But what is this? Nothing more, I humbly conceive, essentially, than the formal and public recognition of men, as chosen by the assembly (Church) to fill a certain office, and to discharge certain

functions."

Afterwards, p. 62, I conceive that the word ordain, in Titus i. 5, means no more than mere appointment to office, and that the apostle's directions were simply, "that Titus should see that the thing was done, and done in the usual way." I would appeal to my valued friend, Mr. Kelly, is this treating Scripture with fairness? Is this interpreting its plain language in the way in which any other writing ought to be interpreted. Paul says, "I send thee to ordain." Mr. Kelly says, "that it means that Titus should see that the thing was done, and done in the usual way." Mr. Kelly says in one place, "If I have misinterpreted Scripture it is unintentional." I am perfectly convinced that Mr. K. would not intentionally misinterpret Scripture; I feel more sure that he would not do it, than that I would not do it myself; and yet, I confess I never met with what appears to me a greater instance of misinterpretation. If Paul had wished and intended to state that he had sent Titus to ordain elders himself, he could not have stated it more explicitly; yet Mr. Kelly will give it another meaning; and this, whilst there are so many other places in Scripture that speak of the same thing, the ordaining of elders by laying on of hands, as 1 Tim. iv. 14, "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on the hands of the presbytery." 1 Tim. v. 22, "Lay hands suddenly on no man." 2 Tim. i. 6, "Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands." And after so many places in Scripture speaking of it, is there no ordination by the laying on of hands in the Church with which Mr. Kelly is connected? Is there no one in the situation of a Titus or a Timothy, to ordain by the laying on of hands? And will Mr. Kelly still maintain the Scriptural character and constitution of his Church? But my valued friend is particularly severe, and even indeed satirical, against Diocesan Episcopacy. He thus writes, p. 47, "Now, my dear Sir, allow me to ask you, what would you do with Diocesan Episcopacy? You find it an important, indeed an essential, part of that system, which you denominate the Church of England. For its institution you must refer to the unwritten word, if such a thing there be. By the written word you cannot sustain it. Bishops are indeed found in the written word, but they are the overseers of a community of brethren, meeting in the same place, and are identical with elders." Mr. Kelly spends much time and strength upon this part of the subject, as if it was a dispute about words and names, whether the elders generally, or the superintending elder should be most properly called by the name of bishop. There is no doubt that the term bishop, or overseer, is applied in the New Testament to all the elders, and that by degrees the term

has come to be applied to those elders who were in the situation of Timothy and Titus. The controversy is not about the name these officers should be called by, but about the Scriptural warrant for the office itself. Mr. Kelly has himself well defined a Diocesan Bishop, and it is about such an officer as he describes that the controversy lies. Mr. Kelly thus writes, p. 46, "The ecclesiastical officer now called bishop, is an individual who has the oversight of many churches." It is a controversy of small importance, whether the elders, or presbyters, should more properly be called bishops, overseers, and this officer in the church be called by some other name; but it is a controvery of no small importance, whether this overseer of many churches or congregations is an officer for whose office we have the warrant of Scripture. Mr. Kelly, addressing himself to Mr. Burgh, says, p. 44, "You would say of diocesan episcopacy, that it is unscriptural, not anti-Scriptural." I am sure Mr. Burgh would say no such thing; but leaving Mr. Burgh to answer for himself, I say for myself, that diocesan episcopacy is Scriptural; that a bishop presiding over many congregations is SCRIPTURAL. Mr. Kelly says, p. 39, "The New Testament teaches by precept, by example, and by principles." Now I conceive that there is neither precept, nor example, nor principle for such a Church as Mr. Kelly advocates, but for a diocesan bishop, for an overseer over many congregations, we have an example in Titus overseeing the churches in Crete," setting in order the things that were wanting, ordaining elders in every city, rebuking sharply those that were unsound in the faith." Crete, with its many elders and churches, and one superintendant, was an example of a diocese, as Titus was an example of a diocesan bishop; and this is the example which Episcopal Churches have endeavoured to follow. We have another example in Timothy overseeing many elders, and as I should suppose, many churches in Ephesus, "charging some to teach no other doctrine;" "behaving himself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, as the pillar and the ground of the truth;" "not rebuking an elder, but entreating him as a father;""not receiving an accusation against an elder but before two or three witnesses;" " rebuking before all them that sin, that others also may fear;" "laying hands suddenly upon no man." Any officer acting upon this example must be a diocesan bishop.

We have an example of a diocesan bishop, or an individual overseeing many elders and congregations, in the angel of the seven Churches in Asia, to whom the Apostle John was directed to write by him who walked in the midst of the Churches. We have then in the New Testament, an example which Episcopal Churches attempt to follow; and I would put it to the candor of Mr. Kelly, and of your readers, whether a diocese with a bishop presiding, superintending, ordaining-and elders, presbyters, instructing in each congregation, does not more resemble Črete, with its overseer, and elders ordained by him in every city, than

Mr. Kelly's little republic of individuals in a state of equality, without subordination or laying on of hands?

As far as I am capable of forming an opinion, there is nothing so inconsistent with Divine precept or example as Republicanism, either in State or Church; nothing so little suited to the circumstances of fallen man. I look, in vain, for liberty and equality, in any society of God's appointment: a due subordination appears to me to be one of God's appointed means for the regulation and controul of fallen man, in every society, whether civil or ecclesiastical. I am not surprised, then, at Mr. Kelly's most candid and honest confession of the bad working of his system. "The very liberty afforded by our principles, becomes, by abuse," says he, "the source of internal disorder." I feel well assured that it could not be otherwise. The liberty afforded by the principles of Mr. Kelly's Church, is a liberty not afforded by the New Testament-not suited to the corrupt nature of fallen man; most flattering to his pride, but very poison to his soul.

Much more wholesome, but much more unpalatable, is the principle of subordination laid down in such portions of Scripture as the following: "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief." (Heb. xiii. 17.)"Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder, (or rather the elders, the presbyters.) Yea, all of you, be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility, for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace unto the humble." (1 Pet. v. 5.) I have occasionally come in contact with persons of the lower ranks, who were, I trust, converted persons, who had been connected with Churches formed upon these republican principles, and I have ever found their spirit injured by it. I have found them proud, insubordinate, contentious, even in their ordinary stations in life; the very opposite of each esteeming others better than themselves." In Churches so constituted, there is every thing to destroy docility in the hearer, and to take all authority from the teacher.

66

But I should have learned nothing of candour from the honest admission of my valued friend, if I did not as freely admit the evil which corrupt nature has introduced into the system which I advocate, and to which I continue attached. There is evil in it, which every Christian member of the Establishment deplores from his very soul, but which he is perfectly impotent to correct. But I cordially agree with Mr. Kelly, that we are to judge of a system by its principles, and not by its results, when those principles are worked by sinful fallen man.

I know many persons who were startled at the case stated by Mr. Kelly, p. 64, of a Cathedral congregation, all true Christians; and a little company assembled on the principles which he advocates, where the individual members were not true Christians; and at his declaration that he would join himself to

of

the last, and not to the first. I fully agree with him that he should adhere to principles, even when circumstances appeared against him. If the little body, without being joined by real Christians, was indeed founded on Scripture principles, it ought to have the presence of Mr. Kelly, and of every one who acknowledged those principles, although other real Christians deserted it. I agree with Mr. Kelly, we ought to act upon Scriptural principles, and not follow men, even Christian men; and therefore, as I do believe Mr. Kelly's Church to be, in all the essential principles of its constitution, unsupported by Scripture, and as I do believe that diocesan Episcopacy is framed after the example given us in Scripture, after a pattern which I believe to have been given by Divine Wisdom, for the very purpose guidance as to the form of Christian Churches. I feel myself obliged, in conscience, to adhere to a Church in which there is diocesan Episcopacy. I should feel myself obliged to do so if every one that I considered a real Christian joined such Churches as that with which Mr. Kelly is connected. With the Scriptures in my hands, I could not offer myself, a baptized believer, to be received or rejected as a fellow-worshipper, by any number of individuals who might be associated together; no example of any such practice being found in Scripture. I need not go through the particulars which I believe to be unscriptural or antiscriptural, in which I could not join; I should be obliged to continue in an Episcopal Church, in one in which there was a descending current of authority, if every other Christian had thought it his duty to leave it. But this is only an extreme case, put for the sake of argument.

I feel thankful to Mr. Kelly for the very candid, perhaps too favourable, account he has given of the Lord's work in the Establishment. I, with unfeigned gratitude, and deep sense of unworthiness, acknowledge the Lord's hand to have been with us. In spite of immense evil in the working of the system, in spite of the masses of spiritual death that fill so large a proportion of the places of authority and influence, the Lord has been graciously pleased to own the Established Church for the salvation of souls and the enlargement of the Redeemer's Kingdom. I do not know that the history of the Church of Christ affords a more signal instance of revival than that which has taken place in the Church of Ireland within the last fifteen or twenty years. Our God has evidently manifested himself to be in the midst of us to bless us, not for our works or deservings, but according to his own purpose and grace. Therefore, I am not only constrained to stay in the Established Church by principle, because I could not conscientiously concur in the principle upon which any but an Episcopal Church is established; but I have the happiness of labouring in a Church which God is signally blessing and making use of, for the purpose of gathering souls into the fold of Christ, and feeding them with food on which they may grow in grace. I deeply lament and deplore

the evils in the Establishment, but, if possible, I more lament the evils that are in the spiritual Church of Christ, spread as it is through various denominations; I grieve over their divisions, jealousies, selfishness, worldliness, want of devotedness and of spirituality, want of love, want of bearing with one another. I grieve not a little that Churches, which may be composed of tares and wheat until the harvest, should be so corrupt, so far from what they ought to be; but much more that Christians, who are brands plucked out of the burning, who are heirs of God, and joint-heirs of Christ, should bear so faintly the image of Christ, should exhibit so little of the Spirit of Christ; that they should not be spiritual, but carnal, even babes in Christ. Was there more of spirituality, there would be less evil resulting from the external separation of differently constituted Churches. I grieve over the difference in Church constitution existing between my dear friend Mr. Kelly and myself: I feel pain when circumstances lead me to express that difference; but it diminishes the evil to know, that though we cannot go to the House of God as friends, we can take sweet counsel together on the great realities of salvation, upon the grace and love of the Saviour, and upon the great features of a Christian life and conversation; whilst, unhappily, we separate on the Sabbath on the earth, we can meet at other times as those who shall together keep the Holy Sabbath in heaven; when we shall wonder at the blindness and the perverseness of each and both of us, and join in wonder and praise at the forbearance, and tenderness, and long-suffering of a common God and Saviour. Our difference is an evil, an offence to our one God and one Lord, but an evil which we cannot help until the Lord gives us both better spiritual sight, by which we may both see the same Scripture in the same point of view.

But God brings good out of this great evil: he tries and exercises our Christian love; a love more evidently founded upon a connexion with a common Saviour, and a common hope, because it is not fed by a common Church on earth. May we be grateful to the common Lord, who bears with us, and may He pour upon us more truth, more light, and more love.

R. D.