will say no more than that he coincides with their friend of "The Presbyterian," who says: "They have not logically answered the Right Reverend Horatio Potter. ***We love the spirit and sympathize with the longings and desires for visible fellowship with other denominations of God's people, manifested by [those that claim to be] the Low Church party in the Episcopal Church. At the same time, our convictions compel us to say that their defence is insufficient, and that they have, in our judgment, logically failed." But on the relation of those writings to the subject of the present work a few words must be said. They are based on the Essay of Mr. Goode. That gentleman's theory underlies the whole. He is their sole authority for the principal assertions they make, and for the [supposed] facts to which they refer. If, then, it should appear that those assertions are without foundation-that the alleged facts are not facts, how will they be regarded when their confident language is recalled to mind? The author readily acknowledges his own belief that they have erred only through putting too implicit trust in the learning or faithfulness of another person. He acquits them of all intention to pervert history or abuse authorities. But the public will ask why they adopted and undertook to defend a course which necessarily created discord, and even threatened the very existence of the Church, unless they were prepared to show that they had given the whole matter a thorough investigation, and were treating it from personal knowledge. As they are clergymen of high standing, and Doctors of Divinity, it was not unreasonable to expect that they would defend with much learning the course they had adopted in a matter so important; at all events, that they would point to original authorities, and not take their testimony en gross from "Goode on Orders," or any other modern compilation that may be read in an afternoon. Sorry to see good men misled, and still more sorry to see them laboring zealously to lead others astray, the author believed it his duty to place the facts before them. He considered that he would be doing them a real service by printing his Review of Mr. Goode's Essay. At all events, he knew that he would be helping the cause of truth, and so he resolved to bring it out. But fearing that, if issued in its original form and compass, it would possess little permanent value, he modified its plan and enlarged it considerably, making it much more than a mere Review; and now he sends it forth, claiming that it is a thorough and faithful discussion of the subject which the "Essay on Orders" professed to treat. He is not without hope that some of the parties herein referred to will read it with patience that they will try to lay prejudice aside and seek to arrive at an honest and just conclusion. If he has failed to discover the truth, and they correct him, he will be thankful for the service. If he has in any way tampered with truth, or sought his end by dishonorable means, he deserves to be exposed, and shall expect no quarter. But he trusts that they will not seize on a mere slip of the pen, or a typographical error, or anything that is palpably a mistake, and point to it in proof of ignorance or evil intent. He also expects that those, if any, who undertake to answer him, will not raise side issues, or grasp some unimportant particular and harp on that, but that they will go over the whole ground, or at least deal with the main question; and, above all, that they will not put the assertions of one man or the opinions of another against the EVIDENCE that is herein supplied. From those whose motto is "NO STEP BACKWARD," he expects neither patient reading nor fair representation. Such persons are generally beyond the reach of reason, and resent all attempts to show them their error. In place of desiring to have their party right, they desire that it shall triumph, whether right or wrong, and a word said against it is, with them, an unpardonable sin. The author supposes that he has fallen into this condemnation, and, therefore, does not hope to escape. He expects the usual amount of censure or abuse. In a week or two he will see himself described as 66 99 66 a an enemy to Evangelical religion,' High Churchman," a Puseyite,” or, possibly, a Papist." This will be a much more convenient way of answering his book than giving reason for reason, or putting fact against fact; but it will have the slight disadvantage of being wholly untrue. 66 66 The author yields to no man in his zeal for the unadulterated doctrines of the New Testament-those in defence of which the Fathers and founders of our Church laid down their lives. He yields to no man in his desire to see pure and undefiled religion spread and prosper in our Zion. But he begs the reader to remember, that to secure Evangelical truth, it is not necessary to neglect or surrender Apostolical Order. If any are so weak as to object that the doctrines here shown to be maintained in the Church appear uncharitable, and ought therefore to be left at the mercy of those who would repudiate them, he replies: those doctrines are based upon the Word of the Living God, and they are held by that which has ever been incomparably the most tolerant and comprehensive Church in Christendom. VOX ECCLESIÆ. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY. VERY society must have some peculiarity by which it is distinguished from all others. Sometimes this is sufficiently done by the very object for which it has been established; but if that object be pursued by others also, then the distinctive feature will be found in the nature of its organization or in its mode of working. The Christian Church, that greatest and best of all societies, is not an exception to this rule. Its purpose, its creeds, its sacraments, and its constitution, mark it out and prevent its being mistaken for any other association. The same principle applies to all those bodies which claim to be branches of it. They all retain some of the fundamental truths of Christianity, and on this they base their claim. but they have all distinctive peculiarities, else they could not stand apart. As regards faith, worship, or government, each has something more or something less than the others, and that something, whatever |