The transaction at Antioch in the fourteenth of Acts he supposes to have been the ordination of Saul and Barnabas to the Apostleship by a body of elders. He argues that if there had been an earthly tribunal of final resort, Paul could not have failed to mention and appeal to it. Another argument adduced to prove that there was no Head of the Church, is the fact that the organization of the church was deferred until our Lord's departure. Had he publicly presided in bodily person over a church in Jerusalem or elsewhere, that church might more plausibly have laid claim to supremacy. "His previously withdrawing made it the more easily to be understood that he was to remain the Spiritual Head in Heaven of the spiritual church universal, and consequently of all particular churches equally in all parts of the world." The importance of the points thus excluded from the system is not lessened by the indirect and negative form of the exclusion, since the positive doctrines of the gospel are, in some of the most important instances, laid down in an equally incidental manner. To the principles thus stated are opposed the errors of those who regard no ordinances or government as obligatory, because minute directions are not given in the scripture; and of those who seek in scripture or tradition for specific sanctions to each church enactment, by which means all ecclesiastical institutions are removed from the firm foundation of a scriptural authority to make such regulations, to the sandy basis of conjecture or tradition. While the English reformers chose the true foundation, modern highchurchmen try to build upon the false. "It is curious to observe how very common it is for any Sect or Party to assume a title indicative of the very excellence in which they are especially deficient, or strongly condemnatory of the very errors with which they are es pecially chargeable. Thus, those who from time to time have designated themselves Gnostics,' i. e. persons knowing' the Gospel, in a far superior degree to other professed Christians,-have been generally remarkable for their want of knowledge of the very first rudiments of evangelical truth. The phrase "Catholic" religion, (i. e. “Universal') is the most commonly in the mouths of those who are the most limited and exclusive in their views, and who seek to shut out the largest number of Christian communities from the Gospel-covenant. Schism,' again, is by none more loudly reprobated than by those who are not only the immediate authors of schism, but the advocates of principles tending to generate and perpetuate schisms without end. And Churchprinciples, High-church principles,'—' Church-of-England principles,'— are the favorite terms of those who go the furthest in subverting all these. Obvious as this fallacy is, there is none more commonly successful in throwing men off their guard." These pretended church-principles the archbishop re gards as fatal to the Christian hopes and privileges even of their advocates, because the Church of England and every other church have demonstrably departed from the primitive model as to certain points, for instance in the disuse of lovefeasts, and deaconesess, and in the enlargement of diocesan authority. "It seems plainly to have been at least the general, if not the universal practice of the Apostles, to appoint over each separate Church a single individual as a chief Governor under title of Angel' (i. e. Messenger or Legate from the Apostles) or 'BISHOP,' i. e. Superintendant or Overseer. A CHURCH and a DIOCESE seem to have been for a considerable time co-extensive and identical. And each Church or Diocese (and consequently each Superintendant) though connected with the rest by ties of Faith and Hope and Charity, seems to have been (as has been already observed) perfectly independent as far as regards any power of control. "The plan pursued by the Apostles seems to have been, as has been above remarked, to establish a great number of small (in comparison with most modern Churches) distinct and independent Communities, each governed by its own single Bishop; consulting, no doubt, with his own Presbyteries, and accustomed to act in concurrence with them, and occasionally conferring with the Brethren in other Churches, but owing no submission to the rulers of any other Church, or to any central common authority except the Apostles themselves. And other points of difference might be added. "Now to vindicate the institutions of our own, or of some other Church, on the Ground that they are not in themselves superstitious or ungodly,'-that they are not at variance with Gospel-principles, or with any divine injunction that was designed to be of universal obligation, is intelligible and reasonable. But to vindicate them on the ground of the exact conformity, which it is notorious they do not possess, to the most ancient models, and even to go beyond this, and condemn all Christians whose institutions and ordinances are not 'one and utterly like' our own, on the ground of their departure from the Apostolic precedents, which no Church has exactly adhered to,-does seem— to use no harsher expression,-not a little inconsistent and unreasonable. And yet one may not unfrequently hear members of Episcopalian Churches pronouncing severe condemnation on those of other Communions and even excluding them from the Christian Body, on the ground, not of their not being under the best form of Ecclesiastical Government, but of their wanting the very essentials of a Christian Church; viz. the very same distinct Orders in Hierarchy that the Apostles appointed; and this, while the Episcopalians themselves have, universally, so far varied from the Apostolical institution as to have in one Church several Bishops; each of whom consequently differs in the office he holds, in a most important point, from one of the primitive Bishops as much as the Governor of any one of our Colonies does from a Sovereign Prince. "Now whether the several alterations, and departures from the original institutions, were or were not, in each instance, made on good grounds, in accordance with an altered state of society, is a question which cannot even be en * "It is remarkable that there are Presbyterians also, who proceed on similar principles; who contend that originally the distinction between Bishops and Presbyteries did not exist; and consequently (not that Episcopacy is not essential to a Church; but) that Episcopal government is an unwarrantable innovation,-a usurpation—a profane departure from the divine ordinances!" tertained by those who hold that no Church is competent to vary at all from the ancient model. Their principle would go to exclude at once from the pale of Christ's Church almost every Christian Body since the first two or three Centuries. The edifice they overthrow crushes in its fall the blind champion who has broken its pillars." Again, the archbishop infers that the practice of the early churches is an argument inaccessible to the great mass of Christians, and doubtful even to the learned; that the pretended decisions of the universal church are not matters of authentic record; that the church is one, only in the same sense that the human race is one; that the sacred writers speak of a church just as the Greek historians speak of the democracy, meaning distinct societies formed on similar principles; that no Christian therefore is bound to submit to the decisions of the universal church, even if they could be ascertained; nay, that we should no more be bound to submit to the majority in such a case, against the judgment of our own particular church, “than we should be to pass a law for this realm, because it was approved by a majority of the human race." The awe inspired by appeals to this undefined authority is altogether groundless. There never was an universal church possessing authority over all the parts. Such appeals the archbishop looks upon as peculiarly reprehensible, when made not for self-vindication merely, but for the condemnation of others. His doctrine is, that any forms for public worship and for the ordaining of Christian ministers, which contain nothing that is in itself superstitious and contrary to God's word, are plainly binding by Christ's own sanction on the members of the church that appoints them. The argument sometimes drawn from the practice of the reformers in appealing to the fathers and the practice of the early church, is thus ingeniously disposed of. "If any man is charged with introducing an unscriptural novelty, and he shows first that it is scriptural, and then (by reference to the opinions of those who lived long ago) that it is no novelty, it is most unreasonable to infer that Scripture authority would have no weight with him unless backed by the opinions of fallible men. "No one would reason thus absurdly in any other case. For instance, when some Bill is brought into one of the Houses of Parliament, and it is represented by its opponents as of a novel and unheard of character, it is common, and natural, and allowable, for its advocates to cite instances of similar Acts formerly passed. Now, how absurd it would be thought for any one thence to infer that those who use such arguments must mean to imply that Parliament has no power to pass an Act unless it can be shown that similar Acts have been passed formerly!" Reference to the writings or the practice of certain men is no proof that their authority is held to be decisive. After showing that the Anglican church does not blend tradition with scripture, and that such combination is more dangerous than appealing to tradition alone, the archbishop points out the inevitable consequences of interpreting scripture by tradition, which he illustrates by the instances of transubstantiation, priesthood, and the invocation of saints. The use and abuse of human teaching in subordination to the word of God, are illustrated as follows. "The uses are so important, and the abuses so dangerous, of the instruction which may be afforded by uninspired Christian teachers, that it may be worth while still further to illustrate the subject by an analogy, homely perhaps and undignified, but which appears to me perfectly apposite, and fitted by its very familiarity to answer the better its purpose of affording explanation. "The utility of what is called paper-currency is universally acknowledged and perceived. Without possessing any intrinsic value, it is a convenient representative of coins and ingots of the precious metals. And it possesses this character, from its being known or confidently believed, that those who issue it are ready, on demand, to exchange it for those precious metals. And the occurrence, from time to time, of this demand, and the constant liability to it, are the great check to an over-issue of the paper-money. But if paper-money be made a legal tender, and not convertible into gold and silver at the pleasure of the holder,-if persons are required to receive it in payment, by an arbitrary decree of the Government, either that paper shall be considered as having an intrinsic value, or again, that it shall be considered as representing bullion, or land,* or some other intrinsically valuable commodity, the existence and amount of which, and the ability of Government to produce it, are to be believed, not by the test of any one's demanding and obtaining payment, but on the word of the very Government that issues this incontrovertible paper-currency, then, the consequences which ensue are well known. The precious metals gradually disappear, and a profusion of worthless paper alone remains. "Even so it is with human teaching in religion. It is highly useful, as long as the instructors refer the people to Scripture, exhorting and assisting them to 'prove all things and hold fast that which is right;'- -as long as the Church 'ordains nothing contrary to God's word,'-nothing, in short beyond what a Christian Community is authorized both by the essential character of a Community, and by Christ's sanction, to enact; and requires nothing to be believed as a point of Christian faith that may not be declared '† (i. e. satisfactorily proved) to be taken from Holy Scripture. But when a Church, or any of its Pastors, ceases to make this payment on demand-if I may so speak-of Scriptureproof, and requires implicit faith, on human authority, in human dogmas or interpretations, all check is removed to the introduction of any conceivable amount of falsehood and superstition; till human inventions may have overlaid and disfigured Gospel-truth, and man's usurped authority have gradually superseded divine: even as was the case with the rabbinical Jews, who con This was the case with the Assignats and Mandats of France. †The word "declared" is likely to mislead the English reader, from its being ordinarily used in the present day in a different sense. The Latin "declarare," of which it was evidently intended to be a translation, signifies" to make clear" -"to set forth plainly." tinued to profess the most devout reverence for the Mosaic Law, even at the time when we are told that 'in vain they worshipped God, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.' Another ingenious illustration is the following, designed to show that the suppression of gospel truth, on what is called the system of reserve in teaching, may amount to direct falsification. "It has been remarked that every statue existed in the block of marble from which it was carved; and that the Sculptor merely discloses it, by removing the superfluous portions; that the Medicean Venus, for instance, has not in it a single particle which did not originally exist exactly in the same relative position as now; the Artist having added nothing, but merely taken away. Yet the statue is as widely different a thing from the original block, as if something had been added. What should we think of a man's pleading that such an image is not contemplated in the commandment against making an image, because it is not made,' as if it had been moulded, or cast, out of materials brought together for the purpose? Should any one scruple to worship a moulded, but not a sculptured image, his scruple would not be more absurdly misplaced, than if he should hold himself bound, in his teaching, not to add on to Scripture any thing he did not believe to be true, but allowed to suppress any portions of Gospel-truth at his pleasure, and to exhibit to his People the remaining portions, as the whole system of their religion." On the cardinal point of apostolical succession, the archbishop alleges that there is not a minister in all Christendom who is able to trace up with any approach to certainty his own spiritual pedigree; that during the dark ages informality was common; that even in later times, the probability of irregularity, though very greatly diminished, is yet diminished only, and not absolutely destroyed. 66 "Even in the memory of persons living, there existed a Bishop concerning whom there was so much mystery and uncertainty prevailing as to, when, where, and by whom, he had been ordained, that doubts existed in the mind of many persons whether he had ever been ordained at all. I do not say that there was good ground for the suspicion; but I speak of the fact, that it did prevail; and that the circumstances of the case were such as to make manifest the possibility of such an irregularity occurring under such circumstances. Now, let any one proceed on the hypothesis that there are, suppose, but a hundred links connecting any particular minister with the Apostles; and let him even suppose that not above half of this number pass through such periods as admit of any possible irregularity; and then, placing at the lowest estimate the probability of defectiveness in respect of each of the remaining fifty, taken separately, let him consider what amount of probability will result from the multiplying of the whole together. Supposing it to be one hundred to one, in each separate case, in favour of the legitimacy and regularity of the transmission, and the links to amount to fifty, (or any other number,) the probability of the unbroken continuity of the whole chain must be computed as 99100 of 99-100 of 99-100, &c. to the end of the whole fifty." The fallacy, according to our author, consists in confounding together the unbroken apostolic succession of a Chris |