5: 23, 24.) Gross immorality, heresy,—a factious, turbulent, divisive spirit, are occasions of interference by the officers of the Church. (Rom. 16: 17; 1 Cor. 5: 9-11; Gal. 5: 12; 2 Thes. 3: 6, 14; 1 Tim. 6: 5; 2 Tim. 3: 5; Tit. 3: 10; 2 John, 10, 11.) As each pastor is the leader and governor of his own society according to acknowledged rules,-the sacrament of the holy supper being also committed to him as the symbol of communion, to be withheld or imparted to each member according to his standing,-so each minister of the first and second grades should be willing to accept the guidance, where necessary, of him who ordained him, or of some other to whom it may be more convenient to transfer that relation. And as each pastor, when offences come under his own knowledge, or have been proved to the satisfaction of the church, should declare and apply the law to the case,-so, should any clergyman walk in a manner unworthy of his calling and to the injury of the cause, a like declarative and judicial power ought to belong to the ordaining minister, who in turn is amenable to those of his own grade. In harmony herewith are the declarations of Swedenborg. "Priests are governors over matters ecclesiastical,"-" appointed to administer those things which relate to the divine law." "He who believes otherwise than the priest, and makes no disturbance, ought to be left in peace; but he who makes disturbance ought to be separated; for this is agreeable to order, for the sake of which the priesthood is established." (H. D. 314, 319, 318.)

The ordaining minister should be chosen by the clergy and people directly or through their representatives, from the order of Pastors, but he should be ordained by those of his own rank alone, and where convenient, three should unite in the ceremony. When thus elected and clothed with dignity and authority, honor and lawful obedience should be paid to the office, (H. D. 317,) and to the incumbent a reasonable maintenance in proportion to the ability of the people. (Mat. 10: 9, 10; 1 Cor. 9: 7, 11-14; 2 Thes. 3: 8. See also A. R. 799, which declares "the annual incomes and stipends of the clergy to be lawful, if the receivers be content with them.")

There is one other point which I would also suggest for the consideration of the Church. Does not Swedenborg in T. C. R. 685 recognise the propriety of "sponsors" in baptism? And does not the use of sponsors imply in the subjects of baptism the duty of being confirmed at an intelligent age? Such a rite existed in the early church, and the performance of it was one of the bishop's peculiar duties. It seems to be expressly referred to in Acts, 8: 5, 12, 14-17; 19: 1-7; Heb. 6: 2; and by implication in Mat. 3: 11; John, 3: 5; Acts, 2: 38; Tit. 3: 5; 2 Cor. 1: 22; Eph. 1: 13; 4: 30; and though it has fallen into disuse in some branches of the Protestant Church, it may be well to inquire whether it should not be restored in the New?

Let us now, ere we close, look back and gather into one view some of the salient points on which we have touched. This is a question, not of doctrine, or ritual, but of order and government, and as such is

not to be confounded with the former. In our decision we should be guided by light drawn from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, including in the latter the Acts and Epistles,-from Ecclesiastical History-the writings of Swedenborg-from Reason, and the experience of other churches. On this earth three churches preceded the advent of our Lord. In the first, although there was no formal priesthood, some of the duties of the office were performed by other persons, and among these there must have been a distinction of ranks. Since then the priesthood has ever existed as a separate class with its peculiar rights and duties. In the second Church there were grades in the office, and these must have been three; for besides that the two higher are expressly mentioned-we are told that the Jewish was a resuscitation of the Ancient Church which preceded it, and in that we know that there was a High-priest-priests—and Levites. Its ritual was changed shortly after the Exode, but the order of the priesthood remained the same. It was prophecied that in the Christian Church there should be a ministry with similar grades. Our Lord himself passed through those several degrees, as was adumbrated in his temptation :-proved by his commission thrice attested by a voice from heaven; and signified by his progressive labors in the three provinces of Canaan and his journeyings from Galilee, through Samaria, to Jerusalem. While himself acted as High-priest and Apostle, there were below him the subordinate ranks of the Twelve and the Seventy. The Twelve received three several commissions of their number, three were particularly distinguished; and of these again, Peter was promised a three-fold commission, which was confirmed to him after his Resurrection. Before his Ascension, the power of ordination was delegated to the Twelve, who afterwards did ordain both Elders and Deacons as priests of the two lower ranks. That the Apostolic office was to be perpetual, is proved by the terms of their final commission: by the direct testimony of Paul; and by the fact that others were admitted to their rank during their lives, with the same title and rights, and with power to transmit the office, though the name was afterwards changed. Under all these dispensations and changes a three-fold qualification was required for the priestly office, which also embraced a trine of duties, and to which the subjects were ever ordained, substantially in the same mode. Some would deduce the equality of Christian ministers from two passages in the Gospels, which, however, prove the very reverse, and have been otherwise misinterpreted. A passage in the Acts, and another in the Epistle to Timothy, which are offered to show that Presbyters ordained, equally fail of their purpose; and these are the sole pretended proofs of Parity from Scripture. We infer from various declarations of Swedenborg that the Anti-Nicene was a pure Church. The remains of an unbroken succession of writers extending from the Apostles' days to that Council attest the existence of a trinal ministry throughout the same period. Though much corrupted, the same order was preserved in the general Church until the Reformation. If Episcopacy was an usurpation, history preserves no record of its rise or of a time when it was not. And the passage from Jerome the solitary

one from all the Fathers which is urged in proof of its being an inno vation-again shows the very reverse. Thrice did our Lord declare to the Twelve the spiritual nature of his kingdom; thrice did he rebuke in them all unholy or worldly ambition, announcing at the same time the indispensable condition of precedence among his ser vants. The government which he established, though admitting a distinction among its officers, gives no encouragement to Popery-or Erastianism-or arbitrary rule of any kind, but is alone compatible with true liberty and the rights of all, and is the only one which secures the peace, the purity, and the greatest efficiency of the church. In the fact of Apostolic Succession we as New-Church men are but little interested, seeing that a new ministry has been originated for us; but the principle of preserving a succession of ordainers from such new origin is both true and important, and if in practice we have departed therefrom, we should return to the right path. Factum valet; fieri non debet. From the writings and conduct of Swedenborg we cannot but infer that he approved the same order. If then the prin ciples and frame of the government established by Christ and his Apostles in the Church may be clearly deduced from the Scripture: if the same has never been repealed by his own or any delegated authority: if, at the Reformation, any part of it was lost in certain branches of the Old Church, by an apparent though regretted necessity; yet is it binding on us of the New,-should be preserved where possessed and restored where it has been laid aside.

When I sat down to write, Sir, I little thought that this letter would have been drawn out to its present length. But my sense of the importance of the subject and the number of considerations in support of the view I have taken, have both so much increased on me as I proceeded, that I find myself unable either to suppress or abridge the exposition. I could not otherwise meet what I regard as the mistakes of others, or give the reasons for my own opinion. That opinion, as you know, was not my first opinion. My belief-inherited and strengthened by the accidents of association-once was, that any superiority of office claimed by Christian ministers must needs be an usurpation. Accordingly I had vowed an unwavering resistance to every species of ecclesiastical oppression, and to this among the rest. When however I was constrained to surrender the doctrine of Faith on which I then reposed, the obvious duty was also to revise my every opinion relative to the Church, and to discard my most cherished prejudices at the mandate of Truth. The reasons here embodied in part have convinced me that the notion of the original parity of the Christian clergy was a prejudice. If those reasons can be shown to be either fallacious or insufficient, I shall be ready to resume my former position. But viewing the subject as I now do, I should tremble to invade or mutilate that constitution of the ministry which was established by the Lord himself while in the flesh which has an indefinite previous antiquity in its favor; and without which I feel assured that the virtue of the heaven-descended doctrine of the New Jerusalem can never be fully applied for the healing of the nations. I have not the presumption to think that any thing I could offer

should claim attention as such, nor do I desire that it should carry a weight which is not derived from its own merit-if any it have. Neither am I a volunteer in this cause. At your instance have I written, but the truth was first sought with diligence, and I hope with impartiality. For being a layman, with nothing to hope personally from an increase of clerical power, it cannot be said that I am striving to magnify my own office; whereas the same arguments, if presented by an ordaining minister, might be thought to take their form or coloring from an unsanctified proprium as their source. Should such a suspicion bias inquirers, it would not be unlawful to suggest a similar caution to the advocates of another order. We learn from Swedenborg that the Protestants of his day were still greatly under the dominion of the Catholics, because the former had retained so many of the false doctrines of the latter. (A. R. 751.) Would it not be well then, (as Mr. Noble has intimated,) for the friends of Parity seriously to inquire whether themselves may not be under the spiritual influence of JOHN CALVIN, the real author of the fabric, which, while it has at times afforded a refuge for every heresy that has distracted the Church, at others, under the semblance of liberty, has sheltered a spiritual tyranny worse than could elsewhere be found in the whole Protestant world?

NOTES TO THE LETTER ON THE TRINE IN THE MINISTRY.

("Paul was an Apostle long before." p. 32.) Since this was written, I have thought it expedient to subjoin some proof of the assertions in the text. Paul was converted A. D. 35. Of this event we have three narratives in the Acts:-one by Luke, (9: 3–22,) and two by himself, (22: 1-16; and 26: 12-20.) Luke relates only in part what the Lord said to him on that occasion, as also does Paul in his address to the Jews at Jerusalem; but in his defence before Agrippa he gives it as follows; I have appeared unto thee for this purpose-to make thee A MINISTER AND A WITNESS both of those things which thou hast seen AND of those things in the which I will appear unto thee, delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom NOW I SEND thee, to open their eyes," &c., (vs. 16-18.) Is not the meaning here very plain? What other terms could better convey the idea that Paul was then commissioned as an Apostle, directly by the Lord, who appeared to him for that purpose? Some have supposed that Ananias, to whom the Lord appeared shortly afterwards, was sent to ordain him because «he laid his hands" on Paul. (9: 17.) But Ananias was not

Though we have presumed to differ from him in some immaterial respects, we very sincerely thank Mr. Cabell for this elaborate and most able argument of his side of the question; and we do not doubt that the church at large will feel the same sentiment. Brought up in the school of parity he has become the advocate of episcopacy; while we, brought up an episcopalian, have become decidedly opposed to episcopacy, although not in favor of parity. We do not believe that the trine necessarily involves episcopacy or is identical with it. And all our reading, both of the Word and of ecclesiastical history, in reference to this report, has convinced us, that episcopacy, as it exists in the present day, has no just foundation in the order of the apostolic church, and is nearly if not quite, as clearly an innovation" on that order as papacy. But in Mr. Cabell's other conclusions generally we coincide, and with his able argument for the trinal order we heartily concur.-Ed.

a minister at all that we know of. He is here called " a disciple,” (v. 10,) and afterwards by Paul a devout man according to the law and well reported of the Jews;" (22: 12,)—most probably therefore, he was a layman and only secretly a Christian. The same narrative states (9: 12, 17,) that he was sent "that Paul might receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost"-gifts then often exercised by private Christians, through the laying of hands, as was promised by the Lord before his ascension. (Mark 16: 17, 18.) His appearance to Ananias also answered another purpose. It enabled him to confirm Paul's testimony concerning himself. For when the other Apostles distrusted his pretensions in his new character, Barnabas, who may have received his information from Ananias, removed their suspicions. (Acts 9: 26-28.) If the laying on of Ananias' hands was the act of ordination,-the words of the Lord being merely the previous appointment to the Apostleship-how are we to reconcile such an hypothesis with the word of Paul elsewhere, "Paul, an Apostle-not of men [not a false Apostle] -neither by mant [not called and ordained in the ordinary way]—but by Jesus Christ?" (Gal. 1: 1.) By this I understand that Paul, unlike the Eleven who had passed through the lower grades,-unlike Matthias who was appointed by lot,—was called directly and audibly by the Lord himself from the ranks of the laity to the highest grade of the priesthood, just as Minerva was fabled to have sprung all-armed from the head of Jove, or as one in whom is the spirit of command, is sometimes taken from the class of citizens to head an army.‡

Now the occurrence related in Acts 13: 1-3, took place A. D. 45, ten years after Paul was called to the Apostleship, during which interval he had preached to the Jews in various cities. If then this was an ordination, it was the second which Paul had received, and in that way refutes the claim of Parity. But it is not said to be an ordination in Scripture. The Holy Ghost said "Separate me Barnabas and Saul to the work whereunto I have called them,"-viz: a mission to the Gentiles. But Paul's commission as received ten years before embraced them prospectively as well as Jews, though this part of his work was not entered on until now. God makes Apostles and sets them in the church, as he makes and sets the hand, eye or tongue in a human body.§ (1 Cor. 12: 28, 18.) But the Church, which is his body, according as it is enlightened by Him, may, as in this case, assign an Apostle his field of labor or particular work, just as, to use the words of Swedenborg, "the body assigns to each member its task and allowance." Prayer and imposition of hands are used for other purposes besides those of ordination. A minister we know is helped by the prayers of his people or brethren; (Rom. 15: 30; 2 Cor. 1: 11; Phil. 1: 19; Philemon 22.) And in the laying on of

* He was made a minister for this purpose, as Robert Hindmarsh was.—Ed.

In our opinion this refers to Paul's reception of the Gospel, and the command to teach it not to his reception of the powers of the holy spirit by that ultimate representative and significative rite, without which in his external man there could not possibly be that consociation of angels and spirits with him, whereby illustration in teaching it could alone flow into him from the Lord. Timothy received the Gospel by prophecy, that is, by preaching of Paul and the other apostles; but Paul received it not "of man," that is not from man as its source, nor "by man," that is not through man as the medium of its communication, but from the Lord immediately.-Ed.

We cannot think this, because there is to our mind no just reason why the Lord should establish an order in regard to the eleven, and violate it, or deviate from it, in regard to Paul.—Ed.

True; but in this ordination God acts mediately as well as immediately. He acts immediately in calling, and mediately in ordaining. He called Paul by immediate influx, and he mediately ordained him. And we have shown in a previous part of this report that the Lord does not ordain through heaven and the church as mere passive instruments of his divine operation; but that the church and heaven as his body ordain from him as its soul, as the humanity operates from the divinity in him. Ananias, and the church at Antioch, were but the hands of the christian heaven in the spiritual world, and the christian church in the natural world, as the Lord's body.—Ed.

This is ordination, and nothing else.-Ed.