regard the institutions of our faith."

The pious members of the Church of England appear to us to be no less interested in the discontinuance of a practice, which dishonours religion in general, and makes it the jest of the scoffer, and is the peculiar burthen and opprobrium of their own communion. Many of them, we know, have long mourned in secret over this great and crying evil. On the conscientious clergy it presses with a weight that is often painful and sometimes intolerable. The pious minister of the church is placed in this distressing predicament:-the canons and rubrick of his church require him to warn from the Lord's Table, all immoral persons, and even all persons unprepared for worthy communicating; but the Test Laws make the Sacrament a sort of civil right and privilege, and some eminent legal authorities have laid down the opinion, that were any person applying for the sacramental qualification to be refused by the minister, although on the ground of wicked character or of notorious infidelity, an action at law would lie against the minister so refusing: he might, in consequence, be harassed and even ruined for the faithful discharge of his duty as a servant of the King of kings, and Lord of lords. This is no new point in the argument. Solong ago as the year 1704, the Lower House of Convocation agreed in representing the legal obligation upon the clergy to administer the sacrament, by whomsoever de

*

a

manded, as a civil qualification, to be one of their great grievances. We make these statements to show that not the Protestant Dissenters only, but all serious Christians likewise of the United Kingdom, are concerned in the abolition of the Sacramental Test, by which the Christian sanctuary is polluted; and to excite, if possible, general co-operation amongst Christians, zealous for the honour and purity of their religion, in the effort to vindicate the sanctity of the solemn ordinance of the Lord's Supper, and, in fact, to recover that "worthy name whereby we are called," from the indignity under which it has so long lain by the prostitution to secular uses of the sacred memorial of the death of the Saviour of the world.

If, Christian Brethren, you agree with us in our principles and sympathize with us in our feelings, you will not fail to use all your influence in promoting applications to the Legislature, in the ensuing Session of Parliament, for the repeal of so much of the Corporation and Test Acts as relates to the Sacramental Test. Permit us to remind you, that it is only by an unanimous and zealous appeal to the justice, and wisdom, and Christian feeling of Parliament, that we can convince the members of the Legislature that we are sincere in our representations of this grievance, or make an adequate and serviceable impression upon the public mind. At the same time, we implore, with all Christian meekness and brotherly affection, that you will be temperate as well as firm in both your measures and your language; that you will keep our great question pure from the admixture of any other, and especially political, considerations; and that whilst, as Englishmen, you set

forth your wrongs and claim your rights, you will also, as Englishmen, testify your attachment to the civil and political constitution of your country; and that, in the still higher character of Christians, you will manifest unbounded good-will to your fellow-christians of all denominations :-for, as our venerable fathers in the Protestant Dissenting Ministry, in and about the metropolis, declared in a body, in their address to their Royal Patron, George the First, in the year 1717, -" Our principles are, as we hope, the most

friendly to mankind; amounting to no more than those of a general toleration to all peaceable subjects, universal love and charity forall Christians, and to act always, in matters of religion, as God shall give us light in his will about them."

We commend you, Christian brethren, to the keeping and heavenly blessing of Him, who, by your Christian calling, hath set you for the defence of the Gospel. Signed on behalf of the Body, JOHN RIPPON, D. D., Chairman.

THE FIRST CHURCHES.

No. I.

(To the Editors.)

GENTLEMEN,-I believe, that a satisfactory defence of congregational discipline, is still a desideratum in modern literature. We have many excellent works on the subject of Nonconformity generally; but I am not aware that we have any book which is confined

to an illustration and defence of the

great principles of Independency;the principles by which we are distinguished not only from the Church of England, but from almost all parties of professing Christians throughout the world. We do not want controversy with any particular sect, so much as a clear and satisfactory demonstration, that the discipline of congregational that no human authority in the first ages of the church ever did dictate, or in succeeding ages ever ought to have dictated, any other ecclesiastical polity. If you think a few papers on this subject worth insertion, they are very much at your service. I merely premise, that I make no pretensions to any thing like a complete examination of the subject; as I write only to serve a temporary purpose, until some abler hand shall

tian churches, and the liberties of Christian people.

Your's, &c.

R. H.

THAT the first Christian churches were strictly Independent, that until the rise of the hierarchy every church was a voluntary society, fully competent, without foreign assistance, to manage its own affairs, that it was esteemed the

inviolable right of the people to elect their own officers, to preside merely by virtue of authority delegated by themselves; are propositions, the evidence of which is so full and satisfactory, as to promise the most important results, if it were frequently presented to the attention of professing Christians. Candid scholars, both Episcopalians and Presbyterians, both Lutherans and Calvinists, have frankly acknowledged, that the primitive churches were independent of each other; and that the people had and exercised the right of electing their own officers.

Indeed, among many evasions of these truths, it is hard to find a man stoutly denying them.

We sometimes meet with the assertion, that the evidence is not so complete as might be desired, and that probably no modern churches have adopted the exact discipline of the early Christians. We take high ground, which we hope to maintain, when we reply, that there is no part of doctrine or discipline controverted among Protestants, respecting which the opinions of the first Christians were so unanimous, and their practice so uniform, as those which related to the constitution of their churches, and the election of their ministers.

We are more frequently told, that the practice of inspired men is not recorded as a precedent to be observed in every age; but that church government is a sort of non-essential in religion, which may be varied by circumstances, that is, which must yield to the convenience or pleasure of any party.

Here, it is enough to ask, who gave us licence to depart from the apostolic model? What authority have we to change any part of the religion of Christ? Why is Christian discipline non-essential rather than Christian doctrine? Who dare thus distinguish, when both are taught in the same revelation, and sanctioned by the same authority? Have we any where in Scripture the slightest intimation, than it is less criminal to refuse the institutes, than it is to reject the doctrines of Christ? Is not our commission thus expressed, " teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you?" Is the doctrine of non-essentials taught, or a permission to depart from apostolic regulations granted, in the solemn address of Paul to Timo

thy-" I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things, without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality?"

We dare not make treasonable surrender of our allegiance to Christ. He is the King in Zion, and we must submit to his laws. When we say, that our churches are independent, we mean independent of each other, and of all human authority. They are not without law to Christ. The Lord Jesus is our blessed and only potentate. In his institutions, we dare not make the slightest alteration. We rest the defence of our independency, not upon any notions of liberty and right, however well-founded; but upon the authority of Christ, and the example of apostolic churches.

Let us now ascertain the discipline established by the apostles, and observed by the first Christians.

The disciples, who, after the ascension, assembled in an upper room at Jerusalem, and the number of whose names was about one hundred and twenty, may be considered as the first, though before the descent of the Spirit, a very imperfectly organized Christian church. The only act of this society, which the inspired writer has recorded, is the appointment of Matthias to the apostolic office. On that occasion the proceedings were exactly those of a voluntary society.* Peter, as any member might have done, made a proposal, and offered good reasons for receiving it. It does not appear that he assumed any authority, though if he had it would have been by virtue of his apostleship. They appointed two; they prayed and said; they gave forth

their lots; who but the hundred and twenty brethren, the only persons mentioned iu the narrative?

This passage gives us an opportunity to introduce some remarks upon Mr. Bingham's account of the appointment to office in the primitive church. This learned defender of Episcopacy says, "in the apostolical and following ages, there were four several ways of designing persons to the ministry. The first of which was by casting lots; the second by making choice of the first fruits of the Gentile converts; the third by particular direction and inspiration of the Holy Ghost; and the last in the common and ordinary way of examination and election." Amidst all this parade of four several ways of designing to the ministry, Bingham virtually concedes that the pastors of the primitive churches were designated to office on the election of the people. He might as well have said clearly, and in a few words, what is evident from his own statements, that unless there was some especial direction from God, it was the universal rule and practice of the first Christians to elect their own pastors.

As to the first mode, by casting lots, we are referred to the appointment of Matthias. But certainly this was no designation to the ministerial office. Matthias was neither pastor nor deacon of the church at Jerusalem. He was admitted to an order of which every other member had been expressly and immediately appointed by our Lord himself. Thusgranting that Matthias was appointed by lot, (which is not quite certain, as we shall hereafter show,) it was unfair to introduce this as an instance of designation to the ministry.

Bingham further introduces, to show that this was not the only

instance of deciding by lot, a canon of the council of Barcelona, appointing, in Spain, a designation to office, very like the proceedings on the ordination of Matthias. But this canon is too far from the apostolic age, to be of any moment in our inquiry. It is dated A. D. 599. In the corrupt state of the church, at the close of the sixth century, many irregularities in the appointment of its officers, may be easily detected. Yet even in this very decree, we find the appointment determined, partly by the election of the people, and partly by an appeal to the Lord Jesus. It enjoins two or three to be elected by the consent of the clergy and people, who shall present to the metropolitan and his fellow-bishops; and they, having first fasted, shall cast lots, leaving the determination to Christ the Lord. "Duobus aut tribus, quos ante consensus cleri et plebis elegerit, Metropolitani judicio ejus co-episcopis præsentatis, quem sors, præunte jegunio, Christo Domino terminante, monstraverit, Benedicto Consecrationis accumulet." - Concil. Barcinon. c. 3. Tom. 5. p. 1606.

Thus, as we intend to show more fully, it was not till the rise of many abominations; not till the multiplication of gorgeous rites by Gregory, and other pontiffs; not till the canonization of the mass, the aggrandizement of the clergy, and the swarms of monks throughout Christendom, numerous enough to furnish immense armies, that the independency of the churches was completely destroyed, and their right of electing their own bishops entirely abolished. We wish it to be observed, that the appointment to office for any other reason than the choice of the people, was one of the latest, as well as one of the worst corruptions of the church.

"The second method of desig

nation," says Bingham, was by making choice of the first fruits of the Gentile converts. But we ask, who made choice of these men? If the people, this is only an instance of the general rule, the priority of conversion being considered a reason for election to office. If by appointment of the Holy Ghost, it is no exception to the rule we have noticed. In all the citations on this subject, such an appointment is referred to apostolic authority, which, as the apostles acted by inspiration, is equivalent to the designation of the Spirit. The principal, and indeed only valuable citation, is from Clemens Romanus, and satisfactorily explains the apostolic practice. κατα χωρας και πολεις κηρύσσοντες, καθίςανοι τας ἀπαρχας ἀντων, δοκιμαζοντες τω πνευματı, εις ἐπισκοπες και διακονες των μελλοντων πιτεύειν. Clem. Rom. ad Cor. Ep. i. § 42.* Here the persons were approved by the Spirit; the language of Clemens is in accordance with that of the New Testament, intimating that two, not three orders, were appointed by the apostles: and the persons were appointed before churches were constituted, with a reference to future believers, των μελλοντων πιςευειν. In organized churches, as we shall hereafter see, even under apostolic superintendence, the right of election was in the people.

The third reason assigned for ordination, is the particular direction of the Holy Ghost. To this authority every Christian will readily submit. We merely observe, that, after the first century, few of the instances produced, will bear the test of severe inquiry; and that the supposed in

• We hope to consider more attentively

timations of the Spirit only directed, but did not supersede the suffrages of the people. In fact, on these occasions, as well on others, the decision was with the laity. Their assent must have been gained. Thus, according to Eusebius, when the election of a bishop at Rome was turned in favour of Fabian, by a dove settling upon his head, it was the people, who, with one accord, cried out, He is worthy, and placed him in the bishop's chair. See Eus. Eccl. His. lib. vi. ch. 29. So at the election of Martin, Bishop of Tours, some expressions in the Psalm, on which a reader accidentally opened, being taken for a divine intimation, the people gave a shout, and carried his election by acclamation. Severus. Vita S. Martin. Such instances, as they are not the most ancient that might be selected, teach us how corrupt the church had grown before the people lost the sacred and indisputable right of electing their own pastors;-a right of which Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists, conspire to deprive them.

The fourth and last way of designation, says Bingham, was by the ordinary course of sufferage and election in the church. We have already seen, notwithstanding his evasions, that this was the invariable rule and uniform practice of the primitive church. Here we pause, and hereafter resume our inquiries into the independence of the first Christian churches.

m

SELECTIONS FROM THE MANUSCRIPT DIARY OF A NONCONFORMIST LADY.

In the troublous times of our forefathers, when duty and safety alike warned them to retire from the stormy scenes and pestilential at