whereunto the bounty of princes has enriched the former, but even to the exercise of their office and spiritual jurisdiction, was not near so conspicuous in former ages as it is now. A bishop then thought it no disparagement to be joined with the lowest priest in the sacerdotal honor. The common appellation wherewith they addressed each other was brother, or fellow-presbyter; nor was it any disparagement to his wisdom and knowledge, in every matter of importance, to advise with the assembly of presbyters, which was held to be the senate of the Church. Nay, several things there were in a manner peculiar to the bishop's office and function, which yet he could not do without the consent and approbation of his presbyters. He could not ordain any clerks unless the presbyters were consenting to it; for they were the persons who were to offer and propose such as they judged fit to enter into holy orders: he could not hear any cause of consequence without their presence, nor determine it without their approbation, and in case he did, the sentence he gave was to be null; nor could he degrade any presbyter without the consent of a synod, wherein a majority of presbyters were usually present; or suspend him without the approbation of his chapter." (See Stackhouse's Body of Divinity on this subject, and the authorities quoted there.)

How absurd then it is for Romanists, and the members of the English Church, to contend that they are the legitimate and exclu sive successors of the apostles and the humble bishops or pastors of the primitive Church. These modern LORDS have very little in common with apostles and apostolic men. And the boast of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in these high claims, is very slender; when in the place of having her genealogy up through lines of humble and scriptural bishops, she is compelled to acknowledge that her succession is through the excommunicated sect of the Scotch non-jurors, and the British parliament and king, in whose hands the ordainers of American bishops were the mere tools. Had we no better through Mr. Wesley, than the defective and null ordination of the Protestant Episcopal Church, by which our ministry would become null when exercised in any portion of Britain's dominions, we would renounce for ever the anti-scriptural authority.

For the Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review.

ART. II.-VERBAL CRITICISM.

THAT a knowledge of words is essential to a right understanding of an author, will not, we presume, be disputed by any one competent to decide correctly on this subject. And it is equally certain that in order to analyze any proposition, the terms in which that proposition is expressed must be accurately understood. But how can this be done without a thorough and critical knowledge of the words themselves? Hence the great importance of acquiring a critical knowledge of words, so as to understand their ideal or radical import, in order to qualify ourselves to become safe in

structers of others. This is peculiarly important to all those who would aspire to be commentators of God's word.

In every art and science there are certain terms used, which may be called its technicalities, the understanding of which, according to the sense in which they are used by those who understand each other, or by those who profess a knowledge of that art or science, is essential to every one who would either judge of the accuracy of any thing which may be advanced in reference to that particular art or science, or become a teacher of it to others. Thus, in the theory and practice of medicine, there are certain physiological terms, technically used by physicians, well understood by them, without the knowledge of which a man cannot discourse intelligibly upon medical science, nor correctly judge of any theory which may be put forth on that subject. The same may be said of every other art and science, however common it may be. Carpenters and shoemakers may have in daily use certain technicalities perfectly familiar to themselves, and therefore well understood by even their apprentices, which might puzzle a learned man who may not have turned his attention to the peculiar meaning and application of these terms. The cook of Sir Isaac Newton might possibly have confounded him in the use of some phrases in the culinary vocabulary, the peculiar meaning of which he may never have condescended to ascertain.

From the obvious truth of these remarks, it will follow that a lecturer on astronomy, for instance, before a promiscuous auditory, who had not studied the science, if he would be understood, must first of all explain those astronomical terms by which certain parts of his theory, and the things of which he speaks, are designated. How else would an unlettered man, who had never given his mind to the study of this branch of knowledge, understand what the lecturer meant by degrees, whether of longitude or latitude, by horizon, zones, nodes, conjunctions, the sun's parallax, orbits of the sun, moon and stars? All these and other terms with which the astronomer is perfectly familiar, would be unintelligible jargon to the uninitiated into the science.

These remarks are, of themselves, sufficient to put to "silence the ignorance of foolish men," who often boast that learning is a useless acquisition to some professional men. That it is not necessary for a man to be learned in every art or science in order to be a proficient in one, we grant. A mechanic need not understand physic, nor a physician law, nor a lawyer divinity, in order to qualify him for his profession: and yet no man, who has knowledge sufficient to entitle his decision to respect, will dispute that the more a lawyer knows of divinity, the more a physician knows of law, and the more a mechanic understands of both, the less likely will be either of them to be imposed upon by artful and designing men.

But while it is generally admitted that lawyers, physicians, astronomers and statesmen, must be learned in order to make them competent in their respective professions, by an unaccountable obliquity of intellect, it is concluded by some that a minister of the Lord Jesus Christ needs it not-that it is in fact "a dangerous thing," so dangerous that we should scrupulously avoid every

thing which looks toward a learned ministry. While we wish to treat all such persons with due respect, we mean so far as to use all proper means to obviate their objections, and to bear with their infirmities in a becoming manner, we cannot yield to them an important principle, nor so far gratify their prejudices, as to leave them in the undisturbed possession of them. For while we admit, with all cheerfulness, "that God hath chosen the foolish things of this world"—that is, that preaching of the cross of Jesus Christ, which the wise philosophers of Greece and Rome called foolishness—“ to confound the wise," to "save them that believe," we cannot so far bow to their prejudices as to concede that God ever put a man into his ministry, with the express design of instructing the ignorant, who did not himself understand, and could not explain and enforce the mind and will of God. And though we award to all such that it is by no means essential for a minister of the sanctuary to be what is called a classically educated man, yet we do mean to contend that he should be thoroughly versed in biblical literature, and so far become acquainted with those other sciences which are needful to enable him to understand, explain, defend, and apply the Holy Scriptures, to all doctrinal and practical purposes. We therefore dismiss from our theory the wild vagaries of those who wrap themselves up in intellectual indolence, and, under the vain pretence that God miraculously qualifies those whom he calls to preach his Gospel, refuse all those human helps which a laborious study would bring within their reach. This pretence we think equally dangerous with that adopted by others, who think that human learning alone is all that is necessary for a Christian minister; and hence discard all dependence upon a Divine call and spiritual qualification. If we must be destitute of the one or other of these qualifications, we confess that we should cling to the theory which makes an experimental knowledge of Divine things and a call by the Holy Spirit essential to a Gospel minister. We consider, therefore, human learning only as a useful auxiliary to the "ministry of reconciliation," but yet so necessary that a man who wilfully neglects a favorable opportunity of acquiring it, is highly culpable, a betrayer of his trust, and a sinner against the people of whom he has the pastoral oversight.

We think we cannot easily be misunderstood on this point. That we may not be, and so lose all our labor in the preparation of this article, we repeat, that a Divine call by the Holy Spirit, and a spiritual qualification, arising out of a sound experience of Divine things, under the sealing influence of God's eternal Spirit, we consider so essential to make a man a competent minister of the Lord Jesus Christ, that all the learning in the universe cannot be a substitute for that call and qualification; but we moreover believe that he who is thus called and qualified, in order to "make full proof of his ministry," must assiduously improve every opportunity in acquiring useful knowledge, and that if he neglect this most obvious duty, his call will run out, his soul will become barren, his understanding vacant, and instead of being a blessing, he will prove a curse to the people to whom he ministers. This is our judgment, not indeed hastily formed, for it has "grown with our growth and strengthened with our strength," until it has become a settled prin

ciple in our theological creed-and the more firmly fixed because we believe it strictly Wesleyan, taught and practically illustrated in the establishment of his societies, and in all his instructions to his ministers; and hence it follows that, so far as we have departed from it in theory or practice, we have made a retrograde movement from Wesleyan Methodism.

We have fixed our attention upon that branch of criticism called verbal, for two reasons. 1. Because it is most important to the student himself. Words are the signs of ideas; and therefore unless he understands the words of his author, it is not possible that he should learn any thing from consulting him. 2. Because this sort of knowledge is the most difficult to acquire. We may indeed acquire the orthography and pronunciation of a language, and thus read and speak it without understanding its import. In this manner children learn to speak and read their mother tongue without understanding its meaning, the same as parrots learn to talk without understanding what they say. And for the same reason many persons, for the want of affixing definite and accurate ideas to terms, are never instructed from what they hear or read.

This sort of criticism is distinguished from others in this way:It puts the man who uses it in the attitude of a learner. He who sits down to criticise a work with a view to decide upon its merits, assumes the office of a severe judge, and pronounces, ex cathedra, on its style, its doctrines, and on its tendency, with all the authority of a master. But he who is studying to ascertain simply the meaning of an author, takes the place of a humble learner, who wishes to be instructed by what he reads. When he has mastered this part of his task, he may then take a bolder stand, and become the criticiser of his author's performance, because he now fully comprehends the import of his words. It will be perceived at once that no man is competent to judge of any literary work until he has so far mastered the language in which it is written, as clearly to understand its phraseology.

We do not mean to say that he who assumes the office of a critic always performs the most important service to the reading community. If, indeed, he be a proficient in the science of criticism, has a comprehensive knowledge of the subject on which an author has written, and is actuated solely with a view to do good, to shed light upon the minds of his readers, he cannot well do otherwise than render a service to the cause of literature and science. But how many there are who undertake to pronounce upon the works of others, who are themselves destitute of those qualifications essential to a right understanding of their subject-who are actuated by a malignant disposition, or by feelings of jealousy and rivalship, either of which defects totally disqualifies them for impartial judges. Such certainly are unfit for the high office they have assumed, as the administrators of rewards and punishments among the candidates for literary distinction.

But what is necessary to enable a man to succeed in this branch of criticism? May not a man be able to dissect words, to trace them to their roots, and to give them their literal signification, and yet not understand the real meaning of an author? We think he may-though we allow that no man is qualified for the sort of cri

ticism for which we now contend, unless he can do this with some tolerable accuracy. Words often change their signification, and hence are not used by every author in the same sense. This shows the necessity of studying the history of language, and being able to trace words up to their radical or verbal import. But words are more often used figuratively, in which case, though a knowledge of the literal is essential to a right understanding of the figurative sense of a word, yet a mere literal interpretation derived from its etymological or verbal signification, will not of itself give us the meaning of our author. It is important, therefore, that we should

1. Ascertain the object which a writer proposes to himself in putting his pen to paper. This will enable us to enter into his views, to appreciate his motives, and to comprehend his design-all which is necessary to enable us to understand his words, and more especially those which are emphatical.

2. We should take into consideration the times in which the author wrote. This comprehends not only the exact era of his writing, but the state of the people, their geographical, political, moral, and religious state, as well as their state of mental and literary improve

ment.

3. We should ascertain the leading proposition the author designs to establish, or the particular doctrine or duty he aims to illustrate and enforce.

4. Nor is it less necessary to understand the peculiarity of style which predominates throughout his writing. This will enable us to account for certain forms of expression, and to ascertain with greater precision, the meaning of important words which may occur in the discourse. This last mark applies with peculiar force when the sacred writings are under consideration; for nothing is more certain than that they used terms in a peculiar sense, so much so as to distinguish them from all other writers whatever.

For an illustration of these rules of interpretation, let us refer to St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Who can rightly comprehend the words law, works, justification, faith, election, predestination, Sabbaths, new moons, Jews, Gentiles, and a multitude of other important phrases which occur in this deeply argumentative epistle, without taking into consideration the grand object he had in view, the state of the people to whom he wrote, the great and leading truth he designed to establish, as well as the peculiarity of style which characterizes St. Paul's writings? The same remarks will apply to all the sacred writings, and indeed with less or more force to all ancient authors.

5. Another important qualification to enable a man to use this sort of criticism safely and to advantage, is the grammar of language. Though language, written as well as spoken, existed long before that analysis of language was cultivated called grammar, yet it is not possible adequately to understand an author, so as either to criticise his style and doctrine, or to enter into a verbal examination of his sentences, without an accurate knowledge of the several parts of speech. Unless the student know whether a word is used as a noun or a verb, and, if the latter, whether in an active or a passive sense, how can he accurately understand the meaning of an author? Equally important is it that he should be