enthusiast, who would discard both ordinances and ministry, may make his best bow to the Doctor for helping on his cause.

The rhapsody into which Dr. M. has run out in imputing to high-churchmen a totally unjust view of their doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and in the equally unjust attributing to them of the popish error of the opus operatum, will probably have its effect upon the men of low and little minds, who think they can never do a better service than by traducing the Episcopal Church; and any credit which may be gained by offering them an encouragement which has no foundation in truth, is certainly welcome where it is due. The better sense of the community, however, and its more Christian feelings, are aware of the injustice of the procedure, and are daily giving the most substantial proofs of confidence in the communion whose principles are thus assailed and distorted.

To all that the Doctor says, under the head of the uncharitableness of high-churchmen, about their denying salvation to all without the pale of their own communion, and setting up an indissoluble connexion between that glorious gift of God, and the ordinances and ministry of the Church, there is a short and easy answer-It is not true. In his partial knowledge of the subject, or in the strength of that prejudice which may warp even honest minds, he may not, and doubtless does not, see its contrariety to truth. The well-informed and unbiassed portion of the community, however, of all denominations, know that it is not true; and that any comparison of relative uncharitableness between churchmen-ay, high-churchmen too-and others, will certainly not be unfavourable to the former. It is too late in the day for such representations to have their fully intended effect. Whether in the exercise of the kindest and best of the Christian graces, or in the zealous and faithful exposition of evangelical doctrine, or in the uncompromising requirement, and most lovely exhibition, of vital personal piety, the brilliant careers of two recently departed, warm, decided, and fearless advocates and defenders of high-church principles, have left splendid evidences of the groundlessness of the common place traduction of those principles to which Dr. Miller has not been unwilling to lend his sanction. In the lives, the deaths, the labours, and the works, of HOBART and of RAVENSCROFT, the truth on this subject has a practical and conclusive illustration, to which the community is not, and will not be, insensible,

Dr. Miller, under his tenth general head, professes to find it very painful to enter on the ungracious task of trying to make

it

appear that Presbyterians are more godly than their Episcopal neighbours. It can be no mitigation of the pain, that it is incurred in a work little creditable to the Christian character, hardly accordant with the precepts of the Gospel, and not even promotive, in judicious minds, of the argument in whose behalf he has stooped to its execution. It is of little consequence to the churchman to be judged by man's judgment. There is one that knoweth him, even GoD. Let him leave to those who can enjoy it, the satisfaction of saying, GOD, I thank thee that I am not as other men. Be he satisfied if he can find a gracious ear opened to that petition of every one who would judge himself rather than his neighbour, God be merciful to me a sinner.

Not that he need shrink from standing the comparison, if others choose to institute it. He knows that a disfigured face is not always the index of a right heart; nor long prayers a proof of a devout spirit. His SAVIOUR has told him that Lord, Lord, may be the importunate cry of many a one who falls far short of the faithful doing of the will of GOD; and that many wonderful things may be done in the name of CHRIST, where there is no Gospel ground of hope of acceptance with Him. He knows, for he sees, that much of the moral defection of jesuitry may be transferred to Protestant ranks; and the sorest injury done to the cause of true piety, and of social and domestic duty, by means having for their professed end the glory of GoD, and the good of souls. The principle of compounding for favourite sins, by great zeal against others, has a much more substantial existence than merely in the fancy of the shrewd and witty poet. The churchman, therefore, leaves all judgment with his Maker; and instead of asking whether there be few that be saved, and who they are, is mainly anxious that himself may be found humbly striving to enter in at the straight gate.

In conclusion, the writer would bespeak for these volumes the reader's candid perusal. The works which they contain have already done much good. The first two of them, especially, have removed the prejudices, enlightened the minds, and changed the views, of many honest inquirers for the truth, and brought many valuable acquisitions to the Church in whose behalf they plead; and the last, in its yet brief existence and limited circu

lation, has elicited an attention and an approbation rarely equalled in so short a time. It is thus characterized in a letter from a pious and venerable clergyman: "I have lately received a pamphlet, Episcopacy Tested by Scripture,' with which I am much pleased, for I have read it with attention. The calm and placid manner of the writer reminds me of Bishop Hickes and others, who, I always thought, wrote, not to overcome, but to inform; not to repel, but to conciliate. He appears to possess a clear head, and a full acquaintance with his subject. God grant that his pen may be left for further use. I know not the writer."* The reader will find these encomiums perfectly just.

Let none give way to the erroneous view of the subject of these volumes, that it is of little importance, and hardly worth the trouble of investigation. This view of it is one of the means adopted to check that inquiry from which the episcopal cause has never failed to gain advantage. The subject is, in fact, of vast importance, connected with the whole scheme of salvation revealed in the Gospel. For if God has appointed sacraments and ordinances as means of grace and salvation, and committed their administration, not to every man, but to a ministry of his own appointment; it follows that, as his constituted means, they must be had at the hands of His constituted ministry. The question discussed in these volumes is, Where is this ministry to be found? Every man is not a minister. Who is? A B receives the sacrament of the Lord's Supper at his pastor's hands. Why may not the favour be reciprocated, and A B become the administrator to the pastor? He brings his child to his pastor for baptism. Why not carry it to any other neighbour, or baptize it himself? The answer is given in these volumes, from a full and clear view of the bearing upon the subject of all the means of correct information which may lead to a right understanding of religious truth.

* The tract was first published anonymously.

THE

APOSTOLIC ORIGIN OF EPISCOPACY ASSERTED.

LETTER I.

REV. SIR:

THE Letters addressed by you to the Members of the United Presbyterian Churches in this city, have, for some time, engaged my most serious attention. Whatever in the judgment of your friends may be their merit, in my humble opinion they are liable to the charge of great want of fairness in the management of the controversy. You have withholden from your readers numerous testimonies, very pointed and decisive, in favour of Episcopacy; and you have, in a most striking manner, misrepresented (undesignedly I believe) what you are pleased to call matters of fact. Still the whole performance, notwithstanding its defects, is admirably calculated to satisfy those who had rather trust to another, than think and examine for themselves.

In the prosecution of this important controversy, I shall not observe the course which you have taken, but shall nearly reverse it; beginning with the testimonies usually adduced from the writings of St. Jerome.

In order to come at his sentiments, let us see, first, what he has said in favour of the Apostolic institution of Episcopacy.

The first passage that I shall adduce, is the following: "That we may know that the apostolic traditions were taken from the Old Testament, that which Aaron and his sons, and the Levites were in the temple, let the Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons claim to themselves in the Church." This appears to me to be a very pointed and unequivocal testimony. For what does Jerome say? Does he not say that the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in the Christian Church, have a right to claim grades similar to those which Aaron, his sons, and the Levites held in the Jewish Church? Had not these officers in the temple service a divine appointment; and does not Jerome say, that what they had, the Christian officers had a right to claim? Does not Jerome give it as his opinion, in language that cannot easily be mistaken, that the Apostles made the Old Testament their exem

a Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas, &c. Ep. ad Evag. VOL. I.-1.

plar, and not the Jewish Synagogue? Does he not assert, by necessary implication at least, that as there were three orders or grades under the Mosaic economy, so there are three orders or grades under the Christian economy? And does he not affirm, that this was by apostolical tradition or appointment? Sir, if this be not the meaning of Jerome's words, I know not what the meaning of obvious language is. Let us interpret him according to your hypothesis. To the plainest understanding it would appear, that Jerome was running a parallel between the officers of the Christian and the Jewish Church. To the plainest understanding it would appear, that Jerome places the claims of the former as high as those of the latter-what the former were, let the latter claim. But, upon your hypothesis, the father speaks inconsistently. Aaron was, by divine appointment, superior to his sons, the priests; but the Bishop, according to your interpretation, is not superior to the Presbyter. Aaron is officially distinguished by Jerome from his sons, the priests; but, if you speak the truth, there is no official distinction between the Bishop and the Presbyter; they are precisely the same officer. Is there any parallel here? Let common sense speak.

2. That Jerome meant to make Bishops superior to Presbyters by apostolic appointment, is evident from several other clear and unequivocal passages. He repeats the passage adduced, only leaving out the Levites and the Deacons."We know that what Aaron and his sons were, that the Bishop and Presbyters are."

3. Jerome, addressing the Church, says, "The Apostles were thy fathers, because that they begat thee. But now that they have left the world, thou hast in their stead their sons, the Bishops."b Here he asserts, that the Bishops succeeded to the station of the Apostles, which could not be true, if the Apostles had not devolved their office upon the Bishops. He repeatedly declares, that the Bishops succeeded to the apostolic pre-eminence, and that Bishops (Bishops in the ecclesiastical sense of the word, such as were in his day, superior to Presbyters) were set over certain Churches by apostolic authority; as James over the Church of Jerusalem, Timothy over the Church of Ephesus, Titus over the Church of Crete, Epaphroditus over the Church of Philippi, and Polycarp over the Church of Smyrna. Is it possible, without doing violence to language, to interpret these passages in favour of ministerial parity? No Sir, it is not possible. The meaning of words, the propriety of language, the drift and design of the writer-all proclaim, with a voice that cannot be silenced, that Episcopacy, in Jerome's opinion, was of apostolical origin.

4. Jerome asserts, that "without the Bishop's license, neither

a Quod Aaron et filios ejus, hoc Episcopum et Presbyteros esse noverimus. Ep. ad Nepot.

b Fuerunt O Ecclesia! &c. in Psal. xliv.

c De Script. Eccles.