was without knowledge; which, not only for their unprofit ableness, but also because they have much blinded the people, and obscured the glory of God, are worthy to be. cut away, and clean rejected.' Now it is no more strange than true, that all the "ceremonies that are still retained,' have entered the church by the same "undiscreet devotion," and "zeal without knowledge," and because they were" winked at in the beginning, grew daily to more and more abuses, and had at length turned to vanity and superstition; have much blinded the people, and obscured the glory of God, and are worthy to be cut away, and clean rejected." But there is a grand, an insurmountable obstacle in the way; they are profitable!!! But I perceive there is no hope of "cutting away, or clean rejecting," any of the idle ceremonies that remain; for they have not forgot to tell us that "no man ought to take in hand, nor presume to appoint or alter any public or common order in Christ's church, except he be lawfully called and authorised thereunto;" meaning, I presume, except he be in the ministry; that is, in other words, telling us, "no man ought to take in hand, nor presume to alter any public or common order in the church of England, except he be sworn, 'duly and truly to maintain them as they are. This is certainly very curious logic. There are certain causes rendered for retaining the cere monies they have, but not of weight enough to satisfy me that what are retained are agreeable to scripture or reason, for Christianity is not a ceremonial religion, and no ceremony is consistent with it.

The next is the order of reading the Psalms, in which it is ordained, that at the end of every Psalm shall be said "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost," answered by," As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be: world without end. Amen." A plain Christian, uninnured to self-deception, would exclaim"This is not in conformity with the precepts and practice of Jesus Christ and his apostles, therefore, I cannot believe it was so in the beginning:' that it has been so for many hundred years, and with the majority of Christians is so now, I lament, but rejoice in the consolation that you cannot prove from scripture that it was so in the beginning,' or that it will be soo world without end.' God forbid." When they attempt to prove the antiquity of this doctrine, they of necessity have recourse to the Nicene Council, the members of which, in this respect, were as rank papists as any that composed the Council of Trent. Scriptures they have none!

VOL. III.

the right of altering them in the smallest degree. Our en quiry then is not whether we would have formed such; whether they are the most wise or the most useful; but if they are such as we are willing to place ourselves under? No man is compelled to become or continue to be a subject of this kingdom; it must be his own voluntary act; but as long as he continues to claim the privilege of it, he is bound to obey its laws, in every respect. He is not born a subject of it, and therefore bound by the absurd law which exists in all other kingdoms, viz. that whether he approves or disap proves of its institutions, he must always support them, or be hanged as a traitor! No; he cannot become a subject of this kingdom till he is capable of judging for himself; and even then it is a matter of choice with himself to become a member of it or not: and even after he has become a member, should he alter his mind, there are no penal laws to bind him to continue. He has only to renounce the privileges of the society, and the laws immediately cease to operate upon him; and the society from which he withdraws can do no more than declare he is cut off from them, that they may no longer be considered responsible for his character and conduct.

As the terms bishop and elder have been the subject of much controversy, I will endeavour to give their true meaning; and, first, I would most earnestly entreat, when I use the word bishop, not to be understood as having any reference to those men called. bishops in the present day, but characters as much the reverse of them as light is to darkness. By a bishop I mean not a man perjured by his first entrance into office-a man puffed up with pride and luxury, possessed of princely revenue, and dressed in a large wig and lawn sleeves, who pays his adoration to princes and little to his God-who exercies dominion, and has his spiri tual courts-in fact I do not mean a lord bishop-neither do I mean such a man as the Rev. Mr. Belsham, in his canonicals, nor such men as the Rev. Mr. Aspland, Vidler, Nightingale, or Huntingdon, in their black coats-the bishop I speak of is a scriptural bishop, and no other.

The words bishop and elder, it appears to me, were not intended as titles, but merely descriptive of the duties they had to perform; the same as if any persons were appointed to manage the affairs of a nation who were not distinguished by any particular title, and I were addressing a letter to them, I should say of course, if their names were not mentioned," To the rulers, the overseers, or the managers of such a nation;" neither of which terms would be the title or

of their office, but merely descriptive of the business they had to perform; and this will I think be found to be the case in the terms bishop, &c.

The Greek word from which the name bishop or bishops is derived, occurs nine times in the New Testament, in our received version, and is translated as follows, Luke xix. 44, visitation; Acts i. 20, bishopric; Wakefield translates it, office; Acts xx. 28, overseers; Phil. i. 1, bishops; Wakefield, overseer; 1 Tim. iii. 1, 2, bishop; Wakefield, overseer; Titus i. 7, bishop; Wakefield, overseer; 1 Peter ii. 8, 12, visitation; 1 Peter ii. 25, bishop; Wakefield, shepherd. From all these passages it will be seen that the word does not necessarily imply title; nor is there any need of its being translated bishop in any one place. It is evident, that it would appear very absurd, were it so translated in all; but if we take it as overseeing, or being overseen, it will do in every place and I have generally found it to be a good criterion, where a word must be translated in some particular way in many places, and may be so in all, that that is the true and genuine meaning of it.

The term elder, or elders, has also been as much the subject of dispute as that of bishop, and from the same cause, that of being taken as a title, instead of being descriptive of the business he had to perform. The word itself occurs fifty-five times in the New Testament, exclusive of the Revelations; thirty of which relate to the rulers of the Jewish people; eleven to elders, as it respects age; twelve times to officers of the Christian church; once to Peter; and once is translated presbytery, though in this place, Wakefield properly translates it elders, as it is the same word so translated elsewhere, and there is no word for presbyter or presbytery in the New Testament. Now that the word elder, must be synonimous to bishop or overseer, when it refers to men in office, is clear; because they are used indifferently respecting the same persons. See Titus i. 5, 6. "Ordain elders in every city, as I had ap pointed. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot or unruly, FOR a bishop," &c. that is, the persons he had before spoken of as the elders; and if properly translated, it would have been appoint elders of such a character; for he that is an overseer, &c. so that the term overseer explains to us decidedly what the apostle meant by bishop or elder.

But it is contended, that elder and bishop cannot be synonimous; because Peter calls himself an elder, when, it is said, he was no bishop: but if the word bishop means only

It is not unworthy of remark, that the translation of the Psalms that is used, is King Henry the Eighth's, the worst extant. No deviation must be made without an Act of Parliament !

The next thing to be noticed is, the Calendar of Saints, apostolical and popish. Were I to ask a churchman, for what are they introduced? The answer I shall presume would be, for our example. From this I should infer two things, first, if we are to follow the example of the apostles and evangelists, there placed for that purpose, it is evident we must separate ourselves from this church, which has separated itself from their doctrines; and secondly, if that of the saints, as they are stiled, of the sixth to the eleventh centuries, there also for that purpose, it is equally evident what church we must join; for these were all staunch papists; all offered the "tremendous sacrifice" of the mass, believed in purgatory, implored the prayers of those they deemed saints, had a great veneration for their relics, and even believed God wrought miracles by them; believed. the doctrines of transubstantiation, seven sacraments, auricular confession, and priestly absolution! What tremendous boluses of popish doctors-we can neither digest nor swallow them; yet these men are stiled "saints," and placed for our example!!! Surely if a proud and haughty spirit-if an insatiable thirst for avarice and ambiton--if a malignant, uncharitable, persecuting spirit, be required, before they can inherit this title-these men have been very properly canonized and placed for our example.

There are many other ingredients which were prepared in the same mortar by the same pestles (alias pests), some of which are swallowed by most Protestants, but digested by very few; such as, first, the doctrine of the Trinity, which was served by the ecclesiastic cooks who lived towards the end of the third century, and relished well enough to be confirmed by a council, anno 325. Second, the doctrine of Original Sin, which is a made dish of Augustine's of the fifth century, Third, the infidelizing doctrine of Eternal Damnation. These, I say, very few can, digest! Without examination, without reason, without the scriptural knowledge of the God of love, they appear only as a gnat, but with it like a camel. But these absurdities were maintained with vehemence, these monstrous boluses were rapaciously swallowed from the fifth to the sixteenth century; and in those ages of popish darkness, came in all the other popish monsters which are rejected by the church of England, but which I think myself justified in saying she would retain,

were it not that the gain would be (if I may so speak) a dear earned penny!

Next follows a Table of Feasts, including saints' days, &c. which, as Dr. Lindsey has observed, "serves only to bring over Protestants to the bosom of popery." Then is imposed the popish doctrine of Fasting or Abstinence; like the Papists we are favoured with a "Table" to help the memory; and very nesessary it is, for the days and times, are many, viz. the day preceding the nativity of Christ, and fifteen others; the forty days of Lent; the Ember Days at the four seasons of the year; the three Rogation Days, and all the Fridays in the year. A pretty decent quantum!

I shall just notice here what is noticed for us (and in my next proceed to the "Morning Service"), namely, "that such ornaments of the church and ministers shall be retained as were authorised by Act of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth,". and leave it to others to judge, whether this is any thing like keeping the mean between the two extremes, of too much stiffness in refusing, and of too much easiness in admitting any variation." When to the retaining of what affects no doctrine or discipline, to the retaining only of paltry ornaments and popish dresses, is annexed a positive" shall be," we may look upon it as a proper criterion to judge of the church's moderation in all things. Your's, &c.

Birmingham, Jan. 1813.

AN ANTI-CEREMONIALIST,

ON THE IMPROVEMENT OP THE UNDERSTANDING

"Let him that standeth take heed lest he fall."

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

Twas not my intention to have extended this subject be yond the limits of a first essay, but on re-perusing that, so many ideas have suggested themselves as being of first consequence in the formation of the mind, that I cannot refrain from calling the attention of your readers once more to so important a concern; important I may justly term it, for what is man without mind? a mere sensual animal, liv ing on momentary pleasures which often fail, always cloy, and leave him at last possessed of so much empty wretchedness, that life becomes a burden, and annihilation itself preferable to existence. But give him an exalted mind, and it will raise him as it were to the confines of heaven; it