room, or address himself exclusively to such persons as may be capable of following the sustained arguments of the nature of which we have endeavoured to present to our readers a just, though an extremely imperfect and inadequate, sketch. The small pamphlet, the title of which we have placed at the head of this Article, contains an Essay on Modern Infidelity by Dr. Christlieb, which displays no ordinary amount of tact and of judgment, as well as the same thorough acquaintance with the difficult and delicate subject which he handles which is so conspicuous throughout the whole of the more elaborate volume which we have already noticed. Its commendation by the Dean of Canterbury, who was present on the occasion of its delivery, and who relates, in a short Preface, the circumstances under which the Lecture was given, and the intense interest which it excited, is a sufficient voucher for the substantial value of this pamphlet. In expressing our unfeigned admiration of the ability displayed by Professor Christlieb in both of these works, and of the spirit of deep piety which pervades them, we wish to guard ourselves against an entire acquiescence in the whole of his statements or of his inferences. We shall look forward with much interest to the volume in which he proposes to deal with the important subject of the Inspiration of Scripture, and with the objections raised by the votaries of science to the teaching of the Bible on such points as the Creation, the Deluge, the descent of man, &c.; and, in the meanwhile, we prefer to suspend our judgment on the casual intimations which we find, in one or other of the works before us, of our Author's views on the great question with which he proposes to deal. We content ourselves with observing, that we trust that the allusion which we find in p. 31 of the Paper read at the New York Conference of the Evangelical Alliance, to Luther's touchstone for the trial of the Canonicity of the Books of Holy Scripture, does not imply, on the part of Professor Christlieb, the unqualified adoption of a test which, as evinced in the mode of Luther's dealing with the authority of the Catholic Epistles, proved so entirely unsatisfactory. We doubt not, however, that Professor Christlieb will well weigh whatever he advances on so momentous a subject; and in regard to the works which we have now noticed, and which we commend to the careful perusal of our readers, we heartily rejoice that, in these days of reproach and blasphemy, so able a champion has come forward to" contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered to the saints." ARCHBISHOP USHER'S REDUCTION OF EPISCOPACY UNTO THE FORM OF SYNODICAL GOVERNMENT RECEIVED IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH. IN these days of Synodical and Disciplinary Revivals, our readers may be interested by a reprint of this famous proposal of the great Archbishop of Armagh, for the reconciliation of the Episcopal with the Presbyterian form of Church Government and Discipline. Many have heard of it, but few, comparatively, have ever seen it in print. Of its authenticity there can be no doubt. Baxter, from whose autobiography we extract the document, (Lib. I. Part II. p. 238,) says that he expressly asked the Archbishop (whom he constantly met in Cromwell's days in London) whether the paper called, "A Reduction of Episcopacy to the Form of Synodical Government," was his, and he "owned" it, "and Dr. Bernard after witnessed it to be his." (Pt. II. p. 206.) It appears to have been in private circulation about May and June, 1641, and was probably brought before the Church Reform Conference of that year, of which an account appeared in the "Christian Observer" of April, 1873 (p. 259). When King Charles I. was a prisoner in the Isle of Wight, 1648, after the Debates had been held before him between the Parliamentary and the Episcopal Divines, Archbishop Usher, Dr. Hammond, Dr. Sheldon, &c.-Usher "Offered the king," says Baxter, "his Reduction. And he told me himself that, before, the king had refused it, but at the Isle of Wight he accepted it, and as he would not when others would, so others would not when he would. And when our present King Charles II. came in, we tendered it for union to him, and then he would not. And thus the true moderate healing terms are always rejected by them that stand on the higher ground, though accepted by them that are lower, and cannot have what they will. From whence it is easy to perceive, whether prosperity or adversity, the highest or the lowest, be ordinarily the greater hinderer of the Church's unity and peace. I know that if the Divines and Parliament had agreed for a moderate Episcopacy with the king, some Presbyterians of Scotland would have been against it, and many Independents of England and the army would have made it the matter of odious accusations and clamours. But all this had been of no great regard to remove foreseeing judicious men from those healing counsels which must close our wounds whenever they are closed." (Pt. I. p. 63.) We may add that this paper was first printed from the original MS. in 1658, by Dr. N. Bernard, and will be found also in Usher's Works by Elrington, vol. XII. See also Elrington's Life of Usher, in Usher's Works, i. 208, 209; and Whitlocke's Memorials, June, 1641. THE REDUCTION OF EPISCOPACY UNTO THE FORM OF SYNODICAL GOVERNMENT RECEIVED IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH, PROPOSED IN THE YEAR 1641 AS AN EXPEDIENT FOR THE PREVENTION OF THOSE TROUBLES WHICH AFTERWARDS DID ARISE ABOUT THE MATTER OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. Episcopal and Presbyterial Government conjoined. By the Order of the Church of England all Presbyters are charged "to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Realm hath received the same." And that we might the better understand what the Lord hath commanded therein, the Exhortation of St. Paul to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus is appointed to be read unto them at the time of their Ordination, "Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the Flock among whom the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to rule the Congregation of God, which He hath purchased with His blood." Of the many Elders who in common thus ruled the Church of Ephesus, there was one President whom our Saviour, in the Epistle to the Church, in a peculiar manner styletht "the Angel of the Church of Ephesus;" and Ignatius in another Epistle, written about twelve years after to the same Church, calleth the Bishop thereof. Betwixt which Bishop and the Presbytery of that Church what an harmonious consent there was in the ordering the Church Government, the same Ignatius doth fully there declare; by the Presbytery (with St. Paul) understanding the company of the rest of the Presbytery or Elders who then had a hand, not only in the delivery of the Doctrine and Sacraments, but also in the administration of the Discipline of Christ. For further proof whereof we have that known testimony of Tertullian in his general Apology for Christians,‡ "In the Church are used exhortations, chastisements, and Divine censures; for judgment is given with great advice as among those who are certain they are in the sight of God, and it is the chiefest foreshowing of the Judgment that is to come, if any man hath so offended that he be banished from the communion of prayer and of the Assembly, and of all holy fellowship. The Presidents that bear rule therein are certain approved Elders, who have obtained this honour, and not by reward, but by good report." Who were no other (as he himself elsewhere intimateth) but those from whose hands they used to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist. § For with the Bishop, who was the chief President Touaveîv, so taken Matt. ii. 6, Rev. xii. 5, xix. 15. + Rev. ii. 1. "Ibidem etiam exhortationes, castigationes, et censura divina. Nam et judicatur magno cum pondere, ut apud certos de Dei conspectu; summumque futuri judicii praejudicium est, si quis ita deliquerit, ut a communicatione orationis et conventus et omnis sancti commerciirelegetur. Praesident probati quique seniores honorem istum non pretio sed testimonio adepti." Tertull. Apol., cap. 39. §"Nec de aliorum manibus quam Praesidentium sumimus." De Corona Militis, cap. 3. (and therefore styled by the same Tertullian, in another place, "Summus Sacerdos,' ,"* for distinction's sake), the rest of the dispensors of the Word and Sacraments were joined in the common government of the Church. And therefore in matters of ecclesiastical judicature, Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, used the received form of gathering together the Presbytery.† Of what persons that did consist Cyprian sufficiently declareth when he wished him to read his letters to the flourishing clergy that there did reside or rule with him.‡ The presence of the Clergy being thought to be so requisite in matters of Episcopal audience, that in the fourth Council of Carthage it was concluded that the Bishop might hear no man's cause without the presence of the Clergy, § which we find also to be inserted into the Canons of Egbert, who was Archbishop of York in the Saxon times, and afterwards into the body of the Canon Law itself. True it is that in our Church this kind of Presbyterian Government hath been long disused; yet seeing it still professeth that every Pastor hath a right to rule the Church (from whence the name of Rector also was given at first unto him) and to administer the Discipline of Christ, as well as to dispense the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the restraint of the exercise of that right proceedeth only from the custom now received in this realm,- -no man can doubt but, by another law of the land, this hindrance may be well removed. And how easily this ancient form of government by the united suffrages of the Clergy might be revived again, and with what little shew of alteration the Synodical Conventions of the Pastors of every Parish might be accorded, with the presidency of the Bishops of each Diocese and Province, the indifferent reader may quickly perceive by the perusal of the ensuing propositions. I. In every Parish the Rector, of the Incumbent Pastor, together with the Churchwardens and Sidesmen, may every week take notice of such as live scandalously in that congregation, who are to receive such several admonitions and reproofs as the quality of their offence shall deserve; and if by this means they cannot be reclaimed, they may be presented unto the next monthly Synod, and in the meantime be debarred by the Pastor from access unto the Lord's Table. II. Whereas by a Statute in the 28th of King Henry VIII. (revived in the first year of Elizabeth), Suffragans are appointed to be erected in twenty-six several places of this kingdom, the number of them "Dandi quidem baptismi habet jus Summus Sacerdos qui est Episcopus, desint Presbyteri et Diaconi." De Baptismo, cap. 17. "Omni actu ad me perlato placuit contrahi Presbyterium." Cornel. apud Cyprian Epis. 46. "Florentissimo illi Clero tecum præ sidenti." Cyprian Epis. 55 ad Cornelium. Encerption Egberti, cap. 43. might very well be conformed unto the number of the several Rural Deaneries into which every Diocese is subdivided; which being done, the suffragan (supplying the place of those who in the ancient Church were called Chorepiscopi) might every month assemble a Synod of all the Rectors or Incumbent Pastors within the precinct, and according to the major part of their voices conclude all matters that should be brought into debate before them. To this Synod [the Rector and] Churchwardens might present such impenitent persons as by admonition and suspension from the Sacrament would not be reformed; who, if they should still remain contumacious and incorrigible, the sentence of excommunication might be decreed against them by the Synod, and accordingly be executed in the Parish where they lived. Hitherto also all things that concerned the parochial ministers might be referred, whether they did touch their doctrine or conversation; as also the censure of all new opinions, heresies, and schisms which did arise within that circuit, with liberty of appeal, if need so require, unto the Diocesan Synod. III. The Diocesan Synod might be held once or twice in the year, as it should be thought most convenient; therein all the suffragans and the rest of the Rectors or Incumbent Pastors [or a certain select number out of every Deanery within that Diocese] might meet; with whose consent, or the major part of them, all things might be concluded by the Bishop or Superintendent (call him whether you will), or in his absence by one of the Suffragans, whom he should depute in his stead to be Moderator of that Assembly. Here all matters of greater moment might be taken into consideration, and the orders of the Monthly Synods revised, and (if need be) reformed. And if here also any matter of difficulty could not receive a full determination, it might be referred to the next Provincial or National Synod. IV. The Provincial Synod might consist of all the Bishops and Suffragans and such of the clergy as should be elected out of every Diocese within the Province. The Primate of either Province might be the Moderator of this meeting (or in his room some one of the Bishops appointed by him), and all matters be ordered therein by common consent, as in the former Assemblies. This Synod might be held every third year, and if the Parliament do then sit (according to the Act for a Triennial Parliament), both the Primates and Provincial Synods of the land might join together and make up a National Council, wherein all appeals from inferior Synods might be received, all their acts examined, and all ecclesiastical constitutions which concern the state of the Church of the whole nation established. ETIOKOTOUνTES, i.e. superintendentes, unde et nomen Episcopi tractum est. Hieron. Epist. 85 ad Evagrium. |