This is not the place to enter 6 to decree rites and ceremonies.' into a discussion respecting the genuineness of the clause in that Article; but we may observe, that we consider it as disproved by the most irresistible evidence, in a Historical and Critical Essay on the Thirty-nine Articles,' London, 1724, pp. 279. The 42 Articles of Edward wanted the clause, and when they were reduced to 39 by the convocation in 1562, it is stated by the author of that Essay, p. 9, that They received no alteration in respect to the Article of the authority of the church; and in this last form they were subscribed by both houses. And the Articles so subscribed are now lodged in Bennet College in Cambridge, to which society, Parker, who had been educated therein, bequeathed them, with other papers, by his last will and testament." He adds, p. 13,-" In this year of 1571, the convocation, under the same president, Parker, reviewed the Articles of 1562, and made some alterations therein, which occasioned a new subscription of Articles by that convocation; of which subscription, the ratification published at the end of all the editions of the Articles, both in Latin and English, in 1571, assures us. Among the papers bequeathed to Bennet College by Parker, there is a manuscript of the said Articles subscribed by the bishops, who, as the late bishop Atterbury presumes, signed one copy by themselves, as the clergy of the lower house did another, which manuscript has not the clause." (Bennet, 1st book, p. 79.) the In the said year, 1571, the Articles, after being reviewed by the convocation, were printed in Latin by the queen's authority, by John Day, printer to queen and to the archbishop, without the clause. And though it is pretended that there must have been another Latin edition of the Articles in that year, with the clause printed by the said John Day, yet I will venture to conclude that to be false, because no such edition can be produced, and because Laud, (Speech in the Star-Chamber, p. 83,) Heylin, (Hist. of the Presbyt. p. 268,) Fuller, (Church Hist. lib. ix. p. 74,) and Burnet, (Expos. of the Thirtynine Articles, p. 16,) affirm the clause was left out in the Latin and English editions of the Articles of that year." And though the quotation is long, yet from the great importance both of the fact and the subject in the present day, we cannot refrain from inserting his recapitulation of the argument. "The Articles of the church of England," says he, p. 277, "are supposed to have their convocational authority from the convocation of 1562, which first agreed on them, and from the convocation of 1571, which, after having revised, and made alterations in, and additions to them, agreed on them again. "The way of passing acts of convocation, is by the subscription of the majority of the members of each house by themselves. "The manuscript Articles, which passed the convocation of 1562, and were subscribed by the majority of both houses, are still extant; as are the manuscript Articles of 1571, with the subscriptions of the upper house. And both these manuscripts are without the clause. "The parliament in 1571, did by a statute intituled An act for the ministers of the church to be of sound religion,' confirm articles of religion comprised in an imprinted English book, intituled Articles, &c. put forth by the queen's authority.' "All the English printed books of the Articles extant before 1571, and while the parliament were making this statute, bore the title recited in the statute, and were with the clause. Wherefore it follows that the clause has neither the authority of the convocation nor parliament. "Now, who were the men that first forged the clause, and have continued all along by violence or craft to continue it in the Articles, and of what order, I leave to the discernment and conjecture of the reader. I will only observe, that as the advocates for the authority of the clause, do charge the omission thereof in the several printed editions of the Articles, to the knavery of the puritans, who appear to have been the most honest, serious, conscientious, and religious churchmen, and the great supporters of the protestant and Christian religion among us; so I do here excuse the puritans, and charge the forgery of it upon some men, who, I will venture to say, had either no religion at all, or less religion than the puritans. but had great zeal for what they called the church." We would like to know what our English and Scottish episcopalians will say in reply to this statement, which Dr Brown might have introduced into his recent work on episcopacy, if, as we have occasion to know, it had not at the time escaped his recollection ? And we beg to add, that we have a great deal of other evidence, which appears to us unanswerable, to prove that the clause is spurious. It forms, however, the very foundation on which they rest their claim to add to the rites and ordinances of the church which are sanctioned in Scripture, those numerous ceremonies of human invention, which constitute that system of will-worship which is so rapidly increasing in the present day. We shall be glad to hear what they have to say in answer to these quotations. We had intended to have laid before our readers a particular account of the second part of the volume which has been executed by Mr Lorimer, but the length to which these observations have extended, prevents us from saying more than that it contains a most interesting collection of facts, which establishes triumphantly the position which he announces in the different chapters. 6 In regard to the list of British and American works on presbyterian church goverment mentioned by Mr Lorimer in his Appendix, pp. 283-286, we would take the liberty to suggest, that it might be advisable in a future edition, to distinguish those of them which vindicate it against episcopacy, from others which defend it against independency. Some of them, we are aware, like Ayton's Original Constitution of the Christian Church,' establish its claims against both; but the number of these publications is comparatively small. And with regard to that work, we may state, that we have difficulty in believing that it was considered. by the late Dr M'Crie as the most complete work on church government.' Preface, p. ii. We knew Dr M'Crie intimately, and though we have often talked on the subject, have never heard him express such an opinion. It was complete, indeed, so far that it contained an outline of the argument both against the episcopalians and independents, and brought together many excellent things, while other works generally are occupied with the consideration of only one of these controversies. But like some who have attempt VOL. XV. NO. IV. 2 N ed both subjects, in reasoning against episcopalians, he occasionally gave advantages to independents, which were detected and pointed out by his acute opponent Mr Glass. Besides the works on presbyterian church government enumerated by Mr Lorimer, the following might perhaps be added to his list : Baxter's Five Dissertations of Worship and Ceremonies. Edit. 1659. In the first of which he says, "I have proved that the English diocesan prelacy is intolerable, which none hath answered.” Bradshaw's Treatise of Worship and Ceremonies. Defence of the Arguments against Kneeling, by Calderwood. Edit. 1620. Essay on the Sacred Use of Organs. A valuable work. Edit. 1713. Dissenting Gentleman's Answer to Mr White. An able publication. Apologia pro Ministris in Anglia (vulgo) Nonconformistis, anno 1662, ejectis. Per Irenæum Eleutherium, or the Rev. Mr Hickman. Edit. 1664. A most judicious little work. Dr Calamy's Defence of Moderate Nonconformity, in Reply to Olyffe and Bishop Hoadley. 3 vols. Edit. 1703. This may be regarded as the principal and most learned vindication of presbytery after the ejection of the 2000 ministers from the church of England at the time referred to in the last work. Vindication of the Dissenters or Presbyterians. By James Peirce. In three parts. Edit. 1717. A valuable work, full of information. Remarks on Dr Wells's Letters against the Dissenters. By the same Author. Among the American writers against diocesan episcopacy, we would mention Mr Howe's Letter to the Rev. Mr Forster,' p. 207, edit. 1765, and especially the works of Dr Chauncey of Boston, who, though he afterwards adopted the sceptical opinions of the Universalists, defended presbytery against the episcopalians with distinguished ability and success. Among these, we would notice particularly his Remarks on Certain Passages in a Sermon by the Bishop of Llandaff,' his Answer to Dr Chandler's Appeal to the Public, and his Compleat View of Episcopacy, as exhibited from the Fathers of the Christian Church until the close of the Second Century.' Among the continental writers in defence of presbytery, while Blondel's Apology' is the most learned and full, as far as relates to the writings of the fathers, we do not consider it as the most valuable. He was a decided Erastian, and often omits more important testimonies than those which he produces, and appeals at other times to passages which have little bearing on the subject. It is far inferior in clearness and precision, as well as conclusive reasoning, to Salmasius's little work against Petavius, entitled Walo Messalinus,' as it again is inferior to Hornbeck's admirable treatise on Usher's Reduced Plan of Episcopacy.' We like it even better than Voetius's large work, De Politeia Ecclesiastica,' which is far less accurate in its account of the sentiments of English episcopalians. Salmasius's work, De Papatu,' has some excellent remarks on the chorepiscopi. Gerson Bucer's treatise, De Gubernatione Ecclesiæ,' in reply to Downam and other episcopalians, is able; and so also is La Roque's Conformity of the Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Protestants of France with that of the Primitive Christians.' ART. III.—Ministerial Self-Examination.—A Full and Candid Acknowledgment of Sin, very proper to assist Students and Ministers of the Gospel in searching and trying their hearts and ways before the Lord; drawn up by the Commission of the General Assembly in the year 1651; appropriate in the present circumstances of the Church, on the occasion of the Convocation of Ministers, November 17, 1842. It was thought and desired by many, that the late convocation of ministers should, ere proceeding with the momentous business on which they were met to deliberate, have called on all its members with one accord to humble themselves before God; and for this end have set out with observing a day of solemn fasting and humiliation, more especially with reference to the sins of the church and the ministry. On this point, however, we mean not to offer any remark, nor to pronounce any judgment; far less would we think of charging that noble assembly with oversight of duty, or reluctance to engage in it; only, when calling to mind the memorable day of mourning, in 1596, when, in the Little Church of Edinburgh, 400 ministers, under the searching exhortations of a Brother, were at once melted into weeping under the awful pressure of ministerial guilt, we could not but greatly long for the recurrence of such a scene in an assembly of nearly 500 of the most faithful ministers in the land, gathered together on an occasion the most momentous, and at a crisis the most critical which perhaps Scotland has ever seen. Our object, however, in alluding to this matter, is not to offer any opinion upon it, either in the way of condemning, or apologizing, or even of explaining how it so came to pass; but solely for the purpose of calling our readers' attention to the fact of so many having expressed a desire for the observance of such a season, and to the striking inference deducible from this, that there is heavily lying upon many minds, a sense of unfulfilled duty in regard to this,-duty which can only be adequately and suitably discharged, by a public act of united humiliation on the part of all the faithful ministers of Christ within our church. These words of the prophet are ever recurring, as they behold the desolations of their church, and the oppression of the wicked, "Jerusalem hath grievously sinned, therefore she is removed; all that honoured her despise her, because they have seen her nakedness; her filthiness is in her skirts, she remembereth not her last end, therefore she came down wonderfully:" and calling these former things to mind, they feel the more stirred up to desire in behalf of their church, the removal of that iniquity which is weighing her down, and because of which the Lord has a controversy with her;-a controversy which can only be ended by humiliation on her part, and the casting away of those abominations which have been provoking him to anger against her. And let it be borne in mind that it is not the mere coming out of a corrupted church that can purge away past guilt, or shake the filthiness of ages from our polluted skirts. No. We may in this way end the conflict with man,-but where are we, if the controversy with God remains? In contending to the uttermost for Christ's truth, Christ's go-vernment, Christ's discipline, Christ's royal prerogative, we cannot help at the same time feeling that we are "men of unclean lips," -and that for our sins as a church, and as ministers, there is demanded a solemn act of humiliation before God. We feel that there is still upon us an oppressive weight of guilt,-unacknowledged, unrepented of, and unremoved. We feel as if we had not adequately discharged our duty to the world, to the nation, to the church, to our flocks, to ourselves, to our faithful and even our unfaithful brethren in the ministry, until we have made full and public confession alike of personal and ministerial sins. We feel as if, till this was done, we were fettered and burdened, not enjoying that ample liberty in the preaching of the glorious gospel, which, as its ordained heralds, we might expect. We feel as if the delay or want of this were, in part at least, the cause of our unfruitfulness and feebleness in the service of Christ,—a stumblingblock in the way of our success, an Achan which has been troubling the camp;-troubling ourselves, our people, and the whole church at whose altars we are called to minister;-straitening us in prayer and preaching, restraining our boldness, chilling our warmth, and making us at times to speak with faltering lips and a stammering tongue. We feel that until this attitude of self-abasement has been adopted by us, we cannot expect that full pentecostal blessing which we so much desire; neither can we venture to anticipate that divine deliverance for our suffering church, for which we yet cease not daily to pray. Greatly would we desire to have |
