gard to which he makes this statement,* he will get an idea not only of her feebleness, but of the warm attachment of her members, of which now he has no suspicion. In the mean time, he may not improperly be reminded that people sometimes violate the ninth commandment without being distinctly aware of it. There is not a clergyman in the Diocese spoken of, who would not pronounce the statement quoted above, of "Christ without the Church," if applied to his own ministry, as an instance of such violation. There are doubtless very different views of the Church, presented in the two Dioceses, compared by the reviewer, views presented and insisted upon with equal earnestness by both. But this does not justify either one in bringing a railing accusation against the other, that it presents no view at all.

And that ours is the correct statement of the case, the writer of this article is compelled substantially to admit. After having made his offensive statement in its most unqualified forms, it seems to have occurred to him, that its correctness might be called in question. And he, therefore, follows it by another statement, whether intended to be additional or exegetical is not very clear, but which in reality changes the issue entirely. "In the one case," says he, "it has been Christ and the Church, in the other it has been an attempt to preach Christ without the Church; or the Church undistinguished as a Divine Insti tution, from the sects which have almost swallowed her up." In other words, Virginia churchmen attempt to preach Christ without the Church, when they refuse to unchurch all other Christians; when they refuse, as did the Reformers, as did Hooker, as has done every Archbishop in the English Church except Laud, and perhaps Potter, and as did the revisers of our American Prayer-Book, to make Episcopacy essential to ecclesiastical existence. Every intelligent reader can see the differ

*We see from the May number of the Spirit of Missions, that a domestic Spartan, whose broth was perhaps falling short, has replenished it by a week spent in the generous old Diocese. We rejoice to see that great light seems to have broken in upon him, as to the state of things there prevailing. But we must confess to some fear, that in the warmth of hospitable feeling, to a stranger, care was not taken to give that special direction to contributions, which would have saved them from the work of building up Tractarian Parishes and Dioceses.

ence between these two statements, the difference between the presentation, or holding of a fact in a certain distorted and extreme view of it, and not holding it at all; and yet the two statements are so put forward as to entrap the incautious reader into the idea that they are identical: the first giving the wrong impression, and doing its work of mischief, the other being a loop-hole of escape from an indefensible position. It is true, strictly true, that the Episcopal Church in Virginia, is presented as not unchurching all other Christian bodies. It is not true that she, through her ministers, "attempts to preach Christ without the Church." Under no principles of interpretation, short of those of Tract No. 90, can this last charge be excused or defended.

So much for the fact which explains the prosperity of one of these Dioceses, and the feebleness of the other. It is a fact which is no fact; which has no existence in reality. If there be this great difference in the two bodies contrasted, the explanation must be looked for and found elsewhere. And it lies within the range of possibility, that the real explanation might reveal the fact, that the apparent prosperity of the one is failure, the apparent disaster of the other prosperity. Numbers constitute no unfailing criterion of success. The Unitarians in New-England, and the Baptists in the Southern States, have outgrown the Episcopal Church, however presented; and the Romanists in their missions have doubtless exceeded the whole combined force of Protestantism. The statistician of our different dioceses again will find a very different tone of sentiment prevailing as to what ought to constitute fitness for church membership. In some he will find all the members communicants; in some, part communing, and part only confirmed. Without presuming to say that any one of these is the explanation of the fact asserted by the reviewer, they at least, in connection with other explanations less offensive, may suggest a caution, against the inference of success or prosperity, or, what is better, truth, from comparisons of

numbers.

No better illustration of these remarks could be afforded than that which is brought before us in the tables from which the reviewer has drawn his inferences. In glancing over those

tables, the reader will find some of the most active and energetic clergy of Virginia put down to the account of other dioceses; such, for instance, as Dr. Milnor, Dr. Keith, Bishop Moore, James Chisholm, and Wm. M. Jackson. To know the operative value of certain principles as illustrated by certain men, we must not only ask where they were born, but where they lived; what prevalent influences shaped their character -how far they coöperated to the increased extension of such influences.

But is there, after all, this asserted difference between these two Dioceses? We have seen that the reviewer's explanatory fact has no existence, except in his own imagination. Is the fact which this imaginary fact explains any more real; or is this imaginary also? "How is it," was the problem suggested to a certain scientific association, "how is it that a vessel of water does not increase in weight when a live fish is placed in the water, nor diminish when he is taken out?" Various ingenious explanations were suggested-some more, some lessbut none perfectly satisfactory. At last it was proposed that the fact itself to be explained, be tested as to its reality, by the actual weighing of the vessel under the required circumstances, when it was ascertained that this fact, like all its explanations, existed only in the regions of nonentity. May not this be a similar case? It will certainly not be out of place to institute the inquiry.

In entering upon this inquiry we first quote from the report of the two Dioceses in question, presented to the General Convention soon after the election of Bishop Moore, in 1814. We select this point of time for three reasons: First, it is the point of transition, in Virginia, from the old state of things to the new. Secondly, it affords a comparison-where alone any such comparison is proper-of the two systems in the same field of effort, and under the same outward influences. Thirdly, it affords material for comparison of the proportionate growth of present Virginia Churchmanship, with that of its sister Dioceses. We quote first the report from Connecticut:

“The Church in this State appears to be increasing in numbers, and in vital religion. Though frowned upon in the removal of her venerable Bishop, by

death, yet the Diocese continues regular in holding Conventions, and in a due attention to the Canons of the Church. The clergy are zealous in the discharge of their duties. The vacancy of the Episcopate will, it is believed, be filled as soon as provision is made for its support. This desirable object is in a train favorable to its accomplishment in the establishment of a permanent fund. Several new church edifices have been erected since the last General Convention; there is, also, an increased solicitude on the part of the laity, to provide means for the support of the clergy, and to have the places of public worship kept in decent repair.

'The number of confirmations in the last two years of the Bishop's life was 464."

This perhaps the reader will think-looking at things absolutely rather than relatively-is no great things, as the growth of a century. And we confess that had not Virginia, since the time of this report, done better, there would have been more ground for the reviewer's comparison. But while there is very little to boast of in this report absolutely considered, yet as compared with that of the same date from Virginia, it brings before us a condition of prosperity. We give a portion of this latter:

"From a variety of causes not necessary, and perhaps not proper to detail here, the Church in this State has fallen into a deplorable condition; in many places her ministers have thrown off their sacred profession; her Liturgy is either contemned or unknown, and her sanctuaries are desolate. It would rend any feeling heart to see spacious temples, venerable even in their dilapidation and ruins, now the habitations of the wild beasts of the forest."

This is followed by an account of certain hopeful indications, such as the erection of a new church for the lately or dained Bishop in Richmond, of efforts to erect church edifices at two or three other points, and the mention that there were two large and respectable congregations in Alexandria. But the whole tone of the report is one of despondency; and it ends as it ought to have done, and as all of that same date ought to have done, but as none of them really do, in the spirit of the publican, asking the prayers of all who wish her well, that the Lord of the harvest would send forth laborers even into her desolated vineyard. Forty-five years of misrepresen tation-this of the Church Review not perhaps the last instance of the kind-from some of her more prosperous sister Dioceses, constitute the practical compliance with this humble petition.

But what have those forty-five years brought forth? How do these two Dioceses now stand relatively. One would suppose from the language of the reviewer, that he had just read these reports of 1814, under the impression that they were those of 1857. The state of things which he describes, as existing now, did exist then. But has there been no change? Has the then prosperous Diocese kept as far in advance of her desolate sister as she was when these reports were written? Has the distance between them increased, as it ought, under the heavier propulsive force of the larger body? Or has it been greatly diminished-showing a proportionate growth, under the auspices of present Virginia Episcopacy beyond that of Connecticut? The materials for a reply to these inquiries, are not very distant. We take, for instance, the statistics of the two Dioceses in 1857, as afforded in the reports to the General Convention. These reports are not drawn up in exactly the same form. The parallel can not, therefore, be perfect. As to their main substance, however, there can be but little difficulty. Thus compared, we find Connecticut reporting 10,381 communicants, Virginia 6527. Here is the greatest difference, and there is a hint, in the report of the latter, showing that her numbers are actually greater than the report indicates. "These statistics," says the report, "furnish only an approximate view of the Church in Virginia. The actual efficiency of the Diocese is doubtless considerably greater than these figures indicate. The reports in the Diocesan journals from which they are taken, are often incomplete, and indeed seldom accurate, owing, in part, to the fact that the Episcopal population is so widely diffused in proportion to the number of the clergy. And notwithstanding the additions annually made from the Seminary at Alexandria, to the clerical force of the Diocese, it is found extremely difficult to keep supplied even the old parishes, so great is the demand from this State, to fill important points in other Dioceses." We have no doubt ourselves that the actual number is nearer eight than six thousand.*

* By reference to an article in our last number, consulted since the above was written, it will be seen that this opinion is correct, as also the necessarily imperfect character of reports, from this and other widely-scattered Dioceses,