opposed, in some of the most important points, to the principles on which our Reformers proceeded, and the spirit which actuated them throughout. If any one is deliberately convinced that those their fundamental principles are erroneous, and that they rested the doctrines and institutions of our Church on a wrong basis, he deserves credit at least for honest consistency in leaving its communion. truth, and that the Church as constituted by them does possess, in its regulations and its officers," Apostolical succession," in the sense in which it is essential that a Christian Community should possess it; viz.:-it being a regularly constituted Christian Society, framed in accordance with the fundamental principles taught us by the Apostles and their great Master. Successors, in the Apostolic office, the Apostles have none. As witnesses of the § 43. But to me it does appear, that- Resurrection.-as Dispensers of miracuwithout attributing to them an infallibility lous gifts,-as inspired Oracles of divine which they expressly disclaim-we may Revelation, they have no successors. justly give our Reformers credit for such But as Members,―as Ministers,—as Gosound views, and such resolute adherence | vernors-of Christian Communities, their to evangelical truth, combined with such successors are the regularly admitted moderation and discretion, as were-con- Members,-the lawfully ordained Minissidering the difficult circumstances they ters,-the regular and recognized Governwere placed in,-truly wonderful; and ors,-of a regularly subsisting Christian such as are, in all times, and not least in Church; especially of a Church which, the present, well worthy of imitation. It conforming in fundamentals, as I am was their "wisdom to keep the mean" (as persuaded ours does,-to Gospel princiis expressed in the preface to the Book of ples, claims and exercises no rights beCommon Prayer) between the two ex-yond those which have the clear sanction tremes, of too much stiffness in refusing, of our great Master, as being essentially and too much easiness in admitting, any implied in the very character of a Comvariation." It was their wisdom also to munity. "keep the mean" between the claimsnever conflicting, except when misunderstood-of Scripture and of a Church. It was their wisdom to keep the mean between a slavish bondage to ancient precedents on the one hand, and a wanton and arrogant disregard of them, on the other. It was their wisdom-their pious and Christian wisdom-to keep the mean between rash and uncharitable judgment of other Churches, and equally rash carelessness, or fondness for innovation, in the regulations of their own. They conformed as closely as, in their judgment, circumstances would warrant, to the examples of the earliest Churches, without for an instant abandoning the rightful claims of their own, and without arrogantly pronouncing censure on those whose circumstances had led them to depart farther from those ancient precedents. Their "Faith" they drew from the Scriptures; their "Hope" they based on the Scriptures; their Charity" they learned from the Scriptures. A member of the Anglican Church,-I mean, a sincere and thoroughly consistent member of it-ought to feel a full conviction--and surely there are good grounds for that conviction,-both that the reforms they introduced were no more than were oudly called for by a regard for Gospel May the members of a Church which our Reformers cleansed of so much corruption, and placed on its true basis, have the grace to profit by their example, and follow out their fundamental principles; labouring to be apostolical "not in mere words and names but in deed and truth;" actuated by the same spirit which was found in those great and good men, so far as they decreed what is agreeable to God's word, and to the "pure and peaceable wisdom that is from above." And especially may all who profess Church principles be careful to guard themselves and others against the two most prevailing errors of these days;-the two kinds of encroachments on the legitimate rights of a Church; on the one side by presumptuous and self-sufficient irregularities, and defiance of lawful authority; and by the pretensions of supposed "Antiquity" and "Tradition," on the other; that they may be enabled, under the divine blessing, to carry into effect more and more fully, and to bring to completion "ali the holy desires, all the good counsels, and all the just works" of our Reformers, and of all other our predecessors, as many as have endeavoured, in simplicity and truth, to conform to the instructions of our divine Master and his Apostles. APPENDIX. NOTE (A.) Pp. 71, 18, 63. I HAVE said, "secular empire" and a "monopoly of civil privileges and powers," because the rule does not apply to such as are purely ecclesiastical. The government of the Church (except as far as relates to temporalities, which are clearly the property of the Nation) ought to be monopolized by members of that Church. It is an unseemly, and in many respects mischievous, anomaly, that, in purely religious matters any authority should be possessed (as is the case in this country) by those who are not members of the religious community. [See "Appeal on behalf of Church-government," a valuable and well-written pamphlet. Houlston and Co.] of citizens, and reduce, more or less, to the condition of vassals or Helots, those who do not profess the religion which the State, as such, enjoins,—these are widely different indeed, in respect of the actual amount of evil inflicted, or of good denied to individuals; but the principle is in all these cases the same; viz.: the assumed right of the Secular Government, as such, to interfere with men's conscience, and consequently (when the Government calls itself Christian) to make Christ's kingdom, so far, "a kingdom of this world." One of the causes that have contributed to the prevalence of this error, is, a mistaken view of the nature of that supremacy which is possesed by a political Community. The office of a Political Society or State, It is true that the greatest evils that might to afford protection (as all admit it is arise from such an anomaly,-vexatious and bound to do) to the citizens, necessarily imoppressive interference in matters that affect plies a coercive power over all of them; and the conscience-do not arise in this country. thence over other Societies of which any of No greater evil does result in practice than them may be members. Hence the political that (no small one however) of leaving the Society must be (in respect of power) the Church virtually without any legislative Go-" highest ;" and the Secular Governmentvernment. But even if this were a less evil than it is, it would not be the less true as a principle, that none ought to have any share in the government (except as I have said -in respect of secular matters) of a Church, who are not members of it. There are some however who, from want of the habit of attentive reflection, are with difficulty brought to perceive the unsoundness of any false principle, except when it is fully developed in practice, and produces, actually, all the ill effects that it can consistently lead to. They cannot perceive which way a wind is blowing unless it blows a perfect gale. They not merely know a tree only by its fruits, but, except when it is actually bearing its fruits and when it has brought them to the full perfection of poisonous maturity, they do not recognize the tree. This defect may often be observed in men's judgmeats on another point also,the employment of secular coercion in religious matters, with a view either to compel men to conform to the faith and mode of worship prescribed by the Civil government, or to give more or less of political ascendency, and monopoly of civil rights and power, to those of a particular persuasion. To burn dissenters under the title of heretics, or to put them to a less cruel death;-or to banish, or fine and imprison them, or to exclude from all, or from some, of the rights the person or persons in whom that power is vested, being as it were the centre of gravity in which the whole physical force of the Community is collected, and acts,-must be, in this sense, "Supreme" or "Sovereign;" (úgn, according to the ancient Greek Philosophers) as not being responsible or subject to any other. Much confusion of thought, and practical error has thence arisen in some minds; especially since, in any question that may arise whether the State (the Political Society) have gone beyond its proper province, it must itself be, in practice, the judge; there being no higher authority, on earth, to appeal to. It can do nothing (humanly speaking) unlawful, since it has the power to make and absolutely enforce laws. It has been supposed, for instance, that since the Political Society is the highest (which in a certain sense it is) it must have for its ends the highest objects;—that it ought to propose to itself, not, like any other kind of Society, some particular good, but, human good, generally;-the welfare, in all respects, of the citizens;-and that since every human good is therefore equally within the province of the Secular Government, the greatest good,-the moral welfare of the citizens, and the salvation of their souls,-must be especially its care: and hence follows the right, and the duty, of putting down heresy by the civil sword; since if it would be unjustifiable for the Magistrate to tolerate the circulation of counterfeit money, much more, that of false doctrine. And the moral as well as religious welfare of the citizens being entrusted to his care, he must take upon himself to determine both what is true Religion, and also what is morally right; according to the doctrine of Hobbes in his "Leviathan." I have no doubt that many advocates of the principle in question do not mean to advocate either religious persecution or Hobbism: but I am speaking of the logical connexion of these consequences with that principle. All this perplexity and error might be escaped by merely recollecting that the Political Society has, like any other, its own appropriate objects; and that any other desirable objects which it may be enabled, incidentally, to promote, more effectually than could otherwise be done, and without interfering with its main objects, are yet (however intrinsically important) only secondary and subordinate; and that it is "Sovereign" only in this sense, that its proper and main object is one which necessarily implies the exercise of coercive power. In fact, the very circumstance which gives to the Political Community that kind of Sovereignty which it does possess, is exactly what places beyond its own proper province the very noblest and highest objects of all. Pure Morality as existing in the motives and not in mere outward acts, and sincere belief in a true Religion, are precisely what cannot be produced, directly and immediately, by the coercive power of the Civil Magistrate. NOTE (B.) P. 24. "THAT NO society can exist without some rules, and without some means of enforcing obedience to those rules, is obvious. When therefore it is asked, whether Christ or the Holy Spirit left any ecclesiastical laws, or vested any where power to enforce those laws? if the question is put with a view to ascertain whether Church government be of divine origin, it is idle; inasmuch as the very institution of the ecclesiastical society, the Church, implies the design that rules should be established, and means provided to enforce them. "But another object may be intended by the question. It may be put with the view of ascertaining what those rules are whereby this society is designed to be governed. For, it may be said, and plausibiy enon, that granting the intention of the Church's Founder to have laws established to be ever so apparent, how are we to know what kind of government he intended? On one point the inquirer must satisfy himself. If, from the nature of the Church, and from existing circumstances, the members were already possessed of the means of acquiring this knowledge, in that case neither Christ nor the Holy Spirit would be likely to leave any code of ecclesiastical laws, on precisely the same principle, as no code of ethics was left. "Now, is there any thing in the nature of the Church to guide us, as to what are ecclesiastical offences? Undoubtedly there is. In every society there must be such a principle; and by reference to it in each, are formed laws for the government of each. Every society recognizes peculiar offences, arising out of, and depending solely on, the peculiar nature of the society; so that, in proportion as this latter is understood, the former are defined. Much mischievous confusion in some instances arises from a want of attention to this connexion; and the attention is frequently diverted from it by the accidenta circumstance, that the same act often becomes an offence against many societies. Thus, theft is at once an offence against the supreme Ruler of the universe,—against the political body to which the thief is attached, against some certain class of society, perhaps, in which he moves, and so on. The act being one, it is only by reflection tha: we are enabled to separate the differen. views which render it in each case an offence, and in each of a different magnitude. Again, what becomes a crime because violating the principle of one society, may be none in another; if, namely, it does not interfere with the object proposed in the formation and preservation of that other society. Thus, the violation of the academical rules of our Universities does not render the offending member amenable to the laws of the land. Thus, too, the very conduct which recommends a smuggler or a robber to his confederacy, becomes an offence against the political body with which he is associated. "In order, therefore, to ascertain what are inherent offences or crimes in any society, it is necessary that we should know with what object or objects such society is formed. If information of this kind then be found in the sacred record, respecting the Christian society, ecclesiastical law by revelation was no more to be expected, than a code of ethics to tell men what their own consciences were already constituted by God to declare. "It is certain, however, that if the question need not be answered in the affirmative, in order either to establish the divine origin of ecclesiastical government, or to determine wrat onces come under its cognizance, tire is yet a third object which may be pposed in urging it. What punishments are authorized, in order to check those offences? Ought not these to have been specified? ar.d, not having been specified, does the: atur of the case here also supersede the .ccess'ty of a revelation, and enable us to know what coercion is, and what is not, agreeable to the Divine will? The inquiry, too, seems to be the more reasonable, because in looking to the methods by which various societies are upheld, we find the punishment even in similar societies by no means the same. Military discipline, for instance, in different countries, and at different periods, has been enforced by penalties unlike in degree and in kind. In different countries and ages, the social tie between the master and the slave has been differently maintained. All this is true, but still, in looking at the question so, we take only a partial view, and lose one important feature in the establishment of coercion,-the right. "Now, this right is either inherent in the society, or conventional, or both, as is the case in most confederate bodies. When the right is limited to what the society exercises as inherent and indispensable,-inherent in its nature, and indispensable to its existence, -the extreme punishment is, exclusion; and the various degrees and modifications of punishment are only degrees and modifications of exclusion. When the right is conventional also, (as far as it is so,) the punishment is determined by arbitrary enactment, proceeding from some authority acknowledged by all parties, (whether that authority be lodged in the parties themselves, or in competent representatives, or in other delegated persons,) and therefore styled conventional. Few societies have ever existed without a large portion of these latter. Hence the anomaly above alluded to, and hence too the vulgar impression, that all punishments are arbitrary, and depend solely on the caprice and judgment of the government. What is popularly and emphatically termed society, affords a good instance of the first; that is, of a social union regulated and maintained only by a right inherent. In this, excessive ill-manners and the gros display of ungentlemanly feelings are punished by absolute exclusion. According as the offence is less, the party offending is for a time excluded from some select portion of good society, or from certain meetings and the like, in which more particularly the spirit and genuine character of gentility are to be cherished. All its lawful and appropriate punishments are a system of exclusion, in various shapes and degrees."Encyclopædia Metropolitana, (Historical Division,) vol. ii. pp. 744, 745. NOTE (C.) P. 25, 29. "HEREUPON doth the Apostle lay a divine directory before him, concerning their manner of praying, choosing and ordaining of ministers, approving deacons, a 'mitting widows, and regulating the people that nothing could be wanting to the healthy temper of that church, if they receive and embrace these applications; in the most of which prescriptions, he useth exceeding much of their synagogue-language, that he may be the better understood; and reflecteth upon divers of their own laws and customs, that what he prescribeth, may imprint upon them with the more conviction. He calleth the minister Episcopus,' from the common and known title. the chazan' or overseer' in the synagogue: he prescribeth rules and qualifications for his choice, in most things suitable to their own cautions in choosing of an elder: he speaketh of elders ruling only, and elders ruling and labouring in the word and doctrine;' meaning, in his distinction, that same that he had spoken of in chap. iii.bishops and deacons.' Both those, in the common language, then best known, were called elders,' and both owned as rulers.' Yea, the very title, that they usually termed deacons,' (Parnasin), was the common word that was used to signify, a 'ruler.' The Jerusalem Talmud, speaking of the three 'Parnasin,' or 'deacons,' that were in every synagogue, hath these two passages, which may be some illustration to two passages in this epistle :— They appoint not less than three Parnasin in the congregation: for if matters of money were judged by three, matters of life much more require three to manage them.' Ob serve that the deacon's office was accounted as an office that concerned life; namely, in taking care for the existence of the poor. According to this, may that in chap. iii. 12, be understood. For they that have used the office of a deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree;' a good degree towards being entrusted with souls, when they have been faithful in the discharge of their trust concerning the life of the body." Lightfoot's Harmony of the New Testament. Edited by the Rev. John Pitman. Voi. iii. p. 257. "The Apostles at Jerusalem, hearing the glad tidings of the conversion of Samaria, send down. Peter and John; and why these two rather than any other of the twelve, is not so easy to resolve, as it is ready to observe, that if, in this employment, there was any sign of primacy, John was sharer of it as well as Peter. Being come, they prav, and ay their hands upon them, and they receive the Holy Ghost. Here episcopacy thinketh it hath an undeniable argument for proof of its hierarchy, and of the strange right of confirmation. For thus pleadeth Baronius for the former: From hence (saith he) it may be seen, that the hierarchial order was instituted in the church of God, even in this time; for Philip doth so baptize those that believe, that yet he usurpeth not the apostolical privilege,-namely, the imposition of hands granted to the Apostles.' And thus the Rhemists both for it, and for the latter, in their notes on Acts viii. 17:-If this Philip had been an Apostle, (saith St. Bede,) he might have imposed his hands, that they might have received the Holy Ghost; but this none can do, saving bishops. For though priests may baptize and anoint the baptized also with chrism consecrated by a bishop,-yet can he not 66 First, whether apostleship were not an order for ever, inimitable in the church: for besides the reason given to prove that it was, upon the choosing of Matthias, others may be added to make it more clear :-as, I. The end of their election was peculiar, the like to which was not to be in the church again; for they were chosen to be with Christ, Mark iii. 14; to be eye-witnesses of his resurrection, Acts i. 22, ii. 32, and x. 41; as they had been of his actions and passion, Luke i. 2. And, therefore, Paul pleading for his apostleship, that, he had seen the Lord,' 1 Cor. ix. 1; and in the relation or story of his calling, this particular is singularly added, that he saw that Just One, and heard the voice of his mouth,' Acts xxii. 14. "Secondly, the name of Apostles' keepeth itself unmixed or confounded with any other order. It is true indeed, that the significancy of the word would agree to other ministers that are to preach; but there is a peculiar propriety in the sense, that hath confined the title to the twelve and Paul: as any indifferent eye will judge and censure upon the weighing of it in the New Testament. how improbable and unconsonant the first inference is, that is alleged, that because there was a subordination betwixt the Apos tles and Philip, therefore, the like is to be reputed betwixt bishops and other ministers, and that bishops in the church are in the place of the Apostles."-Lightfoot's Com mentary on the Acts, vol. viii. p. 125. "1. Here beginneth the kingdom of heaven;' when the Gentiles are received to favour and to the Gospel, who had been so long cast off, and lain in ignorance and idolatry; and when no difference is made betwixt them and the Jews any longer,but, of every nation, they that fear God and work righteousness are accepted of him as well as Israel. This is the very first beginning or dawning to the kingdom of heaven; and so it grew on more and more, till Jerusalem was destroyed; and then was the perfect day, when the Gentiles only were become the church of Christ : and no church or commonwealth of Israel to be had at all, but they destroyed and ruined. "2. Here Peter hath the keys of the kingdom,' and unlocked the door for the Gentiles to come in to the faith and gospel, which, tili now, had been shut, and they kept out. And Peter only had the keys, and none of the apostles or disciples but he, for though they from henceforward brought in Gentiles daily into the kingdom of heaven, by converting them to the Gospel,-yet it was he that first and only opened the door; and the door, being once opened, was never shut, nor never shall be to the end of the world. And this was all the priority that Peter had before the other apostles, if it were any priority; and how little this concerneth Rome, or the Papacy, as to be any foundation of it, a child may observe. "Thirdly, When Paul reckoneth the "3. Peter here looseth the greatest strictseveral kinds of ministry, that Christ Jesus ness, and what was the straitest bound-up left in the Church at his ascension, Eph. iv. of any thing that was in all the policy of 11, and 1 Cor. xii. 28,-there is none that Moses and customs of the Jews, and that can think them ali to be perpetuated, or that was, the difference of clean and unclean, in they should continue successively in the the legal sense. And this he looseth on like order from time to time. For within a earth, and it is loosed in heaven; for from hundred years after our Saviour's birth, heaven had he an immediate warrant to where were either prophets or evangelists, dissolve it. And this he doth, first declaramiracles or healings? And if these extraor- tively, showing that nothing henceforward dinary kinds of ministration were ordained is to be called common or unclean, and but for a time, and for special occasion, and showing his authority for this doctrine; and were not to be imitated in the church unto then practically conforming himself to this succeeding times; much more, or at the doctrine that he taught, by going in unto least as much, were the Apostles, and order | the uncircumcised, and eating with them. much more, at least, as much extraordinary, as they. Binding and loosing,' in our Saviour's sense, and in the Jews' sense, from whose "Fourthly, The constant and undeniable use he taketh the phrase, is of things and parallel, which is made betwixt the twelve not of persons;' for Christ saith to Peter, Patriarchs, the fathers of the twelve tribes, av Jons, and i sàv aúons; i and not iv; whatand the twelve Apostles, not only by the soever' thou bindest, and not 'whomsonumber itself, but also by the New Testa- ever;' and to the other apostles, ira i fruti, ment, in the four-and-twenty Elders, Rev. Matt. xviii. 18, ira and not ows, "whatso iv. 4.-and in the gates and foundations of ever things,' and not, whatsoever persons; the New Jerusalem, Rev. xxi. 12, 14,— so that, though it be true and indeed, that doth argue and prove the latter order as ini-Jews and Gentiles are loosed henceforward mitable as the first. These things well con- one to the communion of another, yet the ·sidered, if there were no more, it will show, proper object of this loosing, that is loosed |