missionaries must be ordained by the Bishops of the Church of England, profess their assent and consent to all that is contained in the Articles and Liturgy of the Church, and that the societies generally shall be subject to episcopal rule and government; he cannot be serious in expecting that we are prepared for such a state of things as this, or that there is any human probability the time will ever come, christian church will submit to it.

when the Yet any

thing less than this would not answer, as far as I can conjecture, the author's views. He speaks, but with amazing tenderness for the scruples and feelings of church-men, of their "setting an example of forbearance, by admitting a few modifications, or retrenchments, into the forms abroad;" and of their doing this, "not so much to satisfy their dissenting brethren, as attending to hints and acknowledgments advanced by pious churchmen." He appeals to them, whether they ought to contend thus far for "an indifferent particle, a worthless particle," to gratify "the wishes or weaknesses of their brethren." Truly, if there is no contest among us, except about indifferent and worthless particles, the controversy must be a very indifferent and worthless affair altogether, and the sooner that it is ended the better.

If he would carry his "New Model" of episcopacy a little farther than he has thought it right to express; if it is not, after all, the entire system of the Church of England he would send abroad, but some improvement or modification of it, then I submit, the scheme, so far from producing unity, would create another division; a new party would be formed, neither church nor dissent, having in all probability some of the imperfections, as well as some of the good qualities of both. Instead, therefore, of this new model producing extensive and combined union and co-operation, presenting a glorious mass of harmonious principle and united exertion, it would only add another section to the already divided, and as the author imagines, conflicting hosts.

The grounds on which this claim is put forth on behalf of the church, are not the more scriptural nature of its forms or discipline; but from its constituting the majority in this country, and possessing various other advantages, he argues the point should be conceded to it. On this subject the following passage occurs :—

"The sound members of the Established Church, the men-clergy and laity, who profess the doctrine of the martyrs, the saints, the sages of the English reformation, stand certainly distinguished among the

professors of the same faith, if not by number, yet by several signal pre-eminences. To them (generally) belongs the visible advantage of secular precedency. With them are rank and fortune; gifts which acceptably may be laid at the feet of the King of kings. Theirs are the benefits, inestimable, of thorough education-an advantage which the Lord has in every age vouchsafed to make use of when he has had eminent public services in hand. By them, almost exclusively, is enjoyed the honour of enduring something more like a real persecution from the world, than has been suffered in England a long while by any class of Christians. And may it not be added, that the pious members of the Established Church enjoy at the present moment, by eminence, that influence of the Holy Spirit from which spring seriousness of temper, simplicity of faith, and purity of morals; and which moreover is ordinarily conferred upon those who are in training for pecular sufferings or services?

"These distinctions give to the body of enlightened Churchmen a visible claim to the honour of taking the lead in any new and important measures in which the interests of Christianity at large may be involved. An alternative not to be evaded is before these persons;-they must either take up the part which heaven assigns them, or lose rank in front of the church universal." Pp. 122, 123.

On this paragraph, were I writing, like the

author of the "New Model," under a mask, I should be tempted to offer some strictures; I consider it objectionable in principle, and incorrect in fact. Comparisons of such a description are odious; they either savour of pride, or they provoke to its exercise, and are by no means calculated to promote either the cause of religion, or of christian union. If the author expects that union will be accomplished by the admission of such statements, I am afraid he has little acquaintance with the parties who are expected to make the sacrifices. To make sacrifice to principle, and to a sense of duty, every christian ought to consider his honour; but to bow down to a new system of expediency, the necessity of which is not apparent, and which cannot be adopted, but by a compromise of principle and consistency, is too much to require, and what would be dishonourable to do.

On Dissenters the subject is urged in the following passage:

"There might even be adduced another reason of the proposed concession, which Churchmen, without discredit, might urge, and of which Dissenters might, with honour to themselves, acknowledge the force. Is it not, by usage universal, the custom for ter carriages to swerve from their line of road,

in favour of such as could not, without difficulty or peril, pull out of their rut?-Do the Dissenters pride themselves on their freedom from the restraints, entanglements, and burdens, of statutes ecclesiastical?-do they glory in spurning human enactments? -do they abhor to link religion with secular interests?-do they rejoice to admit no forms which, as individuals, they have no power to revise or refuse? --then let them, on this most worthy occasion, and on the loud call of pagan misery, use their boasted liberty for the best imaginable purpose. Now let it be their glory and their honourable boast that, when the advancement of our common Christianity was in question, they could and they did lay their several preferences on the altar of charity. Is there a triumph to be won on the field of theological strife that can equal in true brilliancy the one that would be obtained by such a concession, prompted by such a motive? Scarcely ought the glory of martyrdom to rank above it :-an offering this-grateful in the court of heaven beyond the fumes of very much incense!" Pp. 91, 92.

I am at a loss to know, whether the author is in jest or earnest, in this singular mode of putting the matter before Dissenters. They are referred to as glorying in their liberty, in their freedom from secular entanglements and other things. All such glorying is vain. But can this writer be serious in saying to them, "Gentlemen,