and schismatics, both by God and man; when more than insinuations of this kind were presented and reiterated, from the pulpit and the press, on every practicable occasion, and in almost every possible variety of form; when, by the frequency and the confidence with which they were brought forward, some in our communion were perplexed, others, more discerning and better informed, rendered indignant, and all appeared to feel the propriety of vindicating the abused ordinances of Christ ;-it became at least excusable to say something in our own defence. It was no bitterness against our Episcopal brethren; no love of controversy; no restless ambition; no desire to intrude into another denomination for the purpose of making proselytes, that dictated an attempt to justify our principles.— The attempt was purely defensive, and was demanded by every consideration of duty to the souls of men, and of fidelity to our Master in heaven.

Impressed with this conviction, I addressed to you my Letters on the Christian Ministry. Such a manual appeared to me to be much wanted; a manual which was intended to present a concise view of the whole subject, without the useless appendages, and the offensive recriminations which have been too frequently admitted. In composing this work, it was my sincere aim to render it as free from every thing personal or irritating as possible. I Accordingly I attacked no particular writer. avoided even mentioning the name of any American who had written in opposition to that apostolic

truth and order which we maintain.

My argu

ments were stated, as far as the nature of the undertaking admitted, in the abstract; and a studious care was exercised to exhibit the whole in language of the most mild and conciliatory character. In all this it was not supposed that offence could reasonably be taken by any, and least of all by our Episcopal brethren. As they had been in the habit, for several years before the appearance of my volume, of publishing, and distributing, even beyond the bounds of their own society, books, in which the Episcopal doctrine was warmly urged, and Presby. terian principles loaded with opprobrious epithets ; it was supposed that they would scarcely think it very consistent or decent to attack with violence, if at all, a publication so moderate, so respectful, and so exclusively intended for Presbyterians. It was, therefore, my prevailing expectation, that the work would be considered as not belonging to the polemic class, and would be suffered to pass with. out a reply.

But in this I was mistaken. With all the mildness and inoffensiveness of their character, my Let ters 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, pro duced 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 argu ments, 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 at tacks, 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 evi, dently 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 into 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.

And in the first place, my acknowledgments are due to these gentlemen, and particularly to Mr. How, for being so kind as to remove all uncertainty with respect to the real nature of the opinions which they hold. Dr. Bowden, it is true, does not appear very fond of committing himself by explicit avowals; but Mr. How manifests no scruple in declaring, in his usual "masterly" manner, that he considers Presbyterian clergymen as having no more right to administer sacraments, or to ordain, than so many "laymen" or "women," that all their ministrations are perfectly unauthorized and void; that without Episcopal ordination, there is no ministry, no church; that no case of necessity, however extreme, can justify any minister or body of ministers, in attempting to ordain others, or to form churches, without the intervention of a prelate's hands; and that all who are not in communion with an Episcopal bishop, are out of the church, and have no covenanted title to salvation. Letters,