The discussion: Conclusion.

feelings seemed extinguished, and christians of every denomination joined in one anthem of praise to that Being who was putting forth such glorious displays of his grace and power. But, when the new converts began to agitate in their own minds the question, to what particular church they ought to attach themselves, a disturbing force seemed almost instantly brought in to break up this sweet harmony of feeling. It was natural for these persons, as they were awakened under the preaching of Episcopal ministers, to feel a desire to know something about the church to which they were attached. Numerous enquiries were therefore made in relation to the Episcopal church. No efforts, however, were employed to influence the minds of those who proposed these enquiries.Information was placed before them, and they were then left to act according to what appeared to them duty.-This course led them to the expression of a decided preference for the Episcopal church. No sooner had this taken place, than the fires of sectarianism seemed at once kindled up and blown into a mighty conflagration, spreading and raging most furiously through the whole community. Great pains were taken to give extensive circulation to statements implicating the character, and piety, and doctrines of the Episcopal church.

While there prevailed, much excitement on this subject, a worthy member of the Presbyterian church had a long conversation with one of another denomination, who contended that the Episcopal church embraced every species of error and abomination. After the conversation had proceeded for awhile in a very animated strain, the one vindicating and the other impugning the Episcopal church, the Presbyterian remarked:

"Well, you must admit that there is one noble trait in the character of Episcopalians-they do not speak bitterly against other denominations. During all the preaching we have had here, we have not heard them utter one harsh or unkind word against any who love the Lord Jesus Christ."

"Do you not know the reason," said the person, who would have it that the Episcopal church was very corrupt, "Do you not know the reason? Their Bishop will not let them. They dare not speak against others without his permission."

"Well, then," responded the Presbyterian, "I most sincerely wish that all denominations had a Bishop; and we

Evil speaking-The letter continued.

should thus be saved from an immense amount of evil speaking."

Would to God that Episcopalians were more truly entitled to the noble testimony borne in their favor in the case just referred to. If our Bishops had the power of suppressing the sin of evil speaking, it would be a prerogative which all the world would praise them for exerting.

But, as the author of the Letter remarks, the idea that Bishops in our church have committed unto them power which will enable them to interfere with the rights of the clergy, or the people, is altogether erroneous. The author of the Letter thus proceeds:

"The Bishop has the power of ordaining deacons and priests, after they have been suitably recommended, with the assistance of his presbyters; he confirms those who have been baptized; he consecrates chapels and churches, and when present, he presides in Convention. But he has nothing to do with the votes of a people in the settlement and support of their minister; the clergy only are subject to his advice and direction. All acts in relation to the church are passed in Convention, where the power of the Bishop is equal only to that of the presbyter, the deacon, or even the lay delegate. He can prescribe no new service; he can make no alterations in the old, and in every respect there is the same check upon the Episcopacy, as is possessed in a civil view, by the legislature over the President. But there is a permanent and visible head to the church; there is an authority to which offenders may be brought; there is a bond of union which strengthens and supports the whole; and although all the Bishops in America can exercise no more power than a single presbyter or association of congrega tional ministers, there is, nevertheless, a source from which power emanates, and without which all would be confusion and anarchy.

“And let me ask you, my friend, whether it is not necessary, that to every body there should be a head? The church is a society which can exist only under a regular government, and how can this be administered without an authorized governor? And does not experience show that where all assume to be rulers in an equal degree, there is disorder and every evil work? What government ever existed long where

Constitution of the ministry under the Jewish dispensation.

there was not a due gradation in its officers? And how can it be expected, when mankind are so various in their tempers, passions, and pursuits, that one uniform course should be pursued, and the same end accomplished where there is no subjection and no control?

"From considerations like these, I soon became satisfied that the church was in itself the best mode of which I had any knowledge, so far as respected its government. It then became necessary to inquire whether it was agreeable to the will of God; for however useful and proper it might appear, still if it was contrary to his commands, I knew it must be rejected, and the views which I had entertained set aside as deceptions. To ascertain this, it seemed important to advert to the government which he himself established with the Jews, and here I found a striking similarity to the orders of the church, in the several offices of high priest, priest and levite. And is it not reasonable to suppose that where there were once types and emblems, there must now be the substance and reality? Although circumcision was no longer to be continued as a token of the covenant between God and his people, yet baptism was substituted in its stead, and for the same reason, the offices which had before prevailed must have something corresponding to them in the christian church; and what is there that answers to the high priest, if it be not the bishop-to the priest, if it be not the presbyter-and to the levite, if it be not the deacon? But the argument is not, as some have pretended, that there must of necessity be bishops, priests and deacons in the christian, because there were high priests, priests and levites in the Jewish church. It is shown from this, that a diversity and an inequality of orders are not contrary to the will of God, but agreeable to his own government; and until there is some express command to the contrary, I think, if there were no other reason, it is better to endeavour to imitate the divine conduct than to adopt the inconsistent and unprofitable inventions of men.

"But I did not rest my belief upon my view of the subject thus far considered. Although I found Episcopacy good in itself, and as I thought from the divine institution, agreeable to the will of God, I proceeded to discover, if possible, what government was established for the church by Christ and his apostles. The three orders we find existing while the

H

Episcopacy found in the Scriptures.

Saviour was upon earth, consisting of himself, the twelve apostles and the seventy disciples. This seems an intimation, at least, that he intended the form of government which had prevailed among the Jews to be continued so far as related to the number and gradation of its offices; and after his ascension, it appears to me evident that the three orders still remained. Of the appointment of the deacons we have a par ticular account, and that they preached and baptized, wheth er as deacons or evangelists matters not; for their being deacons made them evangelists, and we have a history of their being solemnly ordained, by the laying on of the hands of the apostles, to the office of the former and not the latter. The term evangelist did not point out the nature of the of fice, but merely signified that the person to whom it was applied was a preacher of the gospel. In regard to the office of presbyters there is no question; and what is the testimony in proof of the superior order of bishops?

"All the apostles were bishops, and as such received their commission from Christ, and under his commission they could exercise equal powers, plant churches, and ordain teachers as they thought necessary. But it does not follow, that because they received but one commission and were alike authorized to perform all the duties of the Apostolical or Episcopal office, that the equality descended to all they ordained. We know it did not in regard to the deacons, for Peter and John went down from Jerusalem to Samaria, to confirm the converts whom Philip had baptized, which it seems he had not the power to do. And there are very strong circumstances, which shew also a difference in respect to presbyters. Timothy was the bishop of Ephesus; and I do not see how any candid person can read St. Paul's Epistles to him without being satisfied that he had the sole government of the church in that place as it respected the ordination and reproof of presbyters, and many things relating to the worship and conduct of the flock. Now, had the pres byters at Ephesus equal authority with Timothy? We read in the twentieth chapter of the Acts, that St. Paul called together the elders or presbyters of this church, and addressed them in the most affectionate language for the last time.— And is it not surprising that he does not say one word to them about the government of the church, ordaining, reproving,

Timothy and Titus, Episcopal Bishops.

&c., when he never expected to see them again, and when according to the system of parity, this was as much their duty as it was that of Timothy? He tells them to feed tne flock of God,' but to Timothy he points out the qualifica*ions of those whom he was to ordain, and directs him to 'lay hands suddenly on no man.' Is there any reasonable person that can say Timothy was not superior to these presbyters? and if so, to what order did he belong, if it were not to that of Bishops? The directions given to him are such, as are followed by the bishops of the Episcopal church at the present day; nor do they, so far as I am acquainted, exceed the duties which he was commanded to perform; and so strong is the evidence from this particular, that it was said by a celebrated divine, 'that he who could not find a bishop in Ephesus would be puzzled to find one in England.'

"And the case of Titus is, in my mind, no less demonstrative than that of Timothy. He was sent to Crete, where St. Paul had previously established the gospel; and what was his business? "To ordain elders in every city.' Was this the office of a bishop, or a congregational minister? It appeared to me the former, and I thought also, that as St. Paul was in great need of the assistance of Titus with him at at time, it was strange he did not direct him to return after having ordained two or three presbyters, enough to constitute a council, and leave them to ordain the rest, if they had the power; instead of which he himself was to go through the whole hundred cities of Crete. It seemed, also, probable that if St. Paul had been there before, and converted the island to christianity, he had left some presbyters; and if such were the case, why did he send Titus for the express purpose of ordaining elders in every city?

"A further testimony from scripture, in support of Episcopacy, I thought I perceived in the direction to the angels of the seven churches of Asia, in the Revelation. These angels I suppose were bishops, who had the jurisdiction over all the churches in the cities where they respectively dwelt. These were large places, containing many thousand christians. In the church at Ephesus were probably many societies, and consequently a considerable number of presby. ters. Still, one person is addressed as the angel or bishop of the church at Ephesus, and so at Smyrna, Thyatira, and