but flourish. Her waste places will be re stored; and religion, in the march of civil ization to the west, will cause the wilder ness and the solitary place to be glad thereof, and that moral desert to rejoice and blossom as the rose. Permit me to observe, that this zeal is the sure basis of your individual prosperity, and that of your country; for the promise of God is absolute: Honour the Lord with thy substance, and with the first fruits of all thine increase; so shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine-Happy ave the people that are in such case; yea, blessed are the people who have the Lord for their God. "It is a pleasant reflection, that this zeal has been excited by the wants of the church, and has appeared when most need ed. It seems to have been excited by the greatest calamity which could have befallen our church. It seems as if the death of that distinguished man, our good Bishop, has excited a proper solicitude for the church in every breast, as if every man felt himself called upon to step into the breach, and to place the church upon that elevation, which would render her hereafter less liable to be affected by individual deaths. May you carry this zeal to your homes, and may it spread through out your respective parishes! May it animate the bosom of every member of the church! I cannot but consider, that this good feeling is an answer to the frequent and ardent prayers of our late Bishop, an answer to the prayers of the pious in behalf of the church, excited by his unexpected loss, an answer to the prayers of several of the members of the Conven tion on this occasion. 66 My brethren, the scenes of time must close. The scenes of eternity will soon open upon us. We must all appear at an other Convention. At that day, weary and heavy laden with the burden of sin, I doubt not that some of you will recur with satisfaction to the transactions of this Convention. May all of you be enabled to say, Remember me, O my God, concerning this, and wipe not out my good deeds, which I have done for the house of my God, and the offices thereof. It is the wish of my heart, and it shall be my ardent prayer, that every one of you may obtain mercy at that day, through Jesus Christ our Lord." FOR THE CHRISTIAN JOURNAL. An Essay, noticing some errors in the Ecclesiastical History of Dr. LAW. RENCE MOSHEIM, in the notes of Dr. ARCHIBALD MACLAIN, on the same, and in the History of the Puritans, by DANIEL NEAL.-By W. W. THE celebrated work of Dr. Mosheim, is among the books recommend ed by the House of Bishops, to those who are preparing for Holy Orders: but with the direction, to take along with it certain other historical Books, relatively to the Church of England. It is proposed to show the ground of this qualification. In the progress, there will be propriety in bringing under review some of the notes of his translator, Dr. Maclain, having a tendency to mislead. Further, as it appears from the acknowledgments of the latter author, that the former made considerable use of Daniel Neal's History of the Puritans-a popular work among anti-Episcopalians in the United States; it will be to the purpose, to give a few specimens of his innumerable misrepresentations: which are the more inexcusable, on account of there having been several editions of his work, unaltered in this particu lar; although the errors of it had been exposed to the world, with evidence not to be contradicted. The contents of this essay apply especially to the condo not come into view until the first cerns of the Church of England, which volume of Mosheim's History: yet it will be pertinent to the design, to no, tice a few matters in the first volume of the said work. ch. ii.] "Neither Christ himself, nor 1st. Dr. Mosheim says [Cent. i. his holy Apostles, have commanded any thing clearly or expressly, concerning the external form of the Church; and the precise method, according to which it should be governed." To say the least, the sentiment is expressed loosely, and so as may lead to an untenable theory. The learned author would doubtless have admitted, that St. Paul was divinely commis sioned to exercise a ministry in the Church, the object of which was as well to govern as to teach; that he transmitted the same to Timothy; and that the latter was enjoined [2 Tim, ii. 2.] to continue the succession. Therefore, it is inconsistent to say, that there has been nothing 66 clearly or expressly commanded." If, under the term precise method, it be meant that there is no extensive plan of discipline, accommodated in its subordinate parts to all times and all coun tries, the position is true, but irrelevent to the apparent design of the other part of the sentence. Dr. Maclain seems to have intended to make up for the brevity of his author, by a copious note: But it does not show the accuracy, which might have been expected from the literary reputation of the annotator. He states four opinions; of which the first makes all dependent on the Papacy, and the last resolves all into Presbytery. The second seems to be one agreed in by the more moderate Roman Catholics, and the advocates of the highest grade of Protestant Episcopacy reserving archiepiscopal or metropolitan pre-eminence to the appointinent of the Apostles. The 3d affirms an Episcopacy, originating in human will. But between the 2d and the 3d, there should have been introduced the opinion, which derives Episcopacy, but not Archiepiscopacy, from the Apostles. The want of this, is an essential defect in the representation of Dr. Maclain. 2dly; The eminent historian states [p. 105] that" on the multiplying of Presbyters and Deacons, it was judged necessary, that one man of distinguished gravity and wisdom should preside," and that "this person was at first styled the Angel of the Church to which he belonged, but was afterwards designated by the name of Bishop." And it is further mentioned as probable, that "the Church of Jerusalem, grown numerous, was the first which chose such a President." According to this statement, all was the effect of human wisdom and popular choice: whereas, there is evidence of the apostolic appointment of Timothy and Titus: there is not the shadow of evidence, that those called in the Apocalypse "the Angels of the Churches," were designated in the manner intimated and as to the Church of Jerusalem in particular, it is surprising to find mentioned as a probable act of her's, what Eusebius (lib. fl. cap. 23) declares positively to have been done by the Apostles-the appointing of St. James to be Bishop of JerusaIem; wherein the church was numer : ous from the beginning.-To pass to the sixteenth century. 3dly; Dr. Mosheim represents (Cent. xvi. iii. p. ii.) that "in the reign of Charles the 1st, the Church of England publicly renounced the opinions of Calvin relating to the divine decrees, and made several attempts to model its doctrines and institutions after the laws, tenets and customs of the primitive Christians." Dr. Maclain very properly rectifies the error of the first part of this sentence, by denying that there was any such renunciation, whatever may have been the opinions of some leading churchmen. It is here supposed, that there was no occasion for such renunciation, and that the peculiarities of Calvin are not contained in the articles. As to the remainder of the sentence, it is not easy to say what is the precise meaning. If it relates to the endeavours of Archbishop Laud to induce bowings towards the altar and some other superstitions; we may well wonder, that an eminent divine of the Lutheran Church should refer these things to the times of the primitive Christians. At any rate, the Church of England remained dur ing the above-mentioned reign, what she had been from the time of the reformation. 4thly; The same author says (Cent. xvi. § iii. p. ii.) "When it was proposed, under the reign of Edward VI. to give a stable form to the doctrine and discipline of the Church, Geneva was acknowledged as a sister Church; and the theological system, there established by Calvin, was adopted and rendered the public rule of faith in England." Then the history proceeds to say, that this was "with the exception of retaining Episcopacy, and certain religious rites and ceremonies." Whatever may have been the opinion of Dr. Mosheim concerning the identity of the doctrine of Geneva and that of the Church of England, it should not have appeared in the shape of an unequivocal fact. But to say, that the latter acknowledged the former for a sister church, when there is no public document to sustain the position, is a most extraordinary over 5thly; The translator, in a note (Cent. xvi. iii. p. ii.) hazards an assertion, one of the most extraordinary which can be brought from the work of any author of reputation. It is the more worthy of notice, because of its having been lately repeated in a popular work of the English press, now re-printing in this city-the Cyclopedia of Dr. Rees. The assertion is as follows-"The first English Reformers admitted but two orders of Church Officers to be of divine appointment, viz. Bishops and Deacons: a Presbyter and Bishop, according to them, being but two names for the same office. But Dr. Bancroft, in a sermon preached at St. Paul's Cross, Jan. 12, 1588, maintained that the Bishops of England were a distinct order from Priests, and had superiority over them "true divine." In analyzing this sentence, there are two particulars to be attended to-the sentiments of the English Reformers, and-the innovation said to be introduced by Dr. Bancroft, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury. The former have sufficiently answered for themselves, in the preface to the Ordinal; which affirms, that "from the Apostles' time, there have been in the Church of Christ the three orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ;" and that this must be "evident to all who have read the holy scriptures, and the ancient fathers." In answer to the other part of the position, various authorities might be introduced: but let it suffice to refer to a book, which may be had from the public library. The book referred to, is Whitgift's Defence of his Answer to the celebrated Admonition of the Puritans, addressed to the Parliament. The Defence has the date of . 1574-twelve years before the delivery of the Sermon to which so much influence has been ascribed; nine years before the author of it became Archbishop of Canterbury, and fourteen years before the time alleged for the introduction of Bishops, as a distinct order. In the Defence, Dr. Whitgift, who was succeeded by Dr. Bancroft in the See of Canterbury, sets down the words of his former answer to the Admonition, those of the reply of his adversary, and then his own rejoinders. At page 165, he quotes Eusebius, for the appointment of St. James to be Bishop of Jerusalem. At page 231, he considers Epaphroditus as called, in the epistle to the Philippians, an Apostle in the same sense as St. Paul. At page 369, he construes the litigat ed place in St. Jerome, precisely as is done by Episcopalians generally: referring to 1 Cor. 1. for the schisms which occasioned the appointment of Bishops: and, under this name, he produces a long string of authorities: he pleads the instances of Timothy, Titus, St. John, and St. James; again affirming of the last mentioned, that he was made Bishop of Jerusalem. From these scriptural authorities, Whitgift goes on to give a long list of Fathers, who speak to the same effect. (To be continued.) Practical Notes on Genesis. Extracted from D'OYLY's and MANT'S Family Bible, the first Number of which is now ready for delivery by T. & J. SWORDS. The notes between brackets are added to the American Edition. Chap. iv. ver. 4. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: 4. Abel-brought of the firstling, &c.] Thereby instructing us, as the law afterwards did the children of Israel, that we ought not to appear before the Lord "empty," or to offer to him of that "which costs us nothing." The prime of our years, the flower of our strength, the best of our substance, the firstfruits of our increase should be dedicated and devoted to him who makes us all we are, and gives us all we have. So shall the bene dictions of heaven descend upon all things around us, and upon ourselves in the use of them. Bp. Horne. [This early use of sacrifices confirms the supposition, that the appointment of them was a part of the gracious revelation made to Adam af ter his transgression. It is indeed exceedingly difficult, in any other way, to account for the very general use of altars and sacrifices, in order to appease the anger of the offended Deity; which has prevailed almost in all ages and nations, and which at first sight appears unreasonable. But if God commanded Adam, after the fall, to shed the blood of innocent animals, and to consume part, or the whole of their bodies by fire; representing the punishment merited by sin, in death and after death, and prefiguring the sufferings of Christ; then the whole is natural; the original tradition was remembered, and the method of expiation practised, long after the meaning of it was obscured or forgotten. Scott.] [If we admit that the scheme of redemption by the death of the only begotten Son of God, was determined from the beginning; that is, if we admit that when God had ordained the deliverance of man, he had ordained the means: if we admit that Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; what memorial could be devised more apposite than that of animal sacrifice ?-exemplifying, by the slaying of the victim, the death which had been denounced against man's disobedience: thus exhibiting the awful lesson of that death which was the wages of sin, and at the same time representing that death which was actually to be undergone by the Redeemer of mankind; and hereby connecting in one view, the two great cardinal events in the history of man, the FALL, and the RECOVERY: the death denounced against sin, and the death appointed for that Holy One who was to lay down his life to deli ver man from the consequences of sin. The institution of animal sacrifice seems then to have been peculiarly significant, as containing all the elements of religious knowledge: and the adoption of this rite, with sincere and pious feelings, would at the same time imply an humble sense of the unworthiness of the offerer; a confession that death, which was inflicted on the victim, was the desert of those sins which had arisen from man's transgression; and a full reliance upon the promises of deliverance, joined to an acquiescence in the means appointed for its accomplishment. The writer to the Hebrews places the blood of Abel's sacrifice in direct comparison with the blood of Christ, which he styles pre-eminently the blood of sprinkling: (Heb. xii. 24.) and represents both as speaking good things, in different degrees. What then is the result of the foregoing reflections? The sacrifice of Abel was an animal sacrifice. This sacrifice was accepted. The ground of this acceptance was the faith in which it was offered. Scripture assigns no other object of this faith but the promise of a Redeemer: and of this faith, the offering of an animal in sacrifice appears to have been the legitimate, and, consequently, the instituted expression. The institution of animal sacrifice, then, was coeval with the fall, and had a reference to the sacrifice of our redemption. But as it had also an immediate and most apposite application to that important event in the condition of man, which, as being the occasion of, was essentially connected with the work of redemption, that likewise, we have reason to think, was included in its signification. And thus, upon the whole, SACRIFICE ap pears to have been ordained as a standing memorial of the death introduced by sin, and of that death which was to be suffered by the Redeemer. Magee.] And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering.] First to his person, (his faith and purity of mind) and then to his external service. Bp. Wilson. Why had Almighty God respect to Abel's offering, and not to Cain's? To me the reason seems plainly this, that Cain offered only of the fruit of the ground, which had no respect to Christ, but only to God as the Creator of the world; whereas Abel offered the firstlings of his flock, and the fat thereof, which was a bloody sacrifice, typifying the death of Christ, "the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world;" and so exercised his faith in the promised Messiah. And therefore the Apostle saith, "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excel lent sacrifice than Cain." Heb. xi. 4. By Faith; that is, by believing the promise which God had made to mankind in Christ; and manifested his faith by offering such a sacrifice as represented the death of Christ; by whom therefore his sacrifice was well pleasing and acceptable to God. Bp. Beveridge. In this particular the righteous Abel is a constant and useful monitor to every Christian, who comes into the presence of his heavenly Father, to come with the commemoration, as he did with the prefiguration, of the body and blood of Christ his Saviour. And let the one stir up at least as lively a faith in those who live since the manifestation of the Messiah in the flesh, as the other did in those who lived before it. Bp. Horne. [Animal sacrifice was enjoined, in the general, as the religious sign of faith in the promise of redemption. Agreeably to this principle we shall find but little difficulty in determining on what ground it was that Abel's offering was accepted, whilst that of Cain was rejected. Abel, in firm reliance on the promise of God, and in obedience to his command, offered that sacrifice which had been enjoined as the religious expression of his faith; whilst Cain, disregarding the gracious assurances that had been vouchsafed, or, at least, disdaining to adopt the prescribed mode of manifesting his belief, possibly as not appearing to his reason to possess any efficacy or natural fitness, thought he had sufficiently acquitted himself of his duty, in acknowledging the gene ral superintendance of God, and expressing his gratitude to the supreme Benefactor, by presenting some of those good things which he thereby confessed to have derived from his bounty. Magee.] It is not improbable (and it seems to be suggested in the history itself) that there was a main difference in this; namely, that Cain offered the vile and refuse, and Abel the most precious part of his treasures. Thus it is said of the one, that he "brought (barely) of the fruit of the ground;" and of the other, that he brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof." If this were truly the case, the sacrifice of Abel was therefore more acceptable than Cain's, because it expressed a more grateful sense of the divine goodness. To this may be added, that probably the general course of Cain's life was vicious and immoral; and the very offering up of his sacrifice was not attended with that devotion which was necessary. The conjecture proposed may receive some confirmation from observing what the Apostle to the Hebrews tells us, (Heb. xi. 4.) "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain; by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts." And St. John more fully declares, (1 John iii. 12.) That Cain "was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous." Bp. Conybeure. the Lord had respect, &c.] It is probable that God testified his acceptance of Abel's sacrifice by fire coming from heaven; traces of which we meet with in Genesis xv. 17. and very many examples of it in aftertimes: when Moses offered the first great burnt-offerings according to the law, Lev. ix. 24. when Gideon offered upon the rock, Judges vi. 21. when David stayed the plague, 1 Chron. xxi. 26. and Solomon consecrated the temple, 2 Chron. vii. 1. and when Elijah contended with the worshippers of Baal, 1 Kings xviii. 37, &c. Whence the Israelites, wishing all prosperity to their king, pray that |