shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts xx. 35). The Apostle enjoined the bishops to labour with their own hands; and he particularly reminded them that he himself had set them the example of that which he inculcated; but when we look at our "Christian prelates," what do we see? immense wealth, palaces, coaches, a retinue of servants, mitres, seats in parliament, thrones in cathedrals, pomp, power, the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. These are "points" of some importance; but the author of the Booke of the Universal Kirke, who can discover dioceses, thrones, and princedoms, for his mitred angels in the New Testament,who can discover ecclesiastical courts, and episcopal authority over dissenting meeting houses, in the Book of Revelations, is so pitiably blind in these other 66 points," ," that he cannot see those truths which every other person, not wilfully blind, cannot help seeing.

A few more extracts will shew the tone of sentiment in the rest of this absurd "Booke." "The cause why we lay so much stress upon the apostolic succession of the priesthood is, that we may be certified that the sacraments are rightly administered. For we cannot conceive how any grace can be conveyed to us in the sacraments administered by unauthorised persons. Any person may acquire, by reading, a thorough knowledge of Christianity; and a lay schoolmaster may instruct his pupils in all the rudiments and fundamental doctrines of our most holy religion; but he cannot baptise himself [himself baptise?], neither would parents ever think of asking a teacher, however learned, to baptise their children. The most ignorant and irreligious of people have implanted in their minds a strong impression of the necessity of baptism. I speak from experience, having frequently met with parents who, though living most irreligiously, never entering within the walls of a church, Presbyterians as well as Episcopalians, yet all extremely anxious that their children should be baptised, and greatly alarmed lest they should die without receiving the sacrament; and, with all this anxiety and fear, never venturing themselves to administer it, nor ever taking their children to a neighbour for that purpose, but bringing them to me, or to some other minister. Now this is a strong proof that God has fixed in the hearts of all Christians, however depraved, a conviction that some efficacy is to be derived from baptism, and also that the only proper administrator of it is a minister of Christ. And here, though faintly and obscurely developed, we may trace an outline of the principle of the succession of the priesthood. Why else should they prefer a minister to any other person? If they thought the validity of the sacrament consisted in the mere form of sprinkling water on the child's face, in the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost, or even in their own faith in His divine ordinance, parents would not be so scrupulous as to the administrator" (p. 29).

Some curious propositions are to be extracted from this passage.

1. "The most ignorant and irreligious of people," "living most irreligiously," may be members of the Church of England. [By this we may be sure that the Church of England is not the same as the Church of God, for none but saints are in His Church].

2. The most ignorant and irreligious of people, living in open sin, have implanted within them an innate idea of the necessity of having their infants baptised.

3. The most ignorant and irreligious people must fear lest their infants should die unbaptised by an ordained minister.

4. This affords a strong proof that God has fixed in the hearts of all Christians (i. e. the most ignorant and irreligious people) a germ of knowledge which, when fully developed, leads them to acknowledge the "Christian prelatic priesthood."

Here are some curious truths for the philosopher and the divine. Locke is said to have proved that man has no innate ideas; but "The Booke of the Universal Kirke" has shewn that man has an innate idea of the necessity of infant baptism, to be duly performed by an ordained minister! The Scriptures never mention infant baptism at all, and yet man, having a New Testament within himself, by the very constitution of his nature, attests to the truth of infant baptism! This is a new argument for the Pædobaptists, at least as far as our reading has furnished us with information; we never before met with it in books of the baptismal controversy.

But the author, on this question, is Papâ papalior, for he says, "the Roman Church, in its many errors, has added this also, of permitting, in cases of extreme necessity, a nurse to baptise a dying child, when a minister cannot be had. Singular it is that that Church, which stands so much upon the high prerogatives of the priesthood, should depute to the laity that sacrament which the Divine Head of the Church committed only to the eleven Apostles. Our Church has repudiated that practice, and, in its canons and liturgy, has strictly confined the administration of that, and of the other sacraments, exclusively to the clergy."

Such are the extravagancies to which those persons are liable, who have once given way to the influence of the clerical delusion; and into what extravagancies may it not lead its victims? Here we see the priest of a small dissenting sect in Scotland claiming absolute spiritual and ecclesiastical authority for his own minute party, and blind to the absurdity of his pretensions, asserting his imprescriptable right to "thrones and princedoms" in a kingdom where his sect never had possession, and where not all the force of government was ever able to plant it quietly for one single day. But not only in Scotland, England, and Ireland would the author fix the "thrones" of his angels, but in all the world; for, having persuaded himself that all the promises of Christ's sceptre belong by right divine to the Church of England, he considers the whole terraqueous globe to be the diocese of his sect, and like another Hildebrand, grasps, in the ardour of his clerical imagination, all the regions between the rising and the setting sun. A genuine Pope takes it for granted that he is Christ upon earth, and all that the glorious Head of the Church can claim, he claims as his alter ego. "Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet," say the Decretals concerning the Roman Pontiff; and the author of " The Booke of the Universal Kirke," in the following passage, evidently makes God and the Episcopalian sect identical: "There are persons who frequent different places of worship in the same country-to such persons the Lord God Omnipotent speaketh through the mouth of the prophet Elijah, How long halt ye between two opinions; if the Lord be God follow him, but if Baal, then follow him :' and, saith our blessed Lord, 'No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other, or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.' True it is, no one worships the idol Baal, but it is also true that if men would be good Christians, they would flee divisions-they would hold either to Episcopacy or Presbyterianism; they would not in the morning in our church pray to be delivered from schism, and straightway in the afternoon commit schism by frequenting places of worship (i. e. the Church of Scotland,) with which their church, as a church, holds no communion." (p. 109.) Here the "two masters" are the Episcopalian sect and all other sects; and as the passage referred to in Scripture, sets forth God as the sole Master who claims universal obedience, the inference is inevitable. The Roman pontiffs and the Church of England each claim a universal Kirke, and with the same arguments (p. 11).

What then may be the foundation of all these vain pretensions? the Apostolical succession; this is the sand on which the Episcopalians build their house. But what is the Apostolical succession ?—a sort of heraldic evidence that a touch has been conveyed from one bishop to another, till it has reached to bishops now living. This is absolutely the whole mystery required by the thorough-paced Episcopalians. It is not a succession of doctrine, nor of faith, nor of holiness, nor even of dry notional assent-it is not a succession of the same church government, or of the same opinions, spiritual, dogmatical or practical; none of these things are required in the Apostolical succession, but only a "satisfactory" proof that bishops now exercising their clerical functions have been touched by bishops, their predecessors, who had received the mysterious tact in an "unbroken line" of succession from those remote ages, whose obscurity curiosity cannot, and charity should not, disturb. The Booke of the Universal Kirke claims this tact for its Episcopalian angels in the persons of the Roman Catholic bishops who lived before the Reformation, and indeed it is obvious that the Apostolical succession must be traced through the Popish hierarchy; so, then, the efficacy of this tact is wholly unimpaired, though passing for centuries through the bodies of Popish prelates, every one of them inimical to the Protestant opinions. An Anglican prelate does not scruple to charge the Church of Rome with many grievous errors, and yet with great complacency bases all his own authority on a tact, which, for many ages, was wholly preserved by the Church of Rome. Neither is there any question amongst the Successionists about the holiness

or spirituality of a bishop who has preserved the tact no evidence is required of the Christian character of the persons by whom the tact has been, is, or will be conveyed; but this only is demanded, Has he been canonically consecrated? if that can be proved, all is right. Bonner, or Archbishop Arundel, are just as good links in the chain as Cranmer, or Kenn, or Blomfield. The bishop may have been a high Calvinist, like Bishop Hall and Archbishop Grindal, or a low Arminian, like the present Bishop of London, or something lower than an Arminian, like the present Bishop of Durham, and it would matter not. Dr. Hampden, who has been denounced as a heretic by the University of Oxford, could as surely and safely convey the tact, if consecrated a bishop, as Professor Pusey, or any other clergyman at the Antipodes of doctrinal sentiment. Nay, to such absurdities has the theory been carried, that it is even now asserted, that if a Presbyterian, or other dissenting church, had originally been founded by an apostate bishop, it would, through the indestructible virtue of the mysterious tact, be a good and canonical church! The Apostolical succession is clearly, therefore, a species of clerical electricity, passing through Episcopal bodies as its only known conductor, and entirely unconnected with the understanding, will, or affections of man; it is neither intellectual nor spiritual, and therefore must be physical. This is lucidly set forth by the Booke of the Universal Kirke: "The whole question, then, is not whether the Episcopal or the Presbyterian form of Church government is the better of the two; but it is, where doth the ordaining power rest? where is the fundamental principle? where is the vital spark of the priesthood? We answer, with the bishops, the alone successors of the apostles.... I know not that it has ever been asserted by any. Presbyterians, that any Catholic or Romish bishops ever renounced their Episcopate, and, under the name of Presbyters, became the founders of Presbyterian churches, and thus transmitted the Apostolic seed to the present generation. I conceive, could this be established, that any church, though denominated Presbyterian, would be entitled to be recognised as a branch of the true church. But if this leaven exist not, upon what ground, I ask, can any man claim to be a minister of Christ ?" (p. 40).

The learned author evidently attributes an indestructible physical virtue to the tact, for by having proposed the case of a Popish bishop turned Presbyterian, he puts his theory to the test, and does not scruple to say that a Presbyterian church, founded by an apostate bishop of the Romish communion, would, in consequence of this tact, be a true church! This, then, must be clerical electricity; for if the poor bishop should protest against the inference, and declare he had renounced Rome, and bishops, and the Apostolical succession, it would be of no avail; the Episcopalians would tell him, the apostolical succession does not depend on the mind but on the body, and that he, though now a Presbyterian minister, yet having originally received" the vital spark of the priesthood," could not help conveying the spark to those Presbyterians whom he had ordained, and that therefore the Presbyterian ministers so ordained, were Episcopalians in spite of their teeth; for "the leaven" could not be got rid of!!!

Such are the books published in these days in defence of the Anglican Church; and published not to sink still-born from the press, but to receive the gratulations and applause of many Episcopalians. "The Booke of the Universal Kirke" is considered " a very seasonable publication," and having been put into our hands as something above the ordinary class, we have felt called on to examine its pretensions, and make known its arguments.

GATHERINGS OF CHRISTIANS IN 1820.

[To the Editor of " The Inquirer."]

SIR,-The following account of some separate gatherings of Christians, on principles nearly resembling those which I frequently see advocated in the pages of your periodical, may perhaps be interesting to your readers, as we hereby have a proof that some of the most important of those principles were recognised earlier than the year 1820. The "Concise View" refers to a correspondence between churches in existence in the year 1820, and speaks of them as in action in England, Scotland,

Ireland, and America; we must therefore suppose that they were in existence sometime previous to the date of the correspondence. Of the subsequent history of these churches, I can give you scarcely any information, excepting that I believe some are yet to be found in Ireland and America, unconnected by any visible union with other churches, and not, perhaps, in a state of much energy.

In this little document which I send you, there are, to me at least, many points of deep interest; amongst them, however, there seems to me to be one which contains an error-it is in the following words: "These churches appoint their bishops and deacons according to the divine direction." To make bishops and deacons without all the other appointments of a perfect church, without the power that first elicited those appointments, without the direction, authority, and instruction of the Holy Spirit, is, in my apprehension, a mistake into which many Christians are liable to fall, who endeavour, either in theory or in practice, to restore "judges as at the first, and counsellors as at the beginning." We have no authority to make bishops and deacons; that authority rests with the Head of the Church, and He will manifest his desire for such officers when and where he wants them. Christians who separate from sects are apt to break down in attempts of this kind; we have seen instances of their failure, and ever shall see them where the attempt is made. The only church that I knew anything of, as referred to in the "Concise View," did break down in the appointment of officers: confusion came in at that door, and it ended at last in the dispersion of the flock. Still, however, it is gratifying to discern the simplicity of truth breaking through the darkness of sect twenty-five years ago, or perhaps sooner; it was the first dawn of the morning; clouds may have intervened for awhile, but the light has been gradually advancing, and the orb of day is now, perhaps, not far from the horizon. Yours, very faithfully,

SIDETES.

"A CONCISE VIEW OF A FEW CHURCHES OF CHRIST, SCATTERED THROUGHOUT ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, IRELAND, AND AMERICA; EXTRACTED BY W. W. S. FROM THEIR CORRESPONDENCE PUBLISHED IN 1820.

"As there are numerous congregations at the present day calling themselves Christian,' it appears desirable to submit a very brief statement of the doctrines and nature of the churches above alluded to, in order that they may not be confounded with this general mass.

6

"1. These churches acknowledge no name, or title, but that of the CHURCHES OF CHRIST.'

"2. They consider that the Lord Jesus Christ has laid down in the New Testament a complete code of laws, both in direct commands and examples, for the regulation to the end of time of His kingdom or church on this earth (Matt. xxviii. 20: Acts i. 3). And, however foolish, inconvenient, or inadequate many of these laws may appear (in these civilized times); yet, as proceeding from HIM, to whom 'the wisdom of this world is foolishness,' and WHO is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever,' they consider them all, without distinction, imperatively binding; obligatory on all the redeemed children of Christ; and obedience to them as necessary to prove the sincerity of a Christian's profession, as obedience to the moral law (1 Cor. xiv. 37; John xv. 14; 1 John v. 2; 2 John 6; Rom. xvi. 17—19). And, moreover, that no man, or body of men, have a right to abrogate any of them, either by adding to, or taking from them (Rev. xxii. 18, 19); such conduct manifesting the spirit of antichrist (Col. ii. 8; 2 Thess. ii.; iii. 6; 2 Pet. ii. 1-3; 1 John ii. 18, 19).

6

"3. They admit none as brethren, but those who have been given to believe the record which God hath given of his Son' (1 John v. 11); the lost state of man, by nature and by practice (Rom. iii. 19; Ephes. ii. 1, 5, 8, 9); and the sovereign, unconditional, unmerited mercy of God to man, through the glorious and finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ-Emmanuel (Rom. iii. 24, 25).

"4. They require the sincerity of the profession of these great truths to be proved by a walk in life conformable to the laws of Christ, both in a strictly moral and religious point of view; conceiving this walk to be as necessary a proof of the person really believing what he says he believes, as the symptoms of life are to its existence (James ii. 26).

"5. They hold fellowship with none but brethren, in any of the ordinances of Christ's house (e. g. prayer, praise, breaking of bread, &c.-2 Cor. vi. 14-17; Num. xix. 13), but the public are present during the observance of them all.

"6. They meet every first day of the week to commemorate the glorious victory of God their Saviour, by the breaking of bread, praise, prayer and fellowship; at which time they also exhort one another (Acts ii. 42; xx. 7); all in the presence of the world, to whom, after their worship is over, one of the brethren declares the gospel. They also meet one or two evenings in the week, for the purpose of mutual communication on, and examination of, the Scriptures; on which occasions also they have prayer and praise.

"7. At all these meetings, each brother performs that part which the gift of God enables him to do (Rom. xii. 4–8; 1 Cor. xii. 14-27; xiv. 37); exhorting and building up one another in their most holy faith' (Heb. iii. 13; Jude 20).—Metaphysical or oratorical sermons, with the enticing words of man's wisdom,' have no place in these churches; nothing being done here to entertain the world (Isa. xxix. 13), to whom the ordinances of Christ's house must ever appear foolishness, and that in proportion as they are scripturally observed; because the natural_man_receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are spiritually discerned' (1 Cor. ii. 14; 1 Thess. ii. 4, 5).

"8. These churches appoint their bishops and deacons according to divine directions (1 Tim. iii.; Tit. i. 5-9): these labour with their own hands not to be chargeable to any' (Acts xx. 29-35; Phil. iv. 9). But the brethren consider it their privilege at all times to minister to the temporal wants of any brother-particularly to those who labour in the cause of Christ. They acknowledge no title of distinction but the above, or that of the servants of Christ, conceiving the appellation of' HOLINESS,' or 'REVEREND,' to be, not only in direct violation of the Lord's commands (Matt. xxiii. 8), but an awful assumption of the titles of Omnipotence, of WHOM it is written, Holy and Reverend is HIS name' (Psalm cxi. 9). When the church

meet, these officers have no more to do than any other brother, except so far as their gifts enable them: the duty of taking care of the flock being, not when the flock is in its fold, but when it is scattered among the world, the period when their services are obviously most required.

"9. These churches regulate all discipline and order by the unerring standard of truth exclusively; acknowledging no rules or laws but such as are fairly deducible from the Scriptures: they interfere not in politics; considering themselves bound to be faithful subjects in whatever kingdom it has pleased God to place them.

"10. They consider all true followers of Jesus bound in obedience to their Saviour's commands (2 Thess. ii. 15; iii. 6; Jude 3, 4; Rev. xviii. 4; John xiv. 15; Luke x. 16) to come out of all congregations not organised after the example of the churches' planted by the apostles (1 Thess. ii. 14); to flock round His Standard; to stand by it, and by one another, in these perilous times, willingly bearing His reproach; assisting in accomplishing the fulfilment of their dear Redeemer's prayer, 'that they all may be one,' and thus leave the world with their worldly churches (John xvii. 21).

"He_that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.'— Rev. ii. 7.

"This Correspondence has reference to a reformation in the Christian profession, which seems to have had no parallel since the days of the apostles; which, without any thing in the state of civil society to operate upon the hopes or fears of Christ's disciples; without any renowned leader, or leaders, to bring them together, or to frame religious systems of belief or practice for their guidance; without any representative body to organise them into a distinct sect, or to establish a uniformity of belief and worship among them; without any general concert among themselves; and without any patronage from the learned or the great, these churches arose, in various places, at nearly about the same period of time. And what is still more remarkable, they all partake of the same general character, and have a striking similarity of belief and obedience. The principles upon which they are established, the bond of their union, their practices and their views, are as remarkable and as peculiar as was the manner of their original institution. They possess no theological system, nor allow any creed composed by man. The Holy Scriptures alone,