In the year 1807, Dr. Miller published LETTERS on the CONSTITUTION AND ORDER of the CHRISTIAN MINISTRY, addressed to the Members of the Presbyterian Churches in the City of New York, in one volume, 12mo. pages 355. The work before us is a Continuation and Defence of those Letters. The author himself, explains in his introductory letter, the motives which induced him to this publication.

"With all the mildness and inoffensiveness of their character, my Letters no sooner made their appearance, than murmurs of resentment, and threats of overwhelming refutation were heard from various quarters. These threats had not been long proclaimed, before attempts were made to fulfil them. The first who presented himself before the public, as an assailant, was Mr. Thomas Y. How, (since the Rev. Mr. How, of New-York,) who, in about six months after the publication of my volume, produced an angry and vehement pamphlet, which he announced as introductory to a more full discussion of the subject. Mr. How, after an interval of six months more, was followed by the Rev. Dr. Bowden, Professor of Moral Philosophy, Logic, and Belles Lettres in Columbia College. This gentleman, who had been long versed in the Episcopal controversy, and who, more than twenty years ago, stepped forth as a champion of the hierarchy, did me the honour again to take the field against me, and undertook in a work, at least formidable in size, to give a complete refutation of all my arguments, and to prostrate the Presbyterian cause. About the same time with Dr. Bowden's two volumes, there appeared, on the same side, and with the same object, the first of a series of Letters addressed to me by the Rev. Dr. Kemp, Rector of Great Choptank, in Maryland. And finally, with this number, the Rev. Dr. Hobart has united himself, as an occasional remarker on my Letters, in the Churchman's Magazine, published in the city of New-York, for the contents of which he acknowledges himself, both as Editor and Proprietor, to be responsible.

"To be fallen upon by so many assailants, and with so much vehemence, is a compliment as great as it was unexpected. My thanks are due to these gentlemen for conferring on my work a degree of importance, and unwittingly disclosing that it has made a degree of impression, which I had never ventured to anticipate or to claim. I have also to thank them for another favour. Their violent attacks, and their numerous

cavils, have induced me to examine the subject with more care, and to pursue my inquiries respecting it to a greater extent than I should probably otherwise have done. The result is a deeper conviction than ever of the weakness of their cause, and of the Apostolic character of our Church.

"With respect to Mr. How's pamphlet, it is written with so much heat and impetuosity; discovers such a singular want of acquaintance with radical parts of the subject; and breathes a spirit so evidently calculated, with all sober and impartial readers, to discredit the author himself, more than the object of his attack; that my first resolution, as well as the general advice of my friends, was to let it pass unnoticed. I could scarcely, indeed, form a more selfish wish than that all my opponents might write thus. And it is certain that Mr. How would never have received a syllable of public reply from me, had there been any reason to suppose that his work would fall in to the hands of none but the discerning and well-informed. Recollecting, however, that all readers are not qualified to distinguish between assertion and proof, between lofty assumption and solid argument, I felt doubtful whether some remarks might not be usefully made, especially on some of the more extraordinary and exceptionable parts of his book. The appearance of Dr. Bowden's work terminated my doubts. This work, written in a style of more calmness, and rather more decorum than Mr. How's; more respectable on the score of sober and grave reasoning; and discovering more acquaintance with the subject, appeared to me entitled to some reply. In making this reply, I determined to bring into one view, the most material allegations and reasonings of all the gentlemen who have honoured me with their notice; and, as they have taken care to praise and quote each other, they cannot be displeased at being associated together in my remarks*."

The Continuation and Defence consists of Ten Letters. Letter I. Introductory Remarks.-Letter II. Comparative stress laid on Ecclesiastical order by Presbyterians and High-Churchmen-The Doctrine of the Jure-divino Presbyterians briefly stated.-Letter III. Testimony of Scripture in favour of Presbyterian order.-Letter IV. Testimony in favour of the office of Ruling Elder.-Letter V. Testimony of the Fathers.-Letter VI. TestiPage 19-22.

mony of the Reformers.-Letter VII. Testimony of Calvin-Defence of the character and ordination of that Reformer.-Letter VIII. Testimony of the early successors of the Reformers.-Letter IX. Rise and Progress of Prelacy.-Letter X. Remarks -Conclusion.

Each of these Letters abounds with various and useful information, selected from the best authorities, judiciously arranged, and happily applied to the subject under discussion. The author, every where, discovers a very extensive acquaintance with the best writers, and especially with the principal Episcopalians, who have at any time taken a part in this controversy. This does honour no less to his candour, than to his diligence and patience in collecting testimony on the subjects which he has discussed. Episcopalians generally quote from one another, and very few have been at the pains of examining for themselves the original Presbyterian writers. Dr. Miller, on the contrary, usually prefers taking those quotations, which, in this country, scantily supplied as it is with the writings of antiquity, must be taken at second hand, from the works of his ecclesiastical opponents. We observe also, that he pursues the same candid method in respect to those passages which require translation from foreign languages. As a disputant, he grants to his antagonists every advantage which they could possibly claim; and if this multiplies his own difficulties, it exhibits to every impartial reader, that truth, not victory, is his object in the combat. The management of every argument, throughout, leaves the reader impressed with a belief that the writer was more anxious to give evidence of the justness of his cause, than of his own power in its defence.

The style of these Letters is plain and perspicu

ous. It is diffuse; but the deficiency in energy hereby produced, is sufficiently compensated by the variety of information, which it affords an opportunity to introduce. Every repetition of the same idea is connected with additional matter, which presents it in a new light, or turns it to some new and important use. Dr. Miller conducts his reader round about the object, and causes him to see every part of it in every light; and if the impressions upon the mind of his reader be less deep, they are more abundant.

The spirit of these Letters is such as becomes controversy. It is neither tame nor fierce. The author always preserves the respect which is due to himself, and never forgets that which is due to his readers. Considering the extreme indecorum of the writings which he had to examine, and the many unfounded assertions which he had to refute, his Letters breathe a benevolent disposition, often indeed, indignant, but never either indecent or passionate. He treats his antagonists with becoming severity. We select the following passages as specimens of Dr. Miller's manner of writing.

"Dr. Bowden and Mr. How speak much of “covenanted” and "uncovenanted" mercy. The latter candidly and repeatedly avows his belief, that all who are in communion with a church organized in the Episcopal form, are in covenant with God; and that all others without exception, are aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers to the covenant of promise, and have no hope but in the general uncovenanted mercy of God. We certainly can have no objection to his informing us what is his creed, and we thank him for being so unreservedly communicative on the subject. But he goes further. He undertakes to say that Presbyterians, on their part, hold a similar opinion; that they exclude from the Christian covenant all but Presbyterians; nay, that they pronounce all who do not embrace "the rigid peculiarities of Calvinism," to be in an unregenerate state, and coolly consign them to uncovenanted mercy.' Had Mr. How asserted that all Presbyterians are zealous advocates of the divine mission of Mahomet, it would have been,

rather more ridiculous indeed, but not a whit more remote from fact than this statement. His position is not only not true, but there is not a shadow of foundation for it; nor can he produce a single Presbyterian writer, of respectable character, who says any thing that can be reasonably construed as bearing the least resemblance to this doctrine*.

Presbyterians, (I speak now of all that I have ever known or heard of, particularly the most rigid among them,) Presbyterians, I say, believe, that according to the tenor of the Covenant of Grace, salvation is promised, that is, secured by covenant engagement, to all who sincerely repent of sin, and unfeignedly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course they consider all who bear this character, to whatever external church they may belong, or even if they bear no relation to any visible church, as in covenant with God, as interested in his great and precious promises, and as in the sure and certain road to his heavenly kingdom.-They know, indeed, and teach, that it is the duty of all who believe in Christ, to connect themselves with his visible church; they teach also, that receiving the seals of God's covenant and attending on all the ordinances of his house, are solemnly enjoined, and productive of essential advantages. Nay, they go so far as to pronounce that he who neglects these ordinances, when he is favoured with an opportunity of attending on them, gives, in ordinary cases, too much reason to fear, whatever may be his declarations to the contrary, that he has no real love to Christ. But still they do not, and without contradicting the scriptures, they cannot, teach that the means of religion constitute its essence, or that the seals of the covenant, form the covenant itself. The seal on a bond, is not itself the contract, but only the evidence of it. In like manner, the seals of the Christian covenant, are not in themselves the promise or the engagement either on the part of God or man; but are the constituted means of recognizing or ratifying a covenant transaction, supposed to have previously taken place in secret, when the person receiving the seal, embraced the gospel, and cordially devoted himself to Christ on the terms of the covenant.

"I repeat it, then, the doctrine of all Calvinistic Presbyte

"It is to be hoped that Presbyterians understand the Gospel too well to speak of uncovenanted mercy' at all. The phrase itself is unscriptural; and if it convey any meaning, it is an erroneous one. Fallen creatures know of no mercy but that which is promised or secured by the covenant of grace, in Christ Jesus our Lord. If Dr. Bowden and Mr. How have discovered any other kind or channel of divine mercy, I can only say, they have not found it in the Bible."