maintained, and saline washes and steeps are the only preventives. Such contradictory results are little calculated to excite confidence, or to lead common farmers, always unwilling to quit established habits, to adopt either expedient.

The remarks upon live fences are extremely interesting.* A substitute for the hawthorn of England, is found in our native locusts, cedar, and hemlock; and a taste for rendering more beautiful the appearance of our farms, would be produced by the adoption of this mode of fencing. Plashing of hedges would supply a great proportion of the fuel used in farm houses, and leave the fences almost impervious to cattle. Cold and bleak parts of a farm may be easily protected from winds, by suffering hedge rows to grow high, and by plashing and switching, the fence will be prevented from overshadowing much land. In some soils, hemlock will be preferred to any other tree, for it is the most susceptible of being cut, wove, and interlocked, and gives a rich and lively appearance to the fence. Cedar often becomes brown, and in many situations is pernicious to the fields enclosed by it.

The agricultural papers in this volume, except an appendix containing valuable extracts from foreign publications, are concluded by a memoir on clearing land, by John Taylor, Esq. who appears to be an intelligent and enterprising agriculturalist. As there seems to be a mania in the New England states for retiring to new and uncultivated districts, the good policy of which may be questionable, Mr. T's observations deserve attention. The fertility of new lands, arises from the great quantities of vegetable matter which have been collecting and rotting for centuries, so that little labour in manuring for several years, is requisite. Hence the reason why farmers seek new settlements. Clearing and recovering lands which once were cultivated, but which are again covered with a growth of wood and brush, require greater exertions, and demand the process of manuring, as they cannot, by any natural decay of vegetable matter, have recovered from their exhausted state.

We have thus taken a cursory view of the work before us. The individual character of a volume must be drawn from the design and circumstances of the publisher. A single author, having the exclusive management of his subject, may expose himself to censure and criticism, which are not commonly bestowed on a compilation like the present. We have omitted many articles which are worthy of notice, but which the limits of this review will not include, and passed unnoticed many faults, inseparable from the nature of the work.

The agricultural society of Philadelphia have given to the publick such a specimen of their talents and pursuits, that the community will look forward with pleasure to the publication of a second volume. We hope they will not forget that important problem in rural economy, hitherto unsatisfactorily solved, What is the best plan and arrangement of a farm house and farm yard? Every thing that can contribute to the comfort of the farmer and his stock, and most usefully promote the mechanical department of husbandry, will, on * Several species of them are common in New England.

many considerations, highly interest the publick, and come within the object of their institution. Economy, cleanliness, and good morals, are essential to the good order and happiness of the husbandman, and his prosperity depends on the cultivation of these domestick virtues. Neat husbandry and a productive system of culture are inseparable; and if the same work which a careless farmer expends upon a large number of acres, were bestowed upon half the quantity of land, the crop would generally be the same, and much labour would be saved. But as prejudices and idle habits remain, long after the advantages of a change are demonstrated, we must wait patiently, and hope that the exertions of this society, and the enterprise of many private gentlemen, will soon raise our husbandry to the rank it ought to hold among the improvements of the country.

The statistical account of the Schuylkill Permanent Bridge, is very acceptable, because it furnishes an interesting account of American ingenuity and enterprise. This branch of hydraulick architecture has been usefully practised by Mr. Palmer, whose models of wooden bridges, in many parts of the union, bear unequivocal testimony of his genius. Whoever desires to be acquainted with such works, will read the paper with attention. He will be led to admire not only the architect who planned, but the indefatigable and persevering spirit of the proprietors who undertook, unremittingly prosecuted and completed this beautiful structure. We do not recollect any work of this kind, which has required such a depth of solid masonry below the surface of the water, as was indispensable in constructing the western pier. The masonry is laid forty one feet below the surface of the tide, a depth unequalled in any bridge in Europe. There are many useful observations in the account, and the history of the work as it advanced, under the most embarrassing circumstances, is extremely interesting. The bridge is covered, and plastered with a very durable composition, which should be applied, in every instance, to similar works. We shall close our review with the inscription on the eastern tablet, because we readily assent to the justness of the sentiments therein expressed.

ART. 6.

The Apostolick Origin of Episcopacy, &c. Continued from p. 48. Dr. Miller is not authorized by history in asserting, that "from the commencement of the third century, every witness on the subject of Episcopacy is to be received with caution, and that about this time clerical imparity appeared in the church." From the writings of S. Cyprian, Dr. Bowden undertakes to prove the four following particulars. 1. That Cyprian was not a congregational, but a diocesan Bishop, in the strict and proper sense of the epithet. 2. That he and his contemporaries believed this Episcopacy to be of divine institution. 3. That the Bishop was raised to the highest grade of the priesthood by a distinct ordination. And 4, That he was the supreme ruler of the church, and that all orders were governed by him. Dr. Miller in quoting from the 39th. Ep. of Cyprian, makes him say, "Cyprian to his Presbyters, and Elders, and people." This is an unfair quotation, since the original runs thus, Cyprian to his Presbyters, and Deacons, and to all the people," &c. "Congregational Episcopacy had no existence in the primitive ages, nor was it known either to Calvin, Beza, or Knox. It was broached nearly a hundred years after the reformation, by the Congregationalists, that restless, fanatical tribe, that overthrew the church and state of England, in the seventeenth century."

The Dr. in his 4th. letter, having refuted what his adversary calls facts, in favour of congregational Episcopacy, proceeds to prove, that Episcopacy, in the sense now understood by Episcopalians, was the ecclesiastical discipline prevalent in the time of Cyprian. 1. It cannot be contradicted that Cyprian was Bishop of Carthage, and had a number of Presbyters under him, contradistinguished from the Bishops and Deacons, who were called Priests, not ruling Elders. As to lay Elders, and teaching Presbyters, not a word is mentioned of them in Cyprian's works, which would be next to a miracle, considering how much he has written on church government, had they really existed. 2. However numerous were the Presbyters of a church, the Bishop's authority extended to all. He was the governour, rector, head, and judge in all spiritual matters within his diocese; whereas the moderator of a Presbytery has no such authority, being appointed merely to keep order in the Presbytery, not in the church. 3. It was a maxim in the age of Cyprian, that there could be but one Bishop at once in a church. But upon the principle of congregational Episcopacy, there were as many Bishops as there were churches. 4. When a see was vacant, the Bishops of the province assembled for the purpose of ordaining the Bishop elect. He received a new ordination, since his orders, as a Presbyter, were insufficient. Thus Cyprian was first a Presbyter, and afterwards ordained Bishop of Carthage, according to his Deacon Pontius, Eusebius and Jerome.* Cyprian tells us, that "Corne tius had advanced, gradually, through all the inferiour stations ;"t and, consequently, had been a Presbyter, before he was a Bishop. The Dr. having proved, that Episcopacy, in the age of Cyprian, was diocesan, and not congregational, proceeds to show, what were † Ep. 35

* Pont. in vita Cyp. Euseb. Chron. Hieron. Catal.

the superiour powers, with which the Bishop was exclusively invested. 1. The Bishop had the sole power of confirmation. It was the custom, says Cyprian, "to offer such as were baptized to the Bishops, that, by their prayers, and the laying on of their hands, they might receive the Holy Ghost, and be consummated by the sign of the Lord."* He expressly founds this practice, as Jerome had done before him, upon Acts, 8th. chap. verse 14. Cornelius, in his epistle to Fabius, objects to Novatianus, that though he was baptized, yet he was not confirmed by the Bishop.† Firmilian also, in his Epistle to Cyprian, says, 66 the Elders (meaning the Bishops) who govern the church, profess the power of baptism, confirmation, and ordination."‡

2. The Bishop had the sole power of ordination. No ordination could be performed without him; but he alone could do it. That though Cyprian generally consulted his clergy on these occasions, as prudent Bishops generally will, yet is there no obligation to this, but what arises from expediency. In his 38th. Epistle, there is an instance, where he deviated from his common practice, in ordaining Aurelius a reader, without consulting his clergy, as he informs his Presbyters and Deacons. In his 72nd. Epis. addresed to the Bishop of Rome, he says, By common consent and authority, dear brother, we tell you farther, that if any Presbyters, or Deacons, who have either been ordained before in the Catholick church, and have afterwards turned perfidious, and rebellious against the church, or have been promoted by a profane ordination, in a state of schism, by false Bishops and Antichrists, against our Lord's institution; that such, if they should return, shall only be admitted to lay-communion." From this testimony, says the Dr. it appears 1. That all ordinations of Presbyters, as well as Deacons, were performed by Bishops. 2. That the power of ordaining was so universally acknowledged to belong to Bishops, and to them only, that even the schismaticks themselves observed the common rule. They would not, by departing from it, subject their ordinations to the charge of invalidity. Another proof in point is to be found in the letter of Cornelius to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch; in which it appears, that Novatianus, in opposition to all the clergy, and many of the people, was ordain ed Presbyter by the Bishop of Rome, the Bishop however promising, that he would not make a precedent of it. Thus we have ample proof, that a Bishop, in the age of Cyprian, had the sole power of ordination.

The Dr. in his 5th. letter, after shewing that the contemporaries of Cyprian held, equally with him, the Apostolick appointment of Episcopacy, reproves his adversary for dogmatically styling the Apostolical canons an impudent forgery. Even Blondel, a warm Anti-Episcopalian, acknowledges, that they were published as early as the year 280, which, though too late, is yet early enough to make them bear complete testimony to the practice of the church in the third century. He presumes that Dr. Miller has never read the masterly defence of these canons by Bishop Beveridge, and considers * Ep. 37.

Euseb. Hist. Lib. 6. c. 45. + Ep. 75, § Euseb. Hist. Lib. 6. c. 43.

that he has an unquestionable right to make use of them, until that defence shall be refuted.

Canon 1. "Let a Bishop be consecrated by two or three Bishops." Canon 2. "Let a Presbyter and Deacon be ordained by one Bishop." Hence it is evident, that diocesan Episcopacy was the government of the church in the third century.

Dr. Bowden is astonished and displeased at the manner in which Dr. Miller quotes authors. Why does he not mention the book and the page? Dodwell, however, thus improperly quoted, is a staunch Episcopalian. In his Discourse concerning the one priesthood, and the one altar, p. 388, he says, Is not the bishop as apt as ever to signify a principle of unity, and to represent God, and Christ, under the notion of a head? Nay, does not his monarchical presidency over his brethren of the clergy, peculiarly fit him for such a signification? And does he not the more naturally represent God and Christ in the notion of a head, by how much he is more like in their monarchy, I mean over that particular body, over which Bishops were at first placed by Divine institution? Dr. Miller, either could never have read Dodwell, or must have grossly misrepresented him.

The following quotation from Tertullian by Dr. M. is claimed by Dr. B. as favourable to Episcopacy. "The chief or highest Priest, who is the Bishop, has the right of giving baptism, and after him, The Presbyters and Deacons, but not without the Bishop's authority." The supposition of Dr. Miller, that the highest priest here might mean the standing moderator of a Presbytery, Dr. Bowden pronounces a conceit which can tend only to excite contempt. He affirms that such language came from Geneva, and was unknown to the primitive church. He proceeds to quote other passages from the same Father, all favourable to the Episcopal hypothesis. Nor is Irenaeus less inimical to the doctrine of ministerial parity, notwithstanding the unfounded conclusions of Dr. Miller, who misunderstands that writer, when he uses the word bishop, which he evidently employs in the Episcopal, and not the Presbyterian sense. From the epistles of Ignatius our author draws the following inferences. 1. That in every city, in which Christianity was embraced by considerable numbers, a single Bishop, not a plurality, was divinely appointed to superintend and govern the church, of whatever number of congregations it might have consisted. 2. That to those singular Bishops, honour, reverence, and subjection were due from all orders, Presbyters, Deacons, and Laity. 3. That union with the Bishop was so necessary to be maintained by all the members of the church, that whoever separated from the Bishop, was considered as cut off from the church itself. 4. That without the Bishop's license no spiritual act could be performed in the church; and that, consequently, he had the supreme power of the keys, which put all ranks, in spiritual matters, under his jurisdiction. 5. That there was a regular and complete gradation of rank and authority in the church. All were in the first place to honour and obey the Bishop; next the Presbyters, and lastly, the Deacons."

The Dr. quotes Clemens Romanus, as the last of the Fathers, whose testimony he shall produce, and concludes this part of his sub