insisting on their freedom and exemption from it: each party so considerable, as to call for an Apostolical council to decide the controversy between them."

"Such was the very infant state of this Church of Antioch; the oversight whereof, antiquity tells us, the great Apostle St. Peter, in a peculiar manner took upon himself, and for six or seven years at least, made it his first, and special apostolic see."

This is all that Prelacy can allege to show from the New Testament, that there might have been or must have been, a Diocesan Church at Antioch; the force of the argument consists in whatever ground there may be to conjecture, that the Church at Antioch was too large to come together.

Let us compare these conjectures with the Word of God. Slater says, "Tidings came to the Church of Jerusalem, where the whole college of Apostles was in readiness to consult for them. They" (the college of Apostles) "send Barnabas." Turn to Acts xi. 22," Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of THE CHURCH which was in Jerusalem; and THEY sent forth Barnabas." There is no breath about a "College of Apostles."

Slater again: "They continue a whole year in that populous city, leaching much people." The sacred record says, Acts xi. 26, that "A whole year they assembled themselves WITH THE CHURCH and taught much people."

Slater continues to argue from various probabilities, "What a harvest of converts those Apostolic laborers made;" he accumulates circumstances and considerations, to show how numerous these converts must have been. To what end does he do this? Why, simply to show that the Church at Antioch must, from its numbers, have become a Diocese embracing several congregations: being too large to meet TOGETHER.

This, then, is the question: Can this Church at Antioch come together; or can it not? If it can; and if the same continues true of the Church in Jerusalem, the last pretence of a Scriptural Diocesan Church, for ever vanishes away.

What says the Scripture? In Acts xiv. 24, 27, Barnabas and Saul, having been sent from the Church at Antioch through several regions on a special work, passing through Lystra, Derbe, Iconium, Antioch in Pisidia, and throughout Pisidia, to Pamphilia and Attalia, come at length to ANTIOCH, "from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled." "And when they were come and had GATHERED THE CHURCH TOGETHER." This was after the time of the great in-gathering of converts at Antioch. No necessity for a Diocese on account of the impossibility of the Church's coming together yet; for they not only " gathered the Church together," but when they had done so, they "rehearsed all that God had done with

them." But this is not all; the record goes on to relate that "they continued a long time with the disciples." And in that long time, what further came to pass? Why, a dissension arises about the doctrine of certain Judaizing teachers from Judea. "THE BRETHREN" at Antioch determine that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them should go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and elders about this question. Trace these ministers and delegates. "And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received oF THE CHURCH, AND OF THE APOSTLES AND ELDERS." "Then all the multitude kept silence and gave audience to Barnabas and Saul." Then it pleased the Apostles and elders with the WHOLE CHURCH to send chosen men of their own company." They wrote in the name of “ The Apostles, and elders, and brethren." So when these chosen men were dismissed, "They came to Antioch; and when they HAD GATHERED THE MULTITUDE TOGETHER, they delivered the epistle." At the latest record, the Church of Antioch and the Church at Jerusalem come together, and act IN A BODY, as Congregational Churches.

It is unnecessary to say more. The New Testament record is so circumstantial and varied, that had there been a Diocesan organization, in the times within the scope of its history, some hint or allusion to its existence, must have been left on the sacred page.

As to the Fathers; there could not have been a Diocesan Church in their times, till they had altered the constitution of Church government traced in the Word of God. All that the Lord intended to render obligatory, he doubtless caused to be put on the record, either in direct terms, or by some implication or allusion; otherwise we are thrown upon tradition, or Church authority. The Bible, in that case, is not our guide or rule; and we know not where we may be tossed or driven. No testimony of the Fathers, therefore, no possible arguments can render that binding, in the very principles and fundamentals of Church organization and government, of which no trace is written on the pages of the Sacred Word.

XXII.

MATERIALS, STRUCTURE, AND DISCIPLINE OF A CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

Scriptural Authority. The arrangements of Prelacy contrary to Scripture.

1. Of what materials is a Christian Church to be composed? In the present state of the world, may the Church, wherever she goes, gather the whole population, by "street rows," parishes, or by entire nations, indiscriminately into her bosom ?

Paul writes to "The Church of God at Corinth," thus (1 Cor. v.): "I write unto you, not to company with fornicators; yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolators, for then ye must needs go out of the world; but now I have written unto you, not to keep company, IF ANY MAN THAT IS CALLED A BROTHER, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; WITH SUCH A ONE NO NOT TO EAT; for what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within."

Here are established certain principles:

1. That each Church is to "judge" of the qualifications and character of its members.

2. That merely being "called a brother," i. e. being regarded as a nominal Christian (holding the belief of Christianity rather than of Judaism, Paganism, Mohammedanism, or Infidelity), does not entitle one to be regarded as a member of a Church, while his conduct falsifies and shames such a profession. The Church must cast him out, even if he is within; much more, being without, they may not admit one of such a character to their communion; i. e. they are bound to judge concerning the character and qualifications of their members; and to cast out, much more to keep out the grossly immoral; whatever their professions. With such a one, says the Apostle, "No NOT TO EAT"-not by the slightest act of recognition, to own him as a brother in the Church. As one of the world, you may hold necessary dealings and intercourse with him, as with a heathen

man and a publican; but his pretensions as a Christian brother, you are not to countenance.

Such instructions Paul had already given to the Corinthian Church; and now he sharply rebukes them that they had not cast out a notorious fornicator. "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven;" that is, put such a wicked person away. But a Church gathered by "street rows," in any part of Christendom, will have more than "a little leaven" in it; the majority of such Churches will consist of a large proportion of leaven, as the world now goes. In such a Church discipline is impossible; as the very idea of discipline, in such a case, is an absurdity. Such a Church is corruptly constituted, and being made up mainly of those who spiritually reject Christ, it will reject Christ's laws.

Nor does it alter the case, that these people are gathered (as is pretended) under a true successional priesthood; and under the notion that baptism and the Lord's Supper, administered by that priesthood, confer regeneration and impart a sanctifying virtue. Nothing is more notoriously untrue. The people of the National Church of England have all been baptized; but nothing is more notorious and undeniable, than that multitudes of them are fornicators, profane swearers, and otherwise as utterly destitute of all religion as the inhabitants of Sodom or Gomorrah. The same is true of every National Church, and of all particular Churches indiscriminately gathered. And when, or where, has an instance occurred of such a discipline as the Gospel enjoins; viz. the casting out, or excommunication, of grossly vicious or immoral persons, in all the Episcopal Churches in England or the United States?

A little attention to facts, will show a state of things, which calls for deep reflection on the part of all true Christians, who stand connected with churches gathered on this indiscriminate principle. The Oxford Tract, No. 59,* says "Every churchwarden in every parish in England, is called upon once a year, to attend the visitation of his Archdeacon. At this time, oaths are tendered to him and among other things he swears, that he will present to the Archdeacon the names of all such inhabitants of his parish as are leading notoriously immoral lives. This oath is regularly taken once a year, by every churchwarden in every parish in England; yet I believe, that such a thing as any single presentation for notoriously immoral conduct has scarcely been heard of in a century." Again, Tract No. 41† says, "I think the Church has in a measure forgotten its own principles, as declared in the sixteenth century; nay, under

* Quoted in Coleman's Primitive Church. † Quoted in Coleman, p. 122.

stranger circumstances than have attended any of the errors and corruptions of the Papists. Grievous as are their declensions from primitive usage, I never heard in any case, of their practice directly contradicting their services; whereas we go on lamenting once a year the absence of discipline in our church, yet do not dream of taking any one step towards its res

toration."

Thus speak the Tractarians, with regard to the English Church. With regard to the Episcopal Church in this country, hear Dr. Hawkes, in his "Contributions to the Ecclesiastical History, &c." [pp. 359, 360]: It is true, the power of excommunication does belong to the Church; it does, too, deprive of all the privileges of church membership; and it is the most awful power ever confided by heaven to man; rightfully exercised, its consequences (though the world may scorn them) are of the most terrific character, if the Scriptures be true."

Since, then, excommunication is a power given to the Church; and since the exercise of that power, in worthy cases, is enjoined by the Word of God, does the Episcopal Church in this country ever exercise that power? Or if not, is it because there are no subjects, within her pale, whose character demands it? Hear Dr. Hawkes in continuation:

"It is true the power of excommunication does belong to the Church." * * "BUT WHO EVER HEARD OF THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF A layman by our BRANCH OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH? The law is a dead letter. Neither the General Convention nor any state Convention have ever provided any rules or process for excommunication. THERE IS NOT A CLERGYMAN IN THE CHURCH, WHO, IF HE WERE EVER SO DESIROUS TO EXCOMMUNICATE AN OFFENDER, WOULD KNOW HOW TO TAKE THE VERY

FIRST STEP IN THE PROCESS. It certainly is not to be done according to his mere whim; and if it were so done, it is as certainly invalid. Shall then the PRESBYTER alone do it; or shall it be done by his BISHOP; or by a CONCLAVE OF BISHOPS; or of BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS; or by a STATE CONVENTION, including the laity; or by the GENERAL CONVENTION, including the laity again? NO MAN CAN ANSWER, FOR THERE IS No Rule on THE SUBJECT; and we are glad that it is so: for our excommunication, bringing in its train no penalty which would be felt, depriving a man of no civil rights, would be laughed at as mere brutum fulmen. The spiritual consequences would not be thought of." "To our apprehension, the rubric is, on this subject, quite law enough, unless we had power to make the discipline of the Church to be more felt as a punish

ment."

*

*

Alas! that a minister of Christ should acknowledge it to be