ernment, will ever be competent to manage the concerns of a republican government. If Christ's people, few and simple as are the ends of Church government, are not competent to govern themselves in Church estate, then the very idea of republican government ought to be abandoned in all the earth.

*

But the very elements of popular rights in the discipline and government of the Church, Prelacy has taken quite away. She has subverted the very genius and spirit of the polity of the Christian Church; making it a MONARCHY instead of a REThere are indeed some popular elements interwoven

PUBLIC.

* Is it the genius of Prelacy to invert all the fundamentals of Church polity laid down in the Word of God? Christ gathers only professed and apparent believers into his Church. Prelacy gathers her Churches in indiscriminate masses, by parishes and nations; thus confounding the Church and the world. Christ enjoins the duty of private judgment; Prelacy denies even the right. Christ enjoins us to call no man master, but to search the Scriptures; Prelacy denies that the Bible alone is a safe or sufficient guide; it binds us to the traditions and interpretations of men. Christ forbids his disciples to be brought under the yoke of bondage, by subjecting themselves to the ordinances and commandments of men; Prelacy frames her canons, prescribes her ceremonies, garments, and postures; issues her ordinances, and if any man will not be subject to these, he shall have no part nor lot in the Church. Christ says, "Tell it to the Church." No, says Prelacy, "Tell it to the Bishop." Christ bids us depart from an apostle or an angel from Heaven when they preach another Gospel; Prelacy forbids us to depart from the Bishop, though he be a limb of Antichrist; nay, she draws her life-blood from such a suc cession, and counts it her virtue and her glory. Christ is jealous over his people, and fears "lest by any means, as the Serpent beguiled Eve," so their minds should be "corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." Christ's Gospel is jealous over them who are tempted to rely on forms, and holy days; "I am afraid of you; you observe days, and months, and times, and years;" Prelacy disfigures the whole calendar with Saints' days, Angels' days, Lent, Ember days, and other arrangements of "voluntary will worship;" she prepares her forms, and canons, and rituals, and robes, and thinks the simplicity that is in Christ, too simple and bald; and betters it much, she supposes, by ceremonials and observances of her own devising.

Suppose a company of the primitive disciples could come back, and by some means stumble upon the LITURGY of the Episcopal Church; turning over its pages they read such titles as these: "The Circumcision," "Fifth Sunday after Epiphany," "Fourth Sunday in Advent," " Septuagesima Sunday," "Fifth Sunday in Lent," Monday before Easter," "Good Friday," "Easter Even," "Tuesday in Baster week," Whitsunday," "Trinity Sunday," "St. Stephen's day," "The Innocents' day," "Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary," "St. Peter's day," "ST. MICHAEL AND ALL ANGELS," "St. Simon and St. Jude," "All Saints' day," and so on, and so on.

What a strange spectacle would all this be to these old disciples! Well might they inquire," What does this mean? Where, in the name of wonder, did you get all these? Lent, Saints' days, Angels' days?" Why, this is what Paul meant when he said to some of our neighbors of old, "I am afraid of you; you observe days, and seasons, and months, and years." Who could wonder, if these ancient disciples, reading here about "St. Michael's day, and all angels," should call for the old epistle which they used to hear read at Colosse; and laying their finger on the 16th verse should read thus: "Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat or drink, or in respect of a holy day," Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels !” "Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as living in the world, are ye SUBJECT TO ORDI. * after the COMMANDMENTS OF MEN, (touch not, taste not, handle not), Which things have indeed a show of wisdom, in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body, not in any honor, to the satisfying of the flesh." How strange, too, it would appear to these ancient Christians, to turn to the table in the front of the Prayer-Book, and see the Church" gravely giving out "Les sons" from the APOCRYPHA, to be read as portions of the Word of God.

NANCES,

*

into the organization both of the state and general conventions In this country; but they are unlike the same system anywhere else in the world, and inconsistent with its fundamental principles. They arose from the necessity of making the system, in some degree, conformable to the popular sentiments and institu tions of the American people; and they were unwillingly adopted by the staunch Prelatists of the day.

The Prelatical principles are truly set forth by Mr. Chapin in his recent work on the Primitive Church. Whoever will consult that work (which, in Connecticut at least, is regarded as a standard work on Episcopacy), will find (p. 175) that he gives to Bishops "exclusively," "the power to judge in the Church." (p. 175, and p. 32.) He makes them not only Christ's ministers but Christ's "representatives" (p. 33), maintaining that Christ has "made over, or committed to them, as by devise or bequest, the kingdom which the Father had appointed or committed to him," "that they might sit on thrones," ** “judging (in à judicial sense)** the Church." (pp. 173, 174.) All this he builds upon what he calls the Apostolic commission (in the sense of commis sion to the rank and office of Apostle), viz. “ As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you." A plain Christian would find here no commission to an official rank, but a commission to execute an important work, to act as Christ's servants, to carry his Gospel, and proclaim his grace. But in the transforming hands of Prelacy, this rises into a Prelatical commission, creating an order of viceroys and vicegerents! Our author argues at length that the "even so" refers (not to the sending) but to the official rank and headship of Christ; that the Bishops are vested with the RANK and PREROGATIVES WHICH CHRIST HELD as head and sovereign of the Church! This he draws out into formal particulars of "powers granted in this commission." 1. Of preaching. 2. Of baptizing. 3. The power " of admitting to, or rejecting from the Church." 4. Of ordaining. 5. Of kingly authority like that of Christ. 6. (In his own words), "CHRIST had power to forgive sins, and he gave authority to his Apostles to absolve and remit the sins of repenting sinners." 7. Sovereign power of judging the Church, in a judicial sense. The sum of the whole view is, THAT WHATEVER POWER, PREROGATIVE, OR SOVEREIGNTY, CHRIST HAD OVER THE CHURCH, HE TRANSFERRED IT, DEVISED IT, MADE IT OVER BY BEQUEST, CONFERRED IT BY COMMISSION, upon the Apostles; and that sovereignty the Bishops Now HOLD. The "EVEN so send I you," he holds, conveys all. "The commis sion as it here reads," says he (p. 171), "is one of the most im portant things of which we can conceive, yet the rule of construction furnished by the Scriptures, tends rather to enlarge than to limit the powers granted in it." Surely if ever the Pope claimed

more than this, or made himself more the "Vicar and Vicegerent of Jesus Christ," than is here claimed for a Protestant Diocesan Bishop, I know not where to find that more extravagant claim. Surely our Diocesans are not chargeable with making claims too modest or moderate!

Thus, the Church is made no more a republic, but a sovereignty, tied to an exclusive and indefeasible succession. The world has recently seen how these claims are carried out in practice. Bishop Onderdonk of New York claims as Bishop, sovereign and divine right to control and overrule the action of a deliberative assembly, whose whole constitution and organization and functions are a matter of conventual arrangement. By virtue of this divine right he shouts, "Sit down, sir; not a word, sir;" and the assembly reverently obey their master! Sixty clergymen go in procession to congratulate him and to thank him for his manful vindication of his divine prerogatives; and then kneel down and receive his Apostolical benediction in return! In his address to his convention, every inch a Bishop, he denies that the clergy, and pre-eminently that the Bishop, owes "any responsibility to the Church as a body." In the Church, he maintains that "Responsibility ** unlike that of human organizations, is toward concentration, not diffusion." "Power and prerogative in the Church came from Christ to the first order in the ministry; THENCE to the lower orders, and. to the brethren and laity of the Church. As the last gave no power nor prerogative, it is difficult to conceive how they can demand responsibility to them as a right."**"The primary powers of the Church, then, are not diffused, but concentrated; they are NOT IN THE MEMBERS, but the HEAD." This is not merely the statement of Prelatical principles, by the head of the first Diocese in these United States; but it is a correct statement of the principle, held and avowed by the universal Prelacy of the world. That is, The Church is no republic, but a monarchy; a monarchy not of the people, nor by the people, but of Divine right, indefeasible, and with no responsibility to the people; but only a mutual responsibility of the several sovereigns of the "one body," to the sovereigns in conclave.

"A popular election to the ministry," says the Bishop of Connecticut, "derives not the least support from the Scriptures. * * There is no other Scriptural foundation for the sacred ministry, than that which is contained in the divine commission of the Apostles. From them the authority is derived through the succession of Apostolic Bishops down to the present time."

From these dreary principles of spiritual despotism let us turn once more to the republican features of the churches organized by the Apostles. These churches had officers, which were to be

regarded and observed, in their proper sphere, as much as the officers of any other republic. But the manner of their ruling was not to be as "Lords over God's heritage;" "Whosoever will be chief among you," said the Saviour, "let him be your servant."

The Apostles themselves gave several striking illustrations of their regard for popular rights. The first public act of the Church, after our Lord's ascension, was the choice of an Apostle in the place of Judas. Peter stands up in the midst of the disciplesthe number of names together was about one hundred and twenty -and proposes the matter. The election is made by the body of the Church.

Here is the strongest possible case. If the people are ever to be passed by, in the appointment of their ministers, surely it should be so here. Yet this is done by a popular election, and that, in the very presence, and at the instance of the Apostles themselves and the Holy Ghost records it for our instruction in such matters, if any instruction is given on the subject. How much more is this rule to be regarded in the appointment of an ordinary minister?

Attempts have been made to set aside the plain record of facts in the first chapter of the Acts. Slater, among others, deems it necessary for the cause of Prelacy (as indeed it is) to overturn the commonly received and natural interpretation of this simple narrative. He contends that Peter is addressing the Apostles, and not the brethren; and that the Apostles-not the brethrenmade the choice. I am willing to refer the reader to the record for himself without one word of comment. For the satisfaction of those who believe in the Fathers, it is sufficient to adduce authority which good prelatists may not gainsay: Chry sostom says, "Peter did everything here with the common consent. He left the judgment to the multitude.”

*

Cyprian confirms the exposition of Chrysostom.†

The appointment of Deacons was suggested by the Apostles, as it was fit that inspiration should direct what officers were to

"The judicious HOOKER," vol ii., p. 122, sneers at "the pretended right of the people to elect their ministers before the Bishop may lawfully ordain ;" and declares that by his arguments against a popular election "is drowned whatsoever the people, under any pretence or color, may seem to challenge, about admission and choice of the pastors that shall feed their souls."

Slater (p. 111) thinks that "reason, common sense, and experience, go against popular elections;" and that "the will of a few select ones [prelates] is safer than the votes of a mixed multitude;" declares that there are "no footsteps of it [popu lar elections] in the Holy code of Christ's laws;" and that "not this man but Barabbas is a tremendous instance of a popular election in the most eminent con gregation of the only church of God then amongst men." He forgets to tell us what hand the "Chief Priests" had in exciting this tumult, and in rejecting Christ Would it have been any better had it been left to the Chief Priest alone?

† Coleman.

be established in the Church; but the election was by the people. The record is in Acts vi.

χειρ,

The same appears to have been the mode of electing Elders, or Pastors. Paul and Barnabas (Acts xiv), passing through an extensive district of country, "ordained them Elders in every church." Immediately upon this word ordained, there arises before the mind of Prelacy a vision of some sacred rite, the communication of some ghostly virtue or power. But in the original, the word is the one in common use to denote an election by the suffrages of the people. The Greeks gave a popular vote by raising the hand: and hence their word vote, or elect, is a compound one of xeg, the hand, and Tewo, to lift. Thus Demosthenes says, "The people exegorove, voted in my proposals;" i. e. gave their vote by lifting the hand. Every tyro in classic Greek will remember the fable of the birds assembling to elect a king; where the same word is used in the case of one who thought himself worthy to be elected. Birds have no hands to lift, but the word was so common that it came to signify an election in any mode. So Thucydides says, "They were at an election," Cicero refers to this manner of voting among the Greeks: "Their manner of voting is known, they lift up the hand." The same word is used (sigotovoεTES) in 2 Cor. viii. 19, where Paul speaks of one who was "chosen of the Church" to travel with "this grace" (another instance of popular management of Church concerns). Here the same word is used as that where it is said that Paul and Barnabas ordained: but surely in the present instance Prelatists will not contend that the Churches conveyed a mystical grace, or performed a ghostly ceremony of ordination; they simply chose these men. How then can the same word mean any more when it is said that Paul and Barnabas ordained?

χειροτονία.

The same word zagotovε is used in the same sense by the Fathers. Ignatius says to the Philadelphians, "It will become you, as the Church of God, zeigorovnoa to choose some deacon to go there;" again, "That your Church appoint, zooσsome worthy delegates."*

This throws light upon the nature of the ordination performed by Paul and Barnabas. They caused elders to be appointed, or, as in the margin of the English translators, " When with lifting up of hands they had chosen them." Tyndal's translation reads, "And when they had ordained them seniors by election in every congregation." The ancient French version reads, "And after having by common suffrages ordained elders." Beza reads, "And when they had by suffrages created elders."

Nothing in the record refers to any ceremony of consecration; * Coleman, p. 58