are understood to regard them as not only containing error, but awfully dangerous error, the prevalence of which would be deeply disastrous to the best interests of their denomination, and put in jeopardy the souls of such as should yield to them their credence.

Bishop Wilson, of Calcutta, speaks of these tracts, and of the system and aim of their authors, in the following strong language:

66

It is to me, I confess, a matter of surprise and shame, that, in the nineteenth century, we should really have the fundamental position of the whole system of Popery virtually re-asserted in the bosom of that very church which was reformed so determinately three centuries since, from this self same evil, by the doctrine, and labours, and martyrdom of Cranmer and his noble fellow-sufferers. What! are we to have all the fond tenets which formerly sprung from the 'traditions of men' re-introduced, in however modified a form among us? Are we to have a refined transubstantiation-the sacraments, and not faith, the chief means of salvation-a confused and uncertain mixture of the merits of Christ and inherent grace in the matter of justification-remission of sins and the new creation in Christ Jesus confined, or almost confined, to baptism-perpetual doubt of pardon to the penitent after that sacramentthe duty and advantage of self-imposed austerities-the innocency of prayers for the deadand similar tenets and usages which generate a spirit of bondage, again asserted among us? And is the paramount authority of the inspired

Scriptures, and the doctrine of the grace of God in our justification by the alone merits of Jesus Christ which reposes on that authority, to be again weakened and obscured by such human superadditions, and a new edifice of 'will worship' and 'voluntary humility,' and the rudiments of the world,' as the apostle speaks, to be created once more in the place of the simple gospel of a crucified Saviour?"*

The author of this manual is conscious of having reached an age when, according to the course of nature, he cannot be far from his last account, and when nothing ought to engage his attention, or employ his pen, but that which concerns the best interests of the church of God. The nearer he approaches to the end of his course, the greater is his aversion to controversy. Much rather would he spend his little remaining time in explaining and recommending those great fundamental truths which pertain to the wonders of redeeming love, and the precious hopes of sinful men for eternity. Were points of mere ecclesiastical polity involved in the questions to which he refers, his interest in them, though not small, would be by no means so intense. But when he perceives matters of infinite moment' to be wrapped up in these questions; when he finds publications flooding the land which turn away the attention of their readers from the Saviour, as the only ground of confidence, and direct them to the fables, the genealogies, and the miserable revived superstitions of Romanism, as the only safe foundation of hope, he feels

* Charge to his Clergy, 1838.

bound to employ whatever little of strength old age may have left him in opposing such destructive errors, and directing the attention of as many as he can reach and influence to "the only foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself the corner stone laid in Zion." This is the great cause in the defence of which, as God shall give him ability, he wishes to live and to die. In this cause he never expects to give over more or less contro-· versy, irksome as it is, as long as he shall remain a member of the church militant here below. S. M.

PRINCETON, September, 1840.

PRIMITIVE ORDER, &c.

CHAPTER I.

THE QUESTION IN THIS CONTROVERSY STATED

IN the discussion of all controverted subjects, it is of the utmost importance to ascertain, at the commencement, the precise state of the question. This has often been mistaken in relation to the subject before us; and hence have arisen vague, inaccurate language, and sometimes even entire misapprehension of radical principles. An attempt, therefore, will be made to state as clearly as possible, the main points concerning which we, as Presbyterians, differ from our Episcopal brethren.

We by no means deny, then, that there was, in the primitive church, a class of officers who bore the name of bishops. On the contrary, we maintain that there were bishops in the apostolic church, and that there ought to be bishops now. Both the name and the office are to be found in the New Testament, and ought to be retained to the end of time. Many Episcopalians of slender information, seem to take for granted that we discard bishops in every sense of the word; and, therefore, when they find this title in Scripture, or in early uninspired writers, they exult as if the word established their claim. But nothing

21

can be more unfounded than this triumph. We believe and acknowledge as fully as themselves, that ministers of the gospel bearing this title, are frequently spoken of in the New Testament; and that there must be bishops in every regularly constituted church in every age. Accordingly it is well known, that in the Form of Government of the Presbyterian church, the pastors of churches are uniformly styled bishops; and this title is recommended to be retained, as both scriptural and appropriate.

But we differ from that denomination of Christians in our views of the character and powers of church officers. They suppose that there are three orders in the Christian ministry, viz. bishops, presbyters, and deacons: the first possessing the highest ecclesiastical power; the second invested with authority to preach and administer both sacraments; and the third empowered only to preach and baptize. We suppose, on the other hand, that there is, properly speaking, but one order of gospel ministers; that there are, indeed, two other classes of church officers, viz. ruling elders and deacons; but that neither of these are authorized to labour in the word and doctrine, or to administer either of the Christian sacraments. We suppose that there is a plain distinction made in Scripture between elders who only rule, and elders who, to the power of ruling, join also that of teaching and administering sealing ordinances. And we believe, that the friends of modern Episcopacy, in considering deacons as an order of clergy, and in empowering them to preach and baptize, are chargeable with a departure from the apostolic pat

tern.

But we differ from our Episcopal brethren, princi