ART. II.-Presbyterian Rights asserted. By A PRESBYTER OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. London: Burns. 1839. 8vo. Pp. 39.

SUCH is the title of a most noble pamphlet which has just issued from the press. Its title is not more striking than its matter is important and calculated to arrest attention. There is in human nature a most strange propensity to be ever and anon occupied with some particular section of truth, to the exclusion of the rest. Thus it seems to be the constant business of the advocates of right views, to be concerned in vindicating isolated portions of the deposit entrusted to their care. For no sooner is the rust removed from one spot than it gathers in another, and it would seem as if we were not to hope ever to see at one glance all the fair proportions of truth standing out in their relative fulness and symmetry. Thus of late years it has been the obvious duty of churchmen to draw from their almost forgotten obscurity, the arguments by which in other days the champions of the cross vindicated the divine origin of Episcopacy. It has been necessary in conducting the controversy on this point to be vigilant as well as active, not only to answer what, if substantiated, would be solid objections, but also, so to answer them as to blunt the shafts of ridicule and sneer with which, but a very few years ago, the maintainers of the apostolical succession were invariably met. But then, as the general ignorance which prevailed concerning the rights of the Episcopate was extended to all matters affecting the constitution of a visible ministry, it was not enough to vindicate the powers and commission of the first order of the clergy, with such mere allusions to the second and third as were sufficient to show their subordination to the first. But in proportion as a fact for the doctrine of the episcopal succession is a fact, not a deduction-which for fifteen hundred years had been admitted as unreservedly as the inspiration of the canon of Scripture-in proportion as this fact that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons had always been in the church of God, came to be once more cleared from the mists in which an age of puritanical phrenzy had enveloped it, in exactly the same proportion did those, whom the fact convicted of schism, seek to gainsay the evidence on which it had ever been received and held, by the church of Christ. Various were the methods taken to get rid of this truth. In the earlier stages of the controversy, the opponents of episcopal succession denied that there was any such thing as a standing ministry required by the circumstances of the religion of the Gospel. But the practice of the objectors themselves gave the lie to their theory, and the question then became one as to the constitution of such standing ministry, the necessary existence of such a body being conceded. To break a lance with the creatures of the

slavery of Congregationalism was to waste time, and the only tangible form in which objections came, was, that instead of three orders there were only two, and that the presbytery had the power to transmit their functions, in fact, to perform whatever the episcopalian alleges to belong exclusively to the bishop. To meet this, it became necessary to magnify the office of the first order of the clergy, and, by that sad fatality which seems to belong to human nature, of running into extremes, exclusive honour and attention has been but too generally, by high-churchmen, paid to one order, to the exclusion of the rights of the others. And thus the present pamphlet is most seasonable, and we shall quote largely from it. The author thus opens the subject:

The present circumstances of the Church of England, and her future prospects, render it highly important for the clergy of the second order in the ministry to understand their real position in the Church; their duties and obligations to the first order of the ministry on the one hand, and their own rights and privileges on the other.

That a very general ignorance prevails on this subject, it is impossible for any one to doubt. By the generality of our legislators it is unknown that we possess any peculiar rights and privileges: they regard us as mere servants of the state, and they look upon the bishops as magistrates appointed to keep us in order. This, too, is perhaps the view generally taken by those of the clergy who are designated low-churchmen. They look upon themselves as ministers employed by the government, and placed by the same government under the control of certain other ministers, who have high secular rank conferred upon them. Some of those who are styled high-churchmen are apt to err in the opposite extreme. Being deeply impressed with the divine right of episcopacy, they forget that the right of the presbytery is equally divine, and draw the hasty conclusion, that episcopacy is a despotism, and that, consequently, to the caprice of their diocesan all the clergy of a diocese are bound, without questioning, to submit. If, without disrespect, I may speak of the bishops themselves, and infer their opinions from their conduct, I should say that they are as divided in their opinion as to their relative position with respect to the other clergy, as any of the parties to whom I have alluded. I believe, that with very few exceptions, there has never existed a body of men more desirous of doing their duty than the existing bishops of the Church of England. But their notion of episcopal duty varies considerably. Some appear among us as spiritual peers, associating with the other clergy, as the lord-lieutenant of the county with the inferior magistrates. These are generally the best, though not the most apparently active, bishops in the Church. They never needlessly interfere with the parochial clergy, but are always willing to assist them: they are the great patrons of learning and piety. Other prelates seem to regard themselves as schoolmasters; indeed I have heard it said of a high-establishment prelate, that his notion of a bishop is, that he is an examining master plus a proctor. Others, again, consider the whole diocese as one parish, and every parish priest as their curate; thus reducing the clergy, in point of fact, to two orders, bishop and deacon. These are the most busy prelates; but their activity, as we shall see, is not always advantageous to the Church. They seem most of them to have forgotten the authority, rights, and privileges of the second order of the ministry, which possesses authority, rights, and privileges scarcely inferior to their own. The fourth Council of Carthage decrees, "ut episcopus in ecclesia et in consessu presbyterorum sublimior sedeat; intra domum vero collegam se presbyterorum esse cognoscat.' At the same time,

these are the bishops who are desirous of obtaining from the state increased power-power to do as magistrates, what as bishops they have no right to do. If they obtain an increase of power, our order will be depressed even more than it is now; and this is another reason why it is necessary to let them know what our rights really are.

Now the present writer was a zealous supporter of episcopacy at a period when to speak of the apostolical succession was looked upon as a sign of dementation by many who are now the most able advocates of the doctrine. He may consider himself, in a very humble sphere, as one of those who have been instrumental in opening the eyes of the public to the Scriptural authority of the episcopate. He does entirely believe that episcopacy is of divine right; and when the deference, on principle, was not paid to the episcopal office which he knew to be due to it, he not only contended for episcopal rights and privileges, but was among the first and foremost, by his example, to maintain them. But he did not do this from any exclusive regard to the honours of episcopacy. He was influenced only by his love for the Church of Christ. Pro ecclesia Dei, pro ecclesia Dei, was his motto then as it is now,-the motto which he hopes will cling to his parched lips as he breathes his last breath. The well-being of the Church requires that due honour should be paid to the episcopate; but the well-being of the Church requires that more honour than is due to it should not be rendered. When we look upon human nature, we find that its corruption, in a great degree, consists of the disproportion which exists between its different component parts; one instinct is disproportionately strong, the opposite and counteracting affection disproportionately weak, and the issue is sin. So is it with the body ecclesiastical: if the episcopal power be disproportionately exalted, so as unduly to depress the presbyterate, the diaconate, or even the rights of the laity, evil must ensue. Of late years the lay influence in the Church of England has undoubtedly been too great, and with a section of the Church there is a desire to increase it: laymen have thrust themselves into the places of the clergy, presided over meetings of a purely religious character, sent forth missionaries together with the bishops, and done almost every ministerial act; and in our towns they are coveting, and, by means of the five-trustee churches, are securing to themselves, the powers exercised by the lay dissenters, of whose tyranny, the most vehement advocates of schism, among dissenting preachers, loudly complain. To counteract this usurpation, the clergy have been zealous in pointing out to their people the rights of episcopacy. But still, when we have done this, there will be a want of proportion, if the rights of the other clergy are forgotten. Let this be always remembered; for the sake of the Church, each order and degree should maintain its rights, and not exceed them. All members of the church of Christ, lay as well as clerical, are consecrated; as of the ancient, so of the spiritual Israel, it is said that they are “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people :"+ the laity are consecrated at baptism to preach the gospel by a holy example; as heads of families, they inherit patriarchal rights, they are to instruct their households in the gospel, and minister at the domestic altar. Over an assembly of families the presbyter is ordained to preside, and to administer the sacraments among them, with or without a deacon. Over an assembly of parishes the

It is not meant to say, that at the commencement of this century the doctrine was not taught; it was asserted by many of our great divines, by Bishop Horsley especially, and his worthy successor in the archdeaconry of St. Albans, the late Archdeacon Watson, that kind-hearted, humble-minded, venerable, and learned man, "whose praise is throughout all the churches." But it was a kind of esoteric doctrine, merely whispered among the clergy, not noised abroad among the public, as in our better days. The study of evidences had made our controversialists take the narrowest ground they could find, and every doctrine which they did not think essential, they thought it expedient to withhold.

+ Compare Exod. xix. 5, 6, with 1 Pet. ii. 9.

bishop presides; over an assembly of dioceses the metropolitan. The metropolitan is the centre of unity to the provincial (or, as politicians style it, the national) Church; the bishop is the centre of unity to the diocese; the incumbent is the centre of unity to the parish; the father is the centre of unity to the family. If the presbyter unduly interferes with the family arrangements, confusion ensues; and confusion also ensues if the bishop unduly interferes with the parochial arrangements. But when a family in his parish is disorderly, the presbyter is bound in duty to interfere; and so is the bishop to interfere when parochial duties are not properly discharged. Here we see order and regularity strictly preserved. If the layman, on the other hand, intrudes into the presbyter's office, confusion of another sort is the consequence; which is again the consequence if the presbyter, transgressing the boundaries of his parish, busies himself, except under the bishop, and by his command, in diocesan affairs; and this is again the consequence if a diocesan interferes in another bishop's diocese, and intrudes into the office of the metropolitan.* us not encroach upon the rights of a higher order; but let us not forget that it is our duty to maintain our own.

Let

It will now be seen that the present writer is an episcopalian, with a due regard to the rights of the presbytery; a presbyterian, with a due regard to the rights of the episcopate. He does not wish to encroach on the rights of his spiritual father, but he claims a right to use, as he thinks proper, what his father has given him.-P. 5-11.

And here we may observe that the author seems to lay some little stress on the bishop taking an oath of obedience, and the presbyter making a declaration. We do not conceive, however, that any thing can be made out from this, since all beneficed clergy take an oath; and it is the beneficed clergy that the argument more particularly affects.

The evidence from antiquity, primitive tradition, and the historical records of the Church, evinces great learning and considerable research, accompanied with sober judgment. The remarks, at pp. 14-16, on the false position in which we are at present placed, are admirable. The following illustration of the maxim of the early Church, that nothing is to be done without the bishop, is well illustrated.

And here I may, before I proceed, make a remark on the misunderstanding of the ancient expression, "that nothing is to be done without the bishop." It is most true that nothing is to be done without the bishop; but we are not obliged to apply to the bishop every time that we baptize, preach, offer the eucharist, or pray: we have received our authority from the episcopal college to discharge these offices when we were ordained, therefore all these offices are done with the bishop: and so with respect to parochial government, we were invested with spiritual jurisdiction in our parishes when we were instituted; and in the exercise of that jurisdiction in all our parochial arrangements, we therefore act with the bishop until we are deprived of our benefice.-P. 17.

A priest when ordained in England is asked, "Will you reverently obey your ordinary and other chief ministers to whom is committed the charge and government over you, following with a glad mind and will all their godly admonitions, and submitting yourselves to their godly judgments?" and he answers, "I will do so, the Lord being my helper." A bishop, when consecrated, takes "an OATH of due obedience to the archbishop." "In the name of God, amen. I, N., chosen bishop of the church and see of N., do profess and promise all due reverence and obedience to the archbishop and metropolitical church of N., and to their successors. So help me God through Jesus Christ."

The author then, with much learning and true christian moderation, proceeds to show that the presbyters are entitled, from the fact of their being the co-rulers of the bishop, to be consulted on all occasions of importance. And the practice of St. Cyprian is alleged with great force; in fact, the case is most triumphantly made out, that it was the custom of the early church to transact all things by joint consent of bishop and clergy. The bishop with his clergy did communi consilio ponderare. Weigh all things by common advice and deliberation.

The following statement proves that in this point, as in others, the Church of England is a true branch of the church catholic of Christ.

Now, with respect to the Church of England, this principle is fully conceded. Our Church is divided into two provinces, and in the provincial synods of both provinces the presbyters have a right to be represented by members of their own order. Nay, it may be a question whether, by the Church of England, the principle is not carried too far, and whether, if convocations were again to assemble for dispatch of business, it would not be necessary to introduce some reform in our system, so as to give the bishops yet greater authority than they possess in our synods-if we may be permitted so to style our convocations. But into the question of convocations and their revival, it is not my business at the present time to enter; I only allude to the subject to show that the Church of England, like a true branch of the catholic church, considers presbyters to be co-rulers of the Church with the bishops. I respectfully entreat my right reverend fathers the bishops, and my reverend brethren the presbyters, to remember this; I entreat the laity also to be apprised of it: I entreat them to remember, what people are beginning to forget, that we are a sacred and necessary order in the Church; that by Eusebius we are called πρόεδροι, προεστώτες by Gregory Nazianzen and Basil, πрoσráraι by Chrysostom, and præpositi by the ancient Latins,-titles which we share with the bishops, and which are intended to convey a notion of our rights, office, and privileges. If we are to do nothing without the bishop, the bishop is to do nothing without us.-Pp. 20, 21.

The case is well applied to that monstrosity, the Ecclesiastical Commission, and to that abortion, the Church Discipline Bill. The remarks on this latter measure we transfer.

Into the merits or

And so again with respect to the Church-discipline Bill. the demerits of that bill it would be beside my purpose to enter. That some reform is necessary in the ecclesiastical courts, all persons are ready to admit. The state assumes a despotic power, and takes upon itself to prescribe what that reform shall be of course, we must submit. The bishops, as peers of parliament, may take part with the state; but let it be clearly understood, that in so doing they are acting, not as bishops, but merely as peers of parliament, and that their authority, consequently, is not greater in this matter than that of any temporal peer. As bishops, they could not make any alteration in the discipline of the Church without consulting their ecclesiastical senate, the presbyters. It was a feeling of this sort, though not fully developed, which induced the Bishops of Gloucester and Exeter to ask for the advice of their clergy through their archdeacons,-the only method left to them, now that the convocation is silenced. But the Bishop of Exeter seems only to have thought of the episcopal authority, forgetting that of the presbyters. He knew that there is a strong feeling in the country in favour of episcopal authority, and that therefore the clergy generally are opposed to measures which would interfere with that authority; but even he seems to have forgotten, that the question of presbyterial authority ought to be introduced into the subject. The second order may