judices, they will sufficiently demonstrate the correctness of our po

sition.

Before, however, dismissing this part of the subject, I would just advert to one objection which I have heard urged against the views here advocated. The substance of the objection may be thus stated: "It is true that in the Acts of the Apostles the elders or presbyters of the church of Ephesus are styled bishops, yet as John, when in the isle of Patmos, was directed to write to the angel of the church of Ephesus,' it is evident that there was one placed over all the rest, and who in fact was a bishop in the modern sense of the term." At first this statement may seem plausible; but if we examine it we shall soon discover that the premises, involved in it, do not warrant the conclusion drawn from them. True, John had to write "to the angel of the church of Ephesus;" but what then? it no more follows from this, that the person so designated answered to one of our diocesan bishops, than the sending of a letter to a congregational minister, by him to be communicated to his church, would prove that he is a diocesan bishop. It appears that in these primitive times, that "all things might be done decently and in order," the members of the various churches, with their bishops and deacons, were led to elect one of their number, distinguished for his piety and other qualifications, to be their president, and by whom the affairs of the church were transacted in conjunction with his fellow presbyters, and the members of their flock. Such was "the angel of the church of Ephesus;" that he was a diocesan bishop, exercising authority over his brother bishops, there is not the shadow of a proof. As yet the churches had not forgotten by whom it had been said, "The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister." Matthew xx. 25, 26. On this topic let us hear the testimony of Mosheim, the celebrated ecclesiastical historian. In his history of the church in the first century he says, "But the number of the presbyters and deacons increasing with that of the churches, and the sacred work of the ministry growing more painful and weighty, by a number of additional duties, these new circumstances required new regulations. It was then judged necessary, that one man of distinguished gravity and wisdom should preside in the council of presbyters, in order to distribute among his colleagues their several tasks, and to be a centre of union to the whole society. This person was at first styled the angel of the church to which he belonged; but was afterwards distinguished by the name of bishop, or inspector." Again he says, "Let none, however, confound the bishops of this primitive and golden period of the church with those of whom we read in the following ages. For, though they were both distinguished by the same name, yet, they differed extremely, and that in many respects. A bishop, during the first and second centuries, was a person who had the care of one Christian assembly, which at that time was, generally speaking, small enough to be contained in a private house. In this assembly he acted, not so much with the authority of a master, as with the zeal and diligence of a faithful servant. He instructed the people, performed the several parts of divine worship, attended the sick, and

inspected into the circumstances and supplies of the poor. He charged, indeed, the presbyters with the performance of those duties and services, which the multiplicity of his engagements rendered it impossible for him to fulfil; but had not the power to decide or enact any thing without the consent of the presbyters and people." These quotations show clearly that in the beginning the term angel denoted no such office as our modern episcopacy.

The duties of bishops in primitive times have already been incidentally referred to; and, for the sake of brevity, we shall not now dwell upon them. We would however remark, that those duties which as bishops they were called upon to discharge were exclusively spiritual. They neither pretended to have a right, in their official character, to interfere in the affairs of Cæsar, nor is there the least intimation given that when circumstances became more favourable, it would be the duty of their successors to set up such a claim. They never dreamt of invoking "the powers that were" to force Christianity upon their subjects, and inflict pains and penalties if they either refused to receive or support it. No, they well knew that Christ's kingdom was of this world;" hence they neither fought for it themselves, nor desired others to do so. "The weapons of their warfare were not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong-holds.' To resort to the sword of the civil magistrate, either in defence of the church's doctrines, or for the support of her edifices, was a monstrosity reserved for those corrupt ages, when, forgetting the holiness of their calling, the rulers of the church became her tyrants and oppressors.

not

"

In perusing those Scriptures which refer to the qualification of bishop, we cannot but be struck with the purity of character which they were required to sustain. In order to become a bishop, it was not then necessary that a man should be distinguished for his learning; that he should have previously supported a certain political party; or that he should enjoy the friendship of some powerful state functionary; of all these claims he might be destitute; but piety he must have; piety controling his entire walk and conversation, and prompting him to undertake the office of a bishop, not for the sake of its honours and emoluments, but for the glory of God. The notion that piety is not absolutely requisite to the ministerial office, provided the person sustaining it only belongs to a fabulous succession, receives no support from the word of God, but is directly contrary to it. "A bishop," says Paul," must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre, but a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." Titus i. 7, 8, 9. Such was the character required of a bishop in the apostolic age, and until the apostolic standard is restored never will the church go forth "fair as the sun, clear as the moon, and terrible as an army with banners."

To dwell upon other topics connected with the episcopal office, might be both interesting and profitable; but I forbear, and conclude with one or two remarks suggested by the facts to which I have referred.

1st. How unscriptural is the episcopacy of the church established by law

in this country! The bishops of the primitive age, appointed according to the laws of Jesus Christ, were a race of holy, self-denying, humble. minded men, exercising no lordship over each other, or over the church of God; fearing not the frowns, and courting not the smiles of men; and who, unaccompanied by earthly honours, were content if they could enjoy the testimony of a good conscience, the approbation of God, and witness the prosperity of his church. But how different are those who are usually now designated bishops! Admitting that among them there are some good men, certainly the aspect which as a whole they present, is not in accordance with the genius of the Gospel. Lordship exercised by them over their fellow ministers and the churches committed to their care; princely incomes, splendid palaces, pompous titles, seats in the national legislature, and interference in political affairs, to the neglect of those spiritual duties, which, according to the New Testament, ought to be the chief employment of a bishop; these things are scarcely compatible with the religion of Him, who for our sakes became poor," and who was "meek and lowly in heart." The amount of injury inflicted on the world by this misrepresentation of religion can scarcely be over-rated: thereby the church has been corrupted and her prosperity hindered, and occasion has been given to the enemies of the cross to blaspheme. But, if these statements be true,

66

2nd. How desirable it is that the episcopal office should be restored to its primitive simplicity! The grand obstacle to this undoubtedly is the unholy alliance existing between the church and the state, and therefore a separation between these dissimilar institutions should be an object contemplated by all true friends of the Saviour's cause. То this consummation the signs of the times are pointing, and to help it forward is our high and glorious privilege. For this-if we possess it-let us use the elective franchise; for this let us sympathise with and support those movements which aim at "the liberation of religion from all state control;" and for this let us pray with the immortal Milton, "Come forth out of thy royal chambers, O prince of all the kings of the earth! Put on the visible robes of thy imperial majesty, take up that unlimited sceptre which thy Almighty father hath bequeathed thee; for now the voice of thy bride calls thee, and all creatures sigh to be renewed."

W. R.

REVIEWS AND LITERARY NOTICES.

THE BIBLE NOT OF MAN. By GARDINER SPRING, D.D. And, the Religion of the Bible. By the Rev. THOMAS H. SKINNER. 12mo., 331 pp. WILLIAM COLLINS.

UNQUESTIONABLY the possession of the Holy Scriptures is an incalculable advantage, but it is one not duly appreciated by even the generality of those who make a profession of Christianity. One reason why the Bible is not more highly prized, diligently read, and studied, is because the evidences which attest its Divine origin are not sufficiently

examined. Multitudes of professing Christians content themselves with acknowledging the Bible to contain a revelation of God's will, without ever considering, or even enquiring about, the evidences which afford proof of this highly important truth.

Such a line of conduct is not, by any means, commendable. Opinions which relate to questions of great importance ought to be carefully examined; and the question, Has the Bible Divine authority? is one of superlative importance. We are thankful to be able to say, that it is one which abundant incontestible evidences affirmatively answer. The argument demonstrative of the Divine origin of the sacred volume, classifies the evidences, on which it relies, into those which are external and those which are internal. The former includes all the evidences that are obtainable from other sources than the sacred writings; the latter comprises all the evidences which are deducible from the excellent and holy nature of the Holy Scriptures; their efficacy to enlighten the understanding, purify the affections, and regulate the conduct of mankind; and also to impart support and comfort under the calamities of life, cheering the soul with a blissful hope of immortality.

The work of Dr. Spring, now before us, admirably illustrates some of the most important internal evidences attesting the Divine origin of the Bible. It commences with a preliminary dissertation on the fitness of the time selected by Divine Providence for the introduction of the Christian dispensation. The following propositions are then discussed in separate chapters: "The Bible above the invention of human intellect. The Spirit of the Bible a super-human spirit. The moral rectitude of the Bible. The peculiar doctrines of the Bible give evidence of its Divine origin. The Religion of the Bible a proof of its Divine origin. The Unity of the Scriptures. Adaptation of the Scriptures to the character and wants of man. The Divine origin of the Scriptures attested by Christian experience. The Bible accordant with human reason." And "Concluding observations."

These propositions are with great ability unfolded, illustrated, and applied. Delightful richness of thought, clearness of expression, beauty of illustration, and closeness of reasoning, characterise this valuable work. Although it contains, in a few instances, expressions which indicate that their author has embraced some sentiments to which we demur, we must say that we have seldom read a work with more pleasure, and cheerfully give it our hearty recommendation. As a specimen of our author's method, we lay before our readers the following passage on,

THE REASONABLENESS OF SCRIPTURE DOCTRINES.

That no man can rationally believe the facts which he does not comprehend, is, of all positions, one of the most unreasonable and absurd. If it is reasonable to believe facts which he cannot comprehend, it is reasonable to believe truths which he cannot comprehend; for truth is but the veracious statement of facts. The objector himself believes a multitude of such truths, and regulates his conduct by them every day. Some of them he perceives intuitively: they are, indeed, too plain to be capable of proof by any logical process. He cannot explain the very union between his own body and mind; nor the action of his thoughts upon his will; nor the influence of his will upon his outward conduct; nor the manner in which his own mind holds intercourse

with other minds, any more than he can explain how God was manifest in the flesh, or how his Spirit acts upon his soul in fitting it for heaven. He cannot escape from the region of incomprehensibleness, go where he will. A revelation that instructs him in the nature of the incomprehensible God; in his counsels and government in the method of his incomprehensible grace, and in an incomprehensible eternity; bears a relation to realities so vast and immeasurable, that it is constantly bordering on mystery. It is incomprehensible, for the very reason that it is true; truth that must be incomprehensible, because it is lofty and sublime as its Author. These are the truths, in the contemplation of which "they in heaven veil their faces with their wings." You cannot dishonour these wondrous truths, without dishonouring their wondrous Source. You cannot discard them without discarding his whole revelation; without tearing away the foundations of human hope; without uprooting the truth which sustains the branches and the fruit of immortality. Those very truths of the Bible, therefore, which to the slight inspection of the rationalist appear the most objectionable to human reason, are truths which human reason might well presume such a revelation would contain.

แ

But we cannot establish the position we have taken in the present chapter, without directing our thoughts somewhat more minutely to some of the great truths and principles which the Bible reveals, for the purpose of seeing if they do not constitute a reasonable system. If we mistake not, there are grounds and reasons for these truths sufficient to satisfy every sober and dispassionate mind. They are at war with no previous truths revealed by the lights of nature and reason, and inscribed on the consciences of men; but are, on the other hand, in perfect harmony with them all. It is indeed a presumptuous service which we assign to human reason, to sit in judgment upon the truths which the unerring Oracle of the universe has revealed, and whose ways are past finding out." But for the sake of the argument, we will give the infidel this vantage ground, and ask him to look into the Bible, and indicate to us the truths against which human reason rebels.

The leading truths, and those on which all the rest depend, are few, and are very intelligibly revealed. They are, the sovereign right of the Great God to give law to his creatures; the apostate character and lost condition of man as the transgressor of that law; the great remedy which the Gospel provides for the pardon and justification of all those who truly receive it; the provision which it makes for their personal holiness and sanctification; and the unalterable retributions of the eternal world. Let common sense inspect these doctrines; let reason investigate them; let philosophy analyze them; let her intellectual resources be taxed to the uttermost; and they can find nothing in them that is not worthy of having a place in their creed. They all commend themselves to our honest convictions of truth and right; we have but to state them truly, and we may safely make the appeal to all intelligent beings, if they are not conformed to human reason.

The sovereign right of God to give law to his creatures belongs to him from his original and underived supremacy. Reason decides intuitively, that it is the prerogative of a superior to give law to his inferiors. This is the prerogative of all civil rulers, whatever be the form of government under which this prerogative is exercised. And if men, who have no natural, but only a borrowed, delegated and conventional supremacy, possess this right, much more does the Infinite God possess it, who is by nature supreme, and whose power, wisdom, goodness, and rectitude, qualify him, and him alone, to be the universal Lawgiver.

The doctrine of human apostacy is rather stated and illustrated in the Bible, than revealed; for the history of man demonstrates it; human reason, however reluctantly, confesses it to be true; and though she strives to view it in more flattering lights than those in which the Scriptures represent it, she is constrained to behold it in all its ugliness, and in the dark shadows of Scriptural