiry until he had viewed the matter in every point of light, and had collected all the information which the scriptures or books could supply. The result was a most decided belief in the divine institution of Episcopacy, and of the consequent invalidity of Presbyterial ordination. Several other Congregational Clergymen, of great talents, and distinguished worth, were engaged in

* This work was lately published by T. & J. Swords, New-York.

the investigation with Dr. Johnson. It terminated in the same way with them. They renounced their offices, went to England for holy orders, and continued, through life, most warmly attached to the Episcopal Church. Their example was afterwards followed by others; and I persuade myself that the same sincere investigation would terminate in the conviction of almost all who should engage in it.

Would it have been just or decent to have commenced a bitter attack in the newspapers against these men, for renouncing, under a sense of duty, the ordination which they had received, and taking orders in the Episcopal Church? Every correct and ingenuous mind must immediately perceive that such conduct would have been improper and violent in the extreme. And where is the difference between this and the course which the writer in question has thought proper to pursue? There is no difference, and the conduct now is as intolerant and unjust as it would have been in the case I have mentioned.

The divine institution of Episcopacy has been strenuously maintained in this country, from the time of Dr. Johnson to the present day, by the most able writers of the Episcopal Church. In fact, the validity of Presbyterial ordination has been denied from its very origin. Calvin himself, the French Hugonots, and other reformers, justified their departure from Episcopacy on the principle of necessity alone.

The primitive Fathers of the Church are most pointed and express on this subject, and every reproach cast upon the author of the publications in question recoils with tenfold force upon these venerable men. Hear the words of Ignatius" He that doeth any thing without the Bishop, and Presbyters, and Deacons, is not pure in his conscience." "Therefore, as Christ did nothing without the Father, so neither do ye, whether Deacon, Presbyter, or Laick, any thing without the Bishop." "He that doeth aught without the Bishop serves the devil." What says Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, in the second century? "We can reckon up those whom the Apostles ordained to be Bishops in the several Churches, and to whom they committed their own apostolic authority." Listen to Tertullian of the same age-"The power of baptising is lodged in the Bishop, and it may also be exercised by Presbyters and Deacons, but not without the Bishop's commission." What says St. Cyprian of the third century?"The Church is built on the Bishops, and all the acts of the Church are governed and directed by them its Presidents." What will our author say to all this? I am afraid, were he carefully to go through the primitive Fathers, he would often find it necessary to pause, and compose himself, and " take breath."

These considerations, then, I submit to an impartial public. I submit them to the gentleman whom I oppose. If the Episcopal Church, in supporting doctrines which have ever distinguished her, and which never, as she thinks, were departed from, till the days of Calvin, is obliged to draw conclusions that nearly affect the members of other persuasions, she can only regret the consequence of what her convictions of duty command her most firmly to maintain. She wishes well to all men. She undertakes to judge none. Believing sincerely that Episcopacy is a divine institution, and that all are bound

>

to conform to it, can she be blamed for urging it with charitable zeal? At all events, can she be found fault with for inculcating upon her members those doctrines which she has professed in every age, and which appear to her to be an important part of the Christian dispensation? To require her to act differently, is to require her to become hypocritical, and to sacrifice her principles at the shrine of policy. To this she can never consent. While it will be her endeavour to treat with becoming respect the sentiments of her fellow Christians, she must insist upon the right of contending for that system of government which she believes the Apostles established, and whose divinity is attested, as she thinks, by the uniform testimony of the Church universal for fifteen hundred years. She blames not those who think and who maintain that Presbyterial government is the only one which Christ has prescribed in his word. While this opinion is supported in language not insulting nor disrespectful, she sees nothing but the fair exercise of that right of judgment with which God has invested his rational creatures. The writer upon whom I am remarking believes the divinity of Jesus to be essential to the Christian dispensation, and that no one can be considered as in covenant with God who absolutely rejects that fundamental doctrine. Suppose the Socinian should loudly complain; would not our author reply very much in the language which I have used on this occasion? Very well: while the Episcopal Church rejoices that she can so cordially unite with her brethren of the Presbyterian persuasion, on the essential principle of the divinity of our blessed Saviour, she thinks the evidence of Episcopacy, from the scripture, and from history, no less strong; and the justification which our author would urge, in relation to the Socinian, she humbly hopes she may apply to her own conduct.

Passing over, for the present, what has been said on the Jewish Priesthood, I proceed to the remarks upon the Epistles to Timothy, much reliance appearing to be placed on them. I flatter myself I shall be able to support the interpretation I have given, and to show that the observations of the writer take for granted what must ever require proof, and advance hypotheses that are entirely new, being as unsupported by commentators as by the plainest maxims of construction.

A Layman of the Episcopal Church.

For the Albany Centinel,

MISCELLANIES. No. XV.

I HAVE admitted in my last number, for the sake of giving Epis

copalians more than their due, that Paul was present at the ordination of Timothy; that he presided, and laid on his hands with the Presbyters. But I contend that in the ordination itself, he acted merely as a Presbyter; and that it was in conferring the miraculous gifts that he acted as an Apostle, and was superior to the other Presbyters. Since both dia and meta are used in the same verse, the former connected with prophecy, and the latter with the

*

laying on of hands, I am of opinion that the best translation of the latter, in this place, is together with; and that the conferring the miraculous gifts, and the setting apart to the ministry, are to be. considered as two distinct things, which took place either at the same time or the one immediately succeeded the other. "By prophecy;" that is, by the act which conferred prophecy; the thing signified being put for the sign. The sign was the putting on of the Apostle's hands, which was done in the ordination, and the gift then conferred, Paul acting both as an Apostle and a Presbyter; or, the Apostle put his hands singly on Timothy either just before or after his ordination. The words dia and meta are thus allowed respectively an appropriate meaning; though the latter, as has been shown, might also be translated by, and signifies often the same thing as dia. The thing signified by putting on of the Apostle's hands, was prophecy, the very gift which Timothy is exhorted not to neglect, but to stir up.

The Episcopalians allege that the text in the second Epistle, where the Apostle speaks of putting on hands, refers to ordination. Let the context be examined. 2 Tim. i. 5, 6, 7. "When I call

to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice, and I am persuaded that in thee also. Wherefore I put thee in remem brance, that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power and of love, and of a sound mind." Where is there any thing about ordination?* Nothing but the words, by the putting on of my hands, could have suggested the idea. The text is a better proof that the Apostle confirmed Timothy, than that he ordained him. The Episcopalians would be wiser to quote it for what they call the "Apostolic rite of confirmation," which is done too by putting on of their Bishop's hands; for the practice of such confirmation needs itself some confirmation.† I barely mention, without laying much weight upon it, that the word dia is used here; the same word which is connected with prophecy in the first Epistle; and therefore, that this is the gift which was conferred by the put ting on of the Apostle's hands.

The interpretation which I have given is strengthened by considering other passages of scripture. Acts viii. 11, 17. "When the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." Acts xix. 6. "And when Paul had laid his hands upon

* There is as much about ordination here as in the other text. The expressions, "Stir up the gift that is in thee," and "neglect not the gift that is in thee," have evidently the same meaning.

Ed.

† Does the author of Miscellanies recollect that confirmation is a rite handed down from the Apostles' times; that CALVIN himself bore decided testimony in its favour; and that CALVIN and BEZA both refer to it the imposition of hands mentioned by the Apostle in the sixth chapter and second verse of the Epistle to the Hebrews? If he is in doubt on the subject, let him peruse the nineteenth chapter and the fourth book of Calvin's Institutes; and the comment of Calvin and Beza on the verse in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Ed.