without which religion's name is but as

"the sound of

a tinkling cymbal," which thinketh no evil, which is kind, which hopeth all things—if that spirit beat in our breasts, instead of standing beside the coffin of our fellow worm, in a cold scrutiny of his past life, in the temper of daring decision on his present state, we should look to the cross, and try to hope-aye, even against hope that the soul of the departed was with Christ.

I cannot now observe upon the personalities towards myself with which many of your pages are crowded. The grave is a solemn subject, aud the church yard a quiet place. I shall not bring into it the words of angry altercation.

APPENDIX.

(A. page 57.)

THE early Fathers frequently notice that the orders of the Christian church were arranged on the same principle as those of the Jewish, viz. that of subordination. Jerome's declaration is very pointed : "What priests and Levites were to the Jewish church, bishops, priests and deacons are to the Christian.' Isidore observes, (de Ecc. off. Lib. ii. c. 7.) The order of Presbyters took its origin from the sons of Aaron. For they who are called Priests in the Old Testament are now called Presbyters, and they who are called chiefs of the priests are now named bishops.' Clement, of Rome, speaks, to my mind, as one holding precisely the same view, but, as the passage has been controverted, and is open to the interpretation put upon it by Mr. M'Clure, I shall not re-quote it.

(B. page 109.)

AN effort has been made-that is, a statement has been advancedin the second Discourse of Presbyterianism Defended, to show that the pretended establishments, &c. in the Church of England have not answered the design of their institution. It was stated in 'Sermons on the Church,' that such institutions were valuable, as affording leisure and income to men of learning, who, freed from the busy toils of pastoral ministrations, might advance the cause of truth in the walks of sacred literature. This view, rashly enough, has been questioned. Perhaps

Ꮓ

the reverend doubter has not deeply investigated the literary labours of such men. It may be well, then, to consider what the Cathedral Establishments of the Church have done in this way. “On opening Willis's History of the Cathedrals before the year 1728, when the account closes, there occur in the Cathedral of Christ Church alone, the names of Hammond, Sanderson, Gastrell, South, Smallridge, Samuel and John Fell, Aldrich, Wake, Potter, Allestree, Owen, Pocock, Tanner and Hyde. Among the Deans of Peterborough are Jackson (on the Creed), Cosin, Patrick, Kidder and Lively, (one who was most depended upon in the present translation of the Bible). In Ely, we find Bentley, Parker, Whitgift, Pearson, Spencer, Lightfoot. Among the Prebendaries of Canterbury, we find Ridley, Nowell, Parker, Tillotson, Stillingfleet, Castell (Polyglot Bible and Lexicon), Beveridge, Mills. Nor have we, as yet, even among names so valuable, included many of the most reverend of our divines: besides these, among members of cathedrals, were Chillingworth, Bull, Waterland, Cudworth, Archbishop Laud, Bishop Andrews, Heylin, Barlow, Bilson, Hales, Bishop Gibson, Reynolds; and in a corresponding situation in the Irish Church, Archbishop Usher, Dean Graves, and Archbishop Magee: Walton (Polyglot Bible), Foxe (Acts and Monuments), Bramhall, Atterbury, Allix, Butler, H. Prideaux, Shuckford, Bp. Hall, Bp. Conybeare, Bishops Newton, W. Lloyd, Chandler, the Sherlocks, the Lowths, Bp. Hare, Dean Conber, Bp. Wilkins, Cave, Outram, Mangey, Jenkins, Derham, Biscoe, Chapman (on Eusebius), Balguy, Whitby, Bullock, Warburton, Zachery, Pearce, Fleetwood, Horsley, Kennicott, Milner, &c.'

This long list, which could easily be made much longer (and which is taken from Dr. Pusey's work on Cathedral Institutions) sufficiently tells whether or not religion and truth have been served by these derided provisions. All who can respect learning, and estimate its value in the defence and illustration of Christianity will honour the sagacity of a church which made such arrangements for its encouragement. Let me add to this, that of the forty-seven persons to whom were entrusted the re-moulding our English version of the Bible: five only were parochial ministers without cathedral preferment; the rest, as far as is known, were either members of cathedrals, or professors or heads of colleges. I wish not to speak disparagingly of any body of men, but were a new translation of the Bible to be made, and men sought for, skilled (as in their mother tongue) in Latin, Greek, He

brew, Chaldaic, Syriac, and Arabic, thoroughly versed in the idioms and peculiarities of these languages, well acquainted with oriental customs and usages, able collators of manuscripts,-would such men be furnished by the Presbyterian church? Dr. Pusey well observes, that 'the next contest of the church of Christ will probably be with a half-learned infidelity, with shallow views of the older dispensation, shallow conceptions and criticism of divine truth, superficial carpings at the details of revelation.' How or where is this to be met? If the learning of the Church of England stand not in the gap, and—as it has, under God's blessing, done before- roll back such a black and boisterous torrent, dissent may find itself overwhelmed by, and carried away before, a power which she will be too feeble to resist.

(C. page 135.)

I believe that the evils of the election of ministers by the popular voice are nowhere better understood than in those communities which allow it. The quotations in my letter shew somewhat of this. The following will shew more. The power of choosing a minister produces a feeling unfavourable to religious results, as it leads all in some degree to listen rather as judges than as disciples. At certain periods this is essential, but in the minds of many the feeling frequently continues. It is too congenial to the dominant propensity of human nature to be readily relinquished: hence often a variety of evils ; hence the rude remarks, the vulgar impertinence of some of all ranks and both sexes. With the consciousness of a minister as "their servant for Christ's sake," many are disposed to think him such for their own, and to occasion disorder by unreasonable demands on his time, attention, and docility.'1

In the Christian Advocate of May 19, 1834, there is a long and painful account of a most disgraceful affray, which took place in the Tabernacle, Moorfields, between the abettors of the rival candidates for the pulpit. The minister who had long officiated was got rid of, but determined not to submit to such unceremonious treatment. He therefore gave directions that he should be announced to preach at the Tabernacle.

1 See Binney's Life of Morell,