NOTE.

SINCE preparing the foregoing pages for the press, the Author's attention has been called to an "address by the Rt. Rev. William Meade, to the convention of the Episcopal Church of Virginia :" designed to prove, "The doctrines of the Episcopal church, not Romish." The title of this paper, its expressed purpose and general tenor, indicate the design of its author and indeed his wish that it should meet other eyes and ears than Episcopal. Its source entitles it to great weight, and for our part we receive it as an authoritative document. This is no place to discuss the question how far bishop Meade has succeeded in sustaining his position. We ask the reader's attention to a few remarks, (suggested by a careful perusal of the address) in connexion with those passages of this discourse which exhibit the exclusive claims of prelacy.

1. Bishop M. sustains our distinction between the Episcopal church as heard by the public in her articles and standard writers, and that exclusive system sounded out from Oxford and echoed in New York, Burlington and Raleigh. While he yields to none in the distinct expression of his preference, he denounces those who, "going beyond" and resorting to a "still stronger argument" (?) such as our fathers never used, "deny other churches the name of churches and the right to covenanted mercies." He apologizes for those who attempt to meet such unwarrantable claims, and acknowledges that there is now, for the third time, a disposition on the part of some of the English clergy to approximate, as near as possible, to Rome, in certain doctrines and practices. On the other hand he avows his preference for the doctrines and spirit of Scott, Newton, Simeon, and others, as expository of the Episcopal church

2. He speaks of the "other churches of the reformation" as sister churches, and adds, " for I love to call them such;" of "the church of Scotland," "of France," " of Belgium," the "Presbyterian churches" and the "Congregational churches of America." He even so entitles some, which have separated from the English church since the Reformation. It may be very impudent, but is not surprising that those seeking information on the true position of the Episcopal church with regard to others, should on reading passages containing such expressions as these, venture such enquiries as the following, to the Rt. Rev. author.

1. Since bishop Meade knows too well the natural interpretation of his using such expressions, to suppose any reader will doubt his recognition of the non-Episcopal communions as churches,

does not such recognition require also his recognition of the validity of their ministry and sacraments? There can be no church without a valid ministry. But bishop Meade knows that he does not officially recognize our ordination when he reordains such of our ministers as join his church.

2. He calls ours, sister churches, and yet excludes our ministers from ministerial communion in his church. Would he exclude Romish priests, supposing them pious men? Yet he writes a long address to prevent the supposition that his church is Romish -such is his horror of antichrist. Oh consistency!

3. Appreciating duly his account of the reasons for the "three times" vergency of the Episcopal church to Romanism, we are constrained to question his theory. He tells us that it is because the Episcopal (English) church has not been called to conflict with Rome as others. Now we dare say neither the Scottish, Danish, Swedish, or Prussian churches have since the year 1650, been even as much brought into conflict with Rome as that of England has been called to be, and yet have they not remained distinctly Protestant?

4. While bishop Meade impliedly recognizes the Methodist church as one separating from the English since the Reformation, how is it that one of his other clergy in an "Inquiry into the origin of American Methodism" so clearly avows his disbelief in the validity of its ministry, and more than insinuates his denial of its claims to be called a church?

THE END.

2 C

INATTENTION TO RELIGION

WONDERFUL.

BY THE REV. WM. J. M'CORD

THE subject of religion is, in various ways, presented to the minds of men and pressed upon their attention. It is worthy their supreme regard, and it is surprising that it receives no more consideration from the mass of the human family. Long and often has this subject been unfolded and enforced; its claims have been confirmed by scripture, authority; its demands strengthened by providential dispensations; and yet who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? Isa. liii. 1. On this subject there is an astonishing apathy, a wonderful indifference. If we consider the magnitude of the interests involved; its intrinsic excellence; the shortness and uncertainty of the space allotted for embracing it; and the motives by which it is recommended and enforced; inattention to religion is a matter of surprise and wonder. This is the present theme of remark,-INATTENTIOM TO RELI

GION WONDERFUL.

I. It is wonderful, if we consider the magnitude of the interests involved.

Could but a trifling loss be incurred by not attending to religion, then inattention might be excused. But there is nothing of trifling moment connected with it. Every thing is of the most serious concern :

1. All the great things of God are involved. His honour and glory are concerned. His government has been abused; the penalty of his law has been incurred; his

favour forfeited; his wrath excited. In the plenitude of his mercy, he has provided for the restoration of man to his favour, in a way consistent with his honour and glory, his justice, truth, and holiness. He can bestow favour and forgive, while at the same time his law is honoured and his government sustained. He has given his Son to be a Saviour. The blood of Christ has been shed for the remission of sins. The benefits of redemption may be enjoyed by those who believe. The Spirit is promised to renew and sanctify. This ascension gift may be possessed by those who ask in faith. Inattention to religion slights all these great and solemn things. It pays no regard to the glory of God; it cares not for the honour of his government; it trembles not at his threatening; it fears not his angry frown; it places no adequate estimate on his favour; it seeks not to secure his benignant smile. Christ and his salvation it sets at nought; it prizes not the redemption he has purchased; it spurns to wash in the fountain of his blood; it treats with neglect and scorn the blessings which he offers. The Holy Spirit it resists, grieves, and offends. It likes not the seriousness which he begets; it would not be disturbed in its wayward course; its only desire is to be let alone. It cries peace and safety; and under its influence, the sinner folds his hands in carnal security, and composes himself to sleep over the yawning crater of a raging volcano. When he should hear the voice of God to-day, he quiets his conscience, saying, Yet a little sleep, a little slumber. Prov. vi. 9-11. Is it not wonderful?Besides,

2. The soul and its interests are involved. If men will not be moved by a consideration of the great things of God, they should by the things which pertain to their own souls. Their souls are themselves, and whatever pertains to the soul, pertains to them; why then should they not be attentive to that which concerns themselves so intimately? It is the design of religion to save the soul, to save it from guilt and pollution, from a tormenting conscience in this world, and from unutterable woes in the world to come; for the soul shall never die. It must live, and think, and feel for ever. And who can tell how much it is capable of suffering? As are its capacities of enjoyment, so are its capacities of suffering. A way is provided for its rescue from the agonies of the lost, if timely application be made to the blood of sprinkling. Unspeakable joys are prepared, of which it may taste, if Jesus be embraced by