duct of the men of this world may be, we must never forget that, as Christians, the divine injunction laid upon us is, to do good to all men as we have opportunity.' Here opportunity is made the measure of our expected well-doing. And when, or where, has an opportunity of doing good to man, in the highest and noblest sense of that expression, ever been presented to any Christian people, similar to that which British Christians now enjoy, in reference to the millions of India? The facilities now afforded in that distant land for the propagation of Gospel truth on a scale so broad and extensive, have seldom been equalized, never surpassed, in any of the realms of Gentilism. It is this circumstance which, above all others, ought to determine the sphere, and regulate the amount, of more immediate duty. We are there met by no thundering edicts of a Celestial Emperor to scare us away

from its shores; no exterminating decrees of a Madagascar savage to expel us from a territory already partially possessed. Every harbour along its extended coast is thrown open for our reception; every province, every city, and every village, to its utmost boundaries, prepared to tolerate, if not to welcome, our Gospel ministrations. Over the whole of that region of moral darkness, stable and uncontrollable power presides, and that is the power of a Christian monarchy. How are we to interpret the final cause of such a state of things? Surely, if ever Jehovah spoke by infallible signs, through the leadings of his providence, it is here that he has uttered his voice; and the announcement of the oracle seems to be, The key of Asia is placed in your hands. A door, great and effectual, hath been opened there for you enter ye in, and take possession of the land."", (Duff, page 31.)

access, is that of Bingham; a work of extensive and careful research, but too voluminous for any library but that of the regular student, and presenting no proof of having been written by one who saw and lamented the errors and deficiencies of the times which he had undertaken to describe. Its general tone was attractive chiefly to those who had, practically, made the Bible a mere Roi fainéant, and invested the Fathers, as original teachers, and legitimate interpreters, using the Scriptures simply for purposes of proof, with that substantial power, as Maires du Palais, which left to the word of God a scarcely nominal sovereignty.

The study, however, is one which

ought not to be neglected. Churchhistory cannot be truly understood without it. Into the minds of the holy Apostles divine light was so abundantly poured, and upon their whole mental constitution, so far at least as they were the chosen instruments for the great work of completing the sacred canon of Scripture, so powerful a control was exercised, that their previous participation in what may be termed the general state of thought and feeling,-the public opinion of the day, is not at all apparent. The Holy Spirit, indeed, using the living mind of each writer, there is, in what each has written, a distinct and very obvious individuality of form. No thoughtful reader will ever confound the Epistles of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John. But that is all. There is no mixture of the truth which inspiration conveyed to them, after the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the opinions they held in common with their fellowmen of the same country and age. Before the Spirit was given, to lead them into all truth, their blessed Master gave them the instructions which he saw fit; but this was in the ordinary mode of conveying information, though from so high and pure a source. And let the facts be noted, as distinctly shown in the history. The truth, even as taught them by Christ, was mixed with their own opinions, as being, on the average, no higher than the prevailing opinions of the day; and by this mixture, the received truth, if it acted upon the opinions which it found, was itself acted upon and modified by them. On more than one occasion, our Lord noticed this, and reproved them for it. Thus, when he had charged them to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod," their minds, wedded in almost all things to what was material and sensible, referred the caution to literal bread, from which, if obtained from some quarters, they probably thought that some ritual uncleanness might result; thus drawing upon themselves the monitory reproof: "Perceive ye not yet, neither understand?

have ye your heart yet hardened? Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not?" And even after his resurrection from the dead, when the tidings of his appearance, one would have thought, would have cast a flood of light on what before was mysterious, reminded them of his own declarations, and given a consistency, as well as a definite and now understood object, to many a passage of the Old Testament, even yet he had to say to them, “O fools and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?" But while he reproved, he instructed them; they, though "their hearts burned within them while he talked with them by the way," considering him all the time as a stranger for "beginning at Moses, and all the Prophets, he expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." And yet, notwithstanding this, not long before his ascension, we find them asking a question, showing the mixture of truth and error, and their mutual action each upon the other. "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" And as if to show us that nothing but the extraordinary influence of the divine inspiration could keep them above the level of their age, as well as at first raise them above it, Peter was permitted to retain for some time his Jewish prejudices; so that, at last, he only yielded to a direct interposition from above. We need not wonder, therefore, that, even in the days of the Apostles, while their superintendence was ever vigilant and at hand, both Jewish and Gentile modifications of the truth from time to time sprang up. The multitude of converts which constituted the churches planted by the Apostles and their co-adjutors, was not one wide surface as of unblotted paper. It was a mass of living mind, broken off from the yet larger mass of living mind, and having, up to the time of separation, the same views, thoughts, principles, prejudices, passions, feelings. Now, the New Testament makes it abundantly plain, that even

Christian truth embraced, it should be remembered, with various degrees of earnestness, did not at once and entirely expel all that it found. Errors absolutely opposed to itself, were, of course, cast down; but we cannot read the Epistle to the Galatians, or those to the Corinthians, without clearly and impressively perceiving the fact, that both Jewish and Gentile prejudices and errors still kept their hold of many minds, affecting, in some greater, in others to a smaller, extent, their views of Christianity itself.

to a

And if so it was while the Apostles were on earth, we might expect it to be so, not in a less degree, certainly, when the Apostles were removed, and when the Teachers themselves were, more or less, under the influence of the same condition. Without a perpetual miracle, we see not how this could have been avoided. That the Apostles were raised above it, was a miracle, the evidence of which is clear from its effects. But that particular miracle ceased when the holy John was removed to join his beloved brethren, and with them to adore their exalted Master and Lord. The Teachers of the church had all held more or less of the prevailing opinions of the day, and it was to be expected that the ray of light should be deflected from the line which it had marked in its course, when it entered the denser medium of thought which it came to illuminate and purify. Ultimately, divine truth, permanently revealed in sacred Scripture, and kept in active operation by the living ministry of the word, shall bring the entire human mind into subjection to itself: and then we shall "all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ."

We say again, therefore, that the study of Christian antiquities ought not to be neglected. And a time seems to be coming, when even Christians generally will find it useful to know something more of the actual state of the visible church for the first four or five centuries,

than may hitherto have contented them. Popery, in its Tridentine form, is boasting of its reviving influence; and a number of Clergymen in the English established Church are moving heaven and earth to bring, at all events, as many of the junior Clergy as possible, and as many of the laity as they can reach, to an entire deference to what they term the Church, meaning, in point of fact, the ancient, as distinguished from the primitive, church. We must go to this second age, for the interpretation of the

66

lively oracles" of the first age. Ignatius, Clement, Justin, Irenæus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, Augustine,-these are to be our teachers, our interpreters of Scripture; and the church, thus primarily teaching, is to use the Scripture simply as a medium of proof. Now, that questions such as are likely to demand discussion, such as are, in fact, demanding it already, may be discussed rightly, they must be thoroughly examined; and for this thorough examination, superficial acquaintance with the ordinary routine of theological commonplaces will not prepare the mind. Among the subjects that must be studied anew, Christian antiquity occupies a foremost place. The precious and the vile must be separated with due discrimination. By some, both are taken together; and the natural consequence is, that they are the most powerfully and most extensively influenced by the worst portions of that which they have received. Others may attempt to throw both away; but they will find themselves placed in a most dangerous position.

For our own part, we are not sorry that the question is agitated. The church of Christ is always the better for that which renders original study needful. Eventually, the truth will come even from the present contests-painful as some of them may be-bright and glorious as ever. As it is, after such long habits of thought and feeling under the influence of Christian teaching, we believe, that generally Christians. will not find an insurmountable dif

ficulty in answering the question, "What is personal religion, according to the New Testament?" to the New Testament, not merely in its directly didactic portions, but those, likewise, in which prevailing errors are detected, exposed, and condemned. And, with a distinct idea of personal Christianity, thus obtained, let Christian antiquities be studied. We can, at all events, ascertain this point: "Is personal religion, in its great principles, its most powerful feelings, its distinguishing manifestations, as presented by the New Testament, and personal religion, in the same respects, as presented by Christian antiquities,-exactly the same thing? If they differ, in what respects do they differ, and how far does the difference extend?"

Thus persuaded of the importance of the study of Christian antiquities, thus believing that, at the present day, the study is becoming increasingly important; we repeat what we have said, that we are glad to have the opportunity of announcing and recommending Mr. Riddle's Manual. It is what it professes to be, a hand-book,-a guide,-calculated to give the student a general acquaintance with the subject; and, while directing him to the proper sources of information, making particular inquiry comparatively easy :and, at the same time, calculated to give the general reader a notion, both correct and comprehensive, of the state of things during the earlier ages of the Christian era.

There is a very important preface, containing, 1. Remarks on the study of ecclesiastical Archæology; together with an account of the design, contents, and plan of the work. 2. Some account is given of the principal treatises on Christian antiquities. These pages, though few, are very valuable; especially as they are connected with a list in the appendix, extending through twenty pages, entitled by the author, “The Literature of Christian Antiquities; or, A classified Catalogue of the principal Works relating to the several Subjects of ecclesiastical Archæology." The third portion of the preface consists of a review of

Christian antiquities, considered in connexion with the state of theology and morals in the ancient church. The concluding section has what we fear we must term this remarkable title, "A Plea for Episcopacy, Charity, and Peace." Perhaps, in the whole vocabulary of Christian epithets, there is not a single word that has been less associated with either charity or peace, or more frequently joined with bigotry and contention, than Episcopacy, Far be it from us to say, or even to think, that this has been among one class of controversialists only. We neither say it, nor mean it. But the fact, that the association presented by Mr. Riddle is not a very common one, is, unhappily, but too well known.

Mr. Riddle himself is a Clergyman; and it is evident that he is sincerely and warmly attached to the Church to which he belongs. He is himself fully persuaded, and states the ground of his persuasion, that Episcopacy, or that form of church government which places Ministers and churches under the superintendence of another Minister, is lawful and to be justified by Scripture warrant; so that a church adopting it, is not for that reason to be condemned, as having departed from the general principles and platform of the Scripture.

But Mr. Riddle shall speak for himself. Whether our readers think his views of Episcopacy to be cor rect or not, we are sure they will most sincerely respect the man who states them in the manner in which they will be found to be stated by Mr. Riddle.

After stating what we believe to be scriptural warrant for this practice of ecclesiastical superintendency, or Episcopacy, (for it signifies little whether we use the Anglo-Latin or the Anglo-Greek term,) he adds :—

"And may not an Episcopalian of the present day be permitted to say, that he feels himself bound to regard the apostolic precedent as an indication of his Lord's will, which extends in its consequences to the existing Church?" (Preface, page lxiii.)

He immediately goes on to say:

"It is certain, moreover, that such a view of the case was taken by many individuals and churches within the space of a hundred years after the death of the Apostles; and even that a form of Episcopal government was generally estab lished, so far as circumstances would permit, before the close of the second century; that, during a considerable space of time, no diversity of views respecting this form of government subsisted among even those Christians or communities who differed from each other on points of doctrine; and that, in more modern times, the opinion of disinterested and impartial judges has been often given in its favour. As to the antiquity of the institution, it may be remarked, that Tertullian, who flourished about the year 200, declares that the line of Bishops extended from his time upwards to the days of St. John; (ordo Episcoporum ad originem recensus, in Joannem stabit auctorem.-Adv. Marcion., lib. iv., c. 5;) and with reference to opinions on the subject deducible from Scripture, it may be worthy of notice, that a learned commentator of our own age and country, himself not a member of the Episcopal Church of England, has recorded his decision in the following terms: Epis. copacy in the church of God is of divine appointment, and should be maintained and respected.'-' Deacon, Presbyter, and Bishop, existed in the apostolic church, and may therefore be considered of divine origin.' (Dr. Adam Clarke, on 1 Tim. iii. 1, 13.)”

(Preface, page lxiii.)

Some other considerations being added, Mr. Riddle makes the following truly liberal remarks, thus carrying on his plea for Episcopacy so as, indeed, to embrace both charity and peace :

"On these grounds, few and simple as they are, we may safely defend a conscientious adherence to Episcopacy, and may claim liberty to retain and to act upon the conviction, that it is a wise and good institution, and in its origin divine. But, together with this assertion of our own liberty, we are undoubtedly bound to exercise charity and candour towards other men, and other institutions. And perhaps we fall very short of a due degree of charity and candour, unless we are ready to forego any exclusive claims or pretensions in our own favour. We may reasonably believe that Episcopacy is a divine institution; but we have no

right to contend that it is the only sys. tem to which that honour is attached. It is generally allowed, by the advocates of Episcopacy, that, at first, the system of subordination was established only in the larger cities, or the more extensive churches. It may be as easy to prove the early existence, and the present lawfulness, of a Presbyterian constitution, (for instance,) as to establish the same points in favour of an Episcopal establishment. And as it may be wise and useful to adopt the primitive model in one age or country, so it may be equally wise and useful to adopt the primitive Presbyterian model in another."

Again :

(Preface, page lxv.)

"It is surely at once a part of Christian charity, and a matter of obvious ex

pediency, not to insist too strongly upon doubtful points in ecclesiastical matters; or to claim, as on our side, what may The

perhaps prove to be against us. study of Christian antiquities may show that questions do exist, in connexion with the origin and claims of Episcopacy, which, if positively decided and maintained in the lead to unpleasant differences, and peraffirmative by any one set of persons, must haps to a want of Christian sympathy between those who ought to love as

6

brethren.' Let the advocates of different systems of church government treat each other, not merely with forbearance, but with unfeigned respect. None of the prevalent systems of the present day can afford to maintain any exclusive or haughty claims in the face of history. Nor can such claims consist with charity. I do not think that the advocate of any other form of church government, or the member of any other church, can tell me, consistently with truth and charity, that my own Episcopal church, as such, is anti-scriptural and sinful; but neither can I feel myself at liberty to declare the same concerning his church or churches, be their constitution what it may. I may also exercise and manifest a decided opinion in favour of Episcopacy; but with all this preference, I can have no just cause to treat any other institution with contempt or scorn. And, besides this, there are strong reasons why my conclusions in favour of Episcopacy, although sufficient to satisfy my own mind, and to influence my choice, ought yet to be not too positive, universal, or exclusive."

(Preface, page lxviii.)
"the Aposto-

To what is termed