system."* The credit of candour, at least, must here be awarded to the author. He is deeply convinced that high-churchmen are in real danger of everlasting perdition; and therefore warns his brethren to beware, as they love their own souls, of coming within their ecclesiastical inclosure. Dr. Miller gives us to understand, in this letter, that he admits that there may be a connexion between the gross bigotry and unchristian intolerance, even of high-churchmen, and honesty and sincerity of heart; and surely he ought not himself to be shut out from a similar exercise of tender mercy. And although he scarcely authorizes a hope that this honesty and sincerity may be an effectual extenuation with our gracious Judge, I am sure that there is not a highchurchman who will not delight to exercise that hope towards even the severest of his censors. Against the real danger to their souls of being high-churchmen, or of even being found within the inclosure of such wicked men, the Doctor very naturally uses much warmth in guarding his brethren, sometimes by entreaty and exhortation, but more frequently by endeavouring to heighten their holy abhorrence of the abomination. The catalogue of offences laid to the charge of high-churchmanship is neither short in dimensions, nor light in character. And as an example of the effect which a correct view of its principles and policy should have, he avows the magnanimous and Christian "intention to hold it up to public odium, whenever" he has "occasion to speak of it." Perhaps the unfortunate objects of this indignant resolution may derive some comfort from the reflection that they are not the first "sect" that has been “ every where spoken against."‡ Nor will they be insensible to the gratitude due to Him by whose judgment alone they think it a great matter to be judged, that He has not imparted His prerogative of knowing the heart, to the censor who presumes to look into their motives, and ascribe to them" a spirit unworthy of the Christian name."§ For such railing, it is to be hoped that high-churchmen will have no railing to give in return; but will cherish the feeling which genuine Christianity prompts towards those (it is to be hoped not many in number) who thus revile them. * Preliminary Letter pp. xlix. 1. Acts xxviii. 22. + Prelim. Letter, p. li. The few passages in the Preliminary Letter which approximate to any thing like argument, and some of the many which rise no higher than mere denunciation, the reader will find amply refuted in the following pages. On some points, however, it may not be amiss briefly to remark. How far Dr. Miller's denying the charge of misquotation from the Fathers is consistent with facts, will appear from the work of Dr. Cooke, republished in these volumes. To this work, the reader who would obtain correct information on the important question agitated, and see Dr. Miller's strange mistakes corrected, in a spirit worthy both of a Christian and a philosopher, and with a knowledge of the subject gained by extensive and laborious reading, is particularly referred. This work, and its worthy and intelligent author, have, indeed, been made the objects of a disingenuous and flippant attack in an article in the "Biblical Repertory and Theological Review," published under the auspices of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary at Princeton, N. J. The attack has been manfully repelled in an 66 Answer," by Dr. Cooke, strengthening his claim to respect and confidence for a thorough knowledge of his subject, and for the cool, dispassionate, and truly Christian manner in which he treats it. It is delightful to see such eminently respectable and talented laymen stand forth as the champions and defenders of religious truth. Dr. Miller's formal declaration, "I have endeavoured to make my quotations from the Fathers, and other writers, with all the fidelity of which I am capable,"* is, of course, entitled to full credit. The question, then, to be settled by an appeal to the facts adduced by Drs. Bowden and Cooke, is made by Dr. Miller himself to be, Of how great fidelity is he capable? And there can be little doubt, that with all the Doctor's honesty of intention, his prejudices on the subject led him to glance carelessly over many 66 a folio page," ," and to fix his eye only on the "half a dozen lines" which had "any direct bearing on the purpose of the extract."+ Whether the reader can agree with Dr. M. that the least warrant for prelacy cannot be found in the word of God, he will perhaps be better able to judge after the perusal of these volumes, especially the tract entitled, "Episcopacy Tested by Scripture." * Prelim. Letter, p. vii, + Prelim. Letter, p. vii. On this main point, therefore, it is unnecessary to say any thing here. It must be obvious, however, to every one who reads pages xii-xv. of the "Preliminary Letter," that the Doctor has furnished most conclusive arguments in favour of those views of religion which have been termed mystical, and are independent of any external observances, rites, and ordinances. He who would be pious without the observance of the LORD's day, of public worship, and of the sacraments, who would discard every thing like a ministry among God's people, and who would seek heaven in the way pointed out by the most disorganizing spirit of enthusiasm, will find no less respectable a sanction than the course of argument adopted by Dr. Miller under the first of his eleven heads of charges against high-churchmen. The "directions" given in Scripture "to inquirers after the way of Christian obedience and hope," as culled by Dr. M., make no mention of any Church, ministry, sacraments, or worship; except by an interpretation of the phrase "the washing of regeneration," which the Doctor would not probably admit. It is no answer to this, that the duty of obeying God's commandments has a due place given to it in this summary. For if infant baptism, and the observance of the LORD's day, for instance, are supposed to be included within the requisition of such obedience, the Doctor's own ground is forsaken, by admitting as of obligation, points no otherwise "distinctly presented or maintained in the New Testament," than by fair inference, and the operation of the sound rule of interpretation afforded by the generally received principles and practice of the Primitive Church.* And the candid reader is referred to these volumes in support of the proposition, here fearlessly advanced, that episcopacy is even more distinctly presented and * Of this rule of interpretation, Dr. Miller makes very proper and satisfactory use in his "Letters on Unitarianism." A reference to this fact reminds the writer of a singular instance of the different views which the same mind will take of the same subject, under the influence of different wishes and purposes. Dr. Miller quotes Ignatius both in his "Letters on the Ministry," and in his "Letters on Unitarianism." His quotations, however, are accompanied with remarks differing very essentially in their legitimate spirit and bearing, in the cases respectively. They are here placed in parallel columns for the more easy view of the reader. Letters on the Ministry. "That even the Shorter Epistles' of Ignatius are unworthy of confidence, as the genuine works of the Father whose name they bear, is the opinion of many of the ablest and best judges in the Protestant world."-First ed. p. 140. Second ed. p. 90. Letters on Unitarianism. "The great body of learned men consider the smaller Epistles of Ignatius as, in the main, the real works of the writer whose name they bear."-p. 122, maintained in the New Testament, than either infant baptism, or the observance of the LORD's day; and has, equally with them, the strong bearing of the above-mentioned rule of interpretation, in favour of the fact of its being ordained of GOD, and binding upon men. Whatever there is of connexion with the real question at issue in Dr. Miller's second head of what he calls argument, is amply discussed by the writers in these volumes. His reference to the comparative powers of baptizing and ordaining,* amounts just to this, that the apostles must have had equal powers with their LORD, and equal authority to ordain and send forth ministers, because they had the right to baptize. Under this head, also, the Doctor fairly gives up the point that ordination by a presbytery, or any ordination at all, is necessary to constitute a minister of CHRIST. He maintains that even if we could prove the fact, that episcopal ordination is scriptural and primitive, it will not follow that it is of permanent obligation. Only substitute, in this proposition, the words Presbyterian ordination, or the simple term ordination, and the Doctor's argument furnishes a conclusive reason why the Congregationalist, who has had no other ordination than from his people, or the mystic, who pretends to no other warrant for preaching the Gospel than his own conviction of being sent, should be hailed by him as a brother in the ministry, and recommended to his communion as duly authorized to serve among them in the word and ordinances. A smile would not be much out of place on reading Dr. Miller's grave assurance to his Christian brethren, that "the first reformers of the Church of England were substantially Presbyterians in principle." These venerable men, and those immediately succeeding them, have ample justice done to their sentiments in these volumes; on which point the reader will find the most enlightened and satisfactory information in the works of Dr. Bowden. One remark, however, here forces itself upon the present writer. "The first reformers of the Church of England," says Dr. Miller, "were substantially Presbyterians in principle." Now what evidence did they give of their Presbyterianism? In what could they have declared their principles more deliberately, and + Prelim, Letter, p. xviii. * Prelim, Letter, p. xvii. 66 On this main point, therefore, it is unnecessary to say any thing here. It must be obvious, however, to every one who reads pages xii-xv. of the "Preliminary Letter," that the Doctor has furnished most conclusive arguments in favour of those views of religion which have been termed mystical, and are independent of any external observances, rites, and ordinances. He who would be pious without the observance of the LORD's day, of public worship, and of the sacraments, who would discard every thing like a ministry among God's people, and who would seek heaven in the way pointed out by the most disorganizing spirit of enthusiasm, will find no less respectable a sanction than the course of argument adopted by Dr. Miller under the first of his eleven heads of charges against high-churchmen. The directions" given in Scripture "to inquirers after the way of Christian obedience and hope," as culled by Dr. M., make no mention of any Church, ministry, sacraments, or worship; except by an interpretation of the phrase "the washing of regeneration," which the Doctor would not probably admit. It is no answer to this, that the duty of obeying God's commandments has a due place given to it in this summary. For if infant baptism, and the observance of the LORD's day, for instance, are supposed to be included within the requisition of such obedience, the Doctor's own ground is forsaken, by admitting as of obligation, points no otherwise 66 distinctly presented or maintained in the New Testament,” than by fair inference, and the operation of the sound rule of interpretation afforded by the generally received principles and practice of the Primitive Church.* And the candid reader is referred to these volumes in support of the proposition, here fearlessly advanced, that episcopacy is even more distinctly presented and *Of this rule of interpretation, Dr. Miller makes very proper and satisfactory use in his "Letters on Unitarianism." A reference to this fact reminds the writer of a singular instance of the different views which the same mind will take of the same subject, under the influence of different wishes and purposes. Dr. Miller quotes Ignatius both in his "Letters on the Ministry," and in his "Letters on Unitarianism." His quotations, however, are accompanied with remarks differing very essentially in their legitimate spirit and bearing, in the cases respectively. They are here placed in parallel columns for the more easy view of the reader. Letters on Unitarianism. "The great body of learned men consider the smaller Epistles of Ignatius as, in the main, the real works of the writer whose name they bear."-p. 122. |