DESCENDING, now, from the general principles by which this great question ought to be governed; we come to speak of certain points objected to by dissenters, in the internal economy of the church of England. Among the foremost of these will be found, the ministers or officers of the church, which are 'multiplied,' says Mr. James, beyond all scriptural precedent.'

The styles and titles of Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, Priests, and Deacons, are recounted by Mr. James with great particularity, and he seems to think that the mere enumeration of them, with an appeal to the New Testament for their authority, must be decisive of the whole question.

In one respect, and up to a certain point, he is right. It is his strongest argument, and if he does not carry the minds of his readers with him in his bold assumption, that because nothing is said in the New Testament of Deans and Archdeacons, therefore Deans and Archdeacons are anti-scriptural,we say, if he does not carry the reader with him in this leap to a conclusion, he will have very little chance in a more deliberate argument. The fact is, that the objection is entirely a superficial one. It rests wholly on the use of certain titles which confessedly, do not occur in holy writ. And because we can shew no instance of a Dean or an Archdeacon in the apostolic times, therefore, argues Mr. James, they are contrary to the rules of scripture, and form sufficient ground of dissent from a church which employs them.

But how does this argument appear to Mr. James, when applied to his own pure and scriptural com

munion. Will it be argued that all things are anti-scriptural which are not found in scripture, after Mr. James himself has confessed, that of the great distinguishing practice of dissenters, the election of their own ministers, there is not to be found in all scripture, a single 'case in which it is said that the people chose their own pastors.' (p. 53.) And, to confine ourselves to the point of officers only,-where will Mr. James find any authority, in the apostolic writings, for the office of Classical Tutor of Highbury College,' or for a Mission College,' or for investments in Consols,' or 'Old South Sea Annuities,' on behalf of a Missionary Society.

He answers this question, however, and very satisfactorily, by a quotation from another writer:

"The proposition that every thing relating to the worship of God, which is not commanded or implied in a command, is forbidden, presents, when rightly understood, the only satisfactory conclusion on which we can rest. As those conecessary, natural circumstances, which adhere to every action, are virtually comprehended in the precept, which is the basis of the in- ̈ stituted duty; so whatever circumstances, considered strictly as means of discharging what is positively enjoined, conduce to the more decent and impressive performance of the duty, are strictly consonant with the divine command; are permissively, although not specifically involved in it.”

This is common sense, and is decisive of the question. It replies at once, and conclusively, to our inquiry, Where is your authority for your Classical Tutor, &c. &c.

But then it also entirely annihilates Mr. James's objections to our Archbishops, Bishops, Deans and Archdeacons, as grounded on the mere want of scriptural authority; and leaves the question to be tried on the appropriate grounds of general utility, and accordance with the spirit of those precepts of holy writ which bear upon the subject.

We are willing, in short, to adopt Mr. James's language, in another part of his work, and to say, 'The New Testament contains, in its recorded facts, such general principles on the subject of church government and discipline, as are sufficiently explicit for the guidance of all who are willing to take God's word for their rule. With these, such of our usages as cannot plead express command or example, ought to be in accordance, and to the application of these all our customs must be directed. Whatever we do must be an act of obedience to the authority of Christ, as the only king and head of the church, and designed to carry into effect some law, which as the supreme and exclusive legislator he has enjoined.'

་

It is conceded, then, that even among dissenters themselves, there are usages which cannot plead express command or example,' but it is held to be sufficient that they

be

in accordance with the principles of the New Testament, and designed to carry into effect some law which Christ has enjoined.' This basis is perfectly satisfactory to us, and we shall proceed, adopting it as our rule, to consider the various offices known in the church of England.

And first, let us speak of those which may be termed non-essential offices; such as Deans, Prebendaries, and Archdeacons. We call these non-essential, because it will be obvious to every one, that if every one of our cathedrals were swallowed up by an earthquake, and their Deans and Chapters extin

guished with them, the church of England would still subsist, in all its essential parts, just as it does at this moment; having lost nothing but an appendage, which some may have thought an ornament, and others an incumbrance.

Our cathedrals were not founded by the Protestant Church of England. The reformation, which, in this country, was not a revolution, found them standing, and in possession of considerable endowments, and it left them so. Probably plans might have been then adopted, and may still be brought to bear, which would render these establishments more conducive to the general welfare, and more efficient for the purposes for which they were professedly erected. Such a modification would be welcomed by every true friend of the church. We should gladly see the revenues of Durham or Ely rendered more extensively serviceable in the diffusion of the knowledge of the gospel. In like manner should we willingly behold an improvement in the distribution of the wealth of King's College, Cambridge, or New College, Oxford; or a more advantageous application of the estates of the Goldsmiths' or the Ironmon gers' company of London. Still, however, we must altogether repudiate the idea of forcible seizure of any of these revenues. Neither the estates of the See of Durham, nor of New College, nor of the Goldsmith's Company, can be taken away from the present holders of then, without rendering the property of the Duke of Bedford unsafe, or without in short, placing in jeopardy the estate of every man in the kingdom.

Meanwhile, all that the Church of England is justly chargeable with, as touching these great establish ments, is this, that finding twenty or thirty cathedrals planted and endowed in various parts of the country, and in each a Dean and Chapter, invested with the care of

the place, and charged with certain religious duties; she has left these edifices standing, and their officers still in possession of their titles; and has contented herself with purifying the worship offered up, and cleansing these magnificent temples from papal abominations. Those who blame her for not entirely abolishing these things, ought to prove to us that the very existence of a cathedral is a sin, and that Deans and Chapters are not only unknown in scripture, but are actually anti-scriptural. When they have proved thus much, we shall agree with them in thinking that an entire demolition, not reformation, ought to have taken place. But till these points be proved, we shall tolerate the continuance of these splendid edifices, and of their officers, discerning therein no sufficient or scriptural ground of secession from the church which upholds, but which did not create them.*

The Nonconformists of former days, whose fame our modern dissenters are very ready to appropriate to themselves, but who held scarcely one distinguishing sentiment in common with these their degenerate successors;-these conscientious and over-scrupulous, but truly fervent Christians, would have objected to our Cathedrals and their array of Deans and Chapters, on the score of the supposed unlawfulness of all instrumental music. But we need not enter upon that argument with our modern opponents, since they are already outstripping us in their pursuit of those very ' relics of popery' which their predecessors so loudly objurgated. Take the following advertisement as a specimen ; which, as it appeared in the Birmingham Gazette of the 2nd of this present month, (July,) must doubtless have already met Mr. James's eye.

'On Sunday next, July 8, a new Organ will be opened at the Independent Chapel, in Wednesbury; when three sermons will be preached by the Rev. James Hardy, and collections made towards defraying the expences of its erection. During the services, a Grand Selection of Sacred Music, comprizing some distinguished pieces from the sublime and beautiful compositions of Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and others, never before performed in this part of the country, will be introduced. Mr.

Another officer or minister whose title is offensive to Mr. James, is the Archdeacon. The continuance of this functionary, like the last, is not essential to the existence of the church, but it is nevertheless highly desirable. To use Mr. James's own words, and to apply his own rule, We cannot plead' for this officer any express command or example;' but we consider his functions to be in accordance' with the general principles laid down in the New Testament, and to be designed to carry into effect a law which Christ has enjoined.'

6

The principal duty of an Archdeacon is the care and superintendance of the structures in which the service of the church is conducted. He instructs and overlooks another officer whom Mr. James appears to have forgotten, the Churchwarden. And the propriety of the existence of both Churchwardens and Archdeacons must principally depend upon the argument in favour of a national provision for the religious instruction of the people. If it be right-and on this point we feel perfectly satisfied-that the state should provide for the maintenance of the worship of God, and for the religious instruction of the people;then we can have little difficulty in admitting the propriety of appointing in every parish a public officer, chosen year by year, from among the more intelligent and trustworthy of the inhabitants, to take charge of the edifice set apart for these purposes, and to see that all things belonging thereto are "done decently and in order." Nor will it appear at all extraordinary, antiscriptural, or improper, that over

Rudge will preside at the Organ; Leader of the band, Mr. Testor; Conductor, Mr. Moreton.'

This announcement is nearly an exact copy of a play-bill of one of our London Oratorios, with this single alteration, that' On Saturday next, at Covent Garden Theatre,' is cut off, and On Sunday next, at the Independent Chapel,'-is substituted in its

room.

each country or considerable district, a superintendent should be placed, for the purpose of inspecting the conduct of these parochial officers, and of securing the efficient discharge of their public duties. This superintendent we call an Archdeacon.

Once more, to clear away another minor point, before we enter upon the main question of Episcopacy, let us say a word or two on the nature and character of the deacon's office. There is a little difference of opinion between churchmen and dissenters, on this point. Both admit the office, but each gives it his own signification. The dissenter, looking principally to the sixth chapter of the Acts, and finding there certain laymen entrusted with the care of the poor of the church, adopts an idea conveyed, not in the chapter itself, but in the title of the chapter, (a mere human addition) and takes these officers to be deacons, and the duties assigned to them to be the proper duties of the deacon's office.

The Church of England, on the other hand, finding this duty, of the care of the poor, already entrusted, in each parish, to certain legally appointed officers, entitled Overseers of the Poor, holds it to be unnecessary to charge her deacons with this care. She rather draws from the apostolic writings, (1 Tim. iii. 13.) the idea, that a deacon's office was connected in a certain degree with the preaching of the word, and that it was in some sort, probationary and initiative to the higher office of a presbyter. In this view she is certainly supported by the evidence of all antiquity, as concerns the practice of the early Christian church. Probably a wiser course would be, the combining these two views, not making the deaconship, as among the dissenters, a mere lay office, held for life, and imposing upon the bearer of it all the duties of a churchwarden and of an overseer; nor yet allowing it to

remain, as in the church in the present day, a mere formal step to be taken, a state of half ordination, escaped from with all reasonable dispatch, at the end of one short year, just as a college term is got through, as prescribed by rule, and observed for no other reason. A slight alteration, which should impose upon the deacon, for a somewhat longer term, the sedulous care of the Christian poor, (still leaving to the overseer the duty of providing for their maintenance,) the visitation of the sick, and occasional, rather than stated employment in other ministerial services, might much improve the utility of the office, and, in fact, restore it to the use originally contemplated by our Reformers; while, by assigning these assistants, at a small salary, to those incumbents who were most burdened with the care of a too extensive charge, they would prove of real use, as aids to those who stood in need of such co-operation.

But it is time that we adverted to that which is the main point of difference between dissenters and churchmen, namely, the Episcopal office. Other points might be accommodated, but here the very core and centre of independency is touched. It is their main and most deeply cherished distinction,—a distinction upon which their very names are founded,—that each of their congregations is a complete little democracy in itself, and that they are wholly independent of all superior or external authorities.

It is important that we should keep this, the real question at issue, steadily in view. Mr. James has dextrously avoided this, the true point in dispute, and has turned the argument into a course more favourable to his views. He argues long and strenuously upon two points which are really of very little importance; namely, whether the words bishop and elder are not often applied in the New Testament to

the same person; and whether the bishop's office is clearly stated to be superior to that of the presbyter.

The picture presented to us in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the Epistles of St. Paul, is not that of a church formed and reduced under a regular system, but of a church then in course of formation. St. Paul leaves Titus in Crete, that he might "set in order the things that remained." What wonder, then, if, under such circumstances, we find the same persons designated as bishops in one verse, and as elders or presbyters in another. And why should we labour to establish, from such premises, the superiority of one office over the other. Much doubtless might be said, but we decline entering upon this part of the subject. Our space is but small, and we prefer taking up that part of the argument which seems to present the strongest proof in the smallest compass.

We take up, then, the principle asserted by Mr. James, that the only officers of Christian churches are bishops and deacons; the former (the bishops) being, not the overseers of many ministers, but each the pastor of one church;' and to this principle we declare our most decided dissent. We assert our conviction, on the other hand, that there are not only three distinct titles used in the apostolic writings, the deacon, the elder or presbyter, and the bishop; but that, further, there are three distinct offices described in those records, namely, the assistant minister, denominated a deacon; 'the pastor of one church,' styled an elder or presbyter; and also, lastly, the overseer of many churches and of their presbyters, generally called a bishop.

The principal point of dispute between us concerns the last of these three offices; the first two being in some manner acknowledged by our opponents. At the same time it must be observed that by making the office of deacon a mere

lay office, resembling our parochial overseer or churchwarden, the dissenters do, in fact, leave but one rank or degree of Christian ministers, namely the elder, or presbyter, or bishop of one church; all which terms, they assert, are quite synonimous, and describe the same officer.

By this view they get rid of the idea of different orders and degrees in the church, and attain a perfect equality among their ministers. And this seems to be one great object with them. Dissent, in religion, is usually found connected, in a certain degree, with republican views in politics; and is accompanied by a secret hatred of superior officers, of dignities, or degrees in society; of having any one, in short, placed over them; and this concealed aversion appears continually to influence their actions, and give a bias to all their opinions.

The

This favourite notion of theirs, however, this loved equality,-is decidedly opposed to every thing revealed to us, in Scripture, of the mind and will of God. Wherever we obtain, in holy writ, any clear intimation of the plans and arrangements of the divine, mind, there we are sure to find a system of orders, degrees, and gradations. equality so delighted in by dissenters, is not delighted in by Him. If we look up to heaven itself, there, in the few glimpses afforded us in his holy word, we clearly discern the existence of several distinct orders of angelic intelligences. This, in fact, is almost the only one circum→ stance attendant on the heavenly state which is clearly revealed to us, and it will hardly be presumptuous to suppose that it was intended to convey some instruction to minds. So again, in the Jewish church, constructed by God himself, we find in like manner, no equality of ministration, but various orders and degrees assigned, and inferior and superior duties and dignities apportioned to the sons of

our