England professes to trace and limit the extent, to which it is right to depart from the one, and wrong to approach the other. It is as a pilot steering betwixt Scylla and Charybdis: and it counsels every navigator; "Behold the way of

ΣΕΤ ΙΟ

truth; on the right hand and on the left there is danger."

Of the Independents, Scotch Presbyterians, Whitfield Dissenters, and several other denominations of Christians, the leading principle consists in an objection to that form of church-government which is maintained, because conceived to be apostolical, or expedient, by the Church of England; combined with Calvinism in its different proportions. So far, therefore, as the dissent of these various bodies proceeds from their dislike to our established forms of subordination, the dissertation which follows, as a general reply, will prove serviceable in abridging our labour. In answer to their Calvinism, we shall refer them in a summary way to our examination of the principles held by the Calvinistic dissenters; so that the leading points of their separation being, in that manner, disposed of, the task of contending with any minor peculiarities in their respective tenets, will be reduced within a narrow compass.; temneki. .I

T

To the word, "Church," various significations have, in Scripture, as well as in common discourse, been attached. In its more confined sense it denotes, either the faithful of one family, as

sembled for religious purposes, with their friends as we read of the church in the house of Nymphas, of Aquila, of Philemon (Coloss. iv. 15. Rom. xvi. 5. Philem. 2); or the faithful of a whole province; as Paul writes to the church of the Thessalonians (2 Thessal. i. 1), as our Articles mention the churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Rome; or as our customary phraseology speaks of the Church of England.

;

But the term Church frequently occurs, also, in the sacred volume, under a far more extended acceptation: "On this rock I will build my church" (Matt. xvi. 18); "God added daily to the church such as should be saved" (Acts, ii. 47); "Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it" (Ephes. v. 5); " And he, Christ, is the head of the body, the church" (Coloss. i. 18). In these, and in many other portions of Scripture, the term Church is manifestly taken generally. It is employed as designating A BODY, concerning which, the attributes of unity and indissolubility may be predicated; and, consequently, whenever the phrase presents itself in either of the more contracted senses above mentioned, it will be admitted, perhaps, on all hands, to be then strictly synonymous with," that portion of the general church, which is in the house of Nymphas, or in Jerusalem, or in England

See also 1 Corinth. xii. 13-27; Ephes. v. 23, 29, 30, and i. 22; Ephes. iv. 4, 5.

In noticing these distinctions, then, we seem, even in the outset, to have detected a leading error of the Independents; who, while they affirm that every congregation constitutes a distinct church by itself, lose sight of the latter and more comprehensive meaning attached to the term Church, in Scripture, in the writings of the Fathers, and in ordinary discourse. Neither can it be pretended that the thousand independent churches are fragments capable of being joined together, along with other societies, and formed into a whole, to be pronounced the church of Christ. "The Christian church appears to be no confused multitude of men, INDEPENDENT one on another, but a well-formed and regular society. This is evident from its names; a family, Ephes. iii. 14; a city, Heb. xii. 22; a kingdom, Matt. xvi. 18, 19." Steevens's Treatise; Potter, ch. i.; Daubeny, p. 36*.

As no community can subsist without confusion, unless it be subject to some species of government, the question arises, what mode of government is proper for the ecclesiastical community in any country? This question has been answered in the following manner by Mr. Gisburne. "Each separate congregation, says the Independent, is a sovereign church, amenable to no extrinsic jurisdiction, and entitled to no authority over other churches. This, replies the Presbyterian, destroys unity, co-operation, and concord. All congregations within the same state, that agree in doctrine, ought to be under the general superintendence of a representative assembly, composed of their ministers and delegates. The episcopalian

II. But let us proceed to ask, for this is the main question, What are we precisely to under

——

complains, like the friend of monarchy, against democracy, that such a form of government wants vigour and dispatch; and is liable to partiality, tumult, and faction. He maintains that government by bishops was the apostolic form; and the form, perhaps, enjoined on the whole of Christ's disciples. Let a country be divided into dioceses, and a bishop be sta tioned in each, armed with sufficient authority, and restrained by adequate laws from abusing it. Away, cries the Papist, with those treasonable distinctions. The Pope, the successor of St. Peter, is, by divine right, the only source of ecclesias tical power, the universal monarch of the universal church.

"The fact," continues our author, appears to be, that our Saviour did not pronounce upon the subject; that the Apostles uniformly established a bishop in every district, as soon as the church in that district became numerous; and thus clearly evinced their judgment as to the form of ecclesiastical government most advantageous, at least in those days, to Christianity but that they left no command which rendered episcopacy universally indispensable in future times, if other forms should evidently promise, through local opinions and circumstances, greater benefit to religion. Yet if the episcopal form of government was established in the apostolical age; if, in consequence of being thus established, it remained, during many centuries, the only form of government recognised in the Christian church; assuredly it advances such pretensions, we will not say of indefeasible right, but of preeminent claim, as to leave a most serious responsibility resting on all, who, without urgent necessity, substitute any other form in its place."

Such are the sentiments of Hoadly, Wake, and Tomline; and nearly those likewise of Hey and Hammond*. But Mr.

* These think that there were two forms of original church-government, adapted to the churches of Asia and Europe.

stand in speaking concerning the general or Catholic church? What is its definition? What

are its properties? Whom does it comprise?

Gisburne is saying too much when he affirms them to be the GENERAL sentiments of the present episcopal church. Has Hooker, has Potter, lost all credit amongst us? Do Burgess, Daubeny, Nares, Mesurier, Skinner (names every way wor thy of being placed beside the others), hold indeed so lax a profession?

In fact, Mr. Gisburne is chargeable, in this flourishing passage, with three very material defects. First, excepting the sentence which regards the church of Rome, the paragraph represents the several parties as at variance on the sole ground of expediency; whereas some Presbyterians, and many advocates for episcopacy, maintain the divine right of their respective forms. Secondly, in speaking in the name of the Episcopalians, he has introduced a perhaps, where it clearly ought not to stand. Few Episcopalians, prior to the time of Hoadly, made use of this wavering "perhaps." Episcopacy was, till then, conceived, by most of its professors, to have been enjoined absolutely on all Christian disciples. Lastly, Mr. Gisburne has altogether neglected to define the term "Church" in the outset and has thus betrayed himself into the egregious error of recognising the pretended church of the Presbyterians, and the ten thousand distinct churches of the Independents.

The paragraph is, nevertheless, deserving of our notice, as presenting in one concise view the various contending opinions respecting the point at issue: but it will be necessary, before we can form a correct judgment on that point, to advert to several matters omitted by Mr. Gisburne.

Vestibulo in ipso, various prejudices are to be surmounted. Such an extension of the church, as shall, in one wide sweep, comprehend the whole body of professing Christians, bears, manifestly, a seductive appearance of liberality: while what