Episcopalians must have one Bishop of their sort; and he ought to be a very conspicuous one too; for the persons ordained were no less than Paul and Barnabas, the predecessors (as they think) of all the Romish and English Bishops.

Enough has been said to convince any candid mind, that the Episcopalians have no ground for their pretensions, and that Presbyterian ordination is scriptural, safe and valid. Whenever I come to examine ecclesiastical history from the days of the Apostles down to the establishment of Episcopacy in the isles of South-Britain and Ireland, the truth will shine with strong and irresistible light.*

AFTER

For the Albany Centinel.

CYPRIAN. No. II.

FTER what has been already said, I trust we shall never again hear the charge of popery either openly or covertly alleged against the Episcopal Church. I trust we shall no longer hear it insinuated, that our ecclesiastical institutions are not conformable, are not as conformable as those of any other denomination of Christians, to our institutions of civil government. If the public will now indulge me so far (and I am afraid its patience is nearly exhausted) I will enter on a very brief investigation of the subject of Church Go

vernment.

I shall not follow the track of the Miscellaneous writer. This would not be consistent with clearness or perspicuity of arrange ment. I shall, however, touch on all the principal points that relate to this subject, contained in those pieces he hath lately published, in which there appears even the semblance of argument. This writer seems to have formed a very exalted opinion of his own dialectic skill. He commences his attack on us quite in the gasconading style. Scarcely has he begun his hostile operations, when he beholds in imagination," the outworks of Episcopacy demolished by him, her fortress stormed, mitres strewing the ground, and her affrighted votaries flying in dismay." Would it not have been as prudent to have waited until the period of victory before he claimed the privilege of a triumph? Really he must excuse our want of discernment, when we avow that we have not as yet been able to recognize in him the features of so formidable an antagonist. We perceive no just cause of apprehension or alarm. The friends of Episcopacy feel not the smallest propensity to fly before him in dismay. The arrows he hath hitherto directed against us, though empoisoned by much bitterness of sentiment, though levelled with his utmost force, have proved quite harmless weapons. They have scarcely reached the mark. No. This writer extremely mistakes if he imagines that his efforts have awakened in the bosoms of Episcopalians, any degree of apprehension for the fate of their Church. No. The fortress of Episcopacy is erected upon the same rock on

*This review of ecclesiastical history the author of Miscellanies very prudently declined.

Ed.

which Christianity itself is founded. It has hitherto stood unshaken by the attacks of the most powerful assailants. It will not now be demolished by his arm.

Episcopacy rests upon Scripture, and upon the testimony of the primitive Church. These are the two pillars that support its superstructure. We trust they are immovable.

Episcopacy rests upon the strong foundation of the sacred Scriptures. It is an irrefragable truth, that the Episcopal form of Church Government is the only one Christ hath prescribed in his word; is the only one which was known in the Universal Church for fifteen hundred years. Whilst our Saviour remained on earth, he, of course, held supreme authority in his Church. The twelve were appointed by him as his subordinate officers. The seventy disciples constituted a still lower order. There existed, then, in the Church of Christ, at this time, three distinct grades of Ministers. When our Lord ascended into Heaven, when he breathed upon the twelve, and said, "As my Father hath sent me, so send I you," he transmitted to them the same authority which he himself had retained during his continuance amongst them. The twelve commissioned their Presbyters and Deacons to aid them in the administration of ecclesiastical government. Before their death they constituted an order of Ministers, to whom they conveyed that supreme authority in the Church which was lodged in their hands during their lives. To this order of men who succeeded the Apostles in dignity and authority, the appellation of Bishops was, in process of time, peculiarly appropriated. Ever since the times of the Apostles, this order has always possessed prerogatives peculiar to itself. It has always held, exclusively, the power of ordination, the privilege of communicating the sacerdotal authority. These are positions which may be established by an accumulation of evidence from scripture and the testimony of ancient writers, that will defy all opposition.

But before I proceed to bring forward this evidence, I must spend a few moments in refuting an objection of the Miscellaneous writer, which meets me in the threshold, and which, if it can be supported, will render this controversy altogether useless, since it would at once strike away the foundation of all civil and ecclesiastical government. He thinks that the existence of an order of Bishops in the Church is incompatible with the spirit of the gospel. He thinks "we should discover more understanding, more regard to the sentiments of our fellow Christians, more of the spirit of the Apostles, more unlimited obedience to the injunctions of our divine Master, did we dismiss such aspiring and uncharitable conduct. Memorable was the occasion, says he, on which he gave a solemn and affectionate charge to his disciples. Grant, said the mother of Zebedee's children, that these my two sons may sit, the one on the right hand and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. She wished her two sons to be promoted to places above the rest of the disciples, and to be consecrated Archbishops at least. But Jesus called them unto him and said, Ye know that the princes of the gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them, but it shall not be so among you." Such is the passage this writer hath produced in order to sanction the idea that the

elevation of our Bishops to their present pre-eminence in the Church is a violation of the express and solemn injunction of our Saviour. Miserable subterfuge this, indeed, by which to evade the force of that evidence we derive from scripture! Is not this writer perfectly aware that he is here endeavouring to mislead the under standings of his readers? Can he be otherwise than aware, thať he is perverting the scriptures from their obvious signification, in order to answer his own purposes? Does he not know that this portion of holy writ will not bear the interpretation he hath given it? Does he not know, that to take it in so extensive a sense is to make it speak a language altogether inadmissible as the standard of truth? What! would our author make our Saviour prohibit, amongst Christians, the control of any constituted authorities, ecclesiastical or civil? Would he make Christ declare that amongst his followers there should be no distinctions of rank, no subordination, no discipline? This is precisely the interpretation that some Socinians have given to this passage; and will he admit it to be a just one? If it be admitted in this unlimited sense, demagogues and levellers may, in their most iniquitous transactions, shelter themselves from reproach under a solemn injunction of the Saviour. This gentleman is thus placing a dangerous weapon in the hands of his political adversaries. It is obvious that Jesus Christ, in this portion of his word, does not intend to interdict the institution of civil or ecclesiastical government amongst believers. Besides, if these expressions be taken in this wide sense, do they not operate as much against the Presbyterians as ourselves? Against the existence of one order of Ministers as against the existence of three? May not a single order obtain and exercise as much undue authority in, Christ's Church as three? May not the one become tyrants as well as the others? Is an aristocracy the most mild and the least odious of governments? Is there more danger that a government will dege. nerate into tyranny, when there is a wise distribution of its powers into different departments, than when there is no such distribu tion, when all its powers are concentrated in a single department? In short, may not Presbyterian Ministers as easily as Bishops become "lords in God's heritage?"

The meaning of our Saviour in the passage before us is as clear and unequivocal as in any other portion of sacred scripture. All commentators agree in their interpretation of it. The mother of Zebedee's children had imbibed the sentiment prevalent amongst the Jews, that the Messiah would establish a temporal kingdom. She sought for her sons civil dignities and honours. Jesus Christ, in his answer, wishes to repress amongst his disciples this spirit of ambition and vain-glory. He teaches here what he inculcates in many other parts of his holy word, that his followers should not covet the honours, the dignities, the empty distinctions of this world. Those who would merit his highest regard, who would be greatest in his kingdom, he tells them, must be most distinguished for acts of humility and condescension. He endeavours thus to impress them with more just sentiments than they entertained concerning the nature of his kingdom. He tells them in the words following, that they must do "as the Son of man who came not to be ministered unto, but to minister." Does not this last expression

ascertain the intention of our Saviour beyond all cavil or contradiction? His followers must imitate him in their meekness, their humility, their condescension. This is all that can be implied, for did our Saviour never assume or exercise any power in his Church? But what places this point beyond all possible controversy, is the conduct of the Apostles, which must be admitted, on all hands, to be a good comment on the precepts of their Master. If Christ here intended to prohibit the exercise of all authority and power in his Church, how did they dare, in their intercourse with believers, violate the wishes of their Lord? How did they dare outrage his solemn injunctions? Did they not take upon themselves the power of ordaining laws in the Church of Christ, of carrying their laws into execution? Did they not reprove, rebuke, receive into communion, excommunicate with all authority? But the idea is too unfounded and absurd to be longer dwelt on. If our Saviour meant in this passage what this writer would have him mean, how dare the Presbyterian Ministers, at this time, assume any superiority over the rest of their brethren? How dare they arrogate to them selves the power of performing the sacerdotal functions? How dare they exercise any ecclesiastical authority? How dare they become "lords in God's heritage?" After what has been said, it is possible that it may still be maintained that the "mitre and the crown are connected;" but I trust it will appear that there is no foundation for the proverb, "No King, no Bishop." It seems there was once a time in this country when our enemies could effect their purposes by the use of such watch-words as these, that merit a harder name than I am disposed to give them; but that time, hap. pily for us, has passed away. The good people of America are no longer to be duped and misled by such unworthy arts. I now dismiss the objection, founded on this passage of scripture, I trust, amply refuted.

I proceed to establish our first proposition. That the three or ders of Ministers, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, the Bishops solely possessing the power of ordination, are of apostolic original, is proved incontestably from the sacred Scriptures themselves. shall first lay down our arguments, and then refute the objections that have been made to them.

Let us examine the passages of scripture which the writer him* self hath produced, and see whether we cannot help him to more legitimate conclusions than those he hath thought proper to deduce from them. In Titus i. 5. it is said by the Apostle Paul, "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest ordain Elders in every city." Let us contemplate the circumstances that attended this transaction, and see what inferences we can draw from it. St. Paul had planted the gospel in the island of Crete. He had made proselytes in every city who stood in need of the ministrations of Presbyters. He speaks not to Titus as if he had left him in Crete to convert the cities to the faith. He speaks as if this work was al ready accomplished, as if the way was paved for the establishment of the Church. These being the circumstances of the case, it appears to me that this transaction carries on its face a proof of superiority on the part of Titus to the Presbyters or Elders. Will it be imagined by any reasonable man, that St. Paul had converted

so many cities on this island without having ordained any Elders amongst them? What! When it was his uniform and invariable practice to ordain Elders in every country in which he made proselytes? What! Could he have neglected to ordain those amongst them who were absolutely necessary to transact the affairs of the Church during his absence? Would he have left the work he had begun only half performed?

These considerations are sufficient to convince every unprejudiced mind that there were Elders or Presbyters in the Church of Crete at the time St. Paul left Titus on that island. And if there were Presbyters, and those Presbyters had the power of ordination, why was it necessary to leave Titus amongst them in order to perform a task that might as well have been accomplished without him? If the Presbyters possessed an authority equal to that of Titus, would not St. Paul, by leaving him amongst them, have taken the surest way to interrupt the peace of the Church, to engender jealousy, and strifes, and contentions? Again. Let us view this transaction in another point of light. St. Paul had made converts, as I have said, in every city of Crete. Titus had attended him on his last visit to that island. If Presbyters were at this time considered as competent to the task of ordaining others, why did he not ordain one at any rate during his stay amongst them, and commission him instead of detaining Titus, to ordain Elders in every city? The efforts of Titus were as much wanted as his own, to carry the light of the gospel to other nations who had not received it. Why was it necessary that Titus should ordain Elders in every city? After the ordination of a few, would not his exertions have become useless, if they were able to complete the work which he had begun?

In short, Titus seems to be entrusted with all the authority of a supreme ruler of the Church. He is directed to ordain Presbyters to rebuke with all authority-to admonish hereticks, and in case of obstinacy, to reject them from the communion of the Church. These circumstances infallibly designate the presence of a Bishop. Accordingly we find that the united voice of ancient writers declares him to have been the first Bishop of Crete. Eusebius informs us "that he received Episcopal authority over the Church of Crete." So also says Theodoret, St. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose. If these considerations united do not show that Titus possessed in Ephesus powers superior to those which were held by the Presby ters of those Churches, I know not what considerations would. I shall proceed with the proofs from scripture in my next number. CYPRIAN.

For the Albany Centinel.

THE LAYMAN. No. VI,

I HAVE been occupied, thus far, in noticing the arguments by

which the Miscellaneous writer attempts to support the Presbyterial system, and the objections with which he endeavours to assail the Episcopal Church. The facts, and the reasoning on which

K