tionable facts. It must be allowed, indeed, that Christianity leaves us great room for the exercise of sound discretion as to her outward polity; for that it is amongst the proofs of the wisdom of her Divine Author that the gospel is made to adapt herself to the ever-changing occasions of human affairs, and that the measures affecting her polity are entrusted to the zeal and discretion of those who successively steer the helm of the Church. On these principles, we are bound in duty to devise whatever schemes may appear proper for promoting, or for upholding, religious truth in the world, and for transmitting it to posterity. To resist such measures, without necessity, is always immoral. But whatever be so devised, must comport with certain rudiments of ecclesiastical polity and worship, to be collected from the New Testament, which our author thus classes.

What is most important of this kind may conveniently be brought under the following articles; the first of which relates to the duty of openly professing Christianity, and to the consequences of that profession; the second, to the exclusiveness of the christian profession; the third, to the distribution of functions within the Church; the fourth, to the allotment of offices to individuals; the fifth, to those secular arrangements which this allotment makes necessary; the sixth, to the source or derivation of sacred offices; the seventh, to the counterpoise of the authority vested in the officers of the Church; and the eighth, to the gradations of rank among its officers, or to their relative position and respective spheres.-P. 123.

The remainder of this admirable section is devoted to a full illustration and powerful enforcement of these eight axioms. We can afford space only for some extracts; in the selection of which we are guided by a desire of referring to those topics, which seem most interesting at the present crisis of ecclesiastical reform, and schismatical invasion of the first principles of church polity. The notion of a Church, as a well-regulated society under prescribed discipline with fixed officers in certain gradations, the whole body consisting of the governed and the governing, is now-a-days thrown to the winds as an obsolete prejudice; and every man, be his qualifications what they may, claims the privilege of being a church to himself, or of enrolling his name in any society of Christians, which may happen to suit his fancy, or be deemed best calculated to promote his worldly interests. Independency is the bait with which Satan fishes most successfully in the proud waters of strife for the unruly souls of rebellious men. Hear our excellent

author.

Any idea of a Church at all approaching to the notion of a spontaneous club of independent citizens, combining themselves for the futherance of a common interest, and installing and removing their officers at pleasure, is ESSENTIALLY at variance with the principle of a Christian Church; . . . which is an assemblage of persons enjoying various degrees of liberty, but none the absolute liberty proper to the members of a club; and some of these persons, namely, the infants of the Church, and its catechumens, who do, or who ought to form a

Spiritual Despotism.

large proportion of the entire body, are in no such sense personally free, nor are they possessed of a voice and vote in the affairs of the society -Pp. 128, 129.

Hear our author again. We think such men as the Master of Rugby School might profit from his instructions, if they possessed humility Our author is discoursing on the office enough to learn of any body. of the Christian Priesthood, and writes as follows:

We here take it as matter of history, not needing formal proof, that apostolic practice and precept established, in the primitive Church, offices assigned to individuals, who permanently exercised the specific functions of their places. If instruction was to be carried on, there were to be teachers; and if order was to be maintained, there must be rulers; and these, not casually instated, or removable at pleasure, but firmly seated in their chairs, and removable only, if at all, in extraordinary modes, and on signal reasons.

Apart from the warrant of apostolic precept and example, or if left without authoritative guidance in this instance, a christian society would reasonably and necessarily take the course of instituting permanent offices, inasmuch as the common sense and universal usage of mankind demands such a mode of securing the general welfare. The rule which requires functions to be assigned to persons, rises always in importance, and in obligation, in proportion to the difficulty and the value of the services to be performed. Trivial or facile duties may well be left to promiscuous agencies; not, so those which, in a high degree, demand skill, experience, accomplishments, energy of mind, and specific qualities of the temper. Now in these respects there are no duties, whatever, equal in importance to those involved in the diffusion and maintenance of religion. No duties are at once so difficult, and so peculiar in their conditions. If in any case the division of labour is necessary and beneficial, it is so in this Better leave the care of the public health, better leave the business of civil government, to the promiscuous ability of any who may offer their services, than so to leave the care of souls.-Pp. 131-133.

case.

To these officers of the household of God, permanently and exclusively invested with sacerdotal functions, belongs the equitable and scriptural right of an adequate and certain maintenance. Those who preach the gospel are to live of the gospel. Yet the mode and conditions of clerical support come within the province of human prudence, and may be specifically adjusted, in each instance, to places, and times, In this matter, nothing is unlawful which involves and popular habits. no injustice. Comparing the voluntary system with a legal provision for the Clergy upon the model of the Mosaic institution, our author justly prefers the latter, and thus severely rebukes dissenters for the futility and inconsistency of their captious objections to tithes, and fixed endowments.

To oppose such an exchange on the pretext of primitive purity and abstract principle, must be deemed equally disingenuous and illogical, when the objection comes from those who make no scruple of accepting bequests, of retaining endowments, of accumulating funds, or of renting the area of a chapel. To demand payment for so many square inches of a bench or pew, is a practice as little apostolic as to demand a tithe.-P. 141.

Official functions allotted to certain individuals, with fixed remunerations sanctioned by law, being thus proved to be according to God's

will, the next inquiry teaches us the origin of this sacerdotal order, how it is to be transmitted from hand to hand, and under what control. Is the clerical function derived in each instance, as with the Quakers, from Heaven, by irresistible impulses on the mind of the prophet? Absurd supposition! Is it derived from the will of those for whom such functions are exercised, i. e. " from the people, as distinguished from their Clergy, and who may elect and remove their teachers and rulers at pleasure?"

On secular principles nothing can be more simple or reasonable than that those who pay should command; and in the present temper of mankind, especially in certain circles, it may be nearly impracticable to secure submission to any other law. Nevertheless, the serious question returns upon us-Is this the law, or this the principle recognized as the basis of church polity in the New Testament? We are compelled to answer-it is not.-P. 152.

Is there, then, a sort of compromise between Clergy and laity, such as shall leave a power of calling and ordaining with the former, and of electing and instating with the latter? No: for "this is a theory of church government," writes our author," which, much as it may recommend itself to our modern republican sentiments, must be denounced as subversive of all religious authority, (whether for good or ill,) and as broadly and essentially distinguished from the apostolic model." In the last place, sacerdotal authority may be affirmed to spring, according to the doctrine of the Church of England, from itself, by perpetual derivation and tradition. Upon this point we must quote our author's words.

For aught that appears to the contrary in the CANONICAL WRITINGS, no other mode of appointment found room in the Church; and the assumption that the apostles exercised this power in virtue of their extraordinary commission, and on the ground of their miraculous knowledge of hearts, is purely gratuitous. So it may have been, but we have no evidence in support of the allegation.-P. 153.

Whilst our author thus charges dissenting communities with a serious departure from apostolic principle and practice, he does not hesitate, in approval of his impartiality, to assert the equally important fault of the Church of England, in excluding its members at large from that just influence which, in his judgment, the same apostolic principles allow to them. Hence he contends for an effective admission of the laity to a participation in the management of church affairs, and especially in the infliction of chastisements, and the control of pecuniary interests. Our fugitive and contracted leaves forbid us to expatiate upon these interesting topics; suffice it to say, that we are no enemies to a prompt and effective plan of punishing delinquent ministers, though we gravely doubt the propriety of leaving it in lay hands; to which, again, we should long hesitate ere we entrusted the control of the clerical purse. We hasten to our author's remarks upon the relative position of those

who hold sacerdotal rank. He contends that no definite polity was meant to be authoritatively conveyed to the Church universal; but that under the eye, and with the permission of the apostles, "different modes of church government prevailed in different countries."

Now to this theory we crave the privilege of demurring; and we would couch our denial of its truth in the language of our learned author upon another subject, and say," So it may have been; but we have no evidence in support of the allegation." But we may well fear that our readers would not be satisfied with this imperfect answer to our author's assumption; and therefore, we take the privilege of reminding him that his hypothesis seems irreconcilable with his own line of argument; for if the organization of the primitive churches was, according to his statement, progressive, and tended eventually to the establishment of episcopacy, what the apostles might concede towards the incomplete politics of the infant Church can have little weight in the determination of the question of prelatical government, as preferable to presbyterianism. We hold episcopacy to be of Divine appointment. We argue with our author, that "the orthodoxy of the great mass of Christians," in the first ages of Christianity," and their episcopacy, are two prominent facts that meet us, directly or implicitly, on almost every page of the extant remains of those times." We, therefore, hold ourselves bound in duty to maintain the inviolability of episcopal government, and deem a comparison of presbyterianism with it forbidden ground, though Bishops retain their baronial dignities, and their secular splendour! We would willingly quote many beautiful passages from the section under review, but must entreat our readers to be content with our author's own summary of the several parts of his argument, which are thus made to bear upon his conclusion.

If the Christians of a city or district are numerous, and constitute many congregations, these congregations must be combined under some fixed system of organization.

An organization of many congregations includes the association and cooperation of all clerical persons within such a circle or diocese.

The combination of clerical persons, their concord, the distribution of services, and the apportionment to the highest advantage of their various talents, demands a centre of control, and an efficient administrative authority.

We may, it is true, stop short in a government by a council, or committee, or presbytery. But we do better in following the indication of nature, and the analogy of civil affairs, and in placing the supreme administrative power in the hands of a Father and Shepherd.

Such, as we cannot doubt, was the practice of the primitive Churches.—

P. 184.

The remainder of our author's book we have space but to glance at. It is written with great energy of style, and embraces an historical retrospect of the fortune of the Christian Church from the period when ecclesiastical power was making preparations for a position, whence it

might be easy to reach the acmé of unbounded despotism; a period commencing in the apostolic age, and extending into the fifth century. Thence we are introduced to the full-blown tyranny of the Church in the times of papal ascendency :-thence, again, we are made to see the reaction which took place, when this "Spiritual Despotism was supplanted by Secular Tyranny;" and, thence we are taught "the Present Disparagements of the Ministers of Religion."

Here we pause awhile in unfeigned sorrow of heart, confessing, from woful experience, that " the present disparagements of the ministers of religion" are indeed humiliating — disgusting—sickening! "Quis talia fando temperet à lacrymis ?" But what are the causes and occasions of these disadvantages, that at the present moment depress the Clergy? Are the ministers of God themselves to be blamed? An awful question! which our clerical brethren will do well to examine seriously! But we confess ourselves at a loss to comprehend the meaning of our author, when he imputes as matter of crimination against the Clergy, that,

The ministers of religion, in protestant countries, have learned to expect no submission-except from the submissive; and hence, naturally reluctant to draw upon themselves the expressions of contumacy, they avoid that style of asserting morality which would only provoke insults, and fail to produce obedience. The entire method of teaching morals from the pulpit betrays a conscious want of power to carry home these principles in ecclesiastical practice.-P. 374.

Again, we confess ourselves unable to comprehend our author's meaning in these obscure phrases; and are still more astonished that such charges should form a count in his indictment of our ministerial order!

Our author's criticisms upon the congregationalism of the great body of English dissenters, are entitled to our warmest praise for their energy and truth.

Considered in its relation to the pastors, individually, the congregational system is, in one word-the people's polity, framed or adhered to, for the purpose of circumscribing clerical power within the narrowest possible limits, and of absolutely excluding any exertions of authority, such as the high English temper could not brook. The minister of the meeting-house or chapel is-one against all. His neighbouring brethren may listen in sympathy to his complaints, but they can seldom yield him succour; to attempt to interfere might be to dislodge him at once from his position. No adjustment of ecclesiastical powers can leave a smaller balance in the hands of the pastor.Pp. 384, 385.

But from dissenters, we turn once more to the depressed state of the Clergy, whom our author describes as being "under the foot of lay despotism, and the victims of aristocratic rapacity." [P. 395.] We ask, again, whether this is to be imputed to them as a crime?

The "General Inferences" deduced by our author from the foregoing