ly defensive, and was demanded by every consideration of duty to the souls of men, and of fidelity to his Master in heaven.

Such was the origin of the "Letters on the Constitution and Order of the Christian Ministry," originally published in 1807, and addressed by the author of this manual to the members of the "United Churches," of which he was then the collegiate pastor. Never was there a work more purely defensive. The author would never have thought of writing or publishing a line on the Episcopal controversy, had not he and his people been assailed in a manner adapted to rouse every feeling in support of the principles which he had taught, and which, as long as he continued to hold them, it was his duty, as a Christian and as a minister, to defend. It never would have occurred to him to complain that our Episcopal neighbours preferred Episcopacy, and thought proper on that principle to organize their church. But when they undertook to denounce us as guilty in the sight of God, and in danger of eternal perdition, for not adopting and acting upon the same principle; when their manuals containing this denunciation were formally sent to our houses; and when we were publicly called upon, in a great variety of forms, to say something, if we had aught to offer, in our own defence, it was, surely, time to give a reason for our principles and our practice.

Yet, wonderful to tell! the calm and respectful defence just alluded to, was denounced, by those who undertook to answer it, as an

66

un

provoked attack" on the Episcopal church! Nor was this charge confined to his immediate answerers. It was repeated and urged, in numerous instances, by others; and repeatedly, up to this day, made matter of reproachful complaint. He had made no "attack" on that denomination, unless it were an "attack" to show that the claims of Episcopalians to be the only true church, and their denunciations of Presbyterians, had no warrant either in Scripture or in history. He had not assailed his Episcopal neighbours as aliens from "the covenanted mercies of God." He had not denied that they were a true church, or that they had a valid ministry, and valid ordinances. Nay, he had formally disclaimed every allegation of this kind. He had simply shown that the ministry and ordinances of the Presbyterian church rested on grounds quite as solid and tenable as those of the Episcopal church. But all this was not enough. In the estimation of the highchurch prelatists in this controversy, it seems that to refuse acquiescence in their claims and denunciations is to "attack" them; and to prove these claims and denunciations unscriptural, is an inexcusable and presumptuous of fence.

The same allegation of "unprovoked attack" has become the standing complaint on every occasion, and in every part of the country in which attempts have been, by whomsoever, made to circulate any defence of Presbyterian church government. It appears to be claimed as the prescriptive right of prelatists to denounce and

exclude from the "covenanted mercies of God" at pleasure; but to attempt to show that this virtual excommunication has no warrant in the word of God is, it seems, uncharitable and not to be endured. Such extraordinary overacting must soon come, if it have not already come, to be well understood, and suitably appreciated by an impartial public. Let us illustrate the spirit of such conduct by a familiar example drawn from common life. Suppose one of my neighbours were to publish a pamphlet denouncing me and my family as aliens, and denying that we had the smallest claim to the rights and privileges of American citizens. Suppose I were to make a publication in reply, containing no abuse, and not calling in question his rights; but proving in the clearest manner my citizenship, and showing that my claims to that character were, to the full, as strong and unquestionable as his own. And suppose, by way of rejoinder, he were to appeal to the public in such language as this: "See how this man is picking a quarrel with me, and attacking an inoffensive neighbour!" What would impartial bystanders think of such conduct? Would indignation or contempt be their predominant feeling? Now the supposed case is precisely analogous to the actual one before us. Never was there an instance in which the charge of "unprovoked attack" was more unjust, or more perfectly preposterous.

In consequence of recent and repeated attempts to circulate with new zeal, in different parts of our country, those manuals which

denounce and virtually excommunicate Presbyterians, the writer of these pages has been prevailed upon to present in a new and abridged form his views of the subject. In doing this he has not a thought or a wish to attack Episcopacy; but merely to show that Episcopacy has been wrong-utterly wrong and unjust in attacking Presbyterianism.

It is due to candour also to say, that some late and extraordinary movements in the Episcopal denomination in the United States, have induced the writer of these pages, as a dutiful and devoted son of the church, and as a "watchman on her walls," to appear once more as an advocate of primitive truth and order. Most intelligent readers will understand that there is a reference here to the "Tracts for the Times," lately published by certain writers in the University of Oxford, in England, and more recently reprinted, and extensively circulated, in the United States. The character of these tracts is beginning to be so well known, and so justly appreciated, that little need be said to apprize the public of their real aim and tendency. The truth is, they present such views of the character and powers of the Episcopal "priesthood," and of the inherent efficacy of the Christian sacraments, when administered by Episcopal hands, as mark a rapid return to the principles of Popery, and as ought to be abhorred by every sincere Protestant. Among other things, little less exceptionable, they teach that their "priesthood" have the power of communicating spiritual life, by means of the

sacraments, to those to whom they minister. They represent the act of ordination, by the bishop's hands, as conveying infallibly the gifts of the Holy Ghost. They teach the doctrine of the presence of the real body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. They favour prayers for the dead. They speak of the Virgin Mary in language which might well befit Popish lips. They contend that we are justified before God, not by faith in the perfect righteousness of Christ, but by the participation of the sacraments. They distinctly convey the superstitious and awful doctrine that for sins committed after baptism, there is no promised forgiveness, even on repentance ever so sincere and deep. And, finally, that the most certain means of promoting the spiritual benefit of men is to exhibit to them, not the atoning sacrifice of the Redeemer as the ground of hope, but the external ordinances of the church.

The editors of the "Christian Observer," a popular periodical, known to be edited by zealous members of the established church of England, speak of the tracts not only with disapprobation, but with abhorrence; and deliver as their deliberate opinion, that, if such principles as these writers aim to propagate become prevalent in that church, it ought no longer to be supported by a Christian people. The same estimate of the unscriptural character of these tracts is made by a number of the most pious and eminent dignitaries of the English establishment; and five or six, at least, of the bishops of the Episcopal church in our own country,

2*