REPLY.

THE❝leaven of the Pharisees," which so bitterly actuated some of the first settlers of New-England, both before and after their emigration, has not ceased its workings, if we may judge from this review, among those, who, almost their antipodes in principle, yet claim to be the sons of the Puritans.

If there is merit in an actual descent from the fathers of New-England, we have claims, which, perhaps, would not suffer in comparison with those of the Reviewer; but when we consider that they were men who unhesitatingly transacted the very deeds they had so loudly exclaimed against in others, we would rather. speak of their sufferings in any other cause than that of religion; the best interests of which, as we think, they unnecessarily opposed, though, as we would charitably believe," through ignorance they did it."

We are not well informed as to the extent of the injury done to Episcopacy by what the Reviewer calls "the formidable assault of Dr. Mayhew in 1763;" but as the church in New-England, or at least in Massachusetts, was then only a little flock, we should conclude, from its condition during our memory, that the injury was not very great, nor the assault very magnani

mous. A few small congregations were but thinly scattered over the state; their ministers-when they were favored with them-were chiefly supported by the English Society for propagating the gospel, and when the revolution, and not Dr. Mayhew's formidable assault, compelled the Society to withhold the scanty stipend upon which these men depended, it was a very necessary consequence that these congregations should, at the least, languish, if not wholly expire. The alarm however, does not seem to have spread through NewEngland so thoroughly as the Reviewer would have his readers to suppose. The learned and able Dr. Samuel Johnson, of Stratford, than whom no man was better qualified to judge, believed that the church on the whole had gained ground in New-England by this controversy.* Bishop White says,† when the revolutionary war began, there were not more than about eighty parochial clergymen of the church to the northward and eastward of Maryland, "and yet in 1792, when the shock of the war was scarcely spent, the number was about the same; and at this time it has considerably more than doubled." It is certainly cause of gratitude, that where her adversaries are the chief, our Zion is enabled to look up and shake herself from the dust.

To judge from the manner in which the Reviewer speaks of the present increasing prospects of the church, we should suppose that the apprehensions of her becoming dangerous had bereft him of his patience; and he falls into some mistatements, perhaps from mere dread of encountering the whole truth. In speak

* Life of Johnson by Dr. Chandler, p. 113. Hist. Prot. Ep. Church, in U. S. A. p. 1.

ing of the progress of "Episcopal peculiarities" in Maryland, he does not seem to be aware that these peculiarities were once established by law in that state, and that through the want of clergymen her altars were deserted, and Methodism brought in to supplant her. But a better day has risen, as we trust, on the church, both in that state and Virginia. In Connecticut, too, one would suppose that he believed Episcopacy had started in her full dimensious, from the late political dissensions in that state on the subject of toleration. That state had twenty-two Episcopal clergymen in 1792, while she now numbers more than forty. In Bishop Hobart's diocese (New-York) the number of parishes is one hundred and twenty, and in Bishop Kemp's (Maryland) sixty-one. The clergy in the former are about seventy, in the latter forty-eight. Some person has attempted to correct the Reviewer by a note to page 5, of the Baltimore edition. Whoever he may have been, he does not seem to have known that there is any difference between "preachers" and parishes.

For the information of our readers we state, that the number of Episcopal clergymen throughout the United States, is now about three hundred and twenty; and that they are to be found settled, and that conventions are organized, in nearly all of the states.

7

In the next paragraph, the Reviewer, with some warmth, and a glimmering of good will, for exhibiting which he is almost angry with himself, endeavors to make his readers believe that Dr. Wyatt is the author of, what is to himself, a very obnoxious opinion, that "to the order of Bishops alone belongs the power of ordaining ministers: and that an ordination performed by the

hands of a priest, deacon or layman, would be devoid of any degree of validity or efficacy in conferring spiritual office and power." Was it from apprehension that some of his readers, (whose minds, we are instructed to believe, pursue very ardently their enquiries for truth,) would examine into the facts, that induced him thus to garble Dr. Wyatt's observation, which truly is, -"thus it has been the faith of the universal church, without exception until the period of the reformation, that to the order of Bishops alone belongs," &c. ? In a note at the foot of the same page of the sermon, Dr. W. also says, "The divine institution of the ministry, consisting of three orders, which possess distinct powers, is maintained by the great body of the christian world. The denominations which are destitute of a succession of Bishops from the Apostles, occupy a comparatively small portion of Christendom. This prevalence of Episcopacy in Christian countries; and thẻ favourable opinion entertained of it by those eminent men, (Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, Beza, and others,) whose peculiar circumstances notwithstanding, seems to have justified a departure from it, are adduced to show that it is neither a singular, nor an offensive doctrine which we are stating, and that while in the just exercise of their civil and religious liberty,-both of which may God preserve !-some large and devout protestant denominations reject it, we claim only a similar, and not an indefensible privilege in holding and advocating it.” Now we most sincerely doubt, whether there is, in the whole of the Review, a single sentence written in so calm and charitable a manner, as these few sentences; in which the author tells his parishioners, that the doc

trine of their church-the doctrine which he advocateswas, and is, received and acted on by the great body of the Christian world. But it is only so "according to this writer." Is the Reviewer's learning so limited that he did not know this opinion to be no novelty? If he knew otherwise, it would have been but honesty in him to have said so.

The contrast between the abilities of Dr. Wyatt, and Mr. Sparks is so strongly stated, that if we take either side, without deduction for truth, we can scarcely avoid the conclusion that the other is carricature. We can allow much for personal feeling, but in a question like this, we shall mistrust a mind and cause which needs such bolstering as the friendly Reviewer gives his friend Mr. Sparks. That the latter has respectable talents we do not doubt, but they will speak for themselves. That he has a more temperate spirit than the Reviewer we doubt as little. But we have heard, and seen, too much of the talents which Unitarians possess of playing into each other's hands, to regard such observations as more than matters of course.

Good breeding is an essential requisite to a sound education. The man possessed of it will not seek to undervalue his opponent by little arts,-by contemptuous expressions, certainly not by those, of which the just application can be questioned by men of not less erudition than himself. Still greater will be his caution, who, to a sound education, adds the feelings and the principles of a Christian. He will sustain himself by the merit of his cause he cannot stoop to detraction. The Reviewer gives such an opinion as he pleases upon Dr. Wyatt's style, (and we suppose we may reasonably