and spread its powdered wings to the air of this dissenting world, on the "Festival of St. Simon and St. Jude, 1843." We would handle it gently, as becomes a thing so slight ly put together. To dissect it would be tedious; and it would make no great show if taken to pieces. All that we can do then in respect to its natural history, is just to indicate some of its most obvious external characteristics.

The "several articles" to which our "presbyter of Connecticut" makes a show of replying, are two, both contained in the New Englander for October. One of these, as might be expected, is the article on the "Liturgy of the Protestant Episcopal Church;" the other is not the article on the ordination of Mr. Carey, to which our presbyter refers with unmixed commendationbut that on "Whittingham's Charge to his Clergy." On the first he bestows five pages of reply; on the other, thirty-six. In what style and spirit he replies, is all that we propose to show.

He opens upon the first article with an affectation of astonishment at our having called the "Prayerbook" of his church its liturgy. We are well enough aware that there is a restricted use of the word liturgy' among Episcopalian clergymen of a certain class; but at the same time our presbyter is equally well aware that the prevalent use of the word in the English language is the same with the use of it in our article. In Webster's quarto dictionary, which happens to lie upon our table, we find the word thus defined. "In a general sense, all public ceremonies that belong to divine service hence in a restricted sense, among the Romanists, the mass, and among Protestants the common prayer, or the formulary of public prayers." We turn to the Encyclopædia Americana. Here the same word is defined, "A precomposed orm of public worship." The au

thors, in " mentioning some of the most important liturgies," tell us, "There are various liturgical books in use in the Roman Catholic church," and they enumerate "the Breviary," "the Missal," "the Ceremonial," "the Pontificale," and "the Ritual." Suppose now we had said "common prayer" instead of liturgy,'-would not our "presbyter" have been equally astonished? Is the "ordinal and all" common prayer? Then why is not "ordinal and all" liturgy? What means all the talk, continually iterated, about "our excellent liturgy?" Is it not universally understood as eulogistic of "the whole Prayer-book, as printers and bookbinders have set it forth, ordinal and all?" How shrewd then -how imposing is the affectation of astonishment at our using this word 'liturgy' in its most intelligible and most authorized sense.

Nothing in the article now referred to, seems to have touched our presbyter's sensibilities so deeply, as the note in which some rhetorical and grammatical criticisms on the Prayer-book, were briefly hinted. He tells us that the Prayer-book, "next to the authorized version of the Holy Scriptures, has received the suffrages of the world, as the glory of the English tongue." The "authorized"—that is, King James's

version of the Bible,* has its merits, from which we would by no

*We-take this opportunity to acknowledge the slip which the author of this pamphlet has pointed out, in our allusion to the older English versions.-(New Englander, Vol. I, p. 550.) Writing in strained to trust the impressions on our memory, instead of referring to authori ties, we were careless enough to name the Geneva version as one in which the word "congregation' is used instead of 'church.' This is not exactly true of the Geneva version, though it is true of other versions which King James's was designed to su 'Church' stands in the 'authorpersede. his majesty's express command. Horne, ized' version instead of congregation,' by Introd. Vol. II, p. 247, ed. Philad. 1825.

circumstances in which we were con

means detract. Yet it has also its archaisms, its infelicitous expressions, and here and there a phrase which is not and never was good English; all which may be pointed out in minute criticism without "stamping" the critic "in the silent commiseration of all men of taste and discrimination, as either too stupid to appreciate, or too mean to admit" its excellence. To a devout Romanist, we dare say, some of the old monkish hymns, so justly celebrated, may seem the glory of the Latin tongue. Yet we can not but think that a scholar, familiar with the style and diction of the Augustan age, might criticise the Latinity of the Stabat Mater, or the Dies Ira, and be forgiven even at Rome. But on this point the author before us is perfectly unrelenting. He even stigmatizes the unfortunate note as an "attempt

To gild refined gold; to paint the lily, And throw a perfume on the violet," an attempt which was certainly very far from the thoughts of the writer, and the imputation of which to him is little short of" flat burglary" committed upon Shakspeare.

But we must make haste, or we shall have no time at all to notice the main division of the pamphlet, on which the presbyter seems particularly to value himself. This might be an interesting study, as showing what kind of reasoning, on and from the Scriptures,* a young man not particularly deficient in native capacity, may be trained to in an Episcopal theological seminary. It might be interesting also, as showing how the entire Episcopal controversy is conceived of and comprehended by a zealous young

Episcopalian presbyter-young, we call him, for the remarkable efflorescence of his diction shows him not very mature ;-and zealous, for his writing is like the driving of Jehu the son of Nimshi, when he said, Come, see my zeal for the Lord. To him in his youthful ardor, the whole matter is so completely in a nut-shell, that we can not but imagine how much like grasshoppers such archbishops as Whately and Usher must be in his sight; and with what pity he must look down on the ignorance of such prebendaries and quondam Oxford professors as Milman. We must remember however that we have to do with a professed "reply" to our article on Whittingham's charge to his clergy.

In that article, to which we beg leave to refer the reader distinctly, we attempted to set forth, on the authority and under the guidance of Bishop Whittingham, that system of religion, which, under the name of "church principles," is held in various degrees of distinctness and consistency by the great majority of the Episcopalian clergy; and which we hold to be, for the most part, the system of their "liturgy and offices." In what point

-if in any—we failed of giving an exact representation of the system, our "presbyter" does not deign to tell

us.

There is indeed a single sentence (p. 14) where he seems to charge us with drawing some "inference"-we know not whatwhich he utterly denies; but the scope of his letter from first to last, seems to recognize the fairness of our statement. At the same time he does not distinctly meet the positions which we defined as contrary to the system of Oxford "Catholicity." Let the reader then look once more at the four propositions in which we summed up the system held by Bishop Whittingham, and remember, that not one of them is called in question. Let him examine again the three positions in

which we defined the outline of the evangelical or Protestant system. First, That church which is the body of Christ, is none other than the universal community of penitent and believing souls. Secondly, That church is Christ's body because all who belong to it belong to him, and are individually and personally united to him; and it is their union with him which unites them with each other, and makes them one body. Thirdly, The individual becomes one with Christ, a member of his body, simply by the personal acts of repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, to which he has been led by the grace and power of the renewing Spirit. Not one of these positions has our "curvetting" (p. 35) presbyter ventured to assault with any show of manly argument. His reply, as he calls it, turns upon other questions altogether.

is "

He seems to suppose that we have denied the visibility of Christ's kingdom in this world; and accordingly he spends many words, to little purpose, in arguing on that point. He seems to suppose that we do not believe in any Christian organization; and accordingly he labors that point, though his labor as one that beateth the air." He seems to suppose that we reject the idea of means and instrumentalities in the conversion of sinners to God, and in the progressive culture and sanctification of believing souls; and accordingly he takes needless pains to show that there must be a ministry of reconciliation, and puts Paul's question, "How shall they hear without a preacher?" All these points are easily argued; and to those who are ignorant enough to believe that these are the points in question between the evangelical system and the system of Oxford Catholicity," it may seem that the argument is conclusive against us. But let it be

remembered what the question is, and it will need no great reasoning power to see how wide of the mark are all these arguments from the "Rectory of," by "a pres byter of Connecticut." The question is, whether the body of Christ, the true catholic church out of which there is no salvation, includes all truly penitent and believing souls?-whether it is the immediate vital union of Christ's members with him, a union like that of the branches with the vine, which first unites them with each other and makes them one body ?-whether it is repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Christ, wrought in the soul by the renewing Spirit, that unites the soul to its Redeemer? Or to make the matter, if possible, still more plain, the question is, whether the church is made up by the aggregation of individual Christians; or whether men are made Christians by joining the church. It is whether a man's baptism and church connection are the sign and visible recognition of his Christianity, or the efficient cause of his be ing a Christian?

Perhaps the author of this pam phlet may hereafter adventure upon the discussion of the actual question. Should he do so, we hope he may learn in the mean time, that a little less of swaggering in his air, and a little less of downright insolence in his language, will by no means diminish the force of his arguments. We are not particularly sensitive in this respect. We make due allowance for the infirmity of human nature. We expect that those who believe that they are the exclusive successors of the apostles, and as such, the exclusive depositaries of grace and salvation, and who regard themselves as holding the keys of heaven and hell, will betray, in their manners and speech, some consciousness of their august prerogatives. It is not in human nature, as ordinarily constituted, not

to be lifted up somewhat by the consciousness of such superiority over those less fortunate men, who can only preach and teach and pray, and whose ministrations have no mystic, ineffable validity. We are not offended, therefore-nay, we have long since learned not even to smile at any natural and unobtrusive manifestation of the sense of superiority on the part of men who believe themselves to be so remarkably gifted. But this "presbyter" carries the manifestations of his conscious superiority beyond the bounds of reason and good taste. Perhaps he has not worn the honors of the succession long enough to wear them meekly. When he charges us with "lying in wait to deceive"-when he imputes "blasphemy" to those who reject his notions of what the priest has to do in the matter of a sinner's salvation-when he calls himself and his brother priests, "the house of Aaron," and us, with the ten thousand Christian pastors on our side, "the sons of Korah"-when the air and style of his whole epistle are the very caricature of the expression of an inward loftiness we feel that we are dealing with one so immeasurably above us in his own consciousness, that we can hardly be expected to enter into any debate with him; and we can not but think, that if there were ever so much force in his arguments, they must lose something of their legitimate effect upon those readers, however disinterested, who do not happen to agree with him in his idea of his own advantages over us. Such things on his part do not move our indignation; but --such is our infirmity-they make us smile, when perhaps we ought

rather to weep.

One specimen of the courteous ness of this writer seems to demand a special notice. The word Evangelical,' used as a proper name to denote a system or a party, is a

word perfectly well recognized in the current religious and theological language of this country and of England. Its sense when thus used, is as well defined, and as little liable to be misunderstood, as the sense of the word Unitarian,' when used to denote the system or the party, characterized by the rejec tion of the doctrine of the Trinity. In this well established sense, we used the word to denote-not any peculiar opinions of our own, but the view of Christianity which we hold in common with myriads of Christians in America, in Britain, and throughout the world. To the opposite system-sometimes called the church, or high church, system -we applied a name chosen by the advocates of that system, which seems likely to acquire in the English language, a meaning as definite as that which is already attached to the name Evangelical.' Instead of calling the system, Romanism, or Puseyism, we called it Catholicity. This our " presbyter" claims as a great concession on our part. He seems to think that in using the name " Catholicity," we admit that we ourselves and our doctrines are out of the pale of the church universal. And so he turns and tells us that we have "assumed the title of Evangelical," but that we must not "expect him to concede the name." No, he tells us, ours is a system which he " can call by no name more courteous and inoffensive than Revivalism." Thereupon he proceeds with a fluent chap. ter of abuse. Revivalism, he tells us, "needs an annual galvanizing to make it live." It is an "undefined, incongruous, and still effervescing mass of theories and opinions." It is an "antick great grandchild of Geneva ;" for "Calvinism begot Puritanism; Puritanism begot Brownism; Brownism begot New Englandism; and it begot Revivalism." See what we get by the courtesy which we attempted when we used

"Catholicity," as a name to designate high church principles. We are happy to know that there are some Episcopalians in Connecticut, at least among the laity, to whom such language from one of their ministers must be exceedingly painful. Have they any suspicion that this is the way in which their clergy generally speak, when they speak out without restraint?

Shall we say any thing of that imaginary death scene which this author has dramatized, as a specimen of the death beds of New England? He describes the death of a profane and godless man—a Universalist-a low ignorant unbeliever, whose wife refuses to let a minister read to him the fifty first psalm, because she does not believe in

praying out of books, and who "dies and makes no sign." "Thousands of souls," he tells us, "go before God every year in New England in just this way." From "half the cottages scattered over the rural districts of New England," he would have us understand, the dying sinner goes to his account, utterly ignorant, utterly unbelieving. Who is this" presbyter?" Is there any New England blood in his veins ?

How dares he thus calum

niate a land so rich in the "garnered dust" of God's redeemed? He knows that there is not another land on earth in which so large a portion of the population die in the clear, intelligent exercise of faith in Christ, as the Redeemer of their souls.

THIS is not a Catechism for children. The author tells us, it is designed for the use of ministers of the gospel, theological students, and intelligent readers generally." It is therefore to be classed among the learned works on ecclesiastical polity. And its distinctive character as a learned work is, that it states only the general principles and the leading facts on the subject, or merely gives the results of more extended investigations, with a brief notice of the principal arguments on which those results are based; and that all its statements are concise, definite, and in answer to a series of questions of the like character.

The system of church polity which it advocates and defends, appears to be strictly Congregational, and

accordant with the general views of the fathers and founders of the New England churches. Its chief divergency from their statements is, that it supposes the Scriptures to have left more of the details of church organization and government to the discretion of men from age to age, than many of the old writers supposed; and that it makes a clearer and broader distinction between the functionaries of the universal church, (the apostles, evangelists, &c.) and the proper officers of local churches.

In the first chapter, the author undertakes to draw out, and to establish, the general or fundamental principles of church polity, without reference to any existing system, ancient or modern.

In the second chapter, he describes the form and polity of the first Christian churches, or those mentioned in the New Testament. Here, of course, he makes frequent reference to the Scriptures. He