are not allowed to be counted members of this church by those that take denominations, not from the intimate essentials of things (as sameness of doctrine, and the institutions of Christian worship), but from loose and very separable accidents. Yet, thanks be to God, we are not so stupid as not to apprehend we are under stricter and much more sacred obligation than can be carried under the sound of a name, to adhere to those our reverend fathers and brethren of the established church, who are most united among themselves, in duty to God and our Redeemer, in loyalty to our sovereign, and in fidelity to the protestant religion; as with whom, in this dubious state of things, we are to run all hazards, and to live and die together. And we cannot disallow ourselves to hope that our reverend fathers and brethren will conceive of us, as humbly dissenting from them without diminution of that great reverence which their real worth claims from us, and without arrogating any thing unduly to ourselves on that account. For, though we cannot avoid thinking we are in the right in those particular things wherein we differ, yet at the same time we know ourselves to be far excelled by them in much greater and more important things" (Portfolio, p. 343).

of such distinctions, by different interests and affec- | from Howe. "We, for our parts, who, because tions (Dr. Sherlock, p. 10). But we are in a far worse in some things we conform not, are called nonconcondition; we have endless sects, with endless con- formists-whereas no man conforms in every thingventicles. The primitive Christians allowed no separate assemblies, no congregations but what met in the public church. "If any man took upon him to make a breach, and to draw people into corners, he was presently condemned, and a suitable penalty put upon him. When Eustathius, bishop of Sebastria (a man pretending to great strictness and austerity of life) began to cast off the discipline of the church, and to introduce many odd observations of his ownamongst others, to condemn priests that were married to fast on the Lord's day, and to keep meetings in private houses, drawing away many, but especially women (as the historian observes) who, leaving their husbands, were led away with error, and from that into great filthiness and impurity: no sooner did the bishops of those parts discover it, but, meeting in council at Gangra, the metropolis of Paphlagonia, about the year 340, they condemned and cast them out of the church, passing these two canons among the rest: If any one shall teach that the house of God is to be despised, and the assemblies that are held in it, let him be accursed: If any man shall take upon him out of the church privately to preach at home, and, making light of the church, shall do those things that belong only to the church, without the presence of the priests, and the leave and allowance of the bishop, let him be accursed.' Correspondent to which the canons called apostolical, and the council of Antioch ordain, that if any presbyter, setting light by his own bishop, shall withdraw and set up separate meetings, and erect another altar (i. e., says Zonaras, keep unlawful conventicles, preach privately, and administer the sacrament) that in such a case he shall be deposed, as ambitious and tyrannical, and the people communicating with him be excommunicated, as being factious and schismatical; only this not to be done till after the third admonition" (Dr. Cave's Prim. Chris., part i., chap. 7, p. 110). There are many at present who go either to the church or the meeting house, as their fancy suggests. Now it is quite clear when they communicate with us occasionally, they might do so easily always, and escape the sin of schism. It was never thought lawful till these late days to separate from a lawful communion, though there might be acknowledged defects in it; and in what communion is it not the case? The Brownists separated from us, calling our worship and government unlawful, idolatrous, and anti-christian-things more easily said than proved. They objected to forms of prayer; yet it appears they had them in the apostles' days, although St. Chrysostom says there were then gifts of prayers, and hence not so great a necessity for forms. They objected to what they called carnal ceremonies, but these afforded not just cause for division. The church in St. Augustine's time almost groaned under ceremonies, yet he did not separate (epistle to Januarius, p. 213), nor should they; they charged the church with injustice, but, as this is an infringement on the rules of natural or civil right, it cannot be so easily proved. But the old nonconformists, who thought they could not conform as ministers, conformed as laymen, both in prayers and sacraments; they condemned schism, and proved that communion with the church of England was lawful, and therefore that separation was sinful. "And I dare challenge (says Dr. Sherlock) any man to show me, from the first beginnings of Christianity, that ever it was thought lawful to separate from a church where we might communicate without sin," p. 161 (see also pp. 181, 185, 243). How is it then that, schism being carnal, so many are disposed to look for the best men among schismatics? We see in what esteem our church was held by the nonconformists, as it appears from the following extract

If we look at scripture we see the sad effects of disunion. Satan first broke the unity of heaven, and was cast down to hell. Cain, being of that wicked one, fell into envy, and slew his brother in a quarrel which was altogether of a religious kind; he went out from the presence of God, i. e., from the church as it then was, a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and built a city (because, as Dr. South wittily observes, there was not yet a city built for him to pull down), in a state of separation from that part of his family in which the church was continued in the line of Seth. The schism of Cain was continued till the flood came and destroyed them all; corruption having become general through the intermixture of the members of the church with the posterity of Cain, the people of the schism. The crime of Korah and his company, of Jeroboam and the ten tribes, was wholly that of schism. The man of God (1 Kings xiii. 8-9) was sent to Bethel, the conventicle of the calf, and because he ate and drank there, contrary to the command given him, he was slain for it (ver. 23). The Samaritan schismatics were reckoned among the heathen by our Saviour"Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not" (Matt. x. 5). Uzziah, though king, was struck with leprosy for intruding into the priest's office, and cut off from the house of the Lord (1 Chron. xxvi. 21). Schism, it is clear, partakes of the nature of spiritual adultery. The ark of Noah was a figure of the church: there can be no salvation out of the church, in the same way that there could be none out of the ark. Christ's seamless coat was not divided, which signified the unity that should exist in the church. Ahijah (1 Kings ii. 30-31) rent his new garment into twelve parts to show that there should be a schism among the tribes. Rahab was ordered to gather all her friends into her house, that they might be saved; if any were found without, they were to perish (Josh. ii. 18). The paschal lamb was to be eaten in one house; none was to be cast out. The old Jerusalem was a pattern of the new; there was one temple and one altar: all the rest of the world were without. The church of Christ is a fold of sheep under the protection of the Great Shepherd of men's souls; if a sheep strays, it is in the way of the wolf. The word "disorderly,” in Greek, äraкToç, is found four times in the New Testament, viz., 1 Thes. v. 14, 2 Thes. iii. 6, 7, 11. It is a military term, signifying out of the ranks, and appears in every instance to have reference to schism. "We exhort you, brethren, warn them that are un

ruly" that are out of the ranks, and have ceded to | He confessed he had been led, on consideration, to schism and disorder. "Withdraw yourselves from see that my former statements were not without foundation. every brother that walketh disorderly" (áráKTWC), 66 "But," says he, "as to the bishops, out of the ranks. "Yourselves know how ye surely you cannot rank them among the working ought to follow us, for we behaved not ourselves dis- clergy? and, without wishing at all to enter on the orderly among you"-we created no schisms. "We subject of episcopacy, to which, from conviction, I am hear that there are some which walk among you dis- opposed, I often wonder why the government has orderly” (áráкtwc), who do actually form schisms, not interfered to reduce their enormous salaries, and "working not at all, but are busy bodies." "Schism consequently their princely mode of living. I think (says Bacon) in the spiritual body of the church, is a they would be of greater service to the church if they greater scandal than a corruption in manners; as in were not so well paid, were fewer in number, and the natural body a wound, or solution of continuity, were required to undertake some portion of parochial is worse than a corrupt humour" (Sentences V. iii. p. duty*. 295), (see Dr. Horne as in Scholar Armed, vol. ii. pp. 320, 326). Cecil says "To divide for truth is martyrdom, but to divide for straws is schism." Ridley said, "I know that the unity of the church is to be retained by all means, and the same to be necessary to salvation" (Works by Parker Society, p. 120). Abp. Sandys said "It is lamentable that the gospel of peace should bring forth schism. This is both slanderous and undoubtedly perilous to our profession" (Works by Parker Society, p. 381).

Let us pursue the same course with modern dissenters in all subjects where we have God, and right, and the verities of our holy religion on our side, as St. Paul did with the erroneous Judaizing teachers in the church of Galatia-" To whom (says he) we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you" (Gal. ii. 5). Our duty it is to show the superiority of our church by a more uniform and steadfast reliance on the Redeemer, by cultivating more assiduously every good word and work, by praying more constantly for the directing and purifying influences of the Holy Spirit, and by showing a more unreserved devotedness to God. We must not give place to them at all, either in the doctrines or polity of our church. In kindness and love let us never be inferior. The best, most prudent, and safest way of acting towards them is never to conceal or yield an essential point, but in all humility and pious firmness to make an honest and open declaration of our principles. Because to yield to them, or to favour in any way their errors, is but to encourage them, and affords us no rational ground for concluding that we shall gain them. Concession encourages encroachment by further demands. By yielding, we make duty, reason, religion, and established laws bend and give way to men in matters where no injustice or inexpedience can be shown, but where they should submit and obey. By yielding we encourage pernicious incurable schisms to satisfy persons who could never yet agree among themselves about any one thing or constitution so as to rest satisfied.

And now what remains but that we pray for our church, that she may be long preserved among us, that her pious and faithful children may increase in every quarter, and that she may be settled upon the best and surest foundations of purity, peace, godliness, and order, that neither the evil designs of those within or without her, nor the gates of hell, nor all within them, may ever prevail against her (See Dr. South's Sermon on Gal. ii. 5). "Now the God of patience and consolation grant us to be like-minded one toward another according to Christ Jesus, that we may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. xv. 5,6).

WHAT DO THE PARSONS DO?
No. VII.

THE BISHOPS.

IN a day or two after our former conversation, my dissenting friend and myself had an opportunity of returning to the subject of "the working clergy."

"Well then," I answered, "the legislature has interfered in some cases to lower, and in other cases to raise, the emoluments of the bishops. There was unquestionably a great disparity in their incomes, which was necessarily productive of many evils, and the income was by no means proportionate to the duty. This led to frequent translations-in itself a mischief. It rendered it necessary that other preferments should be held in commendam with the emoluments of the see, also an evil. There is no doubt a person will be more likely to set about the duties of his situation, if he conceives it is permanent, and if his nind is not distracted with other business. On this ground, as well as others, I conceive the new arrangement will be beneficial."

The following statement from Mr. Harford's life of Bishop Burgess, strikingly illustrate the truth of these remarks:-"The revenues of the see (St. David's) had, in the course of time, become so much straitened by alienations, encroachments, and spoliation, more especially at the period of the reformation, that their average produce in 1804 amounted only to 12007. Without the retention therefore of his stall at Durham, bishop Burgess could neither have met the needful expences of such an extensive diocese, nor have exercised that enlarged charity and that kind hospitality for which he was so distinguished. He found the see, in all important particulars, in a neglected condition. Too generally, indeed, it had been regarded as a steppingstone to preferment-a prospect fatal to the conception, and still more to the prosecution, of any continuous and well organized system of improvement. 'If I had looked for translation,' said the bishop, after I was appointed to St. David's, I should have done nothing.' So far was any such wish from his thoughts, that he was known again and again to say, in the course of the twenty-two years during which he held the bishopric, that he should be content and happy to live and die there." And after all, the income of the majority of the members of the episcopal bench, even when it is raised to the average, cannot be esteemed very exorbitant; and "I think," added I, "there is much good sense in the remark of your friend Mr. Angel James, of Birmingham, in his Christian Fellowship,' though, to judge from his writings, he is an implacable enemy to the church, when he justly says, After all the sneers of profanity and infidelity on the subject of a well-paid, well-fed clergy, the authors of the sarcasm would be very loath to exchange situations with the greater number of those who are the objects.' And I think this applies in some degree to the case of the bishops. Many a temporal peer and many a wealthy commoner, whose income, not life-rent, may have been six-fold that of the average of the episcopal bench, and who seldom gave out of their abundance to any good work, have been ever ready to cry out against the wealth of the heads of the church."

66 Angel James," answered my friend, rather

As matters now stand, not a few of the bishops have parochial responsibilities-the very thing here desired; and yet it is notorious that this very circumstance has repeatedly called forth abuse.

gruffly; "why I hope you do not intend to mix me with "

cially those who have the superintendence of the larger sees. Only conceive what must be the daily morning business in the way of answering letters alone, and many of them very frivolous, in such a diocese as that of London, or Chester, or York, or Lincoln*. The innumerable subjects to which a bishop's mind must be directed in the space of a few hours-the very thought of it is enough to distract the brain; and it is generally expected that the answers shall be written by the bishop himself. And then are there not incessant calls on business strictly ecclesiastical?— plans and specifications of churches, tithe commutations, ordinations, confirmations, consecrations, parliamentary attendance, attendance at public meetings, and a mass of other business. The marvel to me is, how many of the bishops-and some at an advanced period of life-ever get through their work at all; how they ever have a moment for relaxation, for private meditation and devotion, for reading, for reflection, for requisite attention to their domestic concerns; and yet we know that in addition to all this, many are most indefatigable in pulpit ministrations, and fall not far short in this respect of the celebrated Toby Matthew+; that many are at the same time adding materially to the theolo

"Pardon my remark, my good sir," was my reply, "and my somewhat rude interruption: I know your feelings well. Now consider among other necessary expences of a bishop-I say necessary -the journeys he has to take, the attendance in the house of peers, of residence in London in a way not unsuitable to the rank of a member of the upper house, the repairs he must keep up; consider what is almost necessary-hospitality of living, however plain, still expensive even with the greatest economy; unceasing calls upon his purse. Is there a public charity, I would ask, set on foot in a diocese? is there a new church to be built? is there a school to be founded?-the bishop's donation is expected as a matter of course-that of others is uncertain, the bishop's is sure. And why sure? Because experience has shown the bishop's liberality; and this from his own diocese alone. But then a bishop is somewhat of universal property. Look at the subscription lists of national charities, of the great religious societies, at the perpetual subscriptions for casual emergencies; and verily he must be a caviller indeed who could have the effrontery to say that episcopal wealth is lavished on self-gratification, or all directed in a chan-gical literature of the country. It would be invidious nel for the enrichment of the bishop's family. Much of course will depend on the disposition of each individual, on his peculiar circumstances: he may be a bachelor, he may be married, or a widower without a family. What the last can do with ease, a man with a family cannot do; and, though it would be most unjust for him to hoard up with niggard hand the whole of his income, still is he bound to provide for those of his own house. It should never be forgotten by laity as well as clergy, that all clerical income is life-rent; that the incumbent of a living, say of 5001. a year, without private fortune, stands on a very different footing from the man whose property yields him an annual revenue to the same amount. The laity should make allowance for this, and the clergy should bear it in mind; many of whom are too apt to live up to the full value of their livings, regardless of the consequences of leaving a family unprovided for, without those precautionary measures of life insurance which are not only prudent, but which are a positive and imperative duty. I know no more melancholy scene than that of a clergyman's widow and family compelled to leave the parsonage house, with all its pleasant comforts and endearing remembrances, with perhaps scarcely enough to enable them to take up their quarters elsewhere, and with a load of dilapidations to pay*. Much also must depend on the value of the see; for it would be gross unfairness as matters now stand, to expect that all bishops can contribute to any charity the same amount. It was a princely act of bp. Barrington, in 1809, to apply the immense sum of 60,000l. received as a fine, to the furtherance of religious institutions in his diocese. What other bishop could have done the same?"

"Well," said my dissenting friend, "I am willing to allow to the full what you say as to the contributions of the bishops; I am convinced that in this way they do a great deal, but I am talking of their actual work. They do not preach enough—I mean the most of them. Some certainly do."

66 a bishop may do a great "Why," was my answer, deal, though he may not preach a great deal; you can have no notion of the labour of some of them, espe

• With reference to the subject of the law of dilapidations, it is to be desired that some change should take place. It is often a very heavy tax upon the clergy to keep up their parsonages in thorough repair, especially when these houses are built in a style far beyond the value of the living, as is not unfrequently the case. A clergyman of private fortune builds a house suitable to that fortune; his successor may depend entirely on his clerical income, and I am not aware that, as in the case of rebuilding, he is enabled under Gilbert's act to borrow money for simple repairs.

to mention names of living prelates, but it should be known that, during twenty years immediately following the late bishop Burgess's elevation to the see of St. David's, he published no less than 72 treatises, having published 25 before; and that subsequently to that period, while at St. David's and at Salisbury, a vast number. How will any man say that he was not a working, though not precisely a preaching bishop? I refer to his case particularly, because 1 have heard it unblushingly affirmed that he was not often enough in the pulpit. Whether he was a working bishop or not, let the clergy of Sarum and St. David's tell; let Lampeter college speak to the fact. I would have you ransack all the annals of nonconformity for one instance approaching to this."

"Do not be severe, my good sir," said my worthy friend; "I am more and more convinced that there are working bishops as well as working clergy."

The increase of energy in the church-admitted by its opponents, but a source of unfeigned joy and matter of much thankfulness not only to its members, but to many conscientious nonconformists without its pale-has necessarily brought with it a vast addition of labour. Surely the unmeaning cry, "Ye are idle, ye are idle," should no more be heard. The episcopal

I cannot but urge upon the clergy the propriety of troubling their bishop as little as possible; to apply to him of course on all matters of importance, but not unnecessarily to add to his overwhelming business. This is a point to be attended to. Clergymen often write on the most trivial occasions. They are out of temper with some petty occurrence off goes a letter to the bishop. Some neighbouring minister has inadvertently visited the sick in their parish, the bishop of course must be informed of it. Some poor child has entered a school in a neighbouring parish; the church is consequently in danger-the diocesan should not remain ignorant of the alarming fact. Some itinerant Wesleyan has expounded the scriptures, and then it will seem energetic and active to inform his

lordship of the fearful inroads of Calvinism! The church

wardens won't agree to some repairs; the rural dean lives in the next parish, and the archdeacon's visitation is the following week, but there are some fidgetty minds that won't be satisfied with this-the bishop must be written to: like the clergyman who, in the time of franks, wrote to his bishop on the most trivial occasions, for two reasons-the one that the franks received gave him importance at the post-office, and also the covers, carefully preserved, were stuck all round an old portrait of archbishop Laud over the fire-place in his dining-room.

+ Toby Matthew, archbishop of York, who died 1628, kept an account of all the sermons he preached; by which it appears that while dean of Durham he preached 721 sermons, when bishop of Durham 550, and when archbishop of York 721, in all 1,992 sermons. Preferment never once induced him to desist from his duty, and there was scarcely a pulpit in the dioceses of Durham or York in which he had not preached. Notwithstanding he was so industrious, it is rather singular there are none of them in print.