our readers. It follows certain tables drawn up for the purpose of showing the localities of the different clergy mentioned by Dr. Sprague in his volume.

"It is a somewhat singular fact, that Virginia has furnished but five clergymen to these memoirs. We can not but think that she has had many more deserving of mention. From the long list furnished by New-England, and especially the large number of converts, we draw the inference, that where distinct and uncompromising views of the Church are presented, we may reasonably look for the most fruit. What would have been the condition of the Church at the North, and throughout New-England, but for the great Church movement, beginning in 1723? At that time, the Church in Virginia, when there was scarcely a Churchman in Connecticut, had nearly as many clergymen as Connecticut has now, and was of nearly as long standing. Doubtless, other causes have exerted an influence; but no one, we think, can fairly resist the conclusion, that views of Church Doctrine, Ministry, Organization, Sacraments, and Discipline, have been intimately connected with the almost unexampled prosperity, the growing power and commanding influence of the Church in one field, and with her mortifying depression, her overshadowed inferiority, and feebleness in the other field." . . . . "In the one case it has been Christ and the Church; in the other an attempt to preach Christ without the Church; or, the Church undistinguished as a Divine Institution from the sects which have almost swallowed her up. These are simply facts in the Church's his tory. The reader will draw his own conclusions."

To which is appended the following note; which note, taken in connection with a preceding sentence, will, indeed, enable the reader to draw his conclusions as to the design and purpose of that article.

"A preacher," says the note, "of one of the most radical of all the sects, who has spent much time in Virginia, was lately declaring with a boastful air how often he had been admitted to the pulpits of the Episcopal Churches of Virginia; and, said he, with a significant look, 'That is the kind of Episcopacy I like.' We do not doubt it."

"In our view," is the language of the preceding sentence of the article already alluded to, "in our view, it is almost as easy to trace back the whole revival of the Church in Virginia to Whitefield, as it is to trace back the whole building up of the Church in Connecticut to Cutler and Johnson."

Reserving this last sentence, which contains the gist of the writer's theory, let us examine the other portions of the quotation.

"It is a somewhat singular fact, that Virginia has furnished but five clergymen to these memoirs." Why is it not singular to the writer, that North-Carolina has furnished only three,

and New-Jersey only one? These Dioceses-he will perhaps urge-are younger than Virginia. But such, as we shall show, is not the fact so far as regards his particular argument. That argument is intended to reflect discredit upon the existing practice and doctrine of Virginia. These practices and doctrines, as peculiar to that Diocese, are no older than those of these two others.. It is, therefore, perfectly fair to make the comparison we suggest. At the same time, there can not but be great unfairness in identifying, as he does, present Virginia Churchmanship with that which prevailed prior to the Revolution, and immediately subsequent to that event.

"We can not but think," proceeds the next sentence," that she has had many more deserving of mention." Why, then, construct an argument, as is done in the next sentence, upon the assumption that "what we can not but think " is not the fact? If the reader will turn back and note the two sentences, he will see that what is hesitatingly given with one hand—as if, perhaps, not deserved-is promptly snatched away by the other. "We can not but think." Did you not know, and might it not have been hinted to your reader, that there were undoubtedly many more deserving of mention; that two octavo volumes, filled with records of such men, in Virginia, and placing the fact beyond doubt forever, had within the last two years been given to the world, and noticed in the Church Review with commendation? The names of such men as Brooks and Bridges and Forbes and Robertson, in the first century of the colonial establishment; of the Yates and Stuarts and Burgess in the second; of Bradford, not very long before the revival; of Norris and Lemman and Adie and McGuire, would compare favorably with any to be found in the volumes of which the reviewer was speaking.

"From the long list furnished by New-England," he proceeds, "and especially the large number of converts, we draw the inference, that where distinct and uncompromising views of the Church are presented, we may reasonably look for the most fruit." Why, then, did the non-jurors almost die out in a stench? Why have not their descendants flourished and abundantly increased in Scotland? Why was it that, in Virginia, when these uncompromising views were presented, by

so many of the old clergy, their work was a failure, and the Church had to be revived by men and preaching of different character and doctrine? We think better of the ministry of Connecticut than to impute their success to uncompromising views of the Church and Sacraments. They were earnest men, reäcting from what had been an extreme of harsh sectarianism; were opposed and persecuted; enjoyed, after a time, the prestige of a previously persecuted body. They were surrounded by uncompromising opponents. It was, therefore, but natural, and only human infirmity, that they should have caught the same spirit. But they had other and better quali ties, which gave them success. They had the earnestness and personal piety which have given a still more abundant success to men of a different type of Episcopacy, within the last forty years, in Virginia.

And this brings us to the comparison between these two Dioceses. Virginia is first compared with New-England. It is a matter of surprise that a single Diocese has had so few noticeable clergymen, as compared with the sum total of half a dozen others. Upon this disparity is then based another, upon the effects of different types of Churchmanship in one of these Dioceses, and one out of the six in the other; and the conclusion is reached: first, that one of them-Connecticutis in a state of "almost unexampled prosperity;" that it is "growing in power," and of "commanding influence;" that the other-Virginia-is in a condition of "mortifying depres sion;" of "overshadowed inferiority and feebleness." Secondly, that this great present prosperity to the one, and present disaster to the other, is the natural consequence of their dif ferent types of Church doctrine; or, as the writer states it, very complimentarily, to one of these Dioceses, that in it is preached "Christ and the Church," and in the other, "Christ without the Church" is presented. This, then, is the fact, as asserted to be in existence, and this is the explanation: Connecticut, preaching "Christ and the Church," in a condition of abundant prosperity; Virginia, preaching "Christ without the Church," in a condition of feebleness and disaster.

Now there two modes of properly disposing of an unsound argument. One is, to show that the premise is incorrectly

stated; the other, that the conclusion does not flow out of it. And in some very execrably bad arguments, it is allowable to amuse one's self with both of these modes combined. Let us see how it is as to the one in question.

To begin, then, with the fact which is affirmed as explaining what is asserted to be an existing state of things: that the difference between Connecticut and Virginia consists in the one preaching "Christ and the Church," and the other, "Christ without the Church." These are selected as the representative Dioceses of High and Low Churchism, or the Evangelical and Sacramental systems, or by whatever name the two great parties are distinguished. And it is affirmed, that in this formula we have an explanation of their conditions respectively.

But now let us ask, where are those who preach Christ without the Church? We hope that Christ in the Church is preached in Connecticut; as we conceive that a positive motto, which puts any thing else in immediate connection with Christ, and on the same platform, as does this writer's statement, is dangerous, if not a positive violation of the law of Gospel proportion, and we can remember nothing like it among the churchmen of the New Testament. We hope, therefore, as we have said, that Christ is abundantly preached in the Church of Connecticut-that by His spirit and doctrine it is filled and glorified that it is not only proclaimed but recognized as His mystical body. And we trust that in every good gift, outwardly and inwardly, she may be abundantly increased. But we come back to our question, Where are those who preach Christ without the Church? "All over Virginia," is the reply of the reviewer, and every where else, is the insinuated conclusion, where Virginia Churchmanship has influence. For the reader will please take notice, that although Virginia is in the state of intense feebleness, which the reviewer bewails, her influence is so extensive and powerful, in other Dioceses, and she has such control over the supply of ministers for the home-field, and the whole Church is so dependent upon her Institutions, for the whole supply to Foreign Missions, she is so powerful, in spite of this her desperate "feebleness," mortifying depression," and "overshadowed inferiority," VOL. VI.-24

that her conventional statistics must be subjected to an almost annual sifting and assault from her more prosperous sister dioceses. The consistency of this, we are not bound to exhibit. But certainly it does not seem either generous or in good taste for others to be thus exposing her weakness-especially by way of setting forth more clearly their own strength and prosperity. But, however this may be, the question may well be asked, Is the reviewer correct in his explanation of Virginia's feebleness? Is it really true, or is it one of the unveracities. which her opponents have imposed upon their own minds, that she preaches "Christ without the Church"? We think there are some facts which may help us to the solution of this problem. Who, for instance, wrote a little book, scattered all over this country called, "Reasons for Loving the Episcopal Church?" The senior Bishop of this non-Episcopal Diocese. Who wrote a treatise on Confirmation; another on Baptism; another on the Law of Proportion in the Church of God; another on Old Churches and Ministers? The same non-Episcopal Bishop. Who, again, wrote the distinctive principles of that Society, which was formed with the design, and is successfully accomplishing it, of furnishing a Church literature. free from the pollutions of Tractarianism? The junior Bishop of the same Diocese. Where, again, does that Society, as does the Foreign Episcopal Mission, find its warmest and most generous supporters? In Virginia. Where did this very Evangelical Review, pledged to warfare against all semi-Romanism endeavoring to steal into the Episcopal Church, origin ate? At a Virginia Convention. Certainly, this looks as if that Diocese felt some interest in the Church. Men are very apt to preach for, and in a cause for which they labor, and contribute, and spend their lives. The truth is, that an Episcopal clergyman, in Virginia as every where else, when he reads the word of God, where the Church is displayed, can not avoid preaching it. The same may be said of the presence of the service-of the sacraments and ordinances of the ministry in its distinct organization. If the writer of the article in question will visit one of the Conventions of the Diocese, in re