but the whole power of bishops given to them by the Holy Ghost; for they are enjoined to do the whole work of bishops-TOIMIVELY TYY EXXON CY TOU OO-which signifies, to rule as well as feed the church of God. Whence we see that the apostle makes the power of governing inseparable from that of preaching and watching; and that, according to him, all who are preachers of God's word, and watchmen of souls, are necessarily rulers or governors of the church, without being accounta⚫ ble for their management to_any prelate, but only to their Lord Christ, from whom their power is derived. "It appears, therefore, that the apostle Paul left in the church of Ephesus, which he had planted, no other successors to himself than presbyter-bishops, or Presbyterian ministers, and that he did not devolve his power upon any prelate. Timothy, whom the Episcopalians allege to have been the first bishop of Ephesus, was present when this settlement was made, Acts xx. 5; and it is surely not to be supposed that, had he been their bishop, the apostle would have devolved the whole episcopal power upon the presbyters before his face. If ever there were a season fitter than another for pointing out the duty of this supposed bishop to his diocese, and his presbyter's duty to him, it was surely when Paul was taking his final leave of them, and discoursing so pathetically concerning the duty of overseers, the coming of ravenous wolves, and the consequent hazard of the flock. In this farewell discourse he tells them that He had not shunned to declare unto them all the counsel of God. But with what truth could this have been said, if obedience to a diocesan bishop had been any part of their duty, either at the time of the apostle's speaking, or at any future period? He foresaw that ravenous wolves would enter in among them, and that even some of ་ themselves should arise speaking perverse things; and if, as the Episcopalians allege, diocesan episcopacy was the remedy provided for those evils, is it not strange, passing strange, that the inspired preacher did not foresee that Timothy, who was standing beside him, was destined to fill that important office; or, if he did foresee it, that he omitted to recommend him to his future charge, and to give him proper instructions for the discharge of his duty? "But if Timothy was not bishop of Ephesus, what, it may be asked, was his office in that city? for that he resided there for some time, and was by the apostle invested with authority to ordain and rebuke presbyters, are facts about which all parties are agreed, and which, indeed, cannot be controverted by any reader of Paul's epistles. To this the Presbyterian replies, with confidence, that the power which Timothy exercised in the church of Ephesus was that of an evangelist, Tim. ii. 4, 5, and not a fixed prelate. But, according to Eusebius, the work of an evangelist was, to lay the foundations of the faith in barbarous nations, and to constitute among them pastors; after which he passed on to other countries. Accordingly we find that Timothy was resident for a time at Philippi and Corinth (Phil. ii. 19. 1st Cor. iv. 17. 1st Cor. xvi. 10, 11) as well as at Ephesus, and that he had as much authority over those churches as over that of which he is said to have been the fixed bishop. Now, if Timotheus come, see that he may be with you without fear, for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do. Let no man, therefore, despise him.' This text might lead us to suppose that Timothy was bishop of Corinth as well as of Ephesus; for it is stronger than that upon which his episcopacy of the latter church is chiefly built. The apostle says, 1st Tim. i. 3, 'I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine.' But, had Timothy been the fixed bishop of that city, there would surely have been no necessity for beseeching him to abide with his flock. It is to be observed, too, that the first epistle to Timothy, which alone was written to him during his residence at Ephesus, was of a date prior to Paul's meeting with the elders of that church at Miletus; for in the epistle he hopes to come to him shortly; whereas he tells the elders at Miletus that they should see his face no more. This being the case, it is evident that Timothy was left by the apostle at Ephesus only to supply his place during his temporary absence at Macedonia; and that he could not possibly have been constituted fixed bishop of that church, since the episcopal powers were afterwards committed to the presbyters by the Holy Ghost in his pre sence. "The identity of the office of bishop and presbyter being thus clearly established, it follows, that the presbyterate is the highest permanent office in the church, and that every faithful pastor of a flock is successor to the apostles in every thing in which they were to have any successors. In the apostolic office there were indeed some things peculiar and extraordinary, such as their immediate call by Christ, their infallibility, their being witnesses of our Lord's resurrection, and their unlimited jurisdiction over the whole world. These powers and privileges could not be conveyed by imposition of hands to any successors, whether called presbyters or bishops; but as rulers or office-bearers in particular churches, we have the confession of the very chiefest apostles,' Peter and John, that they were nothing more than presbyters or parish ministers. This being the case, the dispute, which has been so warmly agitated concerning the validity of Presbyterian ordination, may be soon decided; for if the ceremony of ordination be at all essential, it is obvious that such a ceremony performed by presbyters must be valid, as there is no higher order of ecclesiastics in the church by whom it can be performed. Accordingly we find, that Timothy himself, though said to be a bishop, was ordained by the laying on of the hands of a presbytery. At that ordination, indeed, St. Paul presided, but he could preside only as primus in paribus; for we have seen that, as permanent officers in the church of Christ, the apostles themselves were no more than presbyters. If the apostles' hands were imposed for any other purpose, it must have been to communicate those charismata, or miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, which were then so frequent; but which no modern presbyter or bishop will pretend to give, unless his understanding be clouded by the grossest ignorance, or perverted by the most frantic enthusiasm." Since our last number was published, it has twice been noticed, in "a respectable periodical of this city" which is issued weekly. We had prepared a reply to the first notice, before we saw the second. On the appearance of the second it occurred, that there might be a third and a fourth, before our present number could meet the publick eye. It also occurred, that we should lose our main object in writing, which is to show our Presbyterian readers that theirs is the true apostolick church, if we permitted ourselves to be drawn aside, by every petty attack which we might receive in our progress. We have therefore resolved to let these things, with but little notice, take their course, while we take ours. Perhaps we may devote a whole number to a reply, when we think them of importance enough to require it. At present we only remark that the extracts from "the unanswerable work of the late Dr. Bowden-an invaluable work," have already been both answered and confuted by Dr. Miller, and Dr. B.'s statements shown to be scarcely more than a tissue of blunders and misrepre sentations from the beginning to the end. We say this that our readers "may be guarded against error and seduction," till we can find space to republish Dr. Miller's replies. Review. LETTERS ON CLERICAL MANNERS AND HABITS; addressed to a Student in the Theological Seminary, at Princeton, NJ. By Samuel Miller, D.D. Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Church Government, in the said Seminary. New York: published by G. & C. Carvill. 1827. pp. 476. WE feel that an apology is due, both to our readers and to the author of this excellent volume, for suffering it to go to a second edition, before we have noticed the first. The truth is, we hoped that some of our correspondents would long since have favoured us with a review of the work-a review worthy of its subject. For ourselves, we read about a hundred pages of the publication when it first appeared; and till within a week, we had not been able to command the time requisite to go carefully through the remainder, and to review what we had before perused. In the mean time, the book has been reviewed in other periodicals, and the publick approbation of it decisively manifested. We have indeed, since we finished the perusal of the volume, seriously doubted whether there is not a weighty reason, why we should altogether abstain from a review of it in our Miscellany. It contains-what we certainly did not expect to find-a reference to some former publications of the editor of the Christian Advocate, and in a strain of approbation, which he may be supposed only to reciprocate, when he awards to the author of these letters, even less commendation than he conscien tiously believes to be due. We have nevertheless determined to make some remarks on the letters before us, and to give our opinion of their general merits as impartially as we can. This we believe is expected from us; and some of our distant readers may not otherwise become as speedily acquainted with the nature of the work, its publicity notwithstanding, as we think will be to their advantage. The title page indicates generally the contents of the volume to which it is prefixed; and the author observes, in his introductory letter, that "no popular adequate treatise on this subject, so far as he knows, is to be found." We certainly know of no such treatise; although from a number of publications that we could mention, many of the most important advices which are here embodied might be collected. But there is much in this volume, and much that we deem important, which we have never elsewhere seen; and the excellence of Dr. Miller's work, in our judgment, much consists in this-that it supplies a great Desideratum to theological students and young ministers of the gospel. There certainly was a most urgent necessity for a discreet, connected, and popular discussion of the topicks which form the subjects of these letters. Had such information, cautions, and counsel as we here find, received the early and attentive consideration of many ministers of the gospel whom we have known, we confidently believe that their comfort, their respectability, and their usefulness, would have been greatly augmented; and that the entire loss of character by some, and the consequent reproach brought upon religion, might probably have been prevented. We sincerely rejoice that the candidates for the gospel ministry, who are now coming into publick life in our country, will have an opportunity to avail themselves of instruction and admonition which was wanting to their predecessors; and their negligence will be inexcusable, if they do not make their advantage of this opportunity. Indeed, while we would particularly recommend a careful and repeated perusal of this volume to Theological students and the junior clergy, we have no hesitation in giving it as our opinion, that it may be read with sensible profit by all ministers of the gospel, whatever be their age or standing. We venture to conjecture that the author himself has derived benefit from his own work; and we are sure that if it has not been productive of benefit to his reviewer, the fault is his own. Much of the compositions of Dr. Miller, which he has hitherto given to the publick, is in the form of letters. The subjects which he has thus discussed were of a character to be advantageously handled in this manner; and it is a manner to which his style is well adapted, and to which the cast of his thoughts, feelings, and habits, seem to be peculiarly favourable. In the volume under review, the letters, although manifestly written for the press and the publick, are supposed to be addressed to a Theological student, in the Seminary of which the Dr. is a professor. The character of a personal and private correspondence is in general well sustained; but in some instances there is, for a time, an apparent forgetfulness of this appropriate character, and the writer seems as if he were directly addressing the publick. This however is usually well covered, by applying what was said generally, to the peculiar circumstances of his pupil. But, this, as a mere matter of composition, was the most difficult point which the writer had to manage; and in a few instances, particularly at the beginning of some of his letters, we think he has not managed it with entire success. We shall go on to point out a few other blemishes, and to state wherein we dissent from the writer in one or two particulars-We confess we would do this, were it only to show that we do not blindly admire or indiscriminately applaud this author. But we have other and higher objects in view. If our remarks shall be found of any value, they may enable Dr. M. to improve his work in a subsequent edition; and they may also be of some use to those of our young brethren, who are, or ought to be, cultivating style and composition-For their sakes chiefly, we intend to indulge in a little verbal criticism; a business for which we have no great fondness. We have no apprehension that our friend, the professor, will take umbrage at our criticisms. He will recollect how, when we were near neighbours, we used to solicit and receive each other's remarks, before some of our compositions were published: And we believe that neither of us would have had much objection, that all the remarks made on these occasions should have been heard by the world. Dr. M.'s grammatical accuracy is commonly unimpeachable. The following sentence, page 285, is an exception. "And more than once it unfortunately happened, that a portion of the lectures thus lost, were [was] precisely, the most radical and indispensable of the whole number, the loss of which imposed upon them the most serious disadvantage through all that came afterwards." It is true that the exchanging of were for was in this sentence, without any other alteration, would injure the sense. But how easily and advantageously might it be altered thus-" And more than once it unfortunately happened that the lectures, a portion of which was thus lost, were precisely the most radical," &c. The error of making the verb agree with the noun, whether singular or plural, to which it is nearest in a sentence, when one more remote is its proper nominative, is too often found in writers generally correct; but it ought to be carefully avoided, inasmuch as it not only violates grammar, but sometimes puts obscurity or confusion into the whole sentence. In page 350, Dr. M. writes"Never allow yourself on any occasion, except one of the extremest urgency, to go into a deliberative assembly, and call out a member in the midst of a debate." The word we have put in italicks is not grammatical-It is in fact a double superlative. Murray says, "Adjectives that have in themselves a superlative signification, do not properly admit of the superlative or comparative form superadded: such as, chief, extreme, perfect, right, universal, supreme, &c.; which are sometimes improperly improperly written, chiefest, extremest, perfectest, rightest, most universal, most supreme," &c. We recollect that Dr. Campbell, in his Philosophy of Rhetorick, is extremely severe on Bishop Lowth, for having justified, or pleaded an excuse for, a double superlative in the English Liturgy. We have remarked no other grammatical inaccuracies than the two we have now mentioned, in Dr. M.'s book of 476 pages: and this is more than we could say of most books, of the same size, which we peruse. several times in these letters, as an active and passive verb. Johnson gives it only as a neuter verb, although one of his examples exhibits its use in a passive form. But we think it is far too frequently used by Dr. M., and would, in most cases, rather have seen the words repulsive, offensive, repelling, or shocking. But "rely upon it," and depend upon it," are the favourite phrases of Dr. M.; as much so at least as esse videatur, was a favourite with Cicero. To say the truth, we became somewhat annoyed, by these little intrusive phrases coming upon us so often. Their frequency seemed to us to deprive them of all their force; and at least in three instances out of four, we thought the sentences where we found them would have been more forcible, and in all respects better, if these hortative monitions had been omitted altogether. In other instances, we wanted to see in their place such phrases, as be assured, doubt not, nothing more certain, beyond a question, &c. Dr. M. likewise, in our opinion, too often uses the word then instead of therefore, in cases where the former term has precisely the same signification as the latter. When a conclusion is to be drawn, or an inference made from some previous statement, we almost uniformly find then, in the place of therefore. We could not help thinking of the representation and petition, in the Spectator, of injured who and which, against the usurper that. "I have long thought (says Dr. M. page 113) that the practice of RETAILING ANECDOTES, was by far too much indulged [in] by clergymen." We have Johnson's authority for the word we have here inserted. He says under the word indulge, as an active verb,-"If the matter of indulgence be-a habit, it has in: as he indulged himself in shameful drunkenness." We have marked the following We find the word revolt applied sentence in page $73 as one unhap |