where there are many men, there will, of necessity, be many minds; and, even with the best possible wishes and desire to do good, it is next to impossible that all men should see all things through the same glasses. But their difference of opinion on minor points, so long as they agree in essentials, is no bar to unity, forms no ground for separation. By meekness and concession on other points, the family may still be united among themselves; and, in their united state, bid defiance, under God's grace, to the malice of the enemy. But how is this to be obtained, how is concession to be looked for, on either side, if there be no authority which all will recognise as competent to determine in such matters? If there be none, why should one yield or pay deference to another? It is manifest to reason that it must be hopeless; and the endless divisions of the schismatics, when they have cast off all idea of authority, afford a melancholy, but irrefragable, proof of the fearful evil of such a course. But if it can be clearly shewn that God has entrusted certain men with authority to decide on all spiritual matters not determined by scripture, there is an end of the difficulty. So long as they do not manifestly infringe upon the truths revealed to us in Holy Scripture, it is our duty to give heed to them to obey them that have the rule over us, and submit ourselves. For, though my private opinion, on any minor point, may chance to be at variance with the decision of this authorised body, yet, if I believe their authority to be of God's appointment, I may rest confident that he will not desert his own ordinance, and that, therefore, it must be in accordance with his will that, so long as that decision holds good, I should yield and pay deference to it.

The Scriptures attest in the fullest manner to this authority and commission. They attest to the necessity of it, (Rom. x. 15, Heb. ix. 2,) to the fact of its being given by the Lord to the Apostles, (John xx. 21,) to the transmission of it by the Apostles to the chief ruler in each diocese, (then styled apostle, and now bishop,) (1 Tim., Tit.,) to the duty of obedience to it, (Heb. xiii. 17,) and to the promise of our Lord, that it should continue in the church till the end of the world, (Matt. xxviii. 20.)

The scripture cannot be broken. All the promises of God in Christ are yea, and in Him Amen. A divinely-commissioned authority in spiritual matters exists in the church of Christ, and will continue to do so till the end of time. But where is it to be found? and who is entrusted with it? Has it been left, in general, to the whole body of the faithful? or has God made choice of certain "vessels" out of the mass to contain "this treasure"? These questions will be best answered by asking another-namely, With whom was the authority left by the Apostles? For, as there has been no fresh revelation from Heaven since their time, no man is warranted in altering the disposition or arrangement which they made. To do so without immediate command from above would be to err presumptuously, and to shew contempt for the authority of the Holy Ghost, by whose guidance the Apostles acted. With whom, then, did the Apostles leave their authority? They left it with a chief clergyman in each diocese, who had two other orders of clergy under him. The terms in which

St. Paul describes the authority are expressly applicable to the present inquiry. "For this cause," saith he to Titus, "left I thee in Crete, that thou mightest set in order the things that are wanting." To his authority was left the arrangement of the public worship, the rites and ceremonies, and all those things which fall under the head of church order, for which the Scriptures had given no express directions. But though it is clear that the authority of the apostle (or, as we now style him, bishop) of each diocese was supreme in matters spiritual, did he stand alone in the exercise of it ? or, were other associated with him as counsellors? Let us compare spiritual things with spiritual, and we shall find that the second order of clergy (presbyters) were joined with the first to assist in coming to decision on matters of moment, and in ordaining decrees respecting them. When the important question as to the necessity of observing the Mosaic law was to be decided by the Infant Christian Church, it was "to the apostles and elders that the matter was referred, and by their authority was it negatived. But had not the laity some share in this authority, for the decretal epistle ran in the name of "the apostles, and elders, and brethren"? No doubt their names were joined in the salutation, and they were certainly present at the council. But they appear to have been there merely as witnesses and spectators, taking a deep interest in the proceedings, but to have had no voice in the decisions. For the matter was referred "to the apostles and elders." "The apostles and elders" only are mentioned as "coming together to consider of the matter;" and when "the decrees" are afterwards spoken of, they are mentioned as " ordained by the apostles and elders," (Acts xvi. 4.)

Hence it appears that, though it would be in accordance with the scriptural model to have a body of laity present at the councils of the church, and, probably, much good might result from such an arrangement, it would be a departure from it to admit them to a voice in the decisions. But let this be as it will, let it be admitted for argument's sake, what cannot be proved from scripture, and which was never the custom in the church of Christ-namely, that the laity had a share with the bishops and clergy in coming to decisions upon spiritual matters; yet, at all events, the sharpest cavillers at clerical authority never maintained that the laity had power in spiritual matters without the clergy. So that, even in the extremest point of view, no alteration can be made in these matters without the consent of those who have received the commission which Christ left with the apostles, and promised should continue for ever. Without the consent of the bishops and elders no enactments in spiritual matters can be made; nor can that which they have appointed be set aside without their concurrence. The civil power of the state may or may not ratify the decrees of the spiritual authorities, and enforce their observance by temporal penalties; but, whether it does so or not, it cannot, in point of conscience, absolve men from the duty of obeying those who have the rule over them and watch for their souls; nor can it, in point of conscience, make any thing binding upon men in spiritual matters which the rulers of the church have not appointed.

It is for the exercise of this authority that we must contend before VOL. IV.-July, 1833.

H

entering into any details respecting the proposed alterations in the Liturgy; we must demand that none be made without the consent of the synod of apostles and elders being first had thereupon, according to the pattern set us in scripture; and, if the civil power, in the neglect of such authority, shall take upon itself to make the alterations, we must, if we would not deliberately forfeit all claim to having received the apostolical commission, and unless we would be found wilful betrayers of that trust, resist all such attempts at any and whatever cost.

The only point which, at this stage, seems to call for consideration relates to the expediency of reviving the synods. Here I am inclined to think that late events have induced many, who before thought differently, to agree in earnestly desiring their restoration, as almost the only means likely, under God's blessing, to preserve us in our integrity as a true and apostolical branch of the church of Christ, vested with spriritual authority by virtue of his divine commission.

To those who think differently, if there are still any, I would, with the utmost deference, suggest the following considerations; for the only objection which I have ever heard advanced by those who disliked the revival of synods was on account of the heats and animosities likely to prevail in an assembly of men deeply interested in the matters to be laid before them, but among whom, it must be reasonably expected, there would be difference of opinion. But does not such an objection, if I may say so without offence, savour of a regard to second causes rather than to the first. If the method of appointing what is necessary or desirable in spiritual matters by means of church synods be the method instituted by the Holy Spirit-as we read "the apostles and elders came together for to consider of the matter,”—will God desert his own ordinance? Let the animosities at any given time be what they may, may we not feel sure that God will in the end work his own work with his own appointed means? Shall we not be a thousand times safer in endeavouring to resist the torrent of irreligion, and to maintain our post as a united body, by the means which are sanctioned by scripture, than by waiting disjointed, and therefore powerless, to see how long the forbearance of our enemies will prevent their invasion of our spiritual charge, which, in our present state, we are wholly unprepared to resist? The men who assembled in the councils of the early church were men of like passions with ourselves, and we know that at times there was much violence of feeling displayed in them; still God wrought good by them, and we are indebted to them for the preservation of catholic doctrine and reception of scripture, which otherwise might have been left in doubt, and are greatly assisted by them in ascertaining the quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, they having served to fulfil the important functions of the church of being a witness to the truth. The fact is, that as long as the treasure is in earthen vessels, their earthen character will from time to time shew itself; but not so as to hinder the work of God which he designs to accomplish by their means, unworthy though they be.

But I will not pursue these observations, lest I seem to speak presumptuously. I will only, in conclusion, remark that the objection

alluded to seems to me to cut deeper than is intended. For, as the synod is merely the aggregate of individuals, if they are incompetent, through their unchecked tempers or any cause, to discharge collectively their collective functions, how can they be qualified to perform their individual functions?

I cannot readily find an answer to this question.

I am, dear Sir, yours very faithfully, A. P. P.

SIR,

CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES.

A UNION between excellent men of all parties for the maintenance of peace and order! excellent truly, and of all parties! parties who agree in nothing but a wish to maintain peace and good order! who differ in opinion respecting all man's higher interests and duties, respecting all those points about which to differ is to disapprove; who will unite on no other basis than that of selfish worldly convenience; and yet who are to recognise each other as excellent men! How can one protest too earnestly against such mawkishness as this?

Excellent independents forsooth; and excellent Socinians; and excellent Jews; excellent aliens from the church of Christ; excellent unbelievers in that faith, in the which "he that believeth not shall be damned;" and, to amalgamate the strange mass, excellent latitudinarians, who, like Gallio, "care for none of these things!" These excellent persons are to come together, and, waving those minor points on which they differ, to unite on those of which all acknowledge the importance-the maintenance of peace and good order.

And yet, say many considerate persons, it is much easier to declaim against the absurdity of such an arrangement than to suggest a substitute for it, which is at once better and practicable. It may be very true that peace and good order are but of secondary importance to the well-being of society; it may be very sad and grievous to abandon the nobler parts of our political system; it may be a revolting task to cooperate with those for whom we entertain a just and deep-rooted antipathy: all this may be, and yet it may become a wise and good man to lay a strong restraint upon his feelings, and to accept, as an alternative, what in itself he considers ever so objectionable.

Such is the tone of many considerate and right-minded persons, who, looking to the present disposition of Parliament, and to the probable current of what is called public opinion, have judged it, humanly speaking, impossible for the church of England to recover her lost ascendancy in the councils of this nation. They believe, and perhaps justly, that the changes lately introduced into the British constitution have enabled the dissenting and latitudinarian parties to overthrow any Government formed on exclusive principles; and that no set of men will ever again share a preponderating influence except on the basis of concession; in short, that an effort to secure to ourselves any thing more than peace and good order can end in nothing less than anarchy and confusion.

Now, is this the real state of the case? Is our position indeed so altered in the course of the last few years? This is no unimportant question, no dreamy unpractical speculation, no subject for profitless inquiry or otiose acquiescence. If we must indeed make up our minds to the course which is here prescribed; if we must abandon all hopes of recovering our lost position; if we are no longer to contend for the exclusive supremacy that was formerly deemed the right of the church of England;-if so, then it is high time for us to look the truth in the face, to examine it in all its bearings, and follow it out into all its consequences-it is not for us to hope, and to wait, and to praise caution, and to deprecate gloomy views, and to trust things may turn out better than we expect, and to lull our apprehensions by dreaming about "excellent men," and "minor points," and "peace and good order,”

"Non hoc ista sibi tempus spectacula poscit."

If churchmen must submit to a union with dissenters and latitudinarians, they should at least do so with their eyes open. If they must make up their minds to concession, they should at least see clearly what they can concede legally and without impiety; what parts of their system they may relinquish, and what they must maintain at all costs. For whatever sacrifices we may be prepared to make for peace and good order, we must sacrifice even these for the church of Christ. The practical question, then, on which we have to decide, is this:Is it possible so to remodify our church system as to propitiate the dissenting and latitudinarian parties? and if so, have we a right to do this? Nor do I doubt that most persons will feel themselves prepared with a ready answer to both these questions. It seems to be generally assumed that such a reconciliation would be no hard matter; that the worst we have to fear is such a re-arrangement of church property as should render the higher clergy less obnoxious to envy, and perhaps lower the body generally as a cast of society. This seems to be the very worst fear of the most apprehensive persons; and to all this it seems to be admitted that we might consent without a compromise of principle.

But let the good persons, who satisfy themselves so easily, but open their eyes a little wider. Let them not look forward so many moves; but observe more closely how things stand at present. Let them not flatter themselves that the changes about which they deliberate are future and distant. They are present-nay, past. A great change has taken place already in the constitution of the church of Englanda change which affects her welfare not remotely or virtually, but actually and at once. Whenever it was that the church of England lost her exclusive supremacy in the councils of this nation, then, at that very instant, a change took place in her internal constitution-a change, too, of no ordinary magnitude or importance, but A DOWNRIGHT REVOLUTION. A trust, which had been reposed by our apostolical predecessors on a power internal to the church, was then allowed to devolve upon aliens; and that, too, in a matter of the very highest consequence, virtually affecting her well-being, perhaps even her existence as a visible society.