ply sufficient for all the purposes of instruction and discipline. Πρεσβυτεροί and επίσκοποι are appellatives descriptive of the very same persons, Acts xx. 17, 28. The πρεσβύτεροι were επισκοπεί, and the επισκοποι were πρεσβυτεροι.

'But,' says Mr. Collinson, it is generally acknowledged that those churches which discard the very name of Bishop cannot be modelled after the primitive establishment*. The name implies the office, and unless an appropriate function had been annexed to it the term would not have been introduced into the early church.' p. 209.

This is very extraordinary language. We never heard of this general acknowledging, and we wish that the author had favoured us with some particulars of it. All the essentials of Christianity-every requisite and every mark of a true Church, may be discarded,' and the name of Bishop, retained. How idle is it to attribute importance to a mere name! The Churches to which the apostle Peter addressed his Epistles were certainly formed on the primitive model; yet he never uses the word Bishop to designate their ministers; he stiles them πρεσβύτεροι, and himself πρεσβύτερος. In ascertaining the true Churches of Christ, names are of no consequence; for which is of importance, the name, or the thing signified by it? Overseer is just as proper in English as is ETIKOTOS in Greek, in its application to a Christian minister; and if any religious society employs this term, there is no violation of primitive order in its use. The word Bishop conveys, to modern ears, notions very different from those imported in ios, επίσκοπος, as used in the New Testament. In the first Apology of Justin Martyr, we have a description of the Church and of its ministers; the term appropriated to him who officiated in spiritual things, is not Bishop, but President; posσTws is the word used. Should a Christian congregation denominate their minister, president, would it not therefore be modelled after the primitive form? An appropriate function was annexed to the name Bishop.' What function? Precisely that which belonged to the pots of Justin, and to the pECUTEpos of Clemens Ro manus and Peter. To feed the flock of God, taking the oversight, not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind, neither as being lords over God's heritage, but examples to the flock.' The duties appropriate to the function are to teach publicly, to administer the ordinances of religion, to inspect the flock,' and, on all occasions re

The Bishop of Lincoln acknowledges that there is no precept in the New Testament, which commands, that every church should be governed by bishops.' Elements of Christian Theology, vol. ii. p. 396. We claim the benefit of this concession against Mr. Colfinson's assumption.

quiring discipline, to be the organ of the society. The office to which these belong, is expressed with equal propriety whether the word be επίσκοπος, or πρεσβύτερος, oι προεστως, οι ήγουμενος, or ayyλos: all these terms occur in the New Testament, and in ancient writers, expressive of the same office, and applied to the same persons, the ministers of Christian communities, bishop or overseer, or presbyter, or president, or leader, or messenger, may, in perfect consistency with primitive usage, be respectively applied by any body of Christians to their minister. Since our author regards names as so important, we must remind him that he has not shewn us the particulars in which modern Bishops resemble primitive TOTO.-That in the survey which he has taken of the early Fathers, he has not found any such names as Archbishop, Dean, Archdeacon, Chancellor, Canon, with a long et cetera;-that he has not found a liturgical service or canonical habits established in the Church, nor its censures followed by civil disabilities and pains,-nor is he able to produce a single instance of the appointment of Christian pastors in opposition to the voice of the people, or without their approbation. So far then is the Church, on the behalf of which he advances these high claims, and arrogates such authority, from being truly and exclusively Apostolical, that in the characteristic features of the first Churches, she is essentially wanting. In the above, and in many other particulars, she has innovated on the first ages, and departed from the simplicity that is in Christ: she cannot plead the authority of the New Testament for one of them. Nothing in the Church of Rome is more of the nature of a tradition, than that Apostolic succession' of which the author so much boasts. The reader has only to recollect the substance of the foregoing sentences in perusing the following quotation from Cyprian, adopted by Mr. Collinson in his arguments against the Romanists, to perceive how forcibly he can reason, on the only solid ground of the sufficiency of scripture, against the pretensions and usurpations of ecclesiastical monopolists. Whence is this tradition? Is it delivered down to us on the authority of the Lord' and of the Gospel, or from the precepts and writings of the Apostles? If, therefore, it is prescribed in the gospels, or contained in the Epistles,' or in the 'Acts of the Apostles, by all means let this divine and holy tradition be observed. What obstinacy! what presumption to prefer the tradition of men to the divine ordinance, without considering that God is angry and provoked, whenever human tradition breaks and overlooks the divine commands! It is impossible for the author to resist the force of this reasoning in its application to the prescriptions of his own Church. Whatever has not the direct authority and sanction of the New Testament, and is yet made essential to communion in any Church, is in the same predicament with

the traditions of the Romanists. Is it delivered down to us on the authority of the Lord, and of the Gospel?'-this is the question to be asked in relation to every religious claim.

In

This author is another instance, in addition to the many which we could adduce, of the inconsistencies into which men fall, who, in resisting the assumed authority of one religious monopoly, plead for that of another. The sufficiency of the scriptures for every religious purpose, the direct responsibility of man to God for his religious opinions, and the unfettered freedom of the mind in determining the import of the divine word, are the principles on which the great secession from the Romish Church was conducted. The departure from these principles, in a protestant, must betray him into palpable absurdities, when advocating the cause of exclusive establishments in religion. He must assume a double character. this manner does the author of the present work exhibit himself. He assails Dissenters with weapons borrowed from the Romanists: he combats the Romanists with arms furnished from the magazine of Dissenters. His assumptions involve him in perplexities from which he is utterly unable to extricate himself. The Romanists very justly allege that the power of enforcing obedience to religious dictates must be associated with infallibility; and cannot be exercised by a Church which admits her liability to error. The Romanists,' says Mr. Collinson, think that they enclose us in the following dilemma, namely, that although we affirm there is no infallible authority on earth, we yet claim obedience to our ecclesiastical laws.' p. 241. What does he say in reply to this? Why, he says, in the first place, that in the all important concern of his salvation, every individual has a right to read the Bible for himself; and, secondly, that those who agree in principal points of doctrine with the articles of faith proposed by the national Church, ought to conform to the laws of that Church in matters of order and discipline; and that contention and opposition on inferior topics, betoken pride and obstinacy, and incur the guilt of rebellion and schism.' p. 242. But this is, in fact, saying nothing. We want to be informed on what grounds obedience to the laws of the national Church, in matters of order and discipline, is demanded; and what are the obligations on which this claim is set up. These ought, by all means, to be clearly defined, and Mr. C. has omitted an essential part of the business in passing them by. Is he to be accounted rebellious and schismatical, who resists a claim till the reasons of it are assigned? We are glad in again meeting the assertion that every man has a right to read the Bible for himself in the concerns of his salvation;' but has he not an equal right to read it for himself in every other respect?

neither

-in matters of order and discipline too? If it appear to any man, on the perusal of his Bible, that in matters of order and discipline' the requisitions of the Church are without the support of the scriptures, and that observances opposed to its spirit, are bound upon the conscience-is he not at liberty to resist them, and to unite himself with that society, the order and discipline of which he approves? Is his conscience to be compelled in any thing which is a part of religion, either in its internal existence and operation, or in its external relations? If the consequences of a man's reading the Bible for himself, should be his conviction that some of the doctrines of the Church are not contained in the Bible, what course would Mr. Collinson prescribe in this case? Must not separation from the Church be the result? Is it consistent with integrity for any man to sanction that which he seriously regards as error? We should be obliged by his opinion on this case which he must admit to be imaginary nor rare, since according to this exposition of the doctrines of the Church, Baptism confers justification.' As to the affair of schism,' we must be allowed to think that the insisting on rigid conformity in things indifferent, and the denying of indulgence to tender consciences, betoken pride and obstinacy, and incur guilt of a more solid kind than that which the author awards to his imaginary instances of rebellion. This whole affair is much better managed by the Romanists: they assert the infallibility of their Church, and, very consistently with this assumption, demand obedience to her decrees, and punish with fetters and with flames the heretics and rebels who dissent from her communion. That Church which demands obedience to her laws, and which denominates non-compliance schism and rebellion, should be infallible. The author concedes the fallibility of his Church, and yet contends for her exclusive authority. We, however, are the disciples of another school, in which we were taught that an erring or fallible authority is, in religion, no authority at all.

The great and increasing evil in the Church at the present day is schism.' p. 225. There is much truth in these words, considered as a description of the existing state of the national Church. But this is not the sense in which it is intended they should be understood. The evil is defection from the Church,' and Dissentients are the criminals. It may not be improper to consider with what propriety the charge of schism is preferred against them by certain writers, including this Bampton Lecturer. He asserts that the true foundation of the clerical order is the commission of Christ conveyed by an apostolic succession in the true Church. • Now

as the orders of the English Clergy have been derived from the Romish Clergy, it is impossible for him to deny that the latter are the true pastors of Christ's flock-the direct successors of the Apostles, the ministers of Christ who bear his commission. In withdrawing from the Church of Rome, he and his brethren incur the guilt of schism and rebellion. But, say they, the Church of Rome was corrupt. A Church corrupt which had the true clerical orders! and over which the direct successors of the Apostles were presiding! Was she corrupt in doctrine, or in discipline, or in both? In doctrine, says our author, p. 166, 192. What, then, are 'the true clerical orders' and an apostolical succession' good for, if they be no security for pure doctrine, and preserve not the true religion? Admitting the corruptions of this Church, who were the judges of them? This is the point. Certainly they who made the separation. Thus then runs the parallel-you withdrew from the Church of Rome on account of her corruptions; and we withdraw from you on the account of your corruptions; you yourselves were judges of those corruptions, and acted from your convictions; and we are judges for ourselves, and act on our convictions. If these be legitimate grounds of separation on your part; they are equally valid on ours. Then as to the schism of the case; if you denominate our separation schism; the Church of Rome calls yours rebellion, and the parallel is complete. It is impossible for a Churchman to vindicate himself without justifying Dissenters: it is impossible for him to censure Dissenters without condemning himself. Where then is the justice or the good sense of Mr. Collinson's declamations against Dissenters as schismatics? Into what preposterous absurdities do High Church notions lead men, otherwise, perhaps, neither irrational nor uncandid! With the doctrine maintained in this work, a satisfactory vindication of the Reformation cannot be produced: for every argument by which it is justified, is an argument of irresistible force in the justification of Protestant Dissenters.

From the frequency and boldness with which charges of schism are preferred against Dissenters by the Clergy, it might be supposed that they themselves were 'perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement;' and that the Church was distinguished by an entire uniformity of doctrine. Nothing, however, is more remote from fact. The Church includes every kind and every degree of religious opinion. She has an act of Uniformity,' and articles of faith which all her Clergy must subscribe, ex animo; but their sense is undetermined, and the interpretations they give of them are the reverse of each other. The creeds of her ministers are antipodes of each other, and the greatest diversity of doctrine