knowledge of the notions and usages of the times, and these involve not merely Jewish but Heathen opinions and practices. One cannot read a page of the ecclesiastical controversies of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, without feeling that the reasoning, on both sides, is very often vitiated, either by the want of this sort of information, or by the misuse of it.

"A just conception of the Jewish church polity is, we say, indispensable to an understanding of the polity of the Christian Church, and the former demands at least a hasty glance at the contemporary pagan systems.”

We now come to one of the most important parts of the work; the Rudiments of Ecclesiastical Polity. It is not our intention to enter on any comparison between this section and the celebrated treatise of Hooker, as they differ altogether in object and manner, and the latter embraces a variety of topics not even glanced upon here. The object of Hooker was to defend the laws, orders, customs, and rites of the Church of England as then established, and to consider the various objections made against it on general grounds, as well as "the specialities of that cause, which lieth in controversy ;" and to do this he brings all the vast stores of his erudition to bear upon the subject. That of the author at present before us is simply to inquire and determine what are the rudiments of polity that are contained either explicitly or implicitly in the New Testament. But let him speak for himself:

"It is generally granted, that, in the Mosaic Institute there was something permanent, as well as much that was temporary; or rather, something universal, as well as a greater mass that was local and national. Few will deny that the converse is true of Christianity; for to insist upon the unchanging universality and the perpetual obligation of every particle of the religious economy left to the world by the apostles, is to plunge into difficulties, both historic and dogmatic, whence there can be no way of escape. It is true that certain communions have laboured to entrench themselves on this ground, but in doing so they have staked the entire authority of Christianity upon the determination of obscure antiquarian

questions. Unless this ill-judged attempt is abandoned, no hope can be entertained of effecting the peace of the Church.

"Judaism, although in fact it underwent extensive modifications in the course of ages, had no yielding property originally imparted to it; because it was adapted to the particular spot where it was actually reared. But Christianity, because intended for all places and times, was left, so far as relates to its exterior forms, and its social constitutions, in a plastic state. Its doctrine and its morality none can imagine to be variable, since they both spring from eternal truths. But this power of accommodation in things which, in their own nature are inconstant, places the gospel of Christ in contrast with almost every other religious system; and affords too a forcible, though silent proof, of the comprehensive design of Him who gave it to the

world.

The ancient promise, that the Lord's Christ should inherit all nations, is symbolized in what may be called the applicable quality of the worship and polity which he consigned to his followers; for these adjuncts of his religion are so left at large as to admit of needful modifications. Christianity takes an elastic grasp of human nature: Judaism held it as the solid mould holds the metal that is poured into it.

"Judaism is fifteen hundred years older than Christianity; and if the ordinary rule of the inverse amount of historic light, as we recede from our own times, held good in this instance, much less obscurity would attach to the circumstantials of the later, than to those of the more ancient institution. But the contrary is found to be the fact; nor can we be surprised that it is so, when we remember that the one was a system of circumstantials, to each and all of which religious importance was attached: the other not so; for Christianity challenges the serious regards of men in those things only which conscience and reason confess to be mo

mentous.

"For the most part, it is easy to ascertain the usages of the tabernacle and tem. ple worship, and the Jewish methods of ecclesiastical management. But nothing has been found more difficult than to determine satisfactorily what were the practices of the apostolic Churches, even in some of the main articles of discipline, government, or worship. This striking difference between the Jewish and the Christian economies speaks plainly enough

one might think, to common sense, and should have superseded many an interminable controversy. In relation to certain points of ritual or government, sound reason does not ask any thing more to be said than this-namely, That the primitive practice in such particulars, clearly is not clear; therefore our modern consciences may be relieved of all solicitude on the subject. Christianity is not a religion of immoveable exterior constitutions; but of universal and unchangeable truths. Because universal in its essential principles, and universal too in its aspect, therefore plastic in its forms: variable in its exterior, because invariable in its substance.

"Whatever, in the New Testament, relates to modes of worship, and to ecclesiastical constitutions, is couched in general terms. Moreover, those allusions to matters of fact, whence the apostolic practice might be gathered, are slight and indistinct, and not seldom ambiguous. Our inference is plain-Facts so obscurely conveyed must not be taken as if propounded to us authoritatively. It is not in any such form that Law has ever been promulgated; no legislature has so tortured the ingenuity of a people. It is true that, in the lapse of ages, the phraseology of law may become first obsolete, and then questionable; but still there was a time when no obscurity attached to it. But that which never was formally and dogmatically expressed, and which, apart from the aid of traditionary knowledge, could not, even in an early age, have been precisely determined, we may boldly say, was not intended as LAW, and can never be so employed without hurtfully entangling consciences, and confounding what is really important in morals with what is indifferent. To insist upon some supposed primitive usage, known to us only through a process of ambiguous inferences; and in so doing, to trample upon the unchangeable and always intelligible rules of Christian charity, is to subvert reason and piety, and to leave no vital force in either.

"God does not confer common sense upon mankind by miracle, nor did he put in movement the vast economy of revelation for the purpose of teaching that which may otherwise be known, or of giving decisions upon matters to which human reason is fully competent. Lord's mode of popular instruction shows clearly what is supposed and expected on the part of man, in listening to divine teaching. He boldly expresses general

Our

principles in tropical terms; and these, such as convey either no moral meaning, or none that would not be trite, frivolous, or even pernicious, unless freely interpreted, as they were intended, by sound common sense. The literal version given of some of these instructions by the fanatic would indeed, if generally prevalent, turn the world upside down. Our Lord omits entirely those explanations, cautions, and limitations, which are superfluous where good sense is in exercise, and which must be unavailing where it is wanting.

"The apostles, in like manner, not only appeal in particular instances to the good sense of their followers, but manifestly presuppose its competency to the management of religious as well as of secular affairs. "I speak unto wise men; judge ye what I say." "Be not children in understanding." Is there not a wise man among you?" Such is the style of those who were commissioned to guide mankind, not to enslave them. But despotism speaks a very different language; and it is its characteristic to leave no room for discretion: it will push law and precept into every corner of life, and obtrude specific directions where common reason and ordinary motives need no aid. Despotism grudges to treat men as men, but must always deal with them either as children or as wild beasts; it will always prescribe and measure out every movement; it will pronounce upon the little as well as upon the great; and is not content unless it makes itself felt and heard every moment, and in every place. Christianity takes its station upon another ground, and is moved by another spirit, Nevertheless, we may make the Apostles despots, if we will thrust them into the iron chair of tyranny, and extort law from their lips, where in fact they have uttered no decree.

"Christians, of every successive age, are solemnly enjoined to profess, to up, hold, and to diffuse the Gospel. But the discharge of this arduous duty, in the amplitude of its meaning, involves many and various measures, adapted to the everchanging occasions of human affairs, and of a sort not to be prescribed in a code, but which must spring from the intelligent zeal and discretion of those who succes, sively steer the helm of the Church. Human sagacity and prudence (exalted and guided by heavenly wisdom) here find their field. Now, in saying that such and such courses of action belong to the sphere of reason, we virtually exclude

them from the peculiar circle of revelation. Revelation comes in wherever revelation is needed, but it is not needed where the means and the end lie within the grasp of the human mind. God, who commands us to employ the faculties he has given us, will not at the same time supersede their exercise: this were a glaring inconsistency. Whatever reason sanctions in things appertaining to its domain, God virtually sanctions by the voice, at once, of natural and of supernatural theology. "On the ground, then, of these general principles, we readily evade the superstition of the zealot on the one hand, who will hold no communion with us unless we understand, as he does, some ambiguous allusion to a matter of ritual

or polity; and we reject, on the other hand, for the same reasons, the arrogance of the despot who desires to inflict penalties and to impose restraints upon those who do not acknowledge his right to legislate where Christ has promulgated no law. Furthermore, on the very same principles, we hold ourselves free to devise, nay, more, bound in duty to devise, and to carry into effect whatever schemes or modes of procedure may appear proper for promoting or for upholding religious truth in the world, and for transmitting it to posterity; provided always, that such measures accord with the spirit of Christianity, and do not trench, either directly or remotely, upon any of its explicit injunctions. The duty individually, of concurring with any such measures, and of yielding obedience to those who enforce them, must be referred to the broad principle which enjoins compliance with, and submission to existing arrangements, whereverconscience is not inraded. To resist or obstruct public measures, without necessity, is always immoral. "But whatever is devised or decreed, within the Christian Church, or decreed concerning it, must comport with certain rudiments of polity and worship which are to be gathered from the New Testament, and which stand there either explicitly determined, or reasonably involved in unquestionable facts. 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 arrange

ments 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.

"How much soever of learning and of dialectic ability may have been already expended upon the subjects involved in the above-named particulars, there may yet be room for a statement of them, in that light in which they appear to common sense, when no interests of party, or prejudices of education are to be saved."—p. 116.

His conclusions on the last three

points are briefly summed up in the following passages :

"The two great rudiments of ecclesiastical polity, namely, the sacerdotal origin of sacerdotal powers; and the presence and concurrence of the people in acts of discipline, and in the enactment of regulations, and especially in the ma nagement of pecuniary affairs, are correlative; and the worst evils arise from parting them, or from practically nullifying either. The one is not worth contending for, apart from the other; and the one is essential to the complete operation of the other. Whichever party aims to compromise the privileges and rights of the other, is blind to its own.”—p. 158.

"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 congrega tions includes the association and co-operation 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.

carried into effect upon the people.Men are not always conscious of how far they have been carried from their supposed longitude, by a tranquil current, into the course of which they have steered. "The eagerness of congregational ministers in defending a system so disparaging to themselves, and so incompatible with the dignity, security, and serenity proper to their office, may seem a riddle to by-standers; it is, however, susceptible of some explication. The events of the time have thrown all parties upon a partizan-like assertion of their peculiarities; and it has been felt that any show of misgiving or doubt, as to sectarian principles, would be caught at and unfairly used by opponents. Besides, it is well understood that the dissenting laity generally, are as far as possible from being in a mood to relinquish any portion of their acquired sovereignty, and would abandon the most distinguished of their preachers who should openly controvert popular doctrines. Nor ought we to leave out of the account the unfeigned convictions of many, perhaps of most, of these respectable men, who have persuaded themselves, or have been persuaded, that their polity is essentially the same as that of the apostolic churches. Having had the baronial prelacy of the middle ages to contend with, and having fallen into the almost universal error of fighting for and against NAMES, they have believed themselves to occupy an impregnable position, because they have seen their opponents standing in one that is indefensible. It has been the misfortune moreover of the dissenting elergy, to derive their knowledge on ecclesiastical questions, much more from our English reformation writers, and from their own puritan and non-conformist divines, than from original sources. Very few of them, and manifestly not those who at present figure in ecclesiastical polemics, are familiarly conversant with the Greek and Latin Church writers. The diffusion among them of this sort of learning (proper as it is to a divine,) would infallibly lead to some considerable modifications of opinion. Unhappily, at present, the prejudice prevails, which prevents its being seen that ancient books, perhaps intrinsically undeserving of perusal, may nevertheless claim attention, in a peremptory manner, as the sources and materials of history. Uninformed of the history of Christianity, we are the creatures of that recension of Christianity which happens to be current in our times.

"It is always extremely difficult to state the defects of religious systems without conveying, to those who are uninformed in such matters, an injurious or an exaggerated impression of facts. The author, in this instance, formally cautions the general reader against the misinterpretations or extensions to which his averments may be open. He would commit his pages to the flames, much rather than seem to associate himself with the virulent calumniators of the Dissenters. He well knows the Dissenters; he knows that Christianity is among them in an efficacious form; he knows their zeal, their abundant labours for the promotion of the Gospel; their disinterestedness, their liberality, (unmatched and unlimited,) and their private and personal worth and piety; and although they may scout his praise, he will still praise them. But their opposition to the Established Church has deeply injured them; it has set them wrong, very far wrong, in polity and principles; it has infected them, in no small degree, with a politico-religious fanaticism; and especially it has fixed them, almost universally, in a blind confidence of being, on all points," in the right,” a confidence which precludes a modest and wise consideration of principles, and leaves scarcely a hope of their entertaining those serious and momentous inquiries concerning the general condition of our modern Christianity, which are now called for."-p. 386.

The special disparagements of the clergy of the Established Church come next under consideration. These he attributes to the subjugation of the Episcopal Church to secular control, the abuses of patronage, pluralities, &c.; and though last, not least, to the too great inequalities of dignity and emolument among clerical persons :

"The people will not, do not, see it; nay, the clergy themselves do not always or generally feel it, that the English episcopal clergy are under the foot of lay despotism, and are the victims of aristocratic rapacity. But in the popular eye the clergy bear the opprobrium of these usurpations. Acquiescing in them, and immediately benefited, in single instances, by the exercise of these encroachments, they are regarded as the prime parties in the wrong, which, in reality, is beneficial, not to the clergy at large, but to secular men in office, and to the aristocracy.

Nothing proper to a church-and-state system demands the subserviency of the