"unintentional," and that if convinced of any, "I will think my self pledged to an acknowledgment." I trust that I would not make an unfair quotation, or be guilty of misrepresenting an author's sentiments, for a much greater reward than to be made the Pope of Rome, or Archbishop of Canterbury. The numbers of "Miscellanies," to which you refer, and the pamphlet, are now before me.

You complain, that in my nineteenth number, "I take up the latter part of the Bishop's proposal, without any notice of the former part." In that number, I give a general and just account of the plan. When I begin, professedly, to quote, it is at the beginning of a paragraph which runs, "The other part of the propo sal," &c. This implies that there is a preceding part. I wished, and once thought to have published the whole pamphlet. What injustice is done to the Bishop here? "Not to wait for the succes→ sion," is the very spirit of his plan. Not to wait, implies, that he would have preferred the succession, could it have been obtained; and the necessity of constituting a Church without it, is explicitly avowed. To remove, however, the least ground of complaint, I here give the plan as it stands in the first place where it is introduced: "The conduct meant to be recommended as founded on the preceding sentiments, is to include in the proposed frame of government a general approbation of Episcopacy, and a declaration of an intention to procure the succession as soon as conveniently may be; but in the mean time, to carry the plan into effect without waiting for the succession."

I observe that your introducer and commentator, "Vindex," has changed the words " a declaration of an intention" into " a determination." This is admissible in a paraphrase; for I verily believe that the Bishop's declaration is the same with his determination. You will remember, at the same time, that a Church was to be constituted, and that immediately, "without waiting for the succession." Take these words away, and there is no plan at all.

You remark, that in my twentieth number I say "No Presbyterian could reason more to the purpose than Bishop White ;" and you ask, "To what purpose?" You have answered the question your self. It is that Episcopal ordination has been, and may be dispensed with in certain cases. To say that the Bishop has given" a mere statement of the fact," and that "there is no reasoning," looks very like an evasion. Why are the instances in the reign of Queen Elizabeth mentioned? You acknowledge that they "seem to have been designed to apply in this way;" that is, for dispensing with Episcopal ordination; and that the Bishop argues in favour of " an exigency much greater." This matter is so obvious to every reader as to require no further remark.

You go on to say, "On perusing the pamphlet, I do not find a sentiment which I can suppose an anti-Episcopalian writer would produce in favour of a parity in the ministry." What then? Is there no sentiment which shows that Episcopal ordination has been dispensed with by the Church of England, and ought to be dispensed with in some cases? Is there no sentiment which will forcibly apply against those who contend that " uninterrupted succession" is absolutely necessary-that an interruption is "morally impossible"

that ordinances administered by any but those ordained after the manner of the Church of England, are nugatory and invalid" and "that we can no more lay aside Episcopacy, and yet continue the Christian Priesthood, than we can alter the terms of salvation, and yet be in covenant with God?" Why does the Bishop reason from the doctrines, the practice, and the principles of his own Church in favour of his plan? Why does he call Episcopacy a ceremony"-a disputed point"a "matter of external order ?" &c. Why does he, in express words, give up divine right, and declare that it is given up by the most distinguished Divines in his own Church? See the paragraph as quoted in "Miscellanies," and again, in my reply to your prolocutor, "Vindex." Do you still ask, "To what purpose?" Be assured, that in whatever man ner I would argue “ in favour of a parity in the ministry," no arguments are sounder and better for the purpose they have been used, than those furnished me by Bishop White.* He is an Episcopalian with whom I have no controversy. He has completely overthrown the system which some Episcopal Priests in this State have vainly and arrogantly set up.

In my twenty-first number, I have, inadvertently, misunderstood the Bishop, and applied the words "as some conceive," to Episcopalians instead of applying them to their opponents. I am the less excusable in this, as in a pamphlet which offered so much matter for my purpose, there was no necessity to quote the paragraph at all. I am glad that you have subjoined the whole of it. I began to quote from the latter part, only so much as seemed necessary to introduce the reasoning of the Bishop which immediately follows, and which is given at considerable length in three distinct paragraphs. Except that I have not quoted the part of the paragraph in which "the grounds on which the authority of Episcopacy is asserted," which begins with, "The advocates for this form maintain," &c. and which you say "ought in reason to be understood as conveying the author's own" opinion, I have not broken the sense or connection; but every reader is fully enabled to judge without any comment of mine. I have more reason to complain of you for subjoining a paragraph, and omitting those which immediately follow, and which are absolutely necessary in order to understand the Bishop's pamphlet. The mistake in misapplying the words " as some conceive," and whatever has particularly arisen from it, I readily acknowledge, and hope that the Bishop will excuse me. The reader will perceive that, had I been inclined to misrepresent, there was no temptation in this instance; as there were so many passages in the pamphlet express to my purpose, and a misrepresentation would be worse than useless.

With respect to the fault which you find in my use of the quotation from Bishop Hoadly, I submit to the judgment of every candid

* And yet Bishop White, in this pamphlet, which is attributed to him, maintains, that Jesus Christ lodged an Episcopal power in the Apostles, by whom it was conveyed to the highest order of the minstry, called Bishops. In his sermon before the General Convention, he maintains, that the Apos tles constituted an order of Ministers with a supereminent commission, which has been handed down through succeeding ages! Ed.

person. If he and Bishop White do not assert, that there are not three distinct orders in the Church by divine appointment," the inference is at least natural, that such was their opinion; especi ally when the connection is considered together with other parts of the pamphlet. In a preceding page Bishop White shows this very thing; that the doctrines of his Church do not teach that Episcopal ordination is "as much binding as Baptism and the Lord's Supper;" and he surrenders, in a subsequent page, in as plain and strong words as possible, the idea of divine right. I confidently refer the reader to the passages which have been quoted in "Miscellanies," and to the scope of the whole pamphlet.

Lest I should be tedious, I shall defer farther remarks until another opportunity. Had it not been for the intrusion of "Vindex," I could have furnished by this time, all I have to say. Your sentiments are conveyed with sufficient perspicuity and precision, without any elucidation and enforcement of his. A brace on the table is pleasant enough; but a brace of antagonists is not very eligible. I really cannot see any strength which Episcopacy, as held by the high-flyers in this State, is to gain by your letter. If your intention was merely to point out some mistakes which you discerned in my publications, I am sincerely obliged to you. Admitting these mistakes to be far more numerous than you pretend, do they alter the nature of the pamphlet? Do they affect, in the smallest degree, the cause for which I contend against my opponents here? Must you not be sensible that the sentiments of Bishop White have been produced with great propriety and force? I never meant to say that he is not an Episcopalian-that he pleads for "parity"—and that he is not conscientiously attached to the form of government in his own Church. I believe otherwise; and I pray that Episcopalians may ever have such Bishops.

For the Albany Centinel.

By the Author of "MISCELLANIES." No. IV.

TO" AN EPISCOPALIAN."

I

SIR,

HASTEN to answer the remainder of your letter.

You are not satisfied with my quoting a note from the pamphlet, as expressive of the Bishop's own opinion. Having mistaken the meaning of the words, "as some conceive," the other mistake naturally followed; especially as the note is not marked as a quotation from Neal's history, and the same opinion is delivered in a preceding part of the pamphlet, which is quoted by me, in connection with the other. The express words of the Bishop are, p. 18, "In the early ages of the Church it was customary to debate and determine in a general concourse of all Christians in the same city; among whom the Bishop was no more than President." Where is

the difference between this and the note complained of? "The ori ginal order of Bishops was from the Presbyters choosing one from among themselves to be a stated president in their assemblies, in the second or third century." Would not any man, after reading the Bishop's own words, conclude that he approved of the opinion he has quoted from the Smectymnuan Divines? I mention this not to justify, but to excuse myself. The first quotation is sufficient for my purpose; and I am content to surrender the note, as expres sing the opinion of anti-Episcopalians, believing that the worthy Bishop thus intended it.

The assertion in my twenty-third_number, that the Bishop's reasoning is as strong for a total as for a temporary departure,' you allege is groundless. You will observe, that I do not say that he thought so, or that he meant it to be so applied, but give it merely as my own opinion, and add some reasons, in "Miscellanies," on which my opinion is founded. I shall neither repeat these, nor produce any new ones. Whether my opinion is just or not, is of no consequence, as to the argument against my opponents. They admit of no departure from Episcopacy-of no necessity but that of uninterrupted succession. They insist, that "the divine Head of the Church has pledged himself to preserve the succession of his ministry (as held by Episcopalians) to the end of the world"that an "interruption seems indeed morally impossible"--that the moment this change or interruption is made, human authority usurps the place, in the Church, of divine" that "it must be essential to the efficacy of the Lord's Supper, as a means and pledge of divine grace, that it be administered by those who have received lawful authority (from the Bishops of the Episcopal Church) to administer it," &c. &c.t Now, the Bishop strenuously pleads for a temporary departure-is for constituting a Church, "without waiting for the succession"-thinks that the word preach ed, and ordinances thus administered, would be effectual to salvation, "perhaps as long as the present generation shall continue"calls Episcopal succession "a disputed point, relating to externals," &c.-gives up explicitly and fully the idea of divine right-states and urges, from the doctrines, the practice and the principles of his Church, that a departure from Episcopacy, in certain cases, is warrantable and necessary. Where then is the " mora impossibility of an interruption in the succession?" Where the "pledge of Christ to preserve the succession?" Where that unscriptural, unreasonable, and uncharitable system which Episcopal Divines in this State are attempting to set up? If the Bishop be right, as he

* What! Does the first quotation prove that the Bishops originated in the second or third century? Does the first quotation prove that the Bishop had not the exclusive power of ordination? Ed.

And have not some of the warmest advocates of Episcopacy main. tained the same sentiments, and yet made an exception for what they conceive a case of inevitable necessity?

Ed.

And must the author of Miscellanies again be told, that the succession is not interrupted when any particular Church throws off the succession ! Wherever the order of regular Bishops exists, there is the succession un interrupted.

Ed.

indubitably is, in my mind, their saucy tenets are scattered like chaff before the wind.*

I continue, Sir, to lament, "that the government of the Episcopal Church was not founded on the plan represented in the pamphlet." There might have been then some prospect of an union of · the Churches in this country; a matter which has, formerly, been near my heart. I believe now, that it is not the will of Providence, and I am resigned. I trust that I am no bigot. I am not quarrelling with Episcopal government, when put on the ground of expediency or of preference. I have been inclined to lean a little to the opinion, that there was no precise form of government prescribed in the scriptures; but that it was to be accommodated to circumstances. I would be cautious in asserting the divine right, either of Episcopacy, or of Presbyterianism; though, I think, that the latter has the superior claim. Is there not cause of complaint when a Church sets up exclusive pretensions, and will not extend to others the same privilege which is extended to her? Is not this the very principle which has obliged us to protest against the Roman Catholic Church? Is there any difference whether we are called to believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, or in the divine right of Episcopacy, under pain of being shut out from the kingdom of heaven?‡

"The ground," you say, "on which the plea for a temporary departure rested, was soon done away." It was so; but surely, the sentiments of the Bishop remain. It is evident, that he did not expect the necessity to be removed so soon; because he speaks in one place of its continuing " perhaps as long as the present generation shall continue." No matter whether the necessity was for one year, or a generation, or all generations, his plan was to co-extend with the necessity. His Church might have been still Episcopal, and might have had three distinct orders; for I could suppose a case in which "uninterrupted succession" is impossible; and in which it would be the duty of a people to form such government as they preferred; and the ordinances of the Gospel administered by those whom they appointed, would be as acceptable to the Head of the Church, and as effectual means of salvation, as when administered by those immediately appointed by the Apostles themselves. Let not this be construed as maintaining that the observance of

"Saucy tenets." Let the author of Miscellanies learn not to "speak evil" of those venerable Fathers of the Church, who maintained the tenets which he thus elegantly characterizes. Ed.

† Alas! that the author of "Miscellanies" did not go for instruction to the old school of the primitive Church. He would then have found that Episcopacy was the principle of that Church unity which "has been near his heart."

Ed.

And is there any difference, may the Socinian say, whether we are called to believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation or the doctrine of the Trinity, under pain of being shut out from the kingdom of Heaven? Episcopalians judge none. To his own master every man will stand or fall. And yet truth must be maintained, and the danger of rejecting it, displayed. Ed.

It would have been well, if the author of Miscellanies had specified this case. Ed..