WHAT HARM WOULD IT DO? violation of all order!"

"Oh! it would be a Of what order? The

order of God, or the order of man? It is surely time fairly to grapple with the question, which of these orders ought to have the precedence. If any order of man prevents one minister of Christ recognising another, whom he believes to be such, in opposition to the will of God, the sooner men are emancipated from its authority, the better. There was an injunction given, by an ecclesiastical court, for the apostles to disobey the commands of their Divine Master, and how they treated it, every one knows. Being in subjection to such order, we consider quite in opposition to the spirit of the Evangelical Alliance, and must greatly tend to retard its progress. This regard to what is called order, constrains many a Christian minister to recognise those in public, in this character, whom they cannot, with a good conscience, view as having any claim to it, and keeps them at a distance from those whom they can and would receive with their whole heart; nay, whom their Divine Master commands them thus to acknowledge.

I have known a worthy minister, (and the observation is applicable to more denominations than one,) suddenly prevented by an attack of disease, from meeting his people. They assemble, but there is no one to address them. There are half-a-dozen of ministers in the city, who would be willing to supply his place—who would preach the same gospel, nay, from whom these very people would hear with delight, the statement of divine truth, either

in the parlour or from the platform, and yet he dare not, from this regard to what is called order, ask their aid in any public service. Is this as it ought to be? Let Christians look at it. Is it Christian liberty, or is it bondage? Is it in accordance with either the spirit or the precepts of the gospel ? Are we not called to walk in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free?

We often hear eloquent speeches about breaking down the walls of partition by which the disciples of Christ are divided, and how much that is to be desired. But how few seem thoroughly disposed to put their hand to the work; or is it supposed that these walls are to fall like those of Jericho, without human agency ? No such miracle is to be expected. We have no such promise that the mere blast of the trumpets will bring them down.

Here I shall quote some observations contained in that valuable contribution to the Tracts on Christian Union, which were published some years ago, by John Angel James.

66

Nothing could be a more convincing prima facie argument to convince me that my system of ecclesiastical polity, whatever it was, must be unscriptural, than the perception that it did not allow me consistently to associate with Christians of other denominations. I never could persuade myself that the system, be it what it might, could be a scriptural one, which threw a bar across my path, and prevented me from visibly joining with my fellowChristians in acts of fraternal intercourse, or which

impeded the answer to the Saviour's prayer for the oneness of his disciples, and which, by thus hindering the completeness of the evidence of his divine mission, tended to keep the world in a state of unbelief."

Again, referring to the influence of ministers in promoting union among Christians, he thus writes:

“I am quite aware it is the duty of Christian ministers to promote union; their responsibility in this, as well as every other subject connected with true religion, is tremendous; and God will require this matter at their hands. The power of the pulpit, and the influence of ministerial example, are prodigious. If pastors could be brought to associate, the flocks would instantly follow; and it is a solemn and serious consideration for those whom the Saviour has granted an office of such influence, whether they can best discharge its duties, by perpetuating or healing the wounds of the universal church. If the chord of charity were struck by a firm and skilful hand in the pulpit, from time to time, it would produce an instant vibration throughout the whole congregation, and the words of peace going from thence would be returned in ready and joyful echoes by the listening hearers. The minister of religion cannot be fully acting out his duty as a servant of Christ, unless he is a promoter of peace, and doing all he can to harmonise the discordant elements of the Christian church. ministry is emphatically one of reconciliation. He has mistaken his commission if he be employing

The

himself in any way that is opposed to this, or if he be even neglecting it."

If the information we have just received be correct, that the Archbishop of Canterbury has recognised the validity of ordination among Dissenters, may we not hope that this may be a movement towards a more free and unembarrassed intercourse with them on the part of pious Churchmen. When I had the privilege of receiving Mr. Simeon as my guest at Stirling many years ago, he not only preached to my people, but partook of the ordinance of the supper, at St. Ninians, the neighbouring parish. It must indeed be admitted, that in both cases it was in the established church, and this is pleaded by his biographer as an apology for this part of his conduct. It should be recollected, however, that it is a church that most unqualifiedly condemns Episcopacy. We had on that occasion one of the many examples of the power of early association. A very worthy man, one of the elders, hesitated about sitting at the Lord's table with him, when he heard that he had any connection with black prelacy. We rejoice to think, that since that period, the field of Christian intercourse has been much enlarged, and we trust it is in the way of being still farther extended.

DR. BARROW ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

The following quotation from Dr. Barrow's powerful work on the supremacy of the Pope, shows the

place the laity originally had in the Church of England.

"Every bishop," says he, "in his own church, did act freely and of his own will, according to his will and discretion, with the advice of his ecclesiastical senate, and with the consent of his people, (which he did use to consult,) without being controlled by any other, or accountable to any, farther than his obligation to uphold the verity of the Christian profession, and to maintain that fraternal communion in charity and peace with other churches, did require."

This is wonderfully different from that exclusiveness, and that unlimited power, which, in later years, has been exercised by bishops, independent of their ecclesiastical senate, and where the voice or consent of the people was never heard. On the other hand, there is a wonderful similarity between this representation and a minister taking any step with the advice of the session, (his ecclesiastical senate,) especially if there be added to this, the consent of the people, which (as I have formerly suggested,) would tend to promote, nay, seems almost necessary to secure mutual confidence in the members of any Christian community.

THE DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH.

When that which was originally a private offence cannot be otherwise settled, it is said, "tell it to