are hundreds of congregations in this country, on the continent, and in America, avowedly so. In order to prove the church of England "apostolical in her form," you must not only prove an agreement in her doctrines, but also an agreement in her officers-an agreement in her forms of worship—and an agreement in her discipline. But you have not done this. No: you have not even attempted it. Were it fully admitted that she is apostolical in her doctrines, it would not necessarily follow that she is so in her officers also, Can you furnish us with a list of the arch-bishops, arch-deacons, deans, prebendaries, proctors, rectors, vicars, and curates of the apostolical church, or produce a single evidence of any one of these orders having existed in the apostolical age? You know you cannot. And yet all these are officers in the church of England. Where then is the resemblance? It is as perfect as the resemblance between Prince Henry and Falstaff's men in buckram.

But to constitute a church apostolical, "there should not only be a resemblance in the names of office, but also in the character of her officers. "My kingdom, (said the Redeemer) is not of this world." The seve ral officers employed by earthly sovereigns may be good or bad men, without disqualifying them for office; but it is not so in the church of Christ. A wicked man may command our fleets and armies—a swearer may be employed as an ambassador to foreign courts-a sensualist may be a minister of state: but nothing of this can be admitted among the officers in the church of Christ. They must be "good men, full of the holy

Ghost and of faith." Admit bad men into the ministry, and you at once lose all resemblance to the officers of the apostolical church; for these were "patterns of good works in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, and sound speech, that could not be condemned."

As in the apostolical age certain qualifications were essentially necessary to the office of the ministry, without which no one was admitted into that office, it will inevitably follow that in those communities, where such qualifications are not insisted on as at all essential, and where free admission can be obtained without them, there is, at least in this particular, a total want of resemblance. You may call men bishops or deacons; but unless they have the qualifications essential to these offices, they no more resemble apostolical bishops and deacons than an idiot resembles a philosopher, or a knave an honest man. And to suppose that such persons will watch over men for their spiritual edification is as palpable an absurdity as to suppose that a hungry wolf would become the protector of sheep, or a shark the guardian angel of its prey.

St. Paul, in the third chapter of his first epistle to Timothy, has distinctly stated the qualifications necessary for these offices. He has not, indeed, said any thing about the qualifications of Archbishops, Archdeacons, Deans, and the other officers belonging to the English hierarchy. These appear to have been utterly unknown to the "apostolical form of Chrisianity" but these, to constitute a resemblance, you

will of course admit, should all be men of good report. But is this the case? That it includes many excellent men, is not denied; but it is a lamentable fact, and too notorious to be concealed, that it also includes. ministers of a very opposite character, who are a reproach, not only to the Christian ministry, but to the Christian name, who are nevertheless permitted to continue in office. And is that church which tacitly sanctions evils in her ministers, which the apostles would have punished by excommunication in her members, to be held up as the most pure and apostolical form of Christianity in the world? The attempt is ludicrous; for were a resemblance in constitution admitted, there is a complete opposition in practice.*

66

* Not long since a most disgraceful circumstance occurred at — in The Rev. Mr. was so completely intoxicated, that he could not read his sermon. He had no sooner read his text, than he fell forward upon the cushion. When he recovered his erect posture, he attempted to proceed, but could not. He then talked to the congrega. tion about an election for a minister which was to take place at a neighbouring town early in the week, and exhorted them to give their votes and influence in favour of the Rev. Mr. Several of the congregation began to leave the church, which when he perceived, he exclaimed, Pay your shot first, I tell you, and then you may all go.' Had this been the first instance of delinquency in the life of this gentleman, no blame whatever could have been attached to the church on account thereof; for the apostolical church itself had its delinquents: but when wickedness is systematic, and continued in for years; and when those whose office it is to exercise discipline on the clergy, after knowing the fact, connive at such offences, and permit such offenders to continue in the ministry, then the evil becomes entirely chargeable to the discipline, or rather to the want of discipline in the national church. This want of discipline is deeply deplored by the pious members of the church of England, both clergy and laity. It is confidently said that application for the removal of this notoriously immoral minister was made some time since to his bishop, who returned for answer that he belonged to the Dean of and therefore could not interfere.

The dean was applied to, who said he had nothing to do with him; but referred them to his diocesan. So he is permitted to continue, to the disgrace of the Christian ministry, to the encouragement of vice, and to the grief of every pious mind in the neighbourhood.

་

I would say of eulogy what a late ingenious writer has said of ornaments. "Eulogy becomes none except the handsome. To all others eulogy only attracts people's eyes to behold infirmity and ugliness."

But when you describe the church of England as the most pure and apostolical form of christianity, you perhaps refer not so much to her ministry, as to her form, or manner of worship. That there is much resemblance here will not readily be believed, till it be proved that formularies of devotion were used in the apostolical churches-that in those formularies baptism and regeneration were terms of the same import -that they acknowledged other priests besides Christ

-that in baptism they signed with the sign of the cross-that they consecrated the bread and wine in the eucharist-that they had an altar, and knelt before it-that they repeated a creed aloud, and turned their faces towards the east-and that the minister read prayers in a surplice, and preached in a gown.

In the preceding observations I have endeavoured to avoid exaggeration, and aimed at a plain statement of truth; after the examination of which your readers may judge of the exact agreement between the worship of the church of England and that of the apostles.

I remain,

Reverend Sir,

Your Servant in the cause of truth,

J. STANLEY.

LETTER II.

REVEREND SIR,

You profess to believe the church of England to be "the most perfect form of Christianity," to be "enlightened by the faith, and strengthened by the blood of martyrs," ""founded upon the prophets and apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the head corner stone;"" and as to human security, supported by the laws of the land, and connected with the most vital parts of the constitution :"* yet, somewhat inconsistently, you seem, though you affect to conceal your fears, to apprehend dreadful things from a combination of Methodists against it. "Our church," you say, "circumstanced as I have described it, has once been overthrown by a sect in many respects resembling the Methodists, by the Puritans."+ The excesses of those times are certainly much to be lamented; but they were very few in comparison with those which have in general attended national revolutions. But what were those Puritans ? religious principles, or whose principles were so accommodating as always to yield to the will of their superiors? Persons over whom the pride and emolument of office had such absolute influence as utterly to silence the voice of conscience, and, if not to annihilate, at least, throw the moral sense into a profound sleep? No: they were men in general of unconquer

Persons without