tector of England; and in his Commentary on Acts xx. 28, written in 1560, a short time before his decease; in all these works, the composition of which was extended through so many years, whether addressing himself to monarchs, noblemen or the public, he speaks one language; and that is, to declare in the most decisive manner his firm belief that prelacy was a human invention; that the primitive form of church government was by ministers of the word and sacraments, all of equal rank; together with ruling elders, for conducting the discipline of the church; and that a departure from this plan was a corruption.

As to the suggestion that Calvin and his brother reformers on the continent of Europe wished for prelacy, and excused themselves for not having it on the plea of necessity, it is too weak and incredible to be for a moment received by any thinking man who is acquainted with the lives and writings of those pious and faithful men. No one, we believe, has ever suspected either Luther or Calvin of being very plastic, pliable men, much less of compromitting conscience, or trimming to the breeze of popular feeling. Wherein could any supposed necessity exist? Where was the difficulty of obtaining prelates, if they had chosen to have them? They might easily have been consecrated, in due form, either by the bishops in different parts of the continent who had abandoned the papacy and joined the protestants, or by sending to England. And if bishops had been thought of, or wished for, who in all protestant christendom would have been so certain of elevation to that office, in their respective denominations, as Luther and Calvin? Who was there to oppose them, or to be put in competition with them? The truth is, the suggestion that they yielded to necessity in arranging their forms of church government without prelates, is a suggestion so utterly unsupported by reasoning or fact, that it cannot fail to be discreditable either to the understanding or the candour of him who offers it.

But we are constrained to bring this long article to a close; not because we do not find matter enough for more extended animadversion; for the truth is, the greater part of Dr C.'s statements, and especially those on which he appears to place most confidence for discrediting Dr Miller and establishing prelacy, are quite as vulnerable as those which have been singled out: but because we fear that the patience of our readers will be exhausted, and that their estimate of the im

portance of the work which we are reviewing, will scarcely bear us out in a more protracted notice. We shall, therefore, take leave of the subject, for the present, by asking a few questions, which we sincerely hope the good people of Kentucky, for whose special "use and behoof" Dr C. seems to have written, will ponder well before they accede to the high-church notions which this gentleman seems anxious to circulate among them.

1. The first question which we wish to ask is this: If the testimony, both from Scripture and from antiquity, in favour of the divine right of prelacy be so unanimous, so demonstrable, nay, so unquestionable, as Dr Cooke so often and so confidently declares it to be, how came it to pass that at the era of the reformation, all the protestant churches on the continent of Europe, without one solitary exception, gave up bishops, acknowledged them to be an order wholly unauthorized by Scripture, universally established presbyterial ordination among them, and to this day have no other ?* While in England ALONE, where the reformation was chiefly conducted in its several stages by the monarch, the leading prelates, and a few of the nobility, the ecclesiastical arrangements were so made as to retain the bishops? Were the reformers more wise, more learned, or more pious in England than on the continent? Were they more deeply read in the Bible and in the early history of the church? This no one will pretend. Were Luther and Calvin and Melancthon and Zuingle and Bucer and Oecolampadius and Bullinger and Martyr and Musculus and Zanchius and

*It may be supposed by some that the Lutheran bishops in Sweden and Denmark are inconsistent with this statement. But this is by no means the case. There are no bishops in the whole Lutheran world, excepting those in the countries just named. Even there, those officers are scarcely more than nominal. Their having any pre-eminence by divine right is publicly and formally disclaimed. Their appointment is professedly a matter of mere human authority and prudence. And ordination is not confined to them; but proceeds just as readily and validly when no one who bears this name is present, as when he is. In short, their ordination is strictly presbyterian. The only question that can arise on this subject is concerning that small body called Moravians or United Brethren. But, even in reference to that pious and interesting people, it is notoriously true, that, whatever may have been the history of their episcopacy, (and this is by no means friendly to Dr C.'s claim), they with one voice represent it, not as a divine appointment, but as an expedient of human prudence.

Bugenhagius, and scores of other men, scarcely less illustrious for talents, erudition and fidelity, all blinded by prejudice, or all willing to betray their Master's cause? While they, in fact, differed about so many things, and did not scruple to differ where they could not see alike, how came they, when perfectly at liberty to establish what form of government they saw best, so marvellously to agree in maintaining the doctrine of primitive parity among ministers of the gospel? We must say that, if we were prelatists, this would be to us a most intractable and posing fact, 2. A second question which we should be glad to ask and have answered is,-How did it happen that not only some, but ALL the English reformers, and indeed the whole body of the ecclesiastical administration of that country, up to the close of the sixteenth century, and even up to a later period, but certainly to that time, maintained fellowship with the protestant churches on the continent of Europe, none of whom had any other than presbyterian ordination; acknowledged them by formal and official acts, as true churches of Christ; and publicly sanctioned their ordinations, by admitting to benefices in their church, ministers who had received their orders "beyond the seas?" Dr C. hints at this diffi-) culty, but says nothing which bears the least semblance to a solution of it. No man in his senses can doubt that if the ecclesiastical rulers of England at that time had entertained the opinions which Dr C. labours to inculcate, they would have considered it much more safe and suitable to hold communion with the papists than with the continental protestants. Nay, with such opinions, they could not possibly, as, honest men, have consented to any ecclesiastical intercourse with either the Lutherans or Calvinists of their day. The very fact, then, of their having actually and freely maintained such intercourse, affords proof little short of demonstrative that they held no such opinions. In other words, the illustrious founders of the reformed church of England unanimously differed from Dr C. in reference to the leading doctrine of his book.

3. A third question which we feel disposed to urge with earnestness is this:-Do we, in fact, find the subjects of church government, of ordination in a particular form, and of uninterrupted ecclesiastical succession, making the same figure, and urged as of equal importance in the New Testament, as in Dr C.'s book? According to the doctrine which K

this gentleman adopts, and labours to inculcate, as we observed at the commencement of the present article, without episcopal ordination there can be no true ministry; no christian church; no valid sacraments; no communion of saints, either with one another, or with Christ the Head; no "covenanted mercy;" and, of course, no hope of salvation resting upon any divine promise or warrant. If all this be so, episcopacy is a VITAL MATTER. Now, we ask, does the Bible so represent it? In declaring the foundation of christian hope, and in describing the fellowship of those who are "called to be saints," and who are represented as being, all over the world, "one body in Christ, and every one members one of another," do the Scriptures really represent an uninterrupted succession of an episcopal "priesthood" as essential to the existence of the church; essential, of course, to communion with Christ; essential to all the authorized means and hopes of gospel blessing? When men are represented in the New Testament as inquiring "what they must do to be saved ?" as in the prison at Philippi, at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, &c. what is the substance, invariably, of the answer given? Is it in harmony with Dr. C.'s volume? Do Peter and Paul and Silas say "See, first of all, that you be united with an authorized priesthood; receive no ordinances but those which flow through the bishop's hands; separated from him you can have no hope ?" Did their language on any occasion bear the least likeness to this?" No such thing. But repentance toward God, -faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,-love to God and man, and holy obedience to the divine commandments, are the characteristics every where insisted on as decisive of christian character and hope. Now, we ask, not in the spirit of captiousness or cavil, but because, on Dr C.'s plan, we are unfeignedly at a loss for an answer, how could this be, if a prelatical priesthood is essential to "the body of Christ,' and of course to all its most precious privileges? If Dr C. be right, the New Testament is calculated to deceive us. It is no longer a "light to our feet and a lamp to our path." For a large number of the most learned and pious episcopal writers themselves freely acknowledge that prelacy is not taught in the New Testament; and all (unless it be a very few "highly rectified spirits") confess that it cannot be fully made out from THE BIBLE ALONE, even as a matter of fact, and much less as a divine injunction. That is, in plain

terms, the Bible is not at all explicit in reference to that which is alleged to lie at the foundation of the visible church, and to be essential to the validity of all its ordinances! This may answer very well for papists, but for protestants, it is monstrous! For our part, though we are zealous presbyterians, and though we are very confident that this form of church government agrees far better with the Bible than any other, yet we should abhor the thought of making presbyterianism essential to the being of a church and of valid ordinances. We have no doubt that a man may be "born of God," may be a true penitent, and a true believer in Christ, and of course in covenant with God, under any form of church order; nay, though he never saw the face of a church officer in his life, and never had the opportunity of attending on any ordinance of the visible church. And we believe so, because it seems to us impossible to believe otherwise without taking some other guide than that word of God which is "the only infallible rule of faith and practice."

4. We will ask one question more. Are the members of episcopal churches in general found in fact more spiritual, more holy, more conformed to the example of Christ, than the mass of presbyterian, congregational, and other nonepiscopal professing christians? This ought by no means to be considered as an invidious comparison. For let it be kept in mind that the fundamental principle of Dr C.'s system is, that there is no other church than the episcopal; and that, consequently, all who are not in communion with that body are entirely out of the church, "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenant of promise." The comparison, then, which our question contemplates, is not between one church and another, or a number of others, but between that which claims to be the ONLY CHURCH, and "the WORLD which lieth in wickedness." Surely it is neither unreasonable nor invidious to demand that there be more piety exhibited, that is, more of the christian spirit and practice in the church of Christ than out of it. To suppose that those who are in a state of habitual alienation from God, and rebellion against him, should be as humble, penitent, believing and obedient; as much distinguished for love to God and love to man as those who are "fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God," is to suppose that there is no profit in being in the