who adopt it, bind themselves to walk together as fellow christians, performing towards each other, according to their opportunities and abilities, all the duties of christian brotherhood.

Mr. Colton professes to state and refute the scriptural arguments for the Congregational view of the mutual duties of christian brethren living in stated communion with each other. He says, that the precepts given by Christ in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew, have reference to personal injuries alone, and "can never be legitimately applied to cases of fault, which have no more relation to us personally, than to others, or to the public." As if Paul's injunction, "Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others," had been thought of by somebody in reference to the subject, he says of this text, "It is a mere exhortation, mandate if you please,-to benevolence; and has no respect to calling others to account for faults, or to a supervision of their private conduct." He admits, that the precept of James, "Confess your faults one to another," is a salutary rule, "where christians are sufficiently intimate," though he does not tell us what degree of intimacy he would recognize as sufficient; "but," he adds, "by no fair interpretation cau it be made to authorize an inquisition into the private conduct of our neighbors,"-as if inquisitions' and private conduct' were concerned in the question. He says furthermore, that the passage in Leviticus, "Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor," &c. "is evidently a direction to a civil magistrate." Then, as if the entire argument in favor of the mutual watchfulness and helpfulness of fellow disciples were disposed of, he proceeds to say, that "the negative of this claim to supervise the affairs of others, can be established" "by direct and positive application of scripture." A claim to supervise the affairs of others! Who sets up such a claim? Such a claim may indeed be easily refuted; and to refute it, he cites "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them,”"Judge not that ye be not judged,"-"Be quiet, and do your own business,"" A bishop must be not a brawler,”—“ Refuse profane and old wives fables," &c. He applies these texts from the epistles and many more, with the remark, that "one of the most inconvenient and troublesome vices among christians of apostolic times was, meddling, and impertinent interference both of men and women, and (he is sorry to say) more especially of the latter."

Such is our author's argument against the "covenant of mutual watch and care." Such is the argument which ought to prove, that christians dwelling together in the communion of the same church, have no concern in each other's christian character. If any reader doubts whether we have fairly represented the argument, let him turn to the book itself, and examine. (pp. 71-76.)

What shall we say to such an argument? Admitting, that Christ condemns the spirit of censoriousness, and enjoins the spirit of love,-what then? Is there no difference between censoriousness and fraternal watchfulness. Admit, that the apostles frequently and pointedly condemn "meddling, tattling, slander, scandal, or in any way interfering with the private concerns, conduct, and character of our neighbors, except as civil or ecclesiastical authority has clothed us with legitimate powers;" and thus show, that this was one of the faults to which christians in the primitive churches were particularly liable;-What then? Does it follow, that the primitive churches were organized on the idea that the members of a local church have no concern in each other's spiritual health and growth, or in the purity and prosperity of the whole body? Mr. Colton seems to feel, that meddling, supervision, etc.—is one besetting sin of christians in the Presbyterian and Congregational churches of our day, and that there is nothing of the kind in the Episcopal church. What shall we infer? Which organization may be presumed to be, in this respect, according to the primitive pattern? That, under which the evil incidental to the primitive organization has no existence? Or that, under which, if we may credit Mr. Colton's experience, " meddling, and impertinent interference, both of men and women, and more especially of the latter," is as in the primitive churches, "one of the most inconvenient and troublesome vices of christians?"

A few texts will suffice to show, what is the duty of mutual watchfulness and helpfulness among church members, and what is the warrant for insisting on that duty. "As every man hath received the gift, so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." 1 Pet. iv; 10. "All of you be subject one to another; and be clothed with humility." 1 Pet. v; 5. "Brethren if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know," etc. James v; 19. "Looking diligently [idxonovres-supervising] lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you," etc. Heb. xii; 15, 16. "Let us consider one another to provoke to love and good works,"-" admonishing one another." Heb. x; 24, 25. Aged women" must be "not false accusers,"-so far Mr. Colton quotes, neglecting what in the same sentence is more to the purpose, teachers of good things, that they may teach the young women,' etc. Tit. ii; 34. "Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly." "If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed; yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." 2 Thess. iii; 6, 14, 15. "Comfort yourselves, &c.-more properly, "Exhort each other; and edify one another." "Warn the unruly, comfort the feeble mind

68

ed," &c. 1 Thess. v; 11, 14. "If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye who are spiritual restore [recover] such an one in the spirit of meekness." Gal. vi; 1. Had the church members at Corinth no watch and care over that man among them who was guilty of incest?

The second chapter of the work before us is devoted to a consideration of what the writer calls "the common and popular objections to Episcopacy, and the general economy of the Episcopal church." The only objections which he states are, that Episcopacy" has come down through the Church of Rome;" that the parent church in England has archbishops, and is connected with the state; and that the system involves dangerous power. These objections are of course easily refuted. And if these were the real and only objections to the Episcopal church, we would go over to its enclosure without delay.

But in managing the last of these objections, the author undertakes to claim for prelacy certain positive advantages. He brings forward the strange argument of the author of " Spiritual Despotism," namely, that under every ecclesiastical organization, some men will have more influence than others, and that it is better to call them bishops, and make terms with them, and by constitutions and canons to regulate their functions, than to leave them in the possession of the influence which naturally belongs to their talents and character. The argument is summed up in an apothegm; and since it takes this imposing form, it may be worth answering, especially as it is answered so easily.

"God sends us bishops, whether we will have them or not." This is the apothegm; and it is thought to be conclusive in favor of prelacy. But what if it turns out, that prelacy, instead of being the simple submission of the churches to the legitimate influence of these God-sent bishops, is in effect little else than an arrangement to impede the natural and just influence of the very men of whom our author says, "God made them to have influence." The noblemen of the house of peers, are not always nature's noblemen. So the prelates of the house of bishops, are not always nature's bishops. To make the matter palpable without any personal allusions to the living or the dead,-Dr. M., we will suppose, is one of those men whom God has endowed with talents and graces, that they may influence their brethren and the churches; in his sphere he is the natural center of counsel and of action. But in the same sphere Dr. N., with inferior talents and less weight of character, has, by party management, or by some accident, attained to the miter; and he is an artificial center. What, in such a case, is the benefit of prelacy? And how often do such cases occur? In how many of the dioceses, is it manifest, that the bishop is of all the clergy the one best qualified for the exercise

of a wide and salutary influence? Answering the apothegm then apothegmatically, we may say, If God sends bishops, the Lord knoweth them that are his, and let him take care of them.

This is in truth one great merit of Congregationalism. It does not interfere with God's arrangements in this matter,—but lets him send such bishops as he pleases, and allows them an open field for the exercise of all the gifts with which he endows them. Under no other organization can influence over the ministry and the churches fall, more naturally and completely, into the very hands. which were made to wield it. Under no other organization is any influence other than that of talents and character more impracticable.

Another argument for Episcopacy is introduced incidentally, in refuting the imaginary objection against the power of bishops. We give it in the words of the author.

'God has ordained, that the interests of human society shall have individual persons to preside over them. There must be a king, or a president, over the nation; there must be governors over provinces and smaller states; there must be mayors of cities; heads of colleges; masters in schools; fathers of families ;-all departments of society require a head. And shall the church of God alone be without them?"Oh no," it is said, "we only differ as to the number. The pastor of every christian congregation is the head of his own commonwealth." And shall the commonwealth of pastors have no head?' p. 85.

"Shall the commonwealth of pastors have no head?" Let the prelatist answer for us. Shall the commonwealth of bishops have no head? Let him answer again. Shall the commonwealth of archbishops have no head? This argument leads towards the Vatican.

The author seems as much disposed to make thorough work with the objection about power, as if he thought it to be an objection really entertained by somebody. Not satisfied with showing, that bishops in this country have almost as little power as Martin Mar-prelate himself could desire; not satisfied with showing, that the Methodist Episcopacy is a truly powerful organization, in comparison with which the Episcopacy he has embraced is a bubble; not satisfied with showing, that one minister will naturally have more influence than another, and ought to have; not satisfied even with the discovery, that the commonwealth of pastors ought to have a head; he makes a great display of exposing the power which is lodged in various voluntary societies. The Home Missionary Society, the Board of Foreign Missions, the Education Societies, and other kindred institutions, are represented on the canvass with many touches of exaggeration, as invested with formidable power; and it is intimated, that against this growing power an Episcopal organization is the only protection. But

what is the power of these associations? Take the Home Missionary Society, which seems to some others as well as to Mr. Colton, so eminently formidable, and what is the power of its executive committee? Simply that of almoners. They have no hoarded capital of money or of authority. They stand between the contributing public on the one hand and the needy churches on the other. They receive what is given, and apply it to the objects for which it is given. The relation between them and their missionaries, is merely a temporary civil contract, in which the one party engages to do a certain piece of work, and the other party engages to pay a certain sum of money. The employers are as much in the power of the laborers, as the laborers are in the power of the employers. The employers give specifications of the work to be done; and, before paying the laborers their wages, they require some evidence that the work has been done. What is there here of the nature of Episcopacy? The executive committee claim no divine right to ordain ministers, or to govern the churches. No minister of Jesus Christ is responsible to them in respect to his orthodoxy, his learning, or his piety, or can be called to account by them, for any thing but the matters in his contract with them. This is the simple story of the power wielded by the Home Missionary Society. So of the Foreign Missionary Board, and so of the Education Societies. All the power of their executive committees, is the power only of trustees; each committee receives and appropriates contributions appropriated by the donors to one specific object. We can easily conceive, that if this power,-instead of being distributed among half a dozen different and independent committees, each of which is responsible directly to the contributing public,-were in the hands of one body of men, claiming either singly, or in their associated capacity, a divine right of jurisdiction over the churches and the ministry, such a combination of this power with the power which is strictly ecclesiastical, might be formidable. We can conceive, that if the members of a church are forbidden by ecclesiastical law to apply their charities to such objects, and to manage them by such agencies as to them, individually, may seem good; and if they have been preached or drilled into submission to such legislation; then in that church there may be at least the beginning of spiritual despotism. But what danger there is in giving money to aid feeble churches in the support of the pastor of their own choice,-what latent depotism there is in giving money to aid young men of promise, while studying for the ministry in schools and colleges entirely independent of the givers, our faculties are unable to discover.

One more topic is touched upon in this second chapter, as illustrating the merits of the Episcopal church. "She has most scrupulously abstained from meddling with all political questions-she