by the delivery of which by the hands of his minister, God conveys to the devout communicant the benefits which those syinbols represent.

"These benefits, you will recollect, are spoken of as being received by the faithful, and by the faithful only." P. 164.

"Many of you say that you are too young to communicate. But are you too young to repent and believe? Are you too young to fear and to serve God; too young to wish to go to heaven rather than to hell? Our Church considers all who are old enough to be confirmed; certainly all of the age of sixteen years*, as old enough also to receive the sacrament; and so they certainly are. If many young people are in the habit of neglecting the Lord's Supper, their bad example furnishes no excuse for you, and does not lessen your obligation. Do you think that because you are young, you need not think of these things, but may lightly follow your own wills and fancies, and that it will be soon enough to attend to religion when you are old? But you may not live to be old. You may be cut off in the beginning of life. If in the strength and confidence of youth you resolve to walk in the ways of thine heart and the sight of thine eyes, know thou that for all these things God will bring you into judgment t.' The Scriptures exhort you to attend to religion in the morning of your life: Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth .' God has a right to the best of your days, and the best of your strength. Do not then suffer the plea of youth to prevent you from complying with the dying command, the dying request, of your crucified Saviour. Do you say that youth is exposed to peculiar temptations? There is then the greater reason why you should seek for spiritual strength at the table of your Lord. You are old enough to understand what religion is; you are old enough to be sensible of the difference between being happy or miserable for ever. You have not then any excuse for neglecting the sacrament, and you cannot neglect it without being guilty of disobedience to Christ.

"Again: women of the poorer class, when they have families of children, too generally make this circumstance a pretext for absenting themselves from the Lord's table. They say that their children burden them with cares, fret and ruffle their temper, and thus render them unfit for the sacrament. But do your families prevent you from repenting and believing? If you

"See the 112th Canon."

+"Eccles. xi. 9.".

"Ibid. xii. 1,”

repent and believe you are fit to come. Your families do in fact furnish an additional motive to you for being religious, and ought to make you anxious to draw down God's blessing both upon yourselves and upon them. If they have been to you an occasion of sin, you must repent of such sin, and strive against it for the time to come; and that you may strive successfully, seek for spiritual strength at the Lord's table. Irritation of temper, and anxiety or carefulness of mind are to be regarded as marks of human weakness, and must be prayed against, and striven against. To suffer them to keep you from the Lord's table, is the same as if a sick man thould make his sickness an excuse for refusing to apply to the physician. In short, you are either fit to come to the Lord's table, or unfit. If fit, you have nothing to keep you from it. If unfit, you are living in an unchristian state, a state of condemnation. And can you quietly make up your mind to continue in a state of condemnation until you have ceased to have children, or until your families are grown up? The Scriptures represent your children as a blessing. Do not make them a pretext for disobeying God; for neglecting your salvation."— P. 175.

These are admirable specimens of village preaching: and they plainly prove, that their author could soar much higher, if the desire of doing good did not put him

under restraint.

Sermons. By the late Very Reverend William Pearce, D.D. F.R.S. Dean of Ely, Master of Jesus College, Cambridge; and formerly Master of the Temple. Published by his Son, Edward Scorold Pearce, Esq. A.M. Student of the Inner Temple. pp. 489. Cadell. 1821.

The allowance which is generally due to a posthumous publication, is not required in speaking of a volume of sermons, prepared by a learned preacher for a learned congregation. Of such sermons, the sentiments may naturally be supposed to have been maturely considered, and the language to have been cri

tically correct, from their first composition. The discourses of the late Dean of Ely are of this character. They were with the exception of the first sermon preached at the Temple Church, between the years 1787 and 1797, when the Dean was Master of the Temple; and it was worthy of the character of himself and of the congregation which he addressed, that the "original copies should be found in such a state as to be judged fit for publication without any material variation." An anxiety "for the preservation of whatever may do honour to the memory of his lamented father," and a " compliance with the wishes of many who were present at the delivery of these discourses," were the honourable and affectionate motives of the editor in submitting this volume to the inspection of the public. It was not inconsistent with these motives, or with the character of a young man, although it has enhanced the price of the book, and will eventually contract its circulation, that these sermons have appeared with a degree of splendour seldom found in theological publications, on wove paper, with a portrait, a large type, broad margin, and a profusion of vacant leaves.

The character of the congregation at the Temple Church will of itself explain the nature of these compositions. The sermons are in number twenty-seven, on twenty-one subjects, generally chosen with judgment, and well adapted to the congregation. They are all distinguished by a manly simplicity of language, and by an unembarrassed perspicuity of argument. They are generally very short, allowing but little room for rhetorical ornament, or passionate appeals to the heart, but suggesting much matter for future reflexion. They are deficient in the exposition of scripture; they are persuasive and convincing, but not hortatory; they are more like the arguments of the lecturer, than the sermons of the

preacher. The most usual topics are the exceptions of sceptics and unbelievers: the doctrines of the Christian Church are less frequently adverted to, and are argued with studied moderation, and with an air of liberality which, if it were not for some valuable exceptions, might be mistaken for indifference: while the benevolence of the preacher's mind, and the confidence of his hope founded on the anticipations of prophecy, and on the observation of the progress of truth, are manifested in assuming what in the dark interval between 1787 and 1797, was hardly visible, that a dawn of moral and religious improvement has arisen, which shall shine more and more unto the perfect day. From this general view it is necessary to proceed to a more distinct analysis of these discourses.

Sermon I. entitled "Consecration," and preached in Lambeth Chapel, at the consecration of Bishop Tomline, and published originally by order of the Archbishop. For the publication of this sermon the editor is not responsible: it was published by his father, and could hardly be omitted in the present collection. The title of the sermon, the occasion upon which it was delivered, and the authority which commanded its publication, will probably lead the reader to expect a clear and luminous view of the origin of ecclesiastical polity, and of the form of ordaining and consecrating the governors and ministers of the Church of Christ. They will hardly prepare him to learn, as the result of a comparison of the dispensation of Moses with that of Christ, that in the latter, "every thing relating to morality is simple, comprehensive and general; the formality even of a precept is studiously avoided;" for assuredly in comparing his own law with that of Moses, our Lord delivers his precepts in a style the most formal and precise:

ye have heard that it was said by them of old time-but I say unto

you." Still less will the reader in perusing a sermon on consecration be prepared to subscribe to the inference from this assumption in respect of ecclesiastical government.

"The same difference is still more observable in regard to ecclesiastical government. In the Old Testament the high Priest, Priests and Levites; their birth and rank their privileges, their duties, and their discipline are fixed with the most scrupulous exactness. No discretion is allowed even in the vestments of the priests, or in the utensils of the tabernacle. In the New, our Lord simply called his disciples, and they left all and followed him. The only positive ceremonies he instituted or retained, were Baptism and the Lord's Supper; nor are there any precepts except in relation to these two institutions, either of Christ himself or his Apostles, which are expressly enjoined us for the perpetual regulation of the visible Church.

"How then it may be asked are Christians to form their ideas of ecclesiastical establishments? The answer may be drawn from the foregoing observations, and from the words of St. Paul in the text: Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ; that is, where positive precepts fail us, we are left to regulate the Christian visible Church in the same manner as our private Christian lives; partly by imitating the conduct of Christ and his Apostles, and partly by applying our own reason, the exercise of which as we have already seen, the whole tenor of the gospel requires of us as a duty."

It had been well if Doctor Pearce had ascertained the point, at which this partial imitation of the Apostles, and this partial exercise of our own reason were severally to determine and to begin; or if he had shown, that the moderation which St. Paul exhibited and prescribed in respect of eating the idolatrous sacrifices was a worthy precedent to regulate the form and order of the Christian Church. The example of Christ and his Apostles, faintly but not imperceptibly marked out in the Scriptures, and more distinctly visible in the records of the primitive fathers, is the only method of explaining the instructions of our Lord, and of binding the practice

and opinion of his disciples in re. spect of the original constitution of his Church, in which during his per sonal ministry he was the head, and the Apostles and the seventy bore the subordinate ranks; and in which after his ascension, the Apostles, the Elders and the Deacons, formed the threefold division of the christian ministry. This is the only example upon which the true notion of an ecclesiastical establishment can be formed, and our reason should be exercised in tracing the perpetuity and consistency of this form and order in the Church of Christ, in the several ages and places of its dispersion. The preacher continues:

"We have an instance of the application of both these rules, supported by the highest authority in the earliest times of Christianity. Our Lord had left no orders behind him, so far as we learn to continue the succession of the twelve Apostles. On the death however of Judas Iscariot, the remaining eleven thought themselves bound to fill up their number, and their conduct in the election of Matthias was justified soon after by the sanction of the Holy Ghost. Example in this instance co-operated with reason. By following his steps the Apostles best shewed their affection for their Master's memory; and the original reason of the number, the reference to the twelve tribes of Israel, was still subsisting. But the instance does not end here; it shews still farther that even the example is not binding, where the reasons of it have ceased. For before the death of any other Apostle, the Gospel was opened to all nations, the reason of any reference to the twelve tribes of Israel had

ceased, and with it ceased the practice of filling up the number of the twelve Apos

tles."

Did it never occur to the preacher, that in the interval between the death of Iscariot, and the election of Matthias, the Gospel was opened to all nations, and the commission of the Apostles, who had in the first instance been forbidden to go into the cities of the Samaritans and into the way of the Gentiles was enlarged, so that they were sent into all nations, even into all the world? It was at the ascension of our Lord,

if at any time, that the occasion of filling up the number of the twelve Apostles did determine: and the number of the twelve Apostles was actually enlarged before the death of James by the call of St. Paul, who both in deed and in designation was an Apostle from the very period of his conversion. In the instances of the election of St. Mat

thias and St. Paul, and also of Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, and Epa phroditus, all of whom are called Apostles by the primitive or sacred writers, the fact of the succession of the Apostles, which Doctor Pearce assigns to the mere reason of the thing, is established: and however the name of this governing power in the Church was subse quently exchanged for that of Bishops, which was originally borne by the second order of the christian ministry, its nature has always been distinguished by the peculiar power of ordaining or laying on of hands.

The Dean justly distinguishes between the simplicity of our Lord's manner in calling his Apostles, and the ceremony with which the Apostles laid their hands on those whom they ordained and attributes the eeremony with which this mediate ordination was administered to the inferior authority of the administrator. It is the standard of distinction between those who were immediately, and those who are mediately and by the agency of men admitted to serve God in his Church. From this distinction it is indiscreetly ar gued:

"If the Apostles thought themselves justified in deviating from the example of Christ, when the reason of copying it had ceased, we shall not wonder, if, upon the same account, in the appointment of the several orders of the ministry, they varied from one another. In the infancy of the Church the orders were fewer, and all received their commission from the whole body of the Apostles. As the number of believers and the duties of the ministry

increased, new ranks were added adapted to the exigencies of the Church; and Timothy and Titus not only derived their REMEMBRANCER, No. 33.

authority from a single Apostle, but were themselves empowered singly to ordain elders in every city.

go

"I will not enquire at present whether the reasons of the former species of ordination have ceased or not. I shall only observe that if any Church defends itself either by the smallness of its community, or by the republican form of its civil vernment, iu adhering to the example of our earlier Apostles, our Church is justimonarchical principles, in following that fied both by its greater extent, and its of St. Paul. Nor have the reasons of the several orders instituted by St. Paul and retained by our Church lost any thing of their original force. As long as the people shall continue to want instruction, the reason of the appointment of Priests ansist; as long as any preparation or trial swering to St. Paul's Elders will still subshall be necessary for so holy and arduous an office as that of Elder, there will be reason for the order of deacons; and as long as both these ranks shall require any previous examination, into their learning, their morals or their faith; or shall want any encouragement to the discharge of their duty or censures for their neglect of it, so long will the reasons remain for an order corresponding to that of Timothy and Titus.

"The Scriptures indeed are silent concerning the future appointment of the higher orders. They no where intimate who were to succeed the Apostles, or who were to appoint successors to Timothy, or Titus. But this silence extends no further than to the manner of appointment, and not to the existence or necessity of such orders, and all that can be inferred from it is, a conclusion highly important to our own Church, that we have permission and authority for that mode of appointment, which in the opinion of the legislature has been thought wisest and

The variations of political govern ́ment cannot affect the true constitution of the Church, or render that schismatical which is not schismatical, or that apostolical which is not apostolical. Our Lord laid no

hands on his Apostles; the Apostles not taking upon themselves his simple authority laid hands, as did the priesthood before them, on those whom they devoted to the service of God. When they instituted the Deaconship they laid hands in a body on the Deaconship; but there is no other instance upon record in which they did not think that an Apostle with the concurrence of the Presbytery, had alone power of ordaining, and till such an instance can be produced, the divine origin and right, and sufficiency of episcopal ordination will not be refuted.

"In conclusion: to copy the example of Christ and his Apostles is to copy the spirit of their institutions, as well as the

forms. This method we are instructed to

adopt, in explaining the written precepts of Christ's morality, and the reason is stronger for its application to Church government, in which we have little else but example for our guide. Reason and conscience, to which the Gospel every where appeals, are less liable to dispute than tech

nical rules or forms of government. Hence the morality of the Gospel is simple and uniform, throughout all the Christian world. The same uniformity is not to be expected in Church establishments, because the reasons may vary on which they are founded. But were all Churches regulated on the two principles of sound reason and apostolic example, the differences between them being accounted for and justified, would be no longer objects to excite animosity. The violence of sects, and the prejudice of party, would yield to the genuine temper and spirit of Christianity, and our minds would bear the same characters as the Gospel which we profess,

those of simplicity, candour, and moderation, and at the same time of consistency, firmness, and dignity."

These are plausible sentiments, which might have been issued from any preacher, and been addressed to any congregation. The Presby

terian might have delivered them to the Independent, and the Baptist might have commended their liberality. The Episcopalian alone has no part in this accommodating moderation he knows no criterion of a true Church but its establishment on the apostolical model, and while he has pleasure in tracing the episcopal form from the earliest periods to the remotest boundaries of the Church; he is persuaded in his mind, that if" the two principles of sound reason and apostolic example" should ever again be prac. tically followed, the differences between sects would cease to excite animosity, because they would cease to exist. The Episcopalian sees no reason to despair of the ultimate re-union of the Christian body, and of an uniformity in Church establishments, especially when he contemplates the extensive and broad foundations of episcopacy in all the provinces of the Greek and Roman Churches, in the Church of England and Ireland, and its dependencies, in the Episcopal Churches of Scotland, and of America. In this large contemplation of the present state of the Church of Christ, the boastful pretensions of English Independency are comparatively of no account: and in the Protestant Churches of the continent, the want of an Episcopal government and constitution is regretted as a defect, which it is attempted to supply by the innovation and invention of superiutendants. The only occasion of alarm and regret to the Episcopalian is to see the true principles of ecclesiastical polity suppressed or misrepresented, or exhibited in a form which while it confirms the prejudices of the sectary, leads him to suspect the sincerity of a Churchman's conviction, or the stability and soundness of a Churchman's principles.

Sermon II." The Argument from Prophecy." A perspicuous statement of the difficulties of the prophetical writings, and of the advan