laid his hands on them. Apollos was at Corinth, and no mention is made of any companion in the journey. But to say that “some other minister" generally accompanied him, and baptized "on the direction of Paul," contradicts his own testimony. If we may for once, resort to "the analogy of human law," and of divine law also, Paul did what his agent did at his direction. Qui facit per alium facit per se. It is said, that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.) John iv. 1, 2. Would a man of Paul's sense and character have thanked God, that he had baptized so few, if his traveling servants administered the ordinance for him at his command? What is the difference whether the master did it, or the servant, as directed by his master? We hesitate not to say, that there is no scriptural authority for confirmation. We do not object to its continuance, as a venerable usage, if its importance is not exaggerated; but we must be allowed to ask, how an ordinance of human device came to be exalted in value above the only two sacraments which Christ instituted. The inferior order of the ministry may officiate in baptism and the Lord's supper, but the highest order, namely, bishops only may confirm!

The three following lectures treat of the "charges brought against the church on the score of missions--the bible societyprayer meetings-revivals-dangers of the modern revival system-the temperance society-the use of ministerial garmentsforms of worship-the Lord's prayer-forms of prayer-liturgiesmusic of the church, etc. The texts, which seem to have little affinity with this group of topics, are 1 Cor. xi. 16; Acts xxiv. 25; 1 Cor. xiv. 15. Our limits compel us to take only a brief view of these various subjects, especially as the form of church government remains to be examined. Bishop Hopkins says:

Among the specific accusations sometimes heard against the ministry of the church, as a body, it has been said, that we are indifferent to missionary efforts and to the bible society, and opposed to prayer meetings and revivals of religion. I shall touch briefly on the first three of these charges, designing to devote this lecture chiefly to the last, as being most in need of discussion.' p. 104.

With regard to the first of these allegations, says our author, "I must utterly deny that it has any just foundation. The church is not indifferent to missionary efforts." The proof adduced to refute this accusation is, to say nothing of those noble undertakings in which our mother church of England has been so deeply engaged," the fact that "there has, for many years, been a missionary society among ourselves, formed by the whole American church in General Convention, and designed expressly to embrace the entire field of foreign as well as of domestic missions." The

bishop, while he affirms, that "indefatigable zeal" has been exhibited in promoting the objects of this society, admits, that "the priority of our domestic claims, and the want of clergymen calculated for the foreign field, have prevented as yet, the actual success of any distant effort, except the important and highly valued mission to Greece." But it is added, that "the purpose to establish a large circle of foreign operations, has long since been publicly announced by the executive committee of that society." We have given the reader the whole argument in favor of the Episcopal church" on the score of missions." We think it would be well to inquire into the reason why there is a "want of clergymen calculated for the foreign field;" and we add our conviction, that while a certain portion of the Episcopal church is active in the cause of missions, a certain other portion needs more of the apostolic spirit in this matter. The text on which this lecture is founded, "If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God,"-is not well chosen; for the whole church was at first a missionary society. In general, the best method of refuting calumny, is not a denial in words, but in deeds; holiness of life, and zeal in extending the kingdom of Christ.

We pass to the next topic. "Equally unfounded is the second of these charges; that the church as a body, is indifferent to the distribution of the bible." This charge is refuted by reference to the fact, that "the first bible society on earth sprung up in the bosom of the church of England; and the first instance in which that example was imitated on this side of the Atlantic, was in the bible society of Philadelphia, formed under the auspices of our venerable bishop White." The author admits, that many of the clergy prefer to conduct "this branch of modern christian effort, as a distinct class, instead of uniting with other denominations in a general association." He also admits, that others "choose to combine the book of common prayer with the distribution of the bible;" and that "perhaps there may be a few who doubt the expediency and the authority of any separate prosecution of the different parts of the gospel system, believing that the truth of Christ can be most successfully diffused by keeping all the members of the divine plan together in their own sacred connection." The amount of the whole argument is, that the charge brought against the Episcopal church for want of interest in the bible society is unfounded. But says bishop Hopkins:

For myself however, I acknowledge that I turn with much greater confidence to another view of our reverence for the bible, which to my mind is far more conclusive and satisfactory. It is the fact, that ours is almost the only church now existing, which preserves faithfully, the primitive rule of incorporating all her public worship with the stated reading of the book of God in the common language of the people, VOL. VIII.

31

according to a fixed and positive calendar, from which our ministry are not at liberty to deviate. The Greek church reads portions of the scripture in the ancient Greek, which is only intelligible to their scholars: the Roman church reads portions in Latin, which the people do not understand. Our Protestant brethren of the various denominations may read a chapter in the bible before their sermons, and they may, if they think proper, let it alone.' p. 106.

We remark on the above, that it is with us almost a universal practice to read a portion of scripture every sabbath; and this with bible classes and expositions, we think without boasting, which is contrary to our views of religion, gives our denomination about as much and as thorough knowledge of the scriptures, as they would be likely to obtain from "the positive calendar" of the Episcopal church. We are willing at least to abide by the comparison. But we think such reverence for the word of God is no valid reason for neglecting to send it to the destitute, nor is it entitled to "much greater confidence" than the reverence manifested in the combined effort to send the word to all people. The plain truth is, that there is some just ground of complaint against those Episcopalians who stand aloof from the "general association" for the distribution of the scriptures. The bible is the common book of Protestants; and we see no reason why they may not unite to send it forth without note, comment, homily, or prayer book. Next in order, is the subject of "prayer meetings:"

That we are opposed to prayer meetings is a total misapprehension. We maintain that all our public worship is a prayer meeting; that is, a meeting for the purpose of uniting in social prayer. **** But I willingly allow, that we do not approve the mode in which prayer meetings, technically so called, are conducted; where those who consider themselves ordained to minister in sacred things, invite the laity in their own presence, to perform their ministerial office without any ordination at all.' P. 107.

We

We were not aware that ordination is necessary to qualify the christian to offer prayer and a word of exhortation in the social circle, even though a minister should be present. Nor can we "believe that the minister has no right to devolve these duties upon the laity, so long as he is able in person to discharge them." do not infer quite so much from the new testament; and we think the position is not maintained by "the principle of official consistency," illustrated by reference to the duties of judge and jury, physician and patient, lawyer and client, military captain and private soldier. But admitting, that the private christian has no right to officiate in "prayer meetings technically so called," that is, in the presence of a minister; does bishop Hopkins allow of social prayer meetings without the presence of a minister? He holds, that

"every christian man is so far priest in his own house and in his own family," that it is his duty to offer prayer and praise for himself and household, and "for any friends who may form a part of the company." But further than this he saith not; and the fair inference is, that he does not approve of christians meeting by themselves for social worship. In this he differs from many of his brethren, and discourages that exercise of prayer and praise which the apostles required as the general duty and privilege of christians. (Acts ii. 42-47; Heb. iii. 13; 1 Cor. xiv. 3-9; 1 Thess. v. 11.)

We pass now to the important subject of revivals.

Among the new modes of speech, which, with many pious and good men, have attained the rank of watch-words in the camp of Israel for a few years past, one of the most common is the favorite phrase, 'revival of religion.' And as it is a very frequent topic of accusation against the Protestant Episcopal church, that her clergy are opposed to revivals, it is incumbent on me to discuss this charge, so as to consider the substantial merits of the allegation.' p. 109.

The reader will perceive by a reference to the volume, that bishop Hopkins considers nothing entitled to the name of revival, except the results of the modern revival system.

The whole peculiarity of the revival system consists in the adoption of extraordinary, unusual and comparatively novel measures, for the purpose of exciting the attention and feelings of men. And I may, perhaps, safely undertake to say, that there has not been a revival of religion in the whole United States, in which the minister has confined himself to the stated and settled order and amount of public duty.' p. 111.

The tendencies of the "revival system," in its bearing upon the permanent welfare of the churches, are fairly and ably described in this part of the work under review; and we commend such judicious observations to the attention of our own denomination, especially since the late strides of certain evangelists towards the subversion of ministerial parity, and the establishment of a superior order in Congregationalism. But further than this, we cannot agree with our author. We dissent from his definition of a revival. He uses the term repeatedly, but we discover no one instance in which he ascribes, even partially, "any uncommon degree of religious sensibility, or any unusual accession of numbers to the faith," to the agency of the Holy Ghost. We do not say, that the omission was intentional, but it nevertheless has an omiWe understand the phrase, revival of religion, nous appearance. to mean something more than "a considerable addition to any particular congregation, of converts to the gospel, brought in by the instrumentality of unusual and extraordinary public efforts on

the part of the clergy." For hundreds of years, a revival of religion has been understood to be, an unusual manifestation of divine influence, awakening christians to a more faithful performance of duty, together with the conviction and conversion of sinners in uncommon numbers. This blessing of the Spirit is given in answer to fervent, effectual prayer; and may be obtained in the use of either ordinary or extraordinary means. Bishop Hopkins seems to have quite peculiar views of revivals. He claims, that the church to which he belongs, "has, time immemorial, been an advocate for religious services continued day after day; or as many pious men would prefer calling them, protracted meetings." Such are the "ten successive days" in connection with "Passion week and Easter;" the "three days" services "in connection with the day of Pentecost;" the periods which respect "the nativity, the crucifixion, and the resurrection of the Savior;" and "those other portions of holy time, consecrated to the great events and characters of the church's history, such as Pentecost or Whitsunday, and the names and characters of the apostles themselves." But with all this, we find these qualifying sentences: "I have not heard, that those of our clergy who are partial to revivals, ever thought of having them at these regular and appointed times. Nor has any advocate for the revival system, suggested the expediency of establishing revivals as a part of the regular course of any other church." We have one direct question to ask bishop Hopkins. Does he believe, that an extraordinary influence of the Spirit, enlivening the graces of christians and multiplying converts to righteousness, is given in answer to fervent and effectual prayer? And does he approve of seeking, in the use of ordinary means, for such times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord? If not, we are constrained to believe, that the bishop of Vermont, and that portion of the church which he represents, are unfriendly to revivals of religion. The allegation so often and so strenuously denied, remains therefore unanswered.

We now turn the attention of the reader to a "new measure,” beyond all question, in divinity, and a measure which posterity will pronounce to be at antipodes with the spirit of the gospel. It is a labored effort, professedly for the sake of Christ and his cause, to demolish a society organized explicitly for the promotion of temperance. The text on which is founded such an extraordinary lecture, is Acts xxiv. 25. "And as he reasoned of righteousnes, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled." The doctrine attempted to be deduced from this passage is, that the church of Christ is the true school of virtue, the true temperance society, the true preservative from all the vices which infest our miserable world;" that the church has no authorized means of promoting morality and religion, except through the instrumentality of reveal