copal construction of James's speech is, that it contradicts the sacred historian. In the very next chapter he tells us, that Paul and Silas delivered to the cities through which they passed, "the decrees for to keep, that were ordained (KEKPIMENA) of the apostles and elders." Ch. xvi. 4. Cyprian says that James pronounced the "authoritative sentence." The inspired historian says, that it was pronounced by the apostles and elders. Both cannot be true; and we are inclined to think that the rector of the episcopal church in Albany, cannot stand in the judgment, even with Potter and Hesychius to back him. The affront put upon the narrative of Luke is the more conspicuous, as the term which, in the mouth of James, is tortured into an "authoritative sentence," here occurs in that sense most unequivocally: because the reference from Antioch was brought before the tribunal of the apostles and elders. They were recognized as Judges having cognizance of the question; and theirs was, of course, an authoritative sentence. James was, indeed, one of the judges; he acted in his judicial character, but that character was common to him with every other member of the council; and like theirs, his only influence was that of his wisdom and his vote. The scripture, then, being judge, it is incontesti-. ble, that he did NOT pronounce an "authoritative sentence."

Our second position is, that it was impossible for

James to exercise such a power as the advocates of Episcopacy attribute to him. Our proofs are

these :

66

1. The cause was not referred to him; and accordingly it was not tried in the court of "St. James;" but in the court of the " apostles and elders," as the representatives of the Christian church.

2. It could not be referred to him; nor could he, as bishop of Jerusalem, have any cognizance of it; Antioch being entirely without his jurisdiction.

3. The decision of the council was received and obeyed with alacrity through the churches of Asia. But had it been pronounced by an authority so limited and local as that of the bishop of Jerusalem, the effect must have been very different. Unless we should suppose, that all the Asiatic cities through which Paul and Silas passed, were subject to the see of Jerusalem; and, then, we shall not only spoil the Episcopal argument from the seven angels of Asia; but shall overturn the whole system of the hierarchy, as it is pretended to have been established by apostolic ordination because we shall admit, that, instead of fixing bishops at proper distances for governing the church within convenient dioceses, the apostles put the immense regions of Asia under a spiritual head in the land of Judea. Indeed, we have always thought it hard, upon the Episcopal

Vol. III.

17

plan, that, considering the importance and the wealth of Antioch, not a bishop could be mustered for that distinguished city; but she must go for direction all the way to the prelate of Jerusalem!

4. The assembly in which James delivered his speech was not composed of clergy belonging to his diocese; and, therefore, he could not, even upon episcopal principles, pronounce an "authoritative sentence." The reason is obvious: he could not exercise authority over those who were not under his controul. There were present at the council, not only "presbyters," but "apostles." Peter was there, Paul was there, and how many others, we do not know. Had James then pronounced an "authoritative sentence," he had been above not only all the presbyters of his own diocese, but above all the deputies from Antioch; above all the members of the council from whatever part of the world; above the apostles themselves! Look, then, at this fact of the hierarchy. It turns the very apostles into mere make-weights of bishop James! It sets up an authority much like that of a visible head of the church catholic, than the papists have ever been able to produce for their "St. Peter!" If this is not a "bold stroke for a bishop, pray, gentlemen, what is? And if any of our readers can digest such a dish of absurdity, we wish him much comfort of his meal!

We shall not trespass long upon the patience of.

either our friends or our foes, in disposing of the "remains" of Cyprian's proofs. "When St. Paul and his company were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received him gladly, and the next day following, Paul went in with them unto James, and all the elders or presbyters were present. It was rather rustic in Paul not to pay his court to the bishop first. We have learnt, at the expense of some mortification, that in New-York any communication with the clergy, on ecclesiastical matters, except through the medium of the bishop, is an invasion of episcopal order. But Paul must be pardoned for committing an . oversight, especially as Cyprian, to be even with him, has done so too. He has stopped at that part of the narrative, which, in his eyes, holds James forth in something of bishop-like majesty, and forgot to tell the rest of the story. The reader, no doubt, would expect to hear of a very pointed conference between James and the apostle, all the presbyters listening with due humility to their superiours; but if he turn to the history, (Acts xxi.) he will find these same presbyters most uncivilly advising the apostle; and what is still worse, telling him that they had decided the reference from Antioch. Cyprian asserts that James made the decision. They, on the contrary, have the assurance to tell the apostle Paul, in the pre

sence of James himself, that the presbyters had decided it. And all this while not a word of bishop James! In the following ages the presbyters were taught better manners.

But then, it seems, that after Peter's "miraculous deliverance, he bade the Christians go and show these things to James, and to the brethren"-Also, that "certain came from James, that is, from the church of Jerusalem to the church of Antioch." Therefore, James was bishop of Jerusalem! Very sagely and conclusively reasoned! As if such things did not happen every day in places where there are ministers of the gospel distinguished by their talent or standing. The writer of this review stepped the other evening into the house of that venerable Christian veteran, the Reverend Dr. Rodgers, and found there" certain brethren" who had just come from one of their judicatories. It is quite common for people to talk of Dr. Rodgers' sending ministers to preach; and even to designate his denomination as Dr. Rodgers' church! Therefore Dr. Rodgers is bishop of New-York; and primate of the Presbyterian church in NorthAmerica!!

"Thus endeth the first lesson," which is concerning Cyprian's" striking evidence" that James was bishop of Jerusalem.