time will come when his Theological Works will be, if not more widely read, still more highly prized. To great powers of argument and illustration, and delightful transparency of diction and style, he adds a higher quality still-and a very rare quality it is—an evident and intense honesty of purpose, an absorbing desire to arrive at the exact truth, and to state it with perfect fairness and with just limitations. Without pretending to agree with all that Archbishop Whately has written on the subject of Theology (though he carries his readers with him as frequently as any writer with whom we are acquainted), we may remark that, in relation to that whole class of subjects to which our present essay has reference, we know of no writer of the present day whose contributions are more numerous or more valuable. The highly ingenious ironical brochure entitled 'Historic Doubts relative to Napoleon Bonaparte,' the essays, above mentioned, 'On some of the Peculiarities of the Christian Religion,' those 'On some of the Dangers to Christian Faith,' and 'Errors of Romanism,' the work on the 'Kingdom of Christ,' not to mention others, are well worthy of universal perusal. They abound in views both original and just, stated with all the author's aptness of illustration and transparency of language. We may remark, too, that in many of his occasional sermons, he has incidentally added many most beautiful fragments to that ever-accumulating mass of internal evidence which the Scriptures themselves supply in their structure, and which is evolved by diligent investigation of the relation and coherence of one part of them with another."

TRUE FOUNDATION OF CHURCH ENACTMENTS.

The Rock on which I am persuaded our reformers intended, and rightly intended, to rest the ordinances of our church, is, the warrant to be found in the Holy Scriptures written by, or under the direction of, those to whom our Lord had entrusted the duty of "teaching men to observe all things whatsoever He had commanded them." For in those Scriptures we find a divine sanction clearly given to a regular Christian community-a church; which is, "a congregation (that is, society or community; ecclesia) of faithful men,1 in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things which of necessity are requisite to the same."

This, which I have called a foundation on a rock, is evidently that on which (as has been just observed) our reformers designed to place our church.

While they strongly deny to any church the power to "ordain

1 That is, believers in Christ-fideles—miorel.

anything contrary to God's Word," or to require as essential to salvation, belief in anything not resting on scriptural authority, they claim the power for each church of ordaining and altering "rites and ceremonies," "so that all things be done to edifying,' and nothing "contrary to God's Word."

And they rest the claims of ministers, not on some supposed sacramental virtue transmitted from hand to hand in unbroken succession from the apostles, in a chain, of which if any one link be even doubtful, a distressing uncertainty is thrown over all Christian ordinances, sacraments, and church-privileges for ever; but on the fact of those ministers being the regularly-appointed officers of a regular Christian community.

Those who are not satisfied with the foundation thus laid-and which, as I have endeavored to show, is the very foundation which Christ and his apostles have prepared for us-who seek to take higher ground, as the phrase is, and maintain what are called, according to the modern fashion, "church principles," or "Churchof-England principles," are in fact subverting the principles both of our own church in particular, and of every Christian church that claims the inherent rights belonging to a community, and confirmed by the sanction of God's Word as contained in the Holy Scriptures. It is advancing, but not in the right road-it is advancing not in sound learning, but error-not in faith, but in superstitious credulity, to seek for some higher and better ground on which to rest our doctrines and institutions than that on which they were placed by the "Author and Finisher of our Faith."

But, if any person claim for any traditions of the church, an authority, either paramount to Scripture, or equal to Scripture, or concurrent with it-or, which comes to the very same thing, decisive as to the interpretation of Scripture-taking on themselves

It is curious to observe how very common it is for any Sect or Party to assume a title indicative of the very excellence in which they are especially deficient, or strongly condemnatory of the very errors with which they are especially chargeable. Thus, those who from time to time have designated themselves "Gnostics," i. e. persons "knowing" the Gospel, in a far superior degree to other professed Christians-have been generally remarkable for their want of knowledge of the very first rudiments of evangelical truth. The phrase "Catholic" religion (i. e. "Universal') is the most commonly in the mouths of those who are the most limited and exclusive in their views, and who seek to shut out the largest number of Christian communities from the Gospelcovenant. "Schism," again, is by none more loudly reprobated than by those who are not only the immediate authors of schism, but the advocates of principles tending to generate and perpetuate schisms without end. And "Churchprinciples""High-church principles"-" Church-of-England principles"are the favorite terms of those who go the furthest in subverting all these. Obvious as this fallacy is, there is none more commonly successful in throwing men off their guard.

to decide what is "the church," and what tradition is to be thus received these persons are plainly called on to establish by miraculous evidence the claims they advance. And if they make their appeal, not to miracles wrought by themselves, but to those which originally formed the evidence of the Gospel, they are bound to show by some decisive proof, that that evidence can fairly be brought to bear upon and authenticate their pretension; that they are, by Christ's decree, the rightful depositories of the power they claim.

Kingdom of Christ.

A PRIMITIVE BISHOP.

It seems plainly to have been at least the general, if not the universal, practice of the apostles, to appoint over each separate church a single individual as a chief governor, under the title of "angel" (i.e. messenger or legate from the apostles) or "BISHOP," i. e. superintendent or overseer. A CHURCH and a DIOCESE seem to have been for a considerable time coextensive and identical. And each church or diocese (and consequently each superintendent), though connected with the rest by ties of faith and hope and charity, seems to have been (as has been already observed) perfectly independent as far as regards any power of control.

The plan pursued by the apostles seems to have been, as has been above remarked, to establish a great number of small (in comparison with modern churches) distinct and independent communities, each governed by its own single bishop, consulting, no doubt, with his own presbyters, and accustomed to act in concurrence with them, and occasionally conferring with the brethren in other churches, but owing no submission to the rulers of any other church, or to any central common authority except the apostles themselves. And other points of difference might be added.

Now to vindicate the institutions of our own, or of some other church, on the ground that they "are not in themselves superstitious or ungodly"-that they are not at variance with Gospelprinciples, or with any divine injunction that was designed to be of universal obligation, is intelligible and reasonable. But to vindicate them on the ground of the exact conformity, which it is notorious they do not possess, to the most ancient models, and even to go beyond this, and condemn all Christians whose institutions and ordinances are not "one and utterly like" our own, on the ground of their departure from the apostolical precedents, which no church has exactly adhered to-does seem to use no

1

harsher expression-not a little inconsistent and unreasonable. And yet one may not unfrequently hear members of Episcopalian churches pronouncing severe condemnation on those of other communions, and even excluding them from the Christian body, on the ground, not of their not being under the best form of ecclesiastical government, but, of their wanting the very essentials of a Christian church: viz., the very same distinct orders in the hierarchy that the apostles appointed: and this, while the Episcopalians themselves have, universally, so far varied from the apostolical institutions as to have in one church several bishops; each of whom consequently differs in the office he holds, in a most important point, from one of the primitive bishops, as much as the governor of any one of our colonies does from a sovereign prince.

Now whether the several alterations, and departures from the original institutions, were or were not, in each instance, made on good grounds, in accordance with an altered state of society, is a question which cannot even be entertained by those who hold that no church is competent to vary at all from the ancient model. Their principle would go to exclude at once from the pale of Christ's church almost every Christian body since the first two or three centuries.

The edifice they overthrow crushes in its fall the blind champion who has broken its pillars.

The same.

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.

But as there are some persons who are too ready to separate from any religious community on slight grounds, or even through mere caprice, to "heap up to themselves teachers, having itching ears," it has been thought-or at least maintained-that the only way of affording complete satisfaction and repose to the scrupulous, and of repressing schism, is to uphold, under the title of "church principles," the doctrine that no one is a member of Christ's church, and an heir of the covenanted gospel-promises, who is not under a ministry ordained by bishops descended in an unbroken chain from the apostles.

Now what is the degree of satisfactory assurance that is thus

It is remarkable that there are Presbyterians, also, who proceed on similar principles; who contend that originally the distinctions between bishops and presbyters did not exist; and consequently (not that episcopacy is not essential to a church, but) that episcopal government is an unwarrantable innovationan usurpation-a profane departure from the divine ordinances!

Whately's note.

afforded to the scrupulous consciences of any members of an episcopal church? If a man consider it as highly probable that the particular minister at whose hands he receives the sacred ordinances, is really thus apostolically descended, this is the very utmost point to which he can, with any semblance of reason, attain and the more he reflects and inquires, the more cause for hesitation he will find. There is not a minister in all Christendom who is able to trace up with any approach to certainty his own spiritual pedigree. The sacramental virtue (for such it is, that is implied-whether the term be used or not in the principle I have been speaking of) dependent on the imposition of hands, with a due observance of apostolical usages, by a bishop, himself duly consecrated, after having been in like manner baptized into the church, and ordained deacon and priest-this sacramental virtue, if a single link of the chain be faulty, must, on the above principles, be utterly nullified ever after, in respect of all the links that hang on that one. For if a bishop has not been duly consecrated, or had not been, previously, rightly ordained, his ordinations are null; and so are the ministrations of those ordained by him; and their ordination of others (supposing any of the persons ordained by him to attain to the episcopal office); and so on, without end. The poisonous taint of informality, if it once creep in undetected, will spread the infection of nullity to an indefinite and irremediable extent.

And who can undertake to pronounce that, during that long period usually designated as the Dark Ages, no such taint ever was introduced? Irregularities could not have been wholly excluded without a perpetual miracle; and that no such miraculous interference existed, we have even historical proof. Amidst the numerous corruptions of doctrine and of practice, and gross superstitions, that crept in, during those ages, we find recorded descriptions not only of the profound ignorance and profligacy of life of many of the clergy, but also of the grossest irregularities in respect of discipline and form. We read of bishops consecrated when mere children; of men officiating who barely knew their letters-of prelates expelled, and others put into their places, by violence; of illiterate and profligate laymen, and habitual drunkards, admitted to holy orders; and in short, of the prevalence of every kind of disorder, and reckless disregard of the decency which the apostle enjoins. It is inconceivable that any one even moderately acquainted with history, can feel a certainty, or any approach to certainty, that, amidst all this confusion and corruption, every requisite form was, in every instance, strictly adhered to, by men, many of them openly profane and secular, unrestrained by public opinion, through