Episcopacy rests, have been only cursorily attended to; but it is my design, should not circumstances take off my attention, to present them in the course of these papers, as distinctly, and regularly as I am able, to the public consideration.

The writer in question has brought forward nothing that has not been a thousand times advanced, and as often refuted; except, indeed, that rare interpretation of prophecy, in the Epistle to Timothy, for which, I believe, the merit of originality may very safely be awarded to him.*

I flatter myself that I have furnished a sufficient refutation of his reasoning, and a satisfactory answer to his objections. Nor can the charge of self complacency, I trust, be justly made against me for this observation; for, indeed, the task of replying to all that the gentleman has, thus far, produced, and, judging of the future from the past, to all that he is capable of producing, can be a task of no very difficult execution. I think I may venture to pledge myself to expose, as he advances, all his errors, and to detect all his misre presentations. There is one particular, however, in which I must be excused from following him. I can never permit myself to descend to personal attack. However desirous the gentleman may be of displaying wit, he would do well to recollect that the fame which even real wit might procure him, is too dearly purchased at the expense of those rules of delicacy, which every ingenuous mind proposes to itself as an inviolable law.t

There is a passage of scripture relied upon in an early part of the Miscellanies, upon which I think it proper to bestow some little attention. Not, indeed, on account of any weight it can possibly possess in the controversy; but because it is a passage that has been frequently brought forward, and that is capable, by plausible representation, of being made to operate on the minds of those who have not given attention to the subject of ecclesiastical authority. “Grant," said the mother of Zebedee's children, “that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left, in thy kingdom. And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren. But Jesus called them

* The gentleman, it appears, has read a few books lately; and finds a very different interpretation put upon the words from that which he had given. Still, however, he retains a parental affection for his offspring; being resolved, at all events, not to let it perish. Let us, then, paraphrase the passage accord ing to this new idea. "Neglect not the gift of prophecy that is in thee, which was given thee by the act that gave it to thee." The words, “by prophecy," mean, says our author, the gift of prophecy bestowed upon Timothy. Then Paul exhorted him to stir up the gift of prophecy that was given him by prophecy: or, in the words of our author, by the act that conferred prophecy; that is, Neglect not the gift of prophecy that is in thee, which was given thee by the act by which it was given thee." This is the champion who threatens to spread dismay through the Episcopal ranks.

66

"Another, residing either in the city of Schenectady, or some where in the adjacent country, was made to strip off his methodistical coat, and to do penance, for several months, in a white shirt, before he could come near the altar to minister." This is the way in which he speaks of a most respectable and pious Clergyman of our Church. I refer it to the reader to decide how far such conduct can entitle him to the esteem of good men.

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: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your Minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister." Mat, xx. 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. Desperate, indeed, must be the cause of parity, when its advocates are driven to have recourse, for argument, to such passages as these. Does the gentleman really consider the above texts of scripture as militating against the principles of subordination in the government of the Church?

Let it be remarked, in the first place, that they have no reference whatever to spiritual power. It had been the prevailing idea of the Jewish nation, that the Messiah would erect a temporal kingdom of great splendour. This was the expectation of the Apostles themselves, and our Saviour frequently endeavoured, without effect, to correct their views on the subject. All his efforts to give them a true idea of the nature of his kingdom had been unavailing. They still cherished the hope of being promoted to civil stations of great power and importance. “We trusted," said two of his disciples, upon seeing their Master put to death, "that it had been he who should have redeemed Israel!" After his resurrection, the same hopes of temporal consequence revived in their minds, and they asked, "Lord, wilt thou, at this time, restore the kingdom to Israel ?" It is perfectly clear that James and John, in desiring to sit, the one on the right hand, the other on the left of Jesus, aspired after civil importance. Our Saviour, after addressing his Apostles in the way just mentioned, immediately subjoins," And I appoint_unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Luke xxii. 29, 30. This clearly shows the sense of the passages that go before, and that our Saviour had no design in them to deprive the Apostles of spiritual authority over their fellow Christians. But what does the writer mean to prove by this portion of scripture? Is it his intention to show that the Apostles were upon a level with respect to each other? This is a principle for which the Episcopal Church has invariably contended, although it certainly cannot be derived from the passage cited by the writer on this occasion. No; the design of the gentleman is to prove that no such thing as subordination, in the ministry, was ever intended by Christ. Let us, then, trace the reasoning, and test it by the conclusion to which it leads.

If these passages prove that there was no superiority in the Apostles, over the other Ministers of the word, they equally prove that there was no such superiority in Jesus Christ himself. Any thing which may be here commanded to the Apostles is illustrated and enforced by the example of our Saviour. "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister." Matt. xx. 28. Or in the parallel language of St. Luke, "I am among you as he that serveth." xxiii. 27. If, then, these passages prove that the Apostles were to have no spiritual control over the other Clergy, they equally prove that our Saviour had no spiritual control over the Apostles. This conclusion necessarily follows, and it shows,

most clearly, that the passage has nothing to do with the govern ment of the Church, being designed merely as a lesson of humility to those to whom it was addressed. Again, this writer is completely at variance with himself; for in a late number he admits that the Apostles were superior to other Ministers of the word, and yet he brings this passage to destroy all idea of such superiority. In fact, trace this reasoning to its true consequences, and it puts down all kind of authority in the Church; placing every individual upon a level with every other individual; thus annihilating the priesthood altogether. And indeed it has been applied, by those who first brought it forward, to show that our Saviour never designed to invest one member of his Church with power over any other member.

The Miscellaneous writer is certainly one of the most dangerous champions that ever defended a cause; for he constantly adopts a mode of reasoning that involves both his friends and enemies in promiscuous ruin. If the weapons with which he fights be keen enough to wound his adversary, they may be immediately turned to his own destruction. Those general passages of scripture that recommend humility and lowliness, commanding us to prefer others to ourselves, with the texts reproving the ambition of the Pharisees, in affecting to have the chief places in the synagogues, and to be called masters, and fathers, have been applied to the subversion of all authority in the state; and this by the very same sort of logic that the Miscellaneous writer so frequently employs. It is forgotten that the whole scripture is to be taken together, and that a consistent interpretation is to be put upon its several parts, so that nothing may be destroyed. Thus, the licentious opposer of all subordination in civil society fastens his attention upon particular passages, wherein the ambition of rulers is condemned, forgetting those places in which obedience to the magistrate is enjoined. And so this writer, in his rage to destroy all subordination in the Church, directs the view of his readers to a passage designed simply to reprove an inordinate love of temporal consequence in the Apostles, forgetting those high powers with which Jesus invested them, before his ascension, and which were constantly exercised by them and those whom they appointed, as their successors, in particular places, over all other members, both clergy and laity, of his Church.

I proceed to consider that passage of scripture, in which certain prophets and teachers of Antioch are represented as laying their hands on Paul and Barnabas. This is greatly relied on by the Miscellaneous writer, who ventures to speak of it as universally considered to refer to ordination. What shall we think of this, when it is observed that the most respectable commentators regard it as not referring to ordination at all. Take, as an example, the interpretation of Doctor Doddridge, an eminent dissenter from the Church of England. "If there be any reference to a past fact in these words, it is probably to some revelation made to Paul and Barnabas, to signify that they should take a journey into several countries of Asia Minor, to preach the Gospel there. But that they were now invested with the Apostolic office by these inferior Ministers, is a thing neither credible in itself, nor consistent with what Paul himself says, Galatians i. 1. And that they now

received a power, before unknown in the Church, of preaching to the idolatrous Gentiles, is inconsistent with Acts xi. 20, 21; and upon many other considerations, to be proposed elsewhere, appears to me absolutely incredible." (Doddridge's Family Exposition, iii. 181.) Such is the language of the learned and pious Dr. Doddridge; and such, let me add, is the language of the most judicious commentators. They view the thing as a solemn recommendation of Paul and Barnabas, to the grace of God, upon their entering on a temporary mission. This, then, is one of the numerous examples of the boldness with which the Miscellaneous writer asserts, and of the weakness with which he argues. And, indeed, if the passage in question refers to an ordination of Paul and Barnabas, to what office, let it be asked, were they ordained? Not to that of prophets and teachers; for prophets and teachers, according to the very passage itself, they were already. Paul, it is well known, had been preaching and acting as a Minister of Christ long before this event. So also had Barnabas. Was it to the apostolic office that they were called by the imposition of hands of these subordinate officers of the Church? This, as Dr. Doddridge says, is truly incredible, and is altogether inconsistent with what Paul says of himself. He expressly calls himself " an Apostle, not of man, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ." Galatians i. 1. Here he expressly speaks of himself as commissioned to the apostolic office by our Saviour, without the intervention of man. Well might Dr. Doddridge represent this as inconsistent with the idea of his being ordained to that high office by the prophets or teachers of Antioch. Paul received his commission of Apostle from Jesus Christ, without the intervention of man; in other words, without any ordination from human hands.

In what point of view then is this transaction to be considered? Simply in the light of a solemn benediction on the ministry of Paul and Barnabas, in preaching the gospel to a particular district; and, in the utmost latitude of construction, can be carried no further than a designation of these men to a special mission. Imposition of hands was not always for ordination. It was frequently by way of conveying or of imploring a blessing. In this manner was it commonly used by the Jews and primitive Christians. Jacob put his hands on the heads of Ephraim and Manasseh when he blessed them. And thus did our Saviour act in relation to the little children who were brought to him.

In the case under consideration, Paul and Barnabas were plainly not invested with any office; for whatever office they held after the transaction, they had held before; but a benediction was bestowed on their labours, in the circuit to which they were directed to go by the Holy Spirit. The transaction invested them with no new authority. It made them nothing that they were not before; which circumstance is utterly inconsistent with the idea of ordination, that being the mode of delegating power not previously possessed. This matter, however, is put out of all doubt by referring to other passages of scripture relating to the same event. In the very next chapter, Paul and Barnabas are represented as having fulfilled the particular mission to which they had been designated, by the transaction at Antioch, and as returning to give an account of the same.

"And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been RECOMMENDED TO THE GRACE OF GOD FOR THE WORK WHICH THEY FULFILLED." Now, take these two parts of scripture, and compare them together, and all doubt about the nature of this transaction will immediately vanish. Paul and Barnabas fulfilled all that the transaction at Antioch related to, Can any thing more clearly show that it was not the apostolic office, but a temporary mission to which they had been set apart? The latter they might well represent themselves as having fulfilled; but not, surely, the former, it being an office that continued through life. We are here, also, let into the true meaning of the laying on of hands in this particular case. "And hence sailed to Antioch, FROM WHENCE THEY HAD BEEN RECOMMENDED TO THE GRACE OF GOD, FOR THE WORK WHICH THEY FULFILLED." Acts xiv. 26. The imposition of hands then, had been merely a solemn benediction by which Paul and Barnabas had been recommended to the grace of God, in the particular mission to which they were set apart by the Holy Spirit. When all the circumstances of the transaction, as recorded in the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of the Acts, are fairly considered, there can be no sort of colour for representing Paul and Barnabas as ordained to any office, much less to the apostolic office, in this case. No. Whatever office they had afterwards they had before. They were merely ❝ recommended to the grace of God," on being sent upon a particular mission; after fulfilling which they returned to Antioch, and gave an account of such fulfilment. They had fulfilled the particular mission, not the apostolic office. The imposition of hands was not, then, an ordination to office, but a salemn recommendation of them to the grace of God, in the mission which they were about to undertake. The writer then is very welcome to call this a Presbyterial ordination; for, according to Dr. Doddridge himself, it was no ordination at all.

And here let it be remarked, that the advocates of parity ground their mode of ordination on the two cases of Timothy, and of Barnabas and Paul. There is not another case which they have even a pretext for representing as a Presbyterial ordination. Now, in respect to the passages concerning Timothy, and Barnabas, and Paul, the utmost that can possibly be contended for, is that they are disputable passages. And is it in any point of view correct or safe to build up a mode of ordination, unknown to the Church for fifteen hundred years, and expressly contradicted by the constant exercise of the power of commissioning by an order of men superior to the Elders of Ephesus, upon two cases of doubtful construction? Surely not. All the other acts of ordination, recorded in scripture, were performed by the Apostles alone, and not a single example of ordination by Presbyters can be produced from ecclesiastical history for the first fifteen hundred years of the Church. And, if John Calvin had happened to be a Bishop when he entered upon the business of reformation, Presbyterial ordination would have been as unknown to us as it confessedly was to the Christians of the primitive times. But I forbear to go into this matter here; intending to consider it more distinctly in a future address. A Layman of the Episcopal Church.