the Lord exercised by Luitgard, the Saxon apostle, and his successors. As the same heaven, the same stars, and the same immeasurable distance, extend over the naked rock, the verdant bower, the waving corn-fields; so there is a Spirit, that is ever ready to speak to the soul of that man who is willing to listen. "Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are," but he "prayed earnestly," and he "prayed again," and the Lord heard his prayers. Man has been, and probably will be, found degraded every where; but in every zone, he likewise can raise himself above his condition. Dr. G. Schubart, to whom Dr. W. refers with deserved praise, (though we are far from admitting his sentiments in theology,) describes the firm and eternal resting-place of this power of the soul of man, in so beautiful a manner, that we cannot refrain from quoting a passage, found in his "History of the Soul."

'In the midst of the realms of existence, there is a sun, which sustains and preserves every thing, which animates and directs every thing; and there is an eye, which is itself of sun-like nature, and made for that sun. The sun is God, the eye is the soul.

Neither the terrors nor the dread, which come to man on the wings of the storm, or in the thunder of the avalanche, or the eruptions of the volcano, it is not these which have first proclaimed to him, that there is a God; nor is it from the starry heavens, letters, as it were, of his creation, that man has derived this knowledge. Deep as the longing, which, in the new-born babe, calls for the mother, of whom it yet knows nothing; loud as the crying of the young raven, after food which he has never yet tasted; strong and intense as the urgency with which the eye, when unsealed, or the plant, when breaking from its capsule, seeks the light which they have never before felt ;-such is the longing which I feel through my whole being, for the living fountain of all being, from which I have derived my existence.

Should I take the wings of the morning, and fly where the last waves of the visible world are lost; should I descend into darkness, where there is no star, where the cries of anxiety, the loud manifestations of joy, nay, where even the softest breathing of life, is no longer heard; and should I remain there, alone and solitary, yet I should feel, that He upholds me; I should perceive his nearness, like the rustling of the eagle's wing; in the stilly night, I should perceive something within me, which cries after God. Like the anchor cast forth, which, at once penetrating the waves of the sea, sinks to the deep foundation, on which it rests; so is there a desire within my bosom, which takes its way through the midst of the creation, unto God.'

But we must conclude. In conclusion, then, we would express our earnest desire, that our literature may be enriched with a literary history of as comprehensive a character, as is that to which we have directed the attention of our readers. It is by works like this, that a general interest in the highest productions of the human

mind is excited and preserved, notwithstanding the paralizing influence of mechanical employments, or the exclusive devotion to professional pursuits. To those who are engaged as public lecturers, on the whole, or on single periods, of the history of literature, these volumes will prove of inestimable value; and such persons, especially, will be capable of estimating the great utility of the minute and numerous bibliographical notices, with which their pages are interspersed. "To develop the course of history," says Dr. Wachler, "to represent more fully the particular facts, to review literary productions, and to direct the hearer in the methodical use of particular authors, belongs to oral communications. My lectures on the history of literature, occupy three semesters; (that is, halfyears.) In the first, ancient literature is lectured upon for six hours each week, and the general introduction for two hours; in the second, the history of the middle ages is treated; in the third semester, that of modern times. The latter is reduced to somewhat narrow limits. The literature of professional studies, and of philosophy, is, in many respects, a subject of separate consideration. In general history, it is sufficient, therefore, to direct the attention to the intellectual tendency, which exercises a universal influence, and which is reflected in every particular branch; and to present a historical view of the relations of each individual department, considered in connection with the general character of history."

Having so decidedly spoken of the advantages which the public lecturer may derive from these works of Dr.. Wachler, we need not enlarge upon their utility, as a book of reference to students. of the history of literature. We know of no other work, of this kind, which, in practical value, can be compared with these volumes; as we know of no other nation than Germany, which has so distinguished itself, in arranging and digesting the literary productions of the whole world, even from the period when their great reformer became the interpreter and representative of the spirit of his time. With this acknowledgment of the superiority of Germany, where it is due, we would recall the historical fact, that Luther, and his cotemporaries in restoring the freedom of the mind, at the time of the reformation, likewise first laid the foundation of that highest political freedom, which rests upon the principle, that the interests of the government and those of the people are identical. For the preservation of that principle, the founders of this western republic left their ancestral shores, and the enjoyment of both literary and social privileges. Even now, then, in the benefits which we derive from our political institutions, we seem to enjoy the fruits of a mighty tree, which first struck root in the soil of Germany; but, as its growth was there neglected, its branches

have been bending over to us, and we are permitted to gather its rich produce. It is a precious privilege which is thus committed to us; and it becomes us to beware how we lose our birthright, by neglect or licentiousness. In reference to this fact, and hence in a peculiar sense, we may exclaim, with Dr. Wachler, LIFE IS NOT

THE GREATEST GOOD.

ART. III.-SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT, ON THE EPISCOPAL CON

TROVERSY.

Answer to a Review (in the Quarterly Christian Spectator) of "Episcopacy tested by Scripture;" first published in the Protestant Episcopalian, for May, 1834. Philadelphia: Jesper Harding; 1834. pp. 19.

WHEN the review of the tract, "Episcopacy tested by Scripture," was prepared,* it was not our design, to engage in a controversy on the subject there discussed. We well knew how unprofitable and how endless such a controversy might become; and we felt, that we had more important business to engage our attention, than that of endeavoring to defend the external order of the church. The subject attracted our notice, because, on two different occasions, the tract, which was the subject of the review, had been sent to us, in one instance accompanied with a polite request,evidently from an Episcopalian,-to give to it our particular attention; because, too, the tract had been published at the "Episcopal Press," and it was known, that it would be extensively circulated; because it had been the subject of no small self-gratulation among the Episcopalians, and had been suffered, notwithstanding the manifest complacency with which they regarded it, to lie unanswered; but mainly, because it made an appeal at once to the bible, and professed a willingness, that the question should be settled by the authority of the scriptures alone. This appeared to us to be placing the subject on new ground. The first emotion produced by the title of the tract, was one of surprise. We had been so accustomed to regard this controversy as one, that was to be settled solely by the authority of the fathers; we had been so disheartened, and sickened by the unprofitable nature, the interminable duration, and the want of fixed bounds and principles, in that investigation; we had seen so little reference made to the bible, on either side of the question, that it excited in us no small degree of surprise, to learn, that a bishop of the Episcopal church should be willing to make a direct, decisive, and unqualified appeal to the new testament. It was so unusual; it gave so new a direction to the controversy; it promised so speedy an issue, and one

so little auspicious to the cause which the bishop was engaged in defending, that we were not unwilling to turn aside from our usual engagements, and to examine the proofs adduced in this somewhat novel mode of the Episcopal controversy.

Shortly after our review was published, an "Answer" to the article appeared in the "Protestant Episcopalian," understood to come from the author of the tract. With a copy of this, the writer of the review was politely furnished by Dr. Onderdonk. The "Answer" is marked with the same general characteristics, as the tract itself. It evinces, in general, the same spirit of christian feeling, and of candid inquiry; the same calm, collected, and manly style of argument; the same familiarity with the subject; and the same habit,-by no means as common as is desirable,-of applying the principles of the inductive philosophy to moral subjects. To this general statement, perhaps, should be made a slight exception. A candid observer, possibly, would discern in the "Answer," some marks of haste, and some indications of disturbed repose, possibly of a slight sensation in perceiving, that the material point of the argument in the tract, had not been as strongly fortified as was indispensable. As instances of this sensation, we might notice the train of remarks in pp. 8, 9, and especially in the following expressions. "The reasonings throughout his article, (the reviewer's,) are much the same as those usually brought against Episcopacy; and where they are not the same, they are so much minus the former ground," etc. "No one, for three years, brought these old reasonings against the tract, no one, till the reviewer fancied he had discovered a weak spot in it, and might, therefore, re-produce some of them with effect." "The present is only a start in its slumber." And again, on p. 15, the author of the reply speaks of the reviewer, as one whom he suspects" to be a new comer into this field of controversy," if not with the intention, at least with the appearance, of designing to disparage the force of the arguments, which the reviewer had urged. Now, it is unnecessary for us to remind Dr. Onderdonk, that the inquiry is not, whether the arguments are old or new, whether they are pertinent and valid. Nor is the question, whether one is a "new comer" into this controversy. Arguments may not be the less cogent and unanswerable, for being urged by one who has not before entered the lists; nor will arguments from the bible be satisfactorily met, by an affirmation, that they are urged by one unknown in the field of debate. It may be proper, however, for us to observe, in self-vindication, that the arguments which we urged, were drawn from no other book than the bible. The "Tract" and the new testament, were the only books before us in the preparation of the article. The course of argument suggested, was that only which was produced by the investigation of the

but

scriptures. Whether we have fallen into any train of thinking, which has been before urged by writers on this subject, we do not even now know, nor are we likely to know; as it is our fixed purpose, not to travel out of the record before us, the inspired account of the matter in the sacred scriptures. If, however, the arguments which we have urged, be "the same with those which are usually brought against Episcopacy," (p. 8.) it furnishes a case of coincidence of results, in investigating the new testament, which is itself some evidence, that the objections to Episcopacy are such, as obviously occur to different minds, engaged in independent investigation.

When the reply appeared, it became a question with us, whether the controversy should be prolonged. A perusal of the "Answer" did not suggest any necessity for departing from our original intention, not to engage in such a controversy. It did not appear to furnish any new argument, which seemed to call for notice, or to invalidate any of the positions defended in the review. Almost the whole of the "Answer" appeared to be simply an expansion of a note in the tract, (p. 12, note z.) which, when the review was prepared, seemed not to furnish an argument, that required particular attention. The fact, too, that then the argument was expressed in a note, in small type, and at the bottom of the page, was an indication, that it was not of much magnitude, in the eye of the author of the tract himself. Why it is now expanded, so as to constitute the very body and essence of the reply, is to us proof, that the subject, on the Episcopal side, is exhausted. This fact is of such a nature, as to impress the mind strongly with the belief, that henceforth nothing remains to be added, in the effort to "Test Episcopacy by Scripture."

In departing from our original purpose, it is our wish to reciprocate the kind feeling and candor of the author of the "Tract," and of the "Answer." Truth, not victory, is our object. We have but one wish on this subject. It is, that the principles upon which God designed to establish and govern his holy church, may be developed and understood. We resume the subject, with profound and undiminished respect for the talents, the piety, and the learning of the author of the Tract and Answer; and with a purpose, that this shall be final, on our part, unless something new, and vital to the subject, shall be added. In this, as well as in all other things, our desire is, not to write one line, which, dying, or in heaven,

-we would wish to blot.

Still, this desire, so deeply cherished, does not forbid a full and free examination of arguments. Our conscientious belief is, that the superiority "in ministerial power and rights," (Tract, p. 15.) VOL. VII.

5