herlought inconsistency to de- Acts of Mr. Wilkes. "It is certain, however, that it would be forming a very erroneous judgment, were we to estimate the power, the revenue, the privileges, and rights of the first Bishops, from the rank, affluence, and authority attached to the Episcopal character in the present day. A primitive Bishop was, as it should seem, none other than the chief or principal Minister of an individual Church, which, at the period of which we are speaking, was seldom so numerous, but that it could be assembled under one roof. He taught the people, administered what are termed the sacraments, and sup plied the ailing and the indigent with com fort and relief. With regard to the per formance of such duties as it was impos sible for him to fulfil or to attend to in person, he availed hiinself of the assistance of the Presbyters. Associating, likewise, these Presbyters with him in council, he inquired into and determined any disputes or differences that might subsist amongst the members of his flock, and also looked round and consulted with them as to any measures which the welfare and prosperity of the Church seemed to require. Whatever arrangements might be deemed eli gible, were proposed by him to the people but was bound to conform to and carry We proceed to those parts of the Apology which constitute the answer to Mr. Wix. On the subject of Episcopacy, Mr. Newton admits that there were bishops in the apos tolical times, but denies that they were of the same sort as our English prelates." If you suppose us," he's says, "to be enemies to Episcopacy, you have entirely mistaken our sentiments. None of us have any objection to such bishops as are spoken of in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus," us." ́or as were found in the Churches of Ephesus and Philippi. The only lamentation the greater part of whom were persons of amongst us who are overseers of very moderate or slender means, and that Christian churches among the dis-out of these offerings, in addition to the senters is, that we are not more conformed to the divine rule. This Presbyters, the Deacons, and the indigent brethren."-Dissenter's Apology, p.7. Bishop, provision was to be made for the their This passage is to be found in Mosheim's Commentaries on the affairs of Christians before the time of Constantine the Great, and Mr. Newton seems to imagine that it is decisive of the controversy. But he forgets that Mosheim was writing in defence of an unepiscopal Church government, and therefore cannot be considered an impartial judge upon the question. Both he and Mr. Newton are evidently aware that their own Church government is not scriptural, and a feeble attempt to carry the war into their adversaries' quarters, by retorting the charge upon us, is their only method of eluding a difficulty which it is impossible to overcome. They cannot deny that Timothy and Titus were bishops; not merely overseers of one flock, as Mr. Newton may be, but superintendants and rulers of many flocks. And when we ask the dissenters where are superintendants and overseers, they answer, it is true, we have not got any; and it would be more scriptural if we had, but your English bishops are not the same as Timothy and Titus, they are richer, they are more powerful, and they have a wider rule. We shall betake ourselves seriously to the explanation of these and similar difficulties, as soon as we have heard why Mr. Newton does not make tents in imi. tation of St. Paul. But for the present, it will suffice to observe, that according to Mr. Newton's own shewing, the Church adheres in form to the discipline of the Apostles; but differs from it in manner and degree, while the dissenters have thought proper to choose a new form of their own. The first therefore is a partial, the second a total deviation; and yet the second is better than the first! Mr. Newton next adverts to those portions of the Address, which imply that dissenting teachers "intrude themselves into offices which they have no right to sustain; and having denied that the Church of E England can establish the regular succession of her bishops, he proe ceeds in the following words. succession of the Ministers of the Church "And as for the perpetual and unbroken of England from the Apostles, we neither admit the purpose for which you insist upon it, or the fact that such a succession exists. As to the purpose for which you introduce it, it is evidently to show that our Ministers are not lawfully appointed, that the wisest or best of them are spiritual intruders, and that you, the Ministers of the Church of England, are, and alone can be, safe and lawful guides. Thus am Owen, a Doddridge, and a Watts, taught without proper authority; and thus the reformed Churches abroad, and the Lutheran Churches, and the Church of Scotland, thority for what they do. The man most apostolical in spirit, if he teach the Gospel without the imposition of the hands of the Bishop of the Church of England, is acting irregularly and unlawfully. While on the other hand the most vain and conceited ignoramus who has been episcopally or dained, is entitled to preach the word and administer the Sacraments, and to call away the hearers of such an apostolical man. Can you wonder, Sir, that we do not believe these things, and that your address will prove powerless, and entirely in are under teachers who have no lawful au sufficient to persuade us, since it rests upon such arguments?"-Dissenter's Apology, p. 10. The unbecoming language of this passage is pointed out by Mr. Wix, in the Appendix that accompanies his second edition; but we shall content ourselves with exposing the complete inefficacy of the argument which is so decently and tastefully clad. Mr Newton's position is this. We are to judge of the lawfulness of the call by the fruits of the ministry. That is to say, if a man shall prove eminent and successful in his profession, he has a better right to exercise it than any one else. According to which theory a great tyrant, a great general, aud a great demagogue, are legally commissioned to plunder and kill. Oliver Cromwell and Buonaparte were lawful destroyers of their fellow creatures, while the most vain and conceited ignoramus of an ensign who fought in obedience to his king and country, deserved to have been hung in chains for murder. The dissenters are whigs; and therefore in civil matters they contend that unless the authority be legal, the acts which emanate from it must be illegal. And they have always taught that a vain and conceited parish constable, appointed according to law, and conducting himself lawfully, is a more respectable personage than an arbitrary king. It is necessary therefore, that civil officers should have a visible call; and it is plain that the rule ought also to be applied to ecclesiastics. And unless it can be shewn that St. Paul chose himself, or was chosen by the Gentiles whose Apostle he was, unless it can be shewn that Timothy and Titus were in like manner self-appointed or elected by universal suffrage and ballot, we may defy Mr. Newton to prove that he has any better commission to preach, than a despot or a rebel has to govern. He may excel in preaching as the despot excels in governing, and the rebel in re belling and in fighting; but it is absurd to contend, that any of the three can really stand the test of a trial by their fruits. For the real fruits of rebellion are anarchy; and of despotism, slavery; and of schism, strifes, and heresies and envyings. And the latter fruits have been produced by the non-conformity of Baxter, Doddridge, and Watts, in spite of all their piety, talents, and learning. This therefore is the sum total of Mr. Newton's Answer to the Address. We need not be episcopalians, because your bishops are richer than Timothy and Titus; and we may preach without a com mission, because several of our preachers have been eminent men. A more lame and impotent conclusion cannot well be conceived, and if Mr. Newton's flock are satisfied with it, they are very tractable men, But having refuted Mr. Wix, he proceeds to state his own view of the controversy between the Church The Church cannot excommunicate except by a suit in the Ecclesiastical courts. The Church imposes things as necessary for her communion, which the great head of the Church has not commanded. The Church does not allow the people to choose their own minis ters. The Church is in alliance with the State, and acknowledges the chief magistrate to be her supreme head upon earth. The Church requires her ministers to subscribe according to the provis sions of the Act of Uniformity, and thereby to express their assent to the baptismal and burial services. For these five reasons Mr. New ton is conscientiously compelled to separate himself from the Esta blished Church; and we shall take the liberty of calling his attention to some remarks upon each of the five. If profane persons are" admitted to receive the Lord's Supper for civil and profane purposes," p. 14, it is because the laws of the Church are not enforced. For the canous require that such persons should be presented to the Ordinary, that they may be dealt with according to law; and if dissenters would continue in communion with the Church, and discharge the duties of Churchwar dens conscientiously and strictly, they might remedy the evil of which Mr. Newton complains. And, moreover, we are confident that one half of the profanation that really exists at the altar lies at the door of the non-conformist, and not of the Churchman; and we heartily wish that the former could be prevented from receiving the Lord's Supper against his conscience, in the Church, as a key to emolument and power!! Upon the subject of viles and ceremonies, and vestments, and sub scription, we shall merely say, that unless Mr. Newton thinks thate a surplice is worse than a Socinian, and that it is better to deny our Lord's divinity than to kneel at his table, he ought not to reproach the Church for being in possession of those safeguards, of which the want is so severely felt in his own communion. There never was a body of professing Christians more free from anti-trinitarian heresy than the Church of England is at present; and for this freedom she is indebted to her articles and creeds. There never was a body of professing Christians more perplexed and distracted than the dissenters, and it is to the want of creeds and articles that their distractions and perplexities may be traced. The third and fourth objections may be considered together; and as they are diametrically opposed to each other, they need not detain us long. We are not called upon to discuss the origin and limits of the Regale, or to compare the Jewish economy, in which God himself gave the civil magistrate an authority in things spiritual, with the Christian dispensation, under which the Church has so long been in alliance with the State. Mr. Newton does not appear to have clear views upon this subject. But, at all events, he is certain that the multitude ought to meddle with their ministers; and that the magistrate ought not. It never occurs to him to inquire how matters will stand, if the people should take it into their heads to surrender their rights to the sovereign; nor does he tell us why Par liament, which, votes away a lay man's money, may not also waive his right to an ecelesiastical privilege. Satisfied with asserting that the clergy should be dependant upon the people, and independent of the crown, he finds every thing to blame, and nothing to praise, in the unfor tunate Church of England. First, she is too hot, and, secondly, she is too cold. First, she is hierar-ui chical; and, secondly, she is parlia mentary. First, she governs herself haughtily and irresponsibly; sea condly, she is governed by the lawan of her country. When Mr. Newton s has explained these mysteries to the satisfaction of his flock, we trust that he will be at leisure to tell us who elected St. Peter and St. Paul; and, perhaps, also he may feel dis posed to vindicate the Old Testa ment from the charges, to which, upon his principles, it is but too much exposed. As to the utter horror in which Mr. Newton holds the idea of an alliance between Church and State, we doubt not that he, as an individual, is sincere in his expression of it. But that the dissenters, as a body, would most gladly unite with the civil government, and that great sacrifices would be submitted to for the sake of such an union; is a fact which cannot be doubted, by those who are acquainted with history, or human nature. Presbyterianism is al ready intimately connected with the State. Independency, as far as we are aware, has never yet received a propoal; and it is, therefore, right and reasonable that she should forbid our banns. Whenever we see a society of Independents, Baptists, or Presbyterians, who refuse to accept the offered hand of the government, we shall very readily acknowledge that we have been mistaken. But, till the event occurs, we must beg leave to be incredulous. The passages in the baptismal and burial services are all that remained to be noticed, and of the assent to them which is required by the Act of Uniformity, Mr. New ton observes, in no very charitable tone,. "Our Ministers dare not on any account, make such a declaration as this. We are willing charitably to hope, that those who do make it, mean it: but we should feel ourselves dishonest men if we attempted it. We fear, we greatly fear, that this res quisement is the occasion of much subtors fuges of much false dealing, of much un easiness of soul or indifference to truth In these cases the fountains of truth are poisoned, and what is begun in prevarica tion, ends in lukewarmness and iniquity the honesty and integrity of men and of Christians, are looked for in vain, and the ways of Zion mourn. We really conceive that it must be a very difficult thing for any man taking into consideration, the whole compass as well as the parts of this declaration, to make it; and as for onrselves, we know that we can neither make it, or support others in doing so. We could not thus enjoy peace upon our pil lows. "We feel objections to different parts of the Church service, though we readily admit that much of it is exceedingly excellent. It is needless for me to mention any parts now, except the Baptismal and the Burial Services. These are very important, as forming the entrance into, and the exit out of the Church. We can neither give our children to enter it with a safe conscience, or be buried in it according to our views and principles. How, Sir, can those who do not believe baptism with water to be regeneration, either baptize or have their children baptized according to the form of the Church? How can we first pray for the regeneration of the child, and then thank God, after it is haptized, that it is regenerated? How can a Clergyman read the Burial Service over all that are brought to him to be buried? Sir, we make conscience of these things, and as long as we do so, we must (unless there be an alteration in the Church of England) continue Dissenters; truth, honesty, and conscience, require this from us. However willing we may be to be numbered with many of the members of your communion, we dare not, in prospect of that day which is coming, join your Church and assert her purity, her Apostolic excellence, and the obligations of all Britons to submit to her commands.-Dissenter's Apology, P. 19. Mr. Newton here admits that he, and other dissenters, are willing to be numbered with many of the members of our community-and we should like, if possible, to learn who some of the many may be. Are they such as deny the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, or such as maintain it? If the former, Mr. Newton's friends, with whom he is willing to be numbered, are the very persous whom he accuses of subter fage and false dealing; for which, as it is no affair of ours, we humbly recommend him to their notice. If he is willing to communicate with churchmen who teach regeneration in baptism, we shall request him, in their name, not to say that they "believe baptism with water to be regeneration." He ought to know, and in fact he must know, that they neither believe nor say any such thing; and the very prayer in "the baptismal service, in which his conscience will not permit him to join, expressly thanks God for having regenerated the infant with his Spirit. There are dissenters who teach that baptism with water is regeneration; viz. those who deny the personality and the influence of the Holy Ghost. The existence of such persons among us, is the result of nonconformity; and it is therefore not quite fair to confound them with the genuine children of the Church. But still it cannot be denied that there are many who, with Mr. Newton, reject the doctrine of baptismal regeneration; and is it not hard to ensnare their consciences, or exclude them from the Church? Just as hard, and no harder, than it is to require them to express their faith in the resurrection of the dead, and the life everlasting. Both are to be believed, because they are distinctly revealed, and are indispensable constituent parts of the Christian scheme. The burial service furnishes a more plausible argument; since, when we speak of trusting that our deceased brother rests in Christ, we cannot intend to express our certainty or confidence of that event; and yet this is one meaning of the word to trust. Surely, however, Mr. Newton must be acquainted with another; he cannot have forgotten that I trust,' is continually used for, I fervently hope:' and if in that sense he would refuse to repeat the collect in the burial service, we have formed a very incorrect esti. mate of his feelings, and his dispo |