lawful to perform any ecclesiastical act"that" in the primitive age every Bishop was the head of a diocese consisting of several separate congregations" that "should Presbyters assume the power of ordination, the authority of the persons ordained by them would rest on human institution, and their acts would be nugatory and invalid" that "Bishops were successors to the Apostles," and that "it is only through a succession of Bishops as distinct from, and superior to Presbyters, that authority to exercise the ministry can be derived from the divine Head of the Church"-that "the unity of the Church is violated when any presbyter separates from the communion of his Bishop, and sets up an independent government in the Church, and when the people separate themselves from the communion of their duly authorized Ministers, and from the government of the Church"-that this is "schism," and "answers to the sin of Korah”—that “sacraments not administered by the Bishop [of the Episcopal Church] or those commissioned by him, were not only ineffectual to the parties, but moreover, like the offerings of Korah, provocations against the Lord"-that "Presbyters ought not to baptise without the Bishop's allowance"-that "none but Bishops [of the Episcopal Church] have authority to ordain Ministers in the Church, and none but those who are ordained by them can be truly said to have a divine commission, or any authority to minister in the Christian Church"-that "the merits and grace of the Redeemer are applied to the soul of the believer in devout and humble participation of the ordinances of the Church, administered by a priesthood [the Episcopal] who derive their authority by regular transmission from Christ" that it is "essential to the efficacy of the Lord's Supper to be administered by those [the Episcopal Priests] who have received lawful authority to administer it"-that not to maintain the necessity of Episcopal ordination is to “ present salvation to men stripped of those conditions on which alone it is attainable"-that" every dispensation of divine grace has been confined to a part only of mankind"-that "the visible Church of Christ is known by adhering to the government of the Church, by Bishops, Priests, and Deacons”—that it is "the sacred duty of all Christians to preserve the unity of the Church, by continuing in the Church [Episcopal] if by God's grace it is our happy lot to be already in it; or by coming into it, if it be our misfortune hitherto to have kept ourselves out of it."Here let the reader take breath, and compose himself*

I.

* The candid reader will be cautious of forming his opinion concerning these books from the above disjoined and mutilated extracts. The Layman, who in his third and fourth numbers ably defends these works, very justly observes concerning these extracts-"Deductions are separated from their premises, opinions from their proofs, and consequences from their quali fications." How could the author of Miscellanies reconcile it with candour, with truth, with Christian justice, to withhold the important remark with which the author of the obnoxious works qualifies the opinions there advanced; that God will extend" mercy to all who labour under unavoidable ignorance or involuntary error ?"—And surely error, which is the result of honest conviction, and not of wilful prejudice, or of a neglect to search for the truth, is involuntary and excusable.

In the works in question, the author endeavours to prove from scripture,

could give many more quotations, and refer to the page; but it is unnecessary. Let any one only open " A Companion for the Festi

These

that Christ commissioned his Apostles to institute the Priesthood of the Church; that they instituted three orders, and gave the power of ordination exclusively to the first; that to these orders the apostolic injunctions of obedience to those who have the spiritual rule over us apply; and that by communion with them we must maintain the unity of the Church. opinions, he endeavours to prove, are sanctioned by the concurring testimony of all the primitive fathers; and it is solemnly averred that all the obnoxious expressions in those books have this sanction. Ignatius, a venerable martyr to the faith, was the disciple of the beloved Apostle St. John. And what stronger language can be used than that used by this holy Father in his epistle to the Smyrneans. "He that honours the Bishop shall be honoured of God; but he that does any thing without his knowledge, ministers unto the devil." This quotation is taken from the genuine epistles of Ignatius; acknowledged as genuine by the generality of learned men, many of them (among whom the celebrated Dr. Lardner, author of the Credibility of the Gospel History, ranks) not Episcopalians. Many other quotations equally strong might be adduced from the epistles of Ignatius, and the writings of the Fathers.

Several of theobnoxious expressions also are quotations from the writings of some of the most pious and learned divines of the Church of England. The sentiments concerning episcopacy there advanced are supported, among many others, by the venerable names of Bishop Andrews, Bishop Sanderson, Bishop Hall, Bishop Taylor, Archbishop Potter, of Hooker, of Hammond, of Leslie, and in more modern times, of Bishop Horne, Jones of Nayland, of the profoundly learned Horsely, of Daubeny, the able defender of primitive faith and order.

The piety and learning of Bishop Beveridge are universally acknowledg ed. His works are held in high estimation by the pious of all denominations. Let the following quotation from his sermon, entitled, Christ's Presence with his Ministers, be seriously perused. "And as for schism, they certainly hazard their salvation at a strange rate, who separate themselves from such a Church as ours is, wherein the apostolical succession, the root of all Christian communion, hath been so entirely preserved, and the word and sacraments are so effectually administered; and all to go into such assemblies and meetings as have no pretence to the great promise in my text, 'Lo I am with you alway,' &c. For it is manifest that this promise was made only to the apostles and their successors to the end of the world. Whereas, in the private meetings, where their teachers have no apostolical or episcopal imposition of bands, they have no ground to pretend to succeed the Apostles, nor by consequence any right to the spirit which our Lord here promiseth."

Will the author of Miscellanies rank the pious Bishop Beveridge, and the other venerable divines above mentioned, among the "fanatics" who hold to the uninterrupted line of succession from the Apostles; among the intolerant bigots who maintain the divine institution of Episcopacy? If the author of "the Companion for the Altar" and for " the Festivals and Fasts" is to be considered as a fanatic, a narrow and intolerant bigot, it ought to be known that he stands in company whom indeed he resembles only in holding the same opinions, but with whom any divine, however superior his talents, his learning, or his piety, might be proud to be ranked.

"The divine right of episcopacy" (to use the language of a Layman of the Church of England who wrote in the last century)" is plain from scripture, and was never called in question by any considerable number of

vals," &c. and read under the head of "Preliminary instructions concerning the Church," and he will be at no loss about pages. He should read the whole, in order to understand what Episcopacy would-be in this country. In "A Companion for the Altar," &c. I would recommend a perusal of the extraordinary meditation for the "Saturday evening" immediately preceding the communion; not indeed by way of preparation for that solemn business; for I think that he ought to have other things in his head and heart, than what he will find there discussed.* A long quotation from it shall appear hereafter.-At present, I shall conclude with a few short remarks.

1. The sentiments quoted would be unfairly charged to Episcopalians, were they not advanced by one who is an assistant to his Bishop in the same congregation. Would he have published them without the advice, direction, or countenance of his Bishop? Has he received any censure? Nay, the Bishop has confirmed every sentiment by his own practice. He has re-ordained and even rebaptised. At the same time, I verily believe, that Episcopalians, in general, do not avow these principles, and that they are not aware of their being so diligently and solemnly propagated.†

men till within these last two hundred years: and must we now lay it aside, for fear of opposing new upstart notions and opinions? God forbid! Must our holding fast the sound doctrine of Christ and his Apostles be called uncharitable and unkind, because it does not suit with the temper and disposition of other people? Cannot we still keep our charity for them by believing that God will dispense with the very want of the Christian sacraments, and bestow even the supernatural graces of them, to those who labour under invincible ignorance or involuntary error,' or else under an impossibility of receiving those sacraments, when they do all that lies in their power to fulfil his blessed will? Certainly we may; for God can dispense with his own institutes, and give the spiritual graces annexed to them to whom he pleases." (Laurence on Lay Baptism.)

Ed.

* The author of Miscellanies thinks that all inquiries concerning the au thority of those who are to administer the holy communion are unnecessary and improper. Let the reader attend to the following extract from "the Christian Sacrifice," a work designed as a preparation for the Holy Communion, and written by the pious NELSON, a Layman of the Church of England. "And since we live in an age that is inclinable to make all the inherent powers in the priesthood, to be the effects of priestcraft; and that others take upon them to sign and seal covenants in God's name, who have no commission for the purpose; it will be fit for any man that prepares himself for this holy ordinance, to consider who has the power of administering this holy sacrament; whether laymen as well as clergymen who have received their commission from the Apostles. This consideration, I am sure, will be of great comfort to the faithful members of the CHURCH OF England, which has preserved the ancient apostolical government, and the primitive orders in a due subordination, whereby they are secured of a right and truly canonical ministry.”

Ed.

If "Episcopalians in general do not avow these principles," it is certainly the duty of the Clergy to inculcate them with the greater assiduity and earnestness. For the Episcopal Church, adopting the language of the

Ignatius, the contemporary of the Apostles" that it is not lawful without the Bishop either to baptise or to celebrate the holy communion;" and the language of the Church Universal, maintains, the preface to the

2. The charge of uncharitableness lies wholly at the door of Epis copalians. Brazen must be the front of that man who attempts to bring it against Presbyterians.

3. If the doctrines contained in the works quoted be true, then the first Bishop of the Episcopal Church in this State was never baptised. He never had any other baptism than what was administered by a Minister of the Reformed Dutch Church. This Minister was not episcopally ordained he was only a Dutch Presbyter, or, if you please, a Dutch Bishop, and, consequently, his act was nugatory and invalid." The present Bishop has declared it to be so, by re-baptising children who had been baptised by a Lutheran Minister.*

66

ordination services, that no man is to be considered as a lawful Minister who hath not had Episcopal consecration or ordination.

let

The Episcopal Minister who has provoked the unappeasable ire of the author of Miscellanies, inculcated these principles, not in newspaper addresses, not in pamphlets inviting general perusal, but in books addressed to Episcopalians. If, however, these principles are erroneous, them be exposed; if they are opposed to the tenets of other denominations, let those denominations be warned against them; but let this be done by fair argument, with decency and candour; and not with the weapons of misrepresentation, ridicule, and invective.

Ed.

*As a general proposition it is true, that the administration of ordinances by those who have not received their commission through the reguJar apostolical succession, is “ nugatory and invalid." But certainly circumstances may sometimes qualify general truths. It may be presumed, that when a person who has received baptism from irregular authority, afterwards submits himself to the regular authority of the Church, by receiving confirmation or the holy eucharist, the deficiency of his baptism, in respect to the authority of those who administered it, is then supplied. This is the opinion of many divines of the Church of England, who deservedly rank high for their attachment to Episcopal principles; and particularly of the learned Bingham, the author of Ecclesiastical Antiquities. This class of divines, however, deny that any person has legitimate authority to administer baptism, but those episcopally ordained. Accordingly their maxim is, fieri non debet, factum valet. It is not lawful to be doner; when done, it is valid.

Another class of Episcopalians contend, that all baptisms administered by those who have never received a commission through the "originally constituted order" are invalid. This opinion is maintained with singular force and perspicuity of argument, in a treatise, entitled, " Lay Baptism Invalid," published by R. Laurence, A. M. a layman of the Church of England. He contends, that three things, all instituted by Christ in his memorable commission to his Apostles, are necessary to a valid baptism; the matter, the form, and the authority. The matter, the name of the Trinity; the form, water; and the authority, a commission given to the Apostles and their successors-" Go YE, and baptise-Lo, I am with you alway, even to the END OF THE WORLD. These three things being instituted by Christ, are equally and indispensably necessary; and the deficiency of any one of them renders a baptism invalid. Hence it follows that a baptism administered by one who has not received a commission from those authorised as the successors of the Apostles, is not a valid baptism. This tract, independently of the important subject of which it treats, is well worthy of general perusal, on account of the singular ingenuity and

4. The writer quoted speaks of his being "humble in attainments;" but I think he bids fair to rival if not eclipse Archbishop Laud himself.

force of its reasoning. On these principles, the Lutheran Minister acted in applying to the Bishop to baptise his children.

The author of Miscellanies several times insinuates, that some persons have been ordained Priests, and one a Bishop who had not Episcopal baptism. Admitting the truth of his assertion, of what advantage is it to his cause! Admitting that the seal of authority, in which alone their baptism was deficient, was not supplied when they received confirmation, or the Holy Eucharist, from the hands of Christ's authorised Ministers; what in superable impediment was there to their receiving the ministerial commis sion? This commission, deriving all its efficacy from the power of Christ, is independent of the qualifications of the Minister. Holiness of heart and life is certainly as indispensable a qualification in a Minister as a valid baptism. And yet we find that Judas, who was " a traitor, and had a Devil," was one of the highest order of Ministers. The author of Miséellanies, surely, will not maintain that the absence of vital holiness in a Minister renders nugatory his administration of the ordinances. Neither can he contend that any defect in the baptism of a Minister renders nugatory the exercise of a valid ministerial commission,

The following extract from "Laurence on Lay Baptism," the treatise above-mentioned, will set this subject in a just light. Baptism itself be ing no constituent essential part of his commission or ordination, he who is destitute of baptism is not, by reason of that want alone, destitute of Holy Orders. If it be objected, that while he is unbaptised, he is out of the Church; and how can he who is not of the Church, admit another by baptism into the Church? I answer; though he is out of the Church with respect to any benefits himself, yet not with respect to the spiritual benefits which he has authority and commission mediately to convey to others. A man may be a true messenger to carry that good to another, which he himself neither does, nor ever will enjoy. A master of a family may send a neighbour, or a stranger who is not of his family, and give him full power and authority to adopt into his family some poor destitute orphan children whom he commiserates. And though that stranger be not of the family himself, yet his adopting those poor children into that family, stands good; because the master of the family sent and empowered him to do it. This I take to be very parallel to the case in hand; and, therefore, he who is not of the Church, because unbaptised, may as truly admit a person into the Church by baptism, as he, who, (though baptised) through his wickedness, is destitute of the Holy Ghost, can convey the gift of the Holy Ghost by his ministration of sacraments to others. For as it is not the personal holiness of the administrator that conveys holiness to me in the ministration of any sacrament, so neither does his having received that sacrament signify any thing to me for the validity thereof, when he administers it to me by virtue of a divine commission explicitly given to him. This COMMISSION ALONE is that which makes the ministration not his, but God's own act; and, as such, without any other appendant cause, it is good and valid. Hence our blessed Lord called both unbaptised and unholy men, viz. his Apostles, who cannot be proved to have been baptised in the name of the Trinity before his resurrection; and one of them, Judas Iscariot, a thief, a devil in his disposition-to the administration of holy things; as if he would thereby teach us to look with faith on HIS AUTHORITY ONLY, without confiding in any of the best accomplishments of those on whom he has conferred it. And if we do but look back to the condition of the

E