form of government and administration of that church has every possible claim to be believed. But most unequivocally and emphatically their writings testify to the existence of episcopacy. That the church, during their day, was governed by bishops, no one can doubt, who will consult their epistles and other productions.

Yet, singular as the fact may appear, it is, in a particular manner, in his quotations from the epistles of St. Ignatius, that Dr. Miller has fallen into such multiplied inaccuracies. That the nature and extent of these inaccuracies may be understood by the reader, we shall here present him with one or two of them.

"The following quotations,' says Dr. Miller, are from his (Ignatius's) far-famed Epistles. "The Presbyters succeed in the place of the bench of the Apostles." [See Epistle to the Magnesians, sec. 6.]

This is a mere clause of a sentence; and being thus detached from the other clauses of the same, is represented as speaking a language entirely different from what its author intended. The whole sentence, as Ignatius wrote it, stands thus: "Your Bishops presiding in the place of God, your Presbyters in the place of the council of the Apostles, and your Deacons, most dear to me, being entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ.' This sentence unquestionably represents a bishop as an indispensable officer of the church, and as elevated greatly over those denominated Presbyters; as much as God is raised above the Apostles. But, from his mutilated quotation, Dr. Miller does not seem to wish it so understood.

The Doctor quotes again, as follows. Follow the Presbyters as the Apostles.' [See the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans, sec. 8.] This is another extraordinary mutilation, the words left out, altering entirely the meaning of the clause, and turning that meaning directly against the opinion of Dr. Miller. The sentence, as Ignatius wrote it, runs thus.

'See that ye all follow your Bishop, as Jesus Christ, the Father, and the Presbyters, as the Apostles. Here, as in the preceding quotation, the Bishop is still made a necessary church officer, and placed at the head of the church, far exalted above the Presbyters.

Dr. Miller again. Quotation. Be subject to your Presbyters, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope.' [See Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, sec. 2.] Another palpable mutilation, and perversion of the meaning of the author quoted.

The passage, as it is in the Epistle of the distinguished father and martyr, reads thus. It is necessary, therefore, that, as ye do, so, without your Bishop you should do nothing; also be ye subject to your Presbyters, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope. The Deacons also, as being the ministers of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, must by all means please all.'

Contrary to the intended representation of Dr. Miller, this sentence, correctly quoted, recognises expressly three grades of church officers, Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, of which the first is the highest, and controls the other two. In various other instances, the Doctor is equally incorrect in his quotations and reasonings. Should the public judge him with their usual severity, they will be likely to say, that such palpable and reiterated misquotations, show his distrust of his own doctrine, and prove condemnatory of it.

Dr. Cooke's long and labored view of the episcopal standing and functions of Timothy, we pass over, with a single remark. He has established his point, we think conclusively; but he has overwhelmed it with a superabundant and very unnecessary load of discussion. This, indeed, is his fault as a writer. He often knows not where to stop. He estimates authority, as the Chinese do beauty, by bulk. Hence, while an additional tittle of it can be found, he perseveres in his toil of collection, until his own mind and that of the reader stagger and groan under the accumulated weight, and the subject is concealed by the superabundance of matter. Ten positive facts speaking the same language, or ten high authorities to the same purpose, are as good as ten times the number. In our estimation they are better; because they prove without fatigueing, and produce, in being examined, no unnecessary waste of time. A superabundance of facts and authorities taken into the mind is like a superabundance of food received into the stomach. They produce debility and pass undigested. Nothing nourishes and strengthens unless it be subdued and assimilated.

In proof of his general position, our author goes on to quote other writers, of acknowledged standing, some of them of an earlier, others of a more modern date. But the limits of this article do not permit us to follow him in his course. We can only remark, that, like a man of good conscience, and a controvertist confident in the justice of his cause, he appears to us to quote fairly, and apply judiciously.

In further refutation of the assertion of Dr. Miller and others, that, in the primitive church, the terms Bishop and Presbyter mean always the same, our author clearly shows, that, in the general church establishment of any one city or place, there were many Presbyters, and only one Bishop. Thus, in Rome, one Bishop had under him forty-six Presbyters. In other places a similar state of things existed. Presbyters were numerous, the Bishop but one.

Our author pauses, in his course, to furnish another very memorable misquotation, by Dr. Miller, from the church history of Eusebius, respecting the regular succession of Bishops, from their ordination by the Apostles to his own time. Here, as before, the clause quoted by the Doctor, is made, by his accidental alteration of it, to suit his own views. Quere. Had the original suited him, would the accident have happened?

Our author encounters, and, we think, fairly and promptly vanquishes, another distinguished antagonist, in Lord King. That nobleman has attempted to make it appear that, in the primitive church,' a Bishop had jurisdiction over a single parish, and nothing more; that a parish then was of the same extent as a parish now; and that therefore a Bishop was only the rector of a single church.

In reply to this, our author shows satisfactorily that, at an early period of Christianity, the words paroua and ecclesia had the same meaning. They both signified, not a single church or congregation, but the church of any city or place, as an aggregate. Thus, applied to Alexandria, Rome, or Jerusalem, either term designated the general religious establishment of the place. Hence, the Bishop of the parish of Rome, was the Bishop of Rome containing many churches, and the Bishop of the parish or church of Alexandria was the Bishop of Alexandria, with all it contain

ed. Parish in the primitive church, then, meant the same with diocess now. A Bishop was always, therefore, an officer holding jurisdiction over a number of churches, and having under his control a number of Presbyters. To speak of the parish of Rome, Alexandria, or Jerusalem, and to mean by the expression only a single congregation, would be absurd. It signi fied the same as the bishoprick or diocess of either of those places.

Dr. Cooke has enhanced not a little, the value and interest of his work, by subjoining to it, as an appendix, the epistles of St. Ignatius; so that the public may have ready access to those rare and excellent specimens of composition.

The following extract affords a fair specimen of our author's style and

manner.

'I am well aware that this opinion is offensive to those who have no other than Presbyterian ordination. But truth is what we ought all to seek; particularly in so essential a concern as that of the ministry of the Church of Christ. There is no one thing more freqnently urged on Christians, than the obligation to flee divisions, to speak the same things; and how is this to be done but by a fair and candid discussion of points on which we disagree?—No one, then, has a right to complain that his opinion is questioned. Every one who is of a right spirit would rejoice to have the truth clearly made out and embraced by all.

This question is the more important, because if the conclusion we have drawn be just, all other than the episcopal ordination is invalid. This declaration, although it follows as necessarily from the premises as the conclusion of any proposition ever stated, has been reprobated in the strongest terms, because it involves an exclusive claim to the ministry. It is, however, far from being the desire of those who believe that episcopal ordination alone is valid, to prevent any qualified person from entering into the ministry. They only wish to convince those who believe themselves called to minister in holy things, and who are, from early prejudice, or misinformation, or not investigating the subject, content with authority derived from Presbyters, that this authority is not valid, and to induce them to obtain that which is. The doctrine ought not to be rejected because it involves an exclusive claim; for there must necessarily be a right in the truly authorized, to the exclusion of those who are not; and the question at issue ought to rest on its merits.

But how does this matter conceru private Christians, if they are truly religious? and why should a man leave the church to which he has been attached, when the ministers are good religious men? These singular questions have been frequently urged, with great earnestness, upon myself. But few words, however, are sufficient to show their absurdity. We are commanded to be baptized, and to receive the sacrament in memory of our Lord. We cannot obey these injunctions in sincerity, unless we are satisfied of the validity of the authority of the minister; and to receive these mysteries at the hands of those we are persuaded are not authorized, is profanity in us; though it may not be in them who minister, provided they are conscientiously persuaded of their authority, after a full investigation of the subject. But this proviso includes a great deal more than may be supposed at first view.

'But what necessity for leaving the Methodist Episcopal Church? Professing with all sincerity very high esteem and affectionate regard for a number of the

ministers of that Society, I must nevertheless say, because their ordination is only Presbyterian-Mr. Wesley was no more than a Presbyter, and therefore had no authority to ordain; much less to ordain a Bishop.

In this respect he and Calvin stand upon the same ground precisely. It is certain that a man cannot have that which was never given to him, except it be something belonging to him by nature. To neither of the above was authority to ordain, ever given. The Bishops who ordained them, did not intend to confer such power. They did not, at the time, consider themselves as receiving such power; and if they had been questioned immediately afterwards, they would not have pretended that it was conferred upon them. Most assuredly then it was not given to them; therefore they had it not. To argue they possessed the power of ordination because it originally belonged to Presbyters, is to argue that they to whom it was not given possessed the power, because it belonged to them to whom it was given.'

There are works, and that which we have been examining is one of them, whose matter is already so dense, that it is almost impossible to compress it any farther. In composing this 'Essay,' the object of the. writer was fact and authority. Of these, he has collected an ample amount, and pressed them together with no unsparing or feeble hand. Hence the unexpected difficulty we have found in our attempt to give a competent analysis of his book. In most parts of it, and those the most interesting, to abridge would be to mutilate; to leave out something that is essential to the author's meaning, and to the force of his argument. This we are not authorized to do.

But defective as our analysis is, we trust it will be sufficient to increase somewhat the desire of the reader to look into the original. Should this be the case, our chief end will have been attained, and our effort will not have been useless. For no one can carefully peruse the 'Essay' without profiting by it.

Although it is not a specimen of fine writing, nor did our author intend it as such, it affords an example of as fair, close, and masculine controversy, as any we, at present, recollect. The authorities cited, appear to be sound, and the facts adduced well established, the arrangement is logical and correct, and the argument cogent and generally conclusive. If we are not mistaken, Dr. Cooke will be acknowledged to have done not a little for episcopacy. We doubt exceedingly if, in the same space, any other writer has done so much. We do not say he has settled the question. Where party in politics, or sectarism in religion is concerned, that issue is perhaps impossible. But we do say, that he has advanced arguments in favor of episcopacy, as the apostolic and primitive form of church government, which we know not how to refute. We willingly therefore yield them our assent.

Besides the vast amount of matter which the 'Essay' itself contains, it is so constructed as to serve as an index to an extensive examination of authorities on the subject. It is with no affected sincerity, therefore, that we warmly recommend it to public attention, with this remark, that the same amount of talent and research expended on a subject more worthy of them, would have pleased and edified us in a much higher degree. [The note at the end of the No. should be read at page 226, line 15.] VOL. III.-No. 5.

2

A Literary Essay on Shakspeare. Translated from the French of VILLEMAIN.

THE glory of Shakspeare seemed at first in France a subject of paradox and scandal. Now it threatens the old fame of our theatre. This revolution already observed, would seem to suppose a great change in opinions and manners; it not only raises a question of literature and taste, it awakens many others which belong to the history of society. We shall not attempt here to examine these questions. The study of the works of a man of genius is in itself fruitful in interest.

Voltaire has successively called Shakspeare a great poet, and a miserable buffoon, a Homer and a 'Gilles.* In his youth, returning from England, he brought with him his enthusiasm for some scenes of Shakspeare, as one of the bold novelties which he introduced into France. Forty years afterwards, he lavished a thousand strokes of sarcasm upon the barbarism of Shakspeare; and he chose particularly the academy as a kind of sanctuary from whence to fulminate his anathemas. I do not know if the academy would now be a place proper for the same use, for the revolutions of taste penetrate literary bodies as well as the public.

Voltaire deceived himself in wishing to lower the prodigious genius of Shakspeare; and all the quotations in mockery which he heaped up, proved nothing against the enthusiasm in which himself had shared. I do not speak of La Harpe, who was carried away by a serious and sustained anger against the defects and reputation of Shakspeare, as if his own theatrical writings were in the least menaced by this gigantic fame. It is in the life, the age and the genius of Shakspeare that we must seek without system and without anger the source of his odd faults, and of his powerful originality.

William Shakspeare was born on the 23d of April, 1564, at Stratford on Avon, in Warwickshire. Little is known of the first years and the life of this celebrated man; and notwithstanding the minute researches of biographical erudition excited by the interest of so great a name, and by national pride, the English know of him but his works. They have not been able even among themselves, to determine positively if he was a catholic or a protestant, and they dispute yet the question if he was not lame like the most famous English poet of our age.

It seems that Shakspeare was the eldest son of a family of ten children. His father engaged in the wool trade, had successively filled in Stratford, the offices of bailiff and alderman until the time when loss of fortune and perhaps the reproach of being a catholic, precluded him from all public employment. According to some other traditions, he added to the mentioned trade in wool that of a butcher; and the young Shakspeare suddenly called from the public schools where his parents could no longer support him, was employed in the most severe occupations of that profession. If we may believe an author nearly contemporary, when Shak

*Gilles' or 'Gilles de la foire' corresponds very nearly to our clown of a company of rope dancers.