present, and therefore his "judgment" was that as God, in accordance with His gracious design, had gathered the Gentile as well as the Jew within the fold of the Church, Gentile liberty ought not to be violated by the imposition of a purely Jewish rite. Thus admirably, by simply interpreting the divine will, not by imposing his own, he conciliated the Christian Jew on the one hand, and recognised the Christian liberty of the Gentile on the other. Accordingly, to this the members of " congress " -or better, "synod"-at once agreed, just as a wise and conclusive utterance, in analogous circumstances, by a moderator of Synod now, is met usually with "Agreed! agreed!" from its members. Moreover, as this was a constitutional matter, and therefore of great importance, very properly the concurrence of the general membership of the Church was likewise obtained. With this all that follows is in perfect harmony: "Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men," &c. (ver. 22). "And they wrote letters by them after this manner: The apostles, and elders, and brethren, send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles," &c. (ver. 23). "It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, ' &c. (ver. 25). "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us," &c. (ver. 28). Now, is there the remotest trace of prelacy in all this? We think not. James acts nowhere as a prelate, but everywhere as a presbyter or bishop, presiding, as moderator, over his brethren in synod assembled. But, second, how does it fare with " the episcopate, properly so-called,” in the Gentile wing of the Church in the apostolic age? As we have seen, that office was claimed, "at least in a rudimentary form," by Dr Lightfoot for the Apostle James, and for him alone in the Jewish wing. We have also seen what it amounts to. But no claim at all is even put forward in the case of the Gentile churches. Bishop Lightfoot frankly states that "the New Testament presents no distinct traces of such organisation in the Gentile congregations." We agree. In view of all these facts, then, what we claim is simply this-that "the episcopate properly so-called" (the prelatic order of bishops) is not found in the New Testament, while Presbyterian bishops are. And this being so, the "inferior clergy," as they are called, of the Church of England are, in violation of New Testament precept and example, denied the exercise of episcopal functions, indefeasibly theirs, by the non-Scriptural and postapostolic order of prelatic bishops. But while this is our reading of the apostolic writings, we are no bigots; and were Dr Benson, as Archbishop of Canterbury, fairly to face a scheme of comprehension, taking as his starting-point, not the historic episcopate of his recent circular to the churches, but the common ground of the New Testament-which he and his brethren ought now fairly and fearlessly to face-it might be found possible, by the opening of the twentieth century, to see fairly under weigh, at least, one of the greatest, and, nationally considered, most salutary movements which England has witnessed in the ecclesiastical domain since the times of the Reformation. A foundation deeper and diviner than that of astute expediency on which Cranmer's ecclesiastical genius worked may be found. Happy the leaders who make it plain, and rally on it the pith and marrow and unsullied patriotism of Christian England, to hearten and help, harmonise and direct, existing forces, for both constructive and aggressive work through generations yet to come! There is room, there is need. For one point, at least, may not unreasonably be assumed - viz., that, ecclesiastically, things cannot long continue in this country as they are at present. In the past, England has been what, for lack of a better term, we may call an oligarchic monarchy; the few, through the monarch, have controlled and dominated the many. That can no longer be. With the present Parliamentary franchise England is no longer an oligarchic but a democratic monarchy; the people, through the reigning sovereign, now govern themselves. But with this change in the State there has been no corresponding advance in the Church. It remains unchanged, with this result, that an ever-increasing force within the enfranchised and democratic State assails the still oligarchic Church. Like the "legs of the lame," these two limbs of the constitution in Church and State "are not equal." There is, consequently, an awkward limp. A man about whom the author of 'Waverley' tells us "had a stop-and-go-on sort of walk, as if ilka ane o' his twa legs belonged to sindry folk." Now the two great limbs of the Constitution obey not only "sindry" (separate) but positively conflicting principles. The one is felt by the other to be jarring and recalcitrant, and the deepening struggle is just the natural effort to restore harmony. The ultimate issue cannot be very uncertain. The shadow on the dialplate of time cannot be put back. The Church will need to fall into line if she is to march into the future pari passu with the State. Oligarchic privilege will have to give way in the ecclesiastical member, as in the civil, to democratic principle and well-ordered popular representation. There is a real danger. What ought to be the most English may soon be found to be the most un-English institution in the realm. Time ought to be taken by the forelock, and, while opportunity and goodwill remain, the fitting ground and method of adjustment for the future should be found. There is no time for unconcern and delay. Rome was burning while, if some of his subjects spoke the truth, Nero was fiddling. What won't bend to-day may have to break to-morrow. Ultimately the crux may be found in this, that, while prelacy is essentially oligarchic and non-representative, the genius of the Anglo-Saxon race is essentially democratic and representative. Prevailing in many departments of its industrial and commercial life, it has at length effloresced supremely into the political sphere. But, fairly considered, it is not a foe to be feared and resisted, but a great and incalculably valuable force to be wisely regulated and impartially applied. That Anglo-Saxon genius has yet to find a fair and practicable solution of the ecclesiastical problem, which every day looms up more largely right in the line of national advance. But every principle, like every creature, acts "after its kind." English democracy will, therefore, be likely to find a solution not in conflict but in harmony with itself. In the political sphere the lordly and oligarchic element has been practically deposed, and the patient, toiling Saxon, after long centuries of endurance and effort, has at length prevailed. Will the issue be essentally different in the ecclesiastical province? It is not very likely that it will. It is not very desirable that it should. There are two root elements closely correlated in the Anglo-Saxon character, which ultimately are likely to determine this and some other questions. The first of these is broad and common-sense reverence for the Bible. While he hates cant and sanctimoniousness, the typical Anglo-Saxon will stand by the Scriptures, and any fair and honest appeal for a legitimate purpose to their authority. The second is his love of liberty and fair play, zeal for equal citizen rights, and all-round democratic representation. The Church of England that is to be the Church of the future must, we apprehend, have due respect to both of these elements. Its polity, as well as its creed, must have the clear and unmistakable warrant of the New Testament; and it must also afford ample scope for the rights and liberties of the Christian people, embracing their representative agency in the conduct of its affairs, which, if democratic, fortunately is likewise Scriptural and apostolic. Now, does the Church of England as at present constituted fairly meet these requirements? With no wish but for her future stability and weal, in the best sense as a Church of Christ in this realm, we must answer, No! Anglican prelacy, or what the Archbishop of Canterbury calls "the historic episcopate," is post-apostolic, not Scriptural; exclusive, not representative. What is needed is large and fearless adaptation of her polity to apostolic precept and example, and the rights and liberties of the Christian people. Democratic representation, indeed, is amply met by New Testament provision. This, however, is disregarded by prelacy. There lurks danger. Is it wise, then, for the Church herself that prelacy, which is non-Scriptural and exclusive, should stand in the way of something else within her reach which is Scriptural and representative? Why not by timely action seek the possible common ground? With the future before the Church of England, and hostile forces of no ordinary magnitude and persistency directed against her, might not her best men fairly face this problem on broad Scriptural grounds? Or, as was the case with the Revision Committee, might they not be joined by representatives from other Churches, to attempt, at least, in that spirit of ample Christian charity which is never inconsistent with fidelity, the elaboration of an ecclesiastical polity based on New Testament precept and example? The result, one would hope, might well be the formulation of a system not less faithful to Scripture, yet, perhaps, deemed more comprehensive and flexible, than any of those with which the Churches are familiar. For the sake of the Church herself, as well as the nation in which she exerts an influence so great and bears a responsibility so weighty, every loyal and patriotic citizen may well hope that she will bend and embrace now, rather than run the risk, remote though some may think it to be, of having to break and disintegrate at some future time. And were this hope realised, as we think it might be, she would be likely to attain tenfold force, become more genuinely and adequately national, and worthily inherit the future. [The above was originally published by the author in 'The Presbyterian.'] APPENDIX B. 1811. -MANOR OF TOTTINGTON. The Halmot Court of the most noble Henry, Duke of Buccleuch, and Elizabeth, Duchess of Buccleuch, his wife, of their Manor of Tottington, in the county of Lancaster, holden at Holcome the first day of May, in the fifty-first year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King George the Third over the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eleven, before John Bailey, Deputy Steward of William Carr, gentleman, Chief Steward there : Be it remembered that, on the thirtieth day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eleven, Richard Rothwell of Chatterton within Tottington, in the county of Lancaster, yeoman; Edward Rothwell of Spout Bank in the said county, yeoman ; Edward Kay of Little Bolton in the said county, yeoman; and Richard Kay of Lime Field within Walmsley in the said county, cotton manufacturer (surviving feoffees in trust of the hereditaments hereinafter mentioned and intended to be hereby surrendered); in consideration of the sum of five shillings apiece of lawful British money to them in hand paid by William Woodcock of Holcome in the said manor, gentleman; William Grant of Grant Lodge in the said manor, merchant; Charles Grant of the same place, merchant; and Edward Rothwell of Bolton in the said county, painter; at or before the passing hereof the receipt whereof they do hereby severally acknowledge for renewing and extending the said Trust, and for divers other good causes and considerations thereunto moving, they, the said Richard Rothwell, Edward Rothwell of Spout Bank, Edward Kay and Richard Kay, Have and each and every of them Hath surrendered and given up, and by these presents Do, and each and every of them Doth surrender and give up into the hands of the Lord and Lady of the said manor by the hands and acceptance of James Rostron of Holcome, aforesaid gentleman, a customary tenant there and sworn, &c. All that edifice or building adjoining to Nuttal Lane in the said manor formerly called Little Edmund's, and now used as a Dissenting Chapel called Dundee Chapel, also all that messuage or dwelling-house adjoining the |