pedigree through the degenerate race of popes and cardinals. Laud, the arch-priest of Protestant Romanism, was more honest. He was very tender respecting any odium which the good Bishop Hall was disposed to throw on the Romish Church, in his work on episcopacy; and when Charles I. granted a brief for a general collection on behalf of the persecuted Protestant Churches of the Palatinate, the archbishop interposed his objections, on the ground, not only that the churches in question were not episcopal, though this in itself was a grievous matter, but that in the document which set forth their claim to sympathy and relief, allusion was made to the anti-christian yoke of Rome. Laud would not countenance such an expression applied to that church, through which, as he alleged, the Church of England derived her sole claim to apostolic orders. Whoever wishes to be satisfied on this head, and to acquaint himself with the sensation which was produced, when at a previous period Bancroft announced the apostolical doctrine at Paul's Cross, may consult Neal's History of the Puritans.

It is a curious and instructive fact, that at this moment we see a division in the church respecting apostolical doctrine, which seems to threaten a controversy of the same kind within as without its precincts. Of late bishops have taken opposite views. The bishops of Chester and Norwich openly condemn the doctrine as popish: the Bishop of Oxford apologizes, explains, and vindicates it; the Bishop of Exeter openly avows it; and last, but not least, the Bishop of London has boldly advocated it, in his sermon, a few weeks ago, at the consecration of the new church in Gray's Inn Road.

The three works at the head of this article present a timely antidote to this corruption of the christian scheme. For surely that doctrine is none other than a gross and dangerous corruption, which would substitute the opus operatum of popery for the plain unvarnished gospel of Christ. According to the apostolical' scheme, every clergyman is a sort of magician, and the sacraments are kind of incantations, which operate independently, to a great extent, of the moral and religious state of the mind, both of the minister and the people. Can it be conceived that either the apostles, or any of their immediate disciples, ever uttered such language as the following, and called it the gospel?

"If Christ remain always the minister of his church, Christ is to be looked at through his ministering servant, whoever shall visibly officiate. Though there be a great deal preached in which you cannot recognize the voice of the Saviour; and though the sacraments be administered by hands which seem impure enough to sully their sanctity. . The ordained preacher is a messenger, a messenger from the God of the whole earth. His mental capacity may be weak-that is nothing. His speech may be contemptible-that is nothing. His knowledge may be circumscribed-we say not that is nothing, but we say, that whatever the man's qualifications, he should rest upon his office. And we hold it the business of a congregation, if they hope to find profit in the public duties of the Sabbath, to cast away those personal considerations which may have to do with the officiating individual, and to fix stedfastly their thoughts on the office itself . . . . . When every thing seems against them, (the true followers of Christ,) so that on a carnal calculation, you would suppose the services of the church stripped of all efficacy, then, by acting faith on the head of the ministry, they are instructed and nou

rished, though, in the main, the given lesson be falsehood, and the proffered sustenance little better than poison."

This quotation is from the Sermons of Mr. Melville, and is copied by Mr. Blackburn into his "Introduction" to Dr. Mason's work, by way of illustrating the true genius of this said doctrine of apostolical succession. It seems, then, that country squires, and lords with large families, have not been so very far out in bringing up to the church some dunce of a son, who had no chance of figuring in the senate or at the bar. The legitimate consequence of the doctrine of the eloquent and respectable gentleman who ministers in the neighbourhood of Peckham, clearly is, that neither intellectual nor moral qualifications are absolutely necessary for a clergyman. According to the old proverb, it seems, that any dolt will really do for a parson; and it matters not much how far the young man has escaped contamination, or not, at the university. Only let some accident determine the apostolical grace, though it be to a "skull that cannot teach and will not learn"-it is enough-this man is a "minister of the church" of Christ! It is sometimes well when extravagance takes its legitimate course; it may lead to reflection, and prove a warning. We sincerely pity the hearers who can listen quietly to such doctrine, and believe it to be the gospel!

The editor of Dr. Mason has done a service to the christian church, in sending forth the work of that eminent divine, who was unquestionably one of the brightest stars in the firmament of the transatlantic church. The Introduction states, that this tract first appeared as a review in an American periodical, the Christian Magazine. "A gentleman of London obtained from the United States a copy of Dr. Mason's works, and thus became acquainted with the following article in its pages. Having found the arguments upon the great question of diocesan episcopacy most satisfactory to his own mind, he became anxious to see it reprinted in a cheap form for circulation in this country, because, at the present time, the lofty claims of an exclusive apostolical succession are put forth with a dogmatism which deserves to be exposed and condemned."

The Introduction is valuable, as shewing the form which the Romish doctrine of apostolical descent assumes in the hands of Protestants, and the repulsive bearing which it exhibits in the episcopal Church of England, and in that of America, towards all the other churches of the Reformation. Mr. Blackburn happily alludes to the false position in which Dr. Chalmers, the great man of the Kirk, and the English clergy, were placed, on a late occasion, at Hanover Square Rooms. This was truly an amusing exhibition. Bishops and other dignitaries, and a numerous body of the clergy, assembled to hear lectures on behalf of the church establishment, from a man whom they would no more admit into their pulpits than a dissenter, and who, on their principles, is none other than a Presbyterian schismatic! But the most amusing part of the exhibition was the finale, when the good doctor, despite of all the blandishments of right reverends, and very reverends, came forth in the true spirit of a liberal Protestant, and with his peculiar vehemence de

nounced the bigotry that would confine to one denomination and party, the claim to legitimacy. It was ludicrous, it was almost cruel, to compel an audience so episcopal, to hear that, provided religion was diffused, and made "territorial," it was of no consequence whether the parties by whom the evangelization of the country was effected were Episcopalians, or Independents, or Presbyterians, or Baptists! We confess that we are very far out in our conjectures if such an attempt to put up the establishment is repeated. For once the upholders of episcopacy were unquestionably deserted by their wonted sagacity! Since May last, the " apostolical" controversy has been thickening on us, rather than diminishing; and the great man of the Kirk must now appear, to an increased body of the clergy, woefully mischosen as an instrument to do the work of the Church of England.

The doctrine that is now so much in vogue is so utterly without foundation in scripture, that it very fairly admits of an appeal to practical results. If no ministers are ministers of Christ who are not episcopally ordained, surely we might expect that there would be a marked and decided distinction in the effects of the labours of those who are legitimately descended from the apostles, and those who claim no such honour. Will it, however, be pretended, that the blessing of God has not signally attended the christian exertions of men, on whom episcopal hands were never laid? But it seems that all the success of missionaries, east and west, north and south, is to go for nothing-nothing will atone for the want of episcopal orders! "Oberlin and Neff may make the Alpine wilderness to bloom, and the inhabitants of rocks to sing; Swartz and Rhenius may lead thousands of Hindoos to the obedience of Christ; Morrison, Carey, and Marshman, may open the sacred scriptures to the millions of China and the east; Nott and Williams may turn the Polynesian idolaters to the worship of the true God; yea, the church on earth may be enlarged, and the church in heaven increased, by myriads of happy converts brought to Christ by their self-denying love-unstrained efforts; but it all avails nothing-they are not apostolical ministers,' for they are not episcopally ordained!" Introduotion, p. xv.

6

The Appendix,' also by the editor, is an important addition to the work, as containing a condensed view of the essence of the whole subject, selected from several writers of learning and ability-Drs. Campbell, Barrow, Henderson, and Neander. There is also an excellent abstract of the argument, proving that the ancient episcopacy was not prelatical, but only congregational and parochial, by the Rev. Joseph Boyse, of Dublin; being an extract from a work published by him in 1712. The Appendix closes with a short passage from Dr. Mitchell, showing how episcopacy could have been introduced, if it were not of apostolical institution." "Parochial episcopacy, that is, the superiority of one elder in a particular church to all the rest, gradually and imperceptibly arose from the respect which, in the primitive times, was paid to age, to character, to superior endowments, and especially to priority in point of ordination."

66

It would seem that the lofty claims of episcopacy are not unknown

even in America, thoughthey are comparatively harmlessas to any effect on general liberty, in a country whose constitution does not admit of a union between the church and the state. Even in America, however, the same Babylonish jargon, it appears, is employed, to uphold the exclusive claims of diocesan episcopacy. "Several years ago,' says Dr. Mason, "a certain preacher declared to the faces of some of the most venerable ministers in this city (New York), that all clergymen not episcopally ordained are impostors, their commissions forgeries, and their sacraments blasphemy. The preacher was Mr. Wright; the place, St. Paul's church; the occasion, a deacon's ordination; and the text (of which, to use his own words, he took leave,' in order to give the poor non-episcopalians a hit,) that injunction of our Lord, Be ye wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.' That the orator was right in taking this leave,' will hardly be questioned, as he immediately broke through the second precept of his text; and the consequences proved that he had but little skill in the first. The effusion had more of every thing in the serpent than his wisdom, and more of every thing in the dove than her innocence. A circumstance which rendered the attack an outrage, was the care of the episcopal clergy to circulate notice of the ordination, and their solicitude for the attendance of their non-episcopal brethren! One of the latter who was present, remarked, at the close of the service, with the pith and point of indignant feeling, that Mr. W. possessed a large stock of confidence, to tell his bishop to his face that he was an unregenerated man, and no member of the christian church!' it being well known that the Right Reverend Father in God, Samuel, Bishop of the Protestant episcopal church in the state of New York, had been baptized by the Rev. Mr. Dubois, one of the ministers of the Dutch reformed church. Therefore, &c. alas! alas!"

We were hardly prepared to expect such a demonstration of bigotry in America; and candidly as we would desire to look on episcopacy as one among the forms of church government, such exclusiveness, especially when found in a soil of religious freedom, and when unsustained by secular alliances, constrains us to say, that diocesan episcopalians of the three orders have yet to prove that there is not something in their system which has a natural tendency to intolerance. We are unwilling to believe this, except it be thus forced on us; for nothing would give us greater delight than to see episcopacy taking its station, side by side, with presbyterianism, and congregationalism, both here and in America, on the footing of brotherly and christian equality. We even think that there are some relations between these three principal terms of church government which are yet undeveloped, and which may possibly be essential to a final fraternal union of all Christians. Concessions will probably have to be made by all parties before those glorious days shall have arrived, when the church shall be, as it once was, visibly one. when we see one protestant denomination, and only one, for we know of no other, thus maintaining a lofty claim to superiority over all the rest, we confess that our charity is damped, and we feel that, so long as this spirit continues, there can be no extensive union between the present contending parties.

N. S. VOL. III.

C c

But

Alive, as we desire to be, to the defects of our own denomination, we candidly avow that we are unable to see any thing in the congregational system that is half so anti-christian as the exclusiveness of diocesan episcopacy. Our church order, from its popularity, may easily, we admit, degenerate, in unskilful hands, into anarchy and confusion. But we find the same accident attaching even to the apostolical churches themselves. Witness the church at Corinth. It is no ill compliment, we think, to the congregational system, as a whole, that it can be fully acted out only where principles of New Testament discipline are strictly adhered to. The greater part of the disorders that have happened in our churches have undoubtedly arisen from the same causes which produced divisions in the churches that were planted by the apostles themselves-the want of piety in the church members. But when the congregational system is tried by the test of catholic charity, no one, surely, who is impartial, will hesitate to pronounce, that it is incomparably superior in practice to episcopacy. We will venture to say, that there is scarcely a congregational minister in the metropolis who would not rejoice in admitting many evangelical clergymen who might be named into his pulpit; and we believe that there are not a few who would even allow the clergyman, if he thought fit, on such an occasion, to read his own liturgy. This would be a lovely sacrifice to fraternal charity; and many are prepared to make it. Episcopacy alone is distinguished by the extreme of sectarianism and bigotry. We do hope, however, from what we have heard, that there have been instances in America of a different spirit among Episcopalians in later years.

Dr. Mason ably pursues the argument through the nine chapters into which the work is divided. Having treated of the history and importance of the controversy, he proceeds to refute the exclusive claims of diocesan episcopacy, by showing, that they are not sustained by the official names which are given to ministers in the New Testament; nor by the orders of the Jewish priesthood; nor by the arrangements of our Lord during his personal ministry; nor by a reference to New Testament facts; nor by the official character of the apostle James; nor by the epistles to the seven churches of Asia; nor by the official character of Timothy and Titus; nor by the testimony of the christian fathers. Most of these topics are well sustained, and are discussed with the usual point and effect of the distinguished author. We confess, however, that we are not satisfied with the conclusion to which he comes with regard to the angels of the seven churches of Asia. He holds that the "angels" and the "stars" spoken of in the first chapters of the Apocalypse, "do not signify single persons, but a number of men; that is, are emblems of a collective ministry, and not of diocesan bishops." p. 113. We do not indeed think that the angels were diocesan bishops; but, in our humble judgment, it is doing violence to language to suppose that no individual representatives of the churches were intended by this appellation. It appears to us that the angel was either the sole pastor of a congregation, or the senior pastor; or, if there were many congregations in some of the seven cities, which appears by no