right, ought not to draw upon us a vindictive attack.

"The discussions contained in the works under examination are conducted in an unexceptionable style. There is nothing of abuse, of sneer, or of invective. It is not the manner, but the matter of these treatises, that has given offence. And has the time arrived, when we are to be violently assailed for claiming and exercising the right of judgment on a subject the most interesting that can possibly engage the attention of the human mind? I trust not. We believe that Episcopacy is an apostolic institution-that it is the appointed mode of conveying the sacerdotal power-that this mode, being established only by God, can be changed only by God-and that all authority ceases the moment a departure takes place from the system ordained for its transmission. We consider Bishops as the successors of the Apostles, and as possessing alone that power of ordination by which the ecclesiastical office is continued and preserved. These doctrines we maintain, and no reasonable man can consider such conduct as giving just cause of offence. How do Presbyterians themselves act in this matter? Are they not in the continual practice of illustrating and enforcing their distinguishing tenets? But you unchurch us. How do they act in regard to others? They believe the priesthood, and the ordinances of baptism and the holy supper, to be essential parts of the Christian dispensationthey consider baptism as the only mode of initiation into the Church of Christ, and as generally necessary to salvation. But do you presume to unchurch

us? say the Quakers. Will the Presbyterian, then, give up the right of thinking for himself on the important subjects of the priesthood and the ordinances of the Gospel, or of decently supporting the opinions which he conscientiously entertains? Can he do so without debasing that rational faculty which God has given him, and neglecting the important duty of instructing his people in what he deems to be a most interesting branch of religious truth?

"Let us follow the Presbyterians one step further, and see how they treat that Church, of whose want of charity in persisting to think for herself they so loudly complain.

Take, for an example, the language of this very writer:*

"The Classical or Presbyterial form of Church Government is the true and only one which Christ has prescribed in his word. The custom of having diocesan Bishops is corrupt and injurious.' The very men who thus reproach the Episcopal Church for denying the validity of Presbyterial ordination, hesitate not in representing her system of government as corrupt, as unscriptural, as anti-christian! This is one of the rarest specimens of contradiction that the annals of human inconsistency have ever exhibited."+

To this temperate and able defence of Mr. Hobart, it may also be added, that the opinions which he advanced in regard to the necessity of a lawful

* The Rev. Dr. Lynn, who was one of the assailants of Mr. Hobart.

Essays on Episcopacy, pages 31, 32, 33, 34.

commission for the due administration of the sacraments, is in exact correspondence with that which is set forth in the Confession of Faith.* "There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of our Lord; neither of which may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the word lawfully ordained." The principle is the same in both cases; the only difference is as to the source from which ministerial authority flows; Episcopalians considering it as derived by an external commission from the order of Bishops, and Presbyterians believing that it is conveyed by a similar commission through the order of Presbyters.

The Companion for the Altar, which was made the subject of such severe and unmerited censure, has, however, accomplished, in an eminent degree, the excellent purpose for which it was designed. It has, in a great measure, superseded every other work of the kind in this section of the Church, and there is good reason to believe that it will long continue to sustain the popularity which it has already acquired. Thousands and thousands have found it a help to their meditations, and a guide to their devotions; and have risen from a perusal of it with a kindling of soul, and an elevation of sentiment, which have prepared them to receive the supper of the Lord with the greatest advantage, comfort, and delight. It has associated the author, who was so beloved and respected by them on other accounts, with their holiest feelings; and many, no doubt,

Presbyterian Confession of Faith, p. 131.

who are now united with him among "the spirits of just men made perfect," look back upon this humble work as one of the means by which they were brought into a closer communion with their God and Saviour.

It is not, however, intended to raise this unpretending performance beyond the rank to which it is entitled. As a correct explanation of the holy sacrament, as a devout effusion of the heart, and as an aid to meditation and prayer, it is certainly deserving of high commendation; but if it be regarded merely in a literary view, and examined with the severity which is commonly applied to other works, it might undoubtedly be shown, that it abounds in violations of correctness and taste. It was written in great haste,* amidst the pressure of parochiał engagements, and with all the exuberance of youthful feeling. The style is, therefore, too loose and diffusive-the thoughts are drawn out to an undue length-and the passionate expressions of devotion lose much of their force and effect by frequent repetition. There is not only a want of condensation in the matter, but also of simplicity in the language; so that, while it is not as fit as it might be for the illiterate, it is also apt to offend the taste of the fastidious and refined. Yet the great mass of readers who take it up for the sole purpose of improving the heart, and not of exercising the critical acumen of the mind, and whose feelings are in unison with the spirit in which it was penned, will always regard it as a precious book; and as

In about four weeks.

often as they go to the altar, will make it their guide, companion, and familiar friend.

There need not be a stronger proof of its excellence than the encomiums which it received from the pious and learned editor of the Christian Observer, in a letter which he wrote to Bishop Hobart more than twenty years after its first publication.

"St. John's, Woodroad, Aug. 20, 1825.

"RIGHT REV. AND DEAR SIR,

"I feel greatly obliged and gratified by your very kind letter, and am most anxious for my handsome present from Mr. Hatchard's, which I am sure I shall value highly.* The work certainly needed some addition to its devotional qualities; and in this respect, the frequent perusal of your Companion to the blessed Eucharist convinces me it will have gained much of unction from the required revision. Schools of divinity will and must differ; and it is in vain to deny, that even devotion will take a strong tinge from doctrine; so that I am satisfied the purest liturgical compositions of the evangelical and orthodox, so called, (would they were not so called!) will not thoroughly please the other, but each may gain from each; and it will be well, if all may learn from your devotional compositions, that deep humility, that profound reverence towards God, that deep repentance, that implicit faith in the sacrifice of the Saviour for pardon and justification, and those earnest resolutions and endeavours

Some devotional work, it is presumed, which the Bishop intended to revise and improve.