themselves precisely as they did. Just as we all at the present day, and the most learned astronomers among the rest, still speak of the sun's rising and setting, passing the meridian, being slow or fast by the clock, all which expressions imply the sun's motion as much as the command of Joshua did. And we should feel it to be a piece of insufferable pedantry, either in a minister of religion or in a man of science, to substitute for such expressions the formulas of the Copernican system. Such is human language, and if the Scriptures use it, they must use it as it is, with all its imperfections. Nor do we consider such expressions "poetical extravagances," or myths of "the elder times," or even accommodations to popular errors. They are the natural language for the circumstances in which we are placed, and are strictly and perfectly true in the sense in which they are intended, that is, considered as describing phenomena and not assigning causes. The error arises when, with the monks, we make an inference from them to causes implied. They designate no cause whatever. They are therefore consistent with any cause that may be assumed or ascertained.

And whatever doubts, or fears, or flutterings of heart may be excited for the safety of the Divine Revelation and the Ark of God, at the first announcement of new discoveries in science, whether occasioned by the hasty inferences and reckless speculations of professedly scientific men, or by the vulgar prejudices of ignorant interpreters of the Scriptures, the result has always shown that, after those discoveries become better understood, being rectified and completed by others—as each particular science advances towards a settled, firm, and finished character, it is found not only to be perfectly consistent with the Holy Scriptures in their plain and natural interpretation, but to furnish an additional confirmation of their truth and Divine authority. So it has been with Astronomy. So it has been with Geology. So it has been with Philology and Ethnology. When the materials for this latter science begun to be collected, and its first conceptions were formed, it wore an aspect hostile to Divine Revelation. Men of weak faith and indistinct vision began to tremble. Infidels and skeptics began to scoff and exult. But no sooner does it round itself into ripened fullnessno sooner is it developed into the fair proportions of a mature

and majestic science, than it comes gracefully bending with a new and appropriate offering at the shrine of religious truth.

We have not endeavored to strengthen our argument by a host of great names which might be arrayed in its defense. On this point we have only to say, that if our opponents are wise, they will not attempt any such array of authorities against us; for such an argument, which, though it were as strong for them as it is in fact for us, could, in its very nature and in such a discussion, afford them but little support-would, in fact, only pierce their side like a broken staff.

As it has been with Astronomy, Geology, and Ethnology, so we have not the slightest doubt it will ever be with the history of all true sciences in their relation to the Holy Scriptures. The forms of science change from age to age. Nor is it, as is often supposed, metaphysical speculations alone that pass through revolutions. Any one who is familiar with the history of the physical sciences knows that, ever since the boasted era of Bacon, they have assumed more Protean shapes than metaphysics ever wore. And, whatever the contemners of the Bible may choose to think or say, the truth is, the interpretations of the facts of science have, from time to time, varied incomparably more than the interpretations of the texts of Scripture. Theory after theory, system after system passes away, but the Bible remains still the same, immutable and immutably true. "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

ART. III.-BISHOP MEADE'S RECOLLECTIONS.

In the two first numbers I have given my recollections of the Episcopal Church in Virginia, during the present century, with some reflections on the same. I purpose in the present to record some things in relation to the General Church, which have come under my observation, and in which I have taken some part. As I introduced the notices of the Virginia Church with some preliminary remarks on its previous history, so would I offer a few thoughts as to the earlier history and character of the American Church generally, before entering on the particular narrative to which this article is devoted. And as I was forced, by a regard to historic truth, to acknowledge that at no time from its first establishment was the moral and religious condition of the Church in Virginia even tolerably good, so am I also, by the same consideration, obliged to admit much that was defective in relation to other parts of the American Episcopal Church. More especially was this the case in regard to Maryland, which bore a strong resemblance to Virginia in more respects than one. The character of her early population resembled that of Virginia, in having more of the aristocracy than was to be found in some other parts of the English territory in this country. Slavery also was introduced at an early period, and served to strengthen that feature in her character. She, like Virginia, was also put under a regular establishment, though not at so early a period. She had her governors and commissaries, who acted as substitutes for the Bishop in ecclesiastical matters. Neither Maryland nor Virginia were under the patronage of the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, as other portions of America were. The history of those other portions, by comparison with those of Virginia and Maryland, establish the fact beyond contradiction, that the selection of missionaries by that Society was generally better than the supply coming to Virginia and Maryland through the Bishop of London, or some other channel. The reader is referred to Dr. Hawks' faithful and laborious History of the Church in Maryland for

proof of this in relation to that diocese. I adduce only one testimony besides, and that from the well-known Dr. Chandler, of our American Church. After a visit to the eastern shore of Maryland about the year 1753, he addressed a letter to the Bishop of London, in which, after speaking in high terms of the laity of that part of the State, he adds: "The general character of the clergy, I am sorry to say, is wretchedly bad. It is readily confessed, that there are some in the province whose behavior is unexceptionable and exemplary; but their number seems to be very small in comparison, they appearing here and there like lights shining in a dark place. It would really, my lord, make the ears of a sober heathen tingle, to hear the stories that were told me by many serious persons of several clergymen in the neighborhood of the parish where I visited; but I still hope that some abatement may be fairly made on account of the prejudices of those who related them." My own recollection of statements made by faithful witnesses forty-five years ago, as to a number of the old clergy of Maryland, accords with the above. I have but little knowledge from any source of the few Episcopal clergy north of Maryland. They were not more than eighty in number when the war of the Revolution began. As to foreign importation of clergymen, Bishop White (who was once the only Episcopal minister in Pennsylvania) justly remarks: "It could not be the channel of a respectable and permanent supply." Nevertheless, as they, nearly all of them, depended chiefly for their support on the aid of the above-mentioned Society, it is to be believed, that pains were taken to select the best which could be obtained from the English Church at that time, and to require the best recommendations in behalf of those who were natives of America. That those were mistakes, none can doubt.*

* That some of the followers of Laud came over to Virginia after his fall, is evident from what Sir William Berkeley says in his memorable protest against much preaching and the establishment of a printing-press and schools in the colony. He speaks in praise of some ministers who came out soon after Laud's death, and very slightingly of the rest, saying that "if they would only pray more and preach less, he would like to see them better paid." As for free schools and a printing-press, he thanked God there were none in the colony, and trusted there would be none for an hundred years to come, as he considered them fruitful nurseries of heresy and re

The history of the missionaries of that Society in South-Carolina, as given by one of her sons, (the Rev. Mr. Dalcho,) informs us of some who, on account of their evil character, were soon complained of, and either recalled or dismissed from the service. The congregations, indeed, became very cautious how they received the missionaries. They delayed institutions, as in Virginia, until satisfied of their good character, by sufficient trial. The Society sometimes complained that too long a trial was required. Still, I doubt not, that their general character for morals and piety was much superior to that of the imported clergy of Maryland and Virginia. But now a most important inquiry must be made, in order to form a correct estimate of the religion of the Colonial Churches. It is this: What was the type of the theology, the substance and style of the preaching of the ministers of that day? What doctrines were insisted on with emphasis from the pulpit? How did the preaching of that day accord with the doctrine of the Apostles and the Reformers on the subject of human depravity and of Christ as the sinner's "all in all"? How did the sermons compare with our homilies on the misery or sinfulness of man. -on justification-on the new birth, etc. It will surely be admited to be a fair way of deciding this question, to ascertain what was the theology and preaching in England during the time when our supply was greatest from the Mother Church. The clergy coming over to us must have borne a strong resemblance in their theology and style of sermonizing, and in other respects, to the great body of those left behind; only that we are obliged to admit the probability of what was so generally declared in all the documents and histories of the times, namely, that, with some honorable exceptions, they were inferior in character. In making this inquiry, we shall not go back to the few who came out during the reign of James the First. We will pass over those few who came to America in the days of Laud, who, intent on establishing high Episcopal

bellion. No doubt, Sir William sympathized with Laud in many things. He was as much disposed to high-handed measures in the management of the colony as Laud was in England. Cromwell's rebellion in England, and Bacon's rebellion in Virginia, may be, in a great measure, traced to the arbitrary spirit and conduct of the Archbishop and Governor,