The multitude that went out, being a mixed multitude, even with a great number of Egyptians in their company,* plainly shows that they thought of returning :-and it was Pharaoh's hardness of heart, in pursuing them, contrary to any previous imagination of the Egyptians themselves, that alone changed the Israelites' course-frustrated all their honest purpose ;-and accomplished the Divine Prophecy.

Righteous art Thou, O Lord, in all Thy Ways: and Holy in all Thy Works.t

But further; the ferocious attempt of the Egyptians to destroy the Israelites, after they had consented that they should go in peace ;-and contrary to all their solemn engagements to them; or at least to drag them into the most bitter bondage--was surely a more than sufficient cause for avowed hostility, and reprisal, in any age, or country upon the face of the earth and such, that the Israelites thenceforth detaining the spoil, could no more stand in need of any apology, or vindication; than the confiscation of the property of Traitors, or than the modern practice of making reprisals at sea.

If the Israelites, after this, had been in a situation, where they could have returned with armed force, to invade the land of Egypt; and to carry away the whole spoil thereof; by what law of nations would they have been condemned?

But in the Wilderness, where the Israelites were sojourning, the same sea which they had so miraculously passed over, was an utter bar to all further intercourse with Egypt, for any purpose, or on any account whatever.-And, even suppose a disposition of restitution to have remained-the bar placed by their miraculous passage, which they never could have had originally any expectation of accomplishing; would effectually put it out of their power to carry such disposition into effect:whilst indeed, at the same time, the greater part of the very Egyptians most interested, had in all likelihood perished, together with Pharaoh himself.

I must add, whilst I am thus humbly endeavouring, with great simplicity, and integrity, to vindicate the cause of the righteous against blasphemers;-and, if it might be, to lead

+ Psalm cxlv. ver. 17. Psalm cxix. ver. 137. Jeremiah, chap. xii. ver. 1.

*

blasphemers to repent of the blasphemy;-as blasphemy may be forgiven, except the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: must add, that perhaps some notice should be taken of our Blessed Lord's borrowing the Colt, whereon He so emblematically, and prophetically sat, when He entered Jerusalem.-Our proud modern blasphemers, Bolingbroke, and Voltaire, have both by themselves, and by their minor imitators, blasphemed our Lord;-representing His sending His Disciples to take, or borrow the Colt, as a gross fraud. But those who are serious, will understand both the prophecy, and the accomplishment, to have been perfectly consistent with all righteousness.

Our Lord, prophesying,―said,

Matthew, chap. xxi. and Mark, chap. xi.

Ver. 2. Go your way into the village over against you; and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him.

3. And if any man say ought unto you, (or as St. Mark has the words, say unto you, Why do ye this?) say ye, that The Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither.

Here was the Prophecy ;-the accomplishment follows in these words,

Mark, chap. xi.

Ver. 4. And they went their way, and found the colt tied, by the door without, in a place where two ways met : -and they loose him.

5. And certain of them that stood there, said unto them, What do ye loosing the colt?

6. And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded:-and they let him go.

8. And they brought the colt to Jesus.

And here evidently was an accomplishment of the Prophecy, with the fullest consent of those that stood by ;-who

* Matthew, chap. xii. ver. 31. Mark, chap. iii. ver. 28, 29,

St. Luke has the words, Why do ye loose him? chap. xix. ver, 31.

S

must have been, either the owners, or connected with the owners of the colt.-Here, therefore, was a full consent, as could well be given to any loan:-and at the same time, there cannot be a doubt but that the colt was actually returned carefully, by the disciples, who so constantly passed by the same spot every day, during their attendance at Jerusalem.

Where then was the robbery, or the fraud? Let those disciples of Errour who have brought the shameful charge, answer for the real injury they have done to the world ;and for their own real fraud,-whereby they have indeed endeavoured to rob mankind of all their best reliance on Him, who alone is able to save;-and of all their best hopes, and advantages.

VII. Origin, Principles, and Present Condition of the Protestant Dissenters. From The Baptist Magazine for August, 1827.

It may be said, without fear of its being successfully contradicted, that "the antiquity" of Protestant Dissenters "is of ancient days." It is an undeniable fact, supported by the most abundant evidence, that the sentiments held by the primitive believers, and all Christians for the first three centuries, with regard to the constitution of the churches, were similar to those which have always been maintained by them.

A few extracts from Lord King's "Constitution of the Primitive Churches," will be sufficient to prove this assertion. Cyprian says of the office of " bishop," or pastor, &c. "in a church might be many presbyters, but only one supreme." Before the time of Constantine, we find from Ignatius, Cyprian, and other bishops, that not the word "diocese," but parish (houses near to each other) is used of the bishop's charge; as, the bishop of the "parish of Alexandria," of the "parish of Ephesus," &c. A bishop had then but one altar, one communion table; and offenders appeared before the whole church. The African Synod (A. D. 258,) held, that the sacerdotal ordinations ought not to be made but with the knowledge of the people who were present, that the people being present, either the enemies of the wicked may be defeated, or the merits of the good de

clared, and the ordination be just and lawful which shall have been examined by the suffrage and judgment of all. A. D. 252, Cornelius, bishop of Rome, read letters from foreign churches" to his most holy and numerous people." Eusebius calls the meeting-house, "the house of the church;" i. e. the church-house. A penitent bewailing his fault before the church at Rome, "the church was touched with compassion towards him." When Andreus, bishop of Rome, died, "all the brethren met together in the church, to choose a successor. Eusebius further says, "during the first three centuries there were no dioceses larger than a parish, except A. D. 260, at Alexandria, when numbers who lived at a distance erected houses near their own houses, as daughter churches, with a minister appointed by the bishop of Alexandria, at which last place they occasionally attended." He speaks also of a bishop being chosen, whom the neighbouring bishops ordained.

From the authority of Origen, we learn that "deacons" distributed to the poor the church's money, and assisted at the Lord's table.

Cyprian says that the African Synod thus speaks of the "independency" of each distinct church or congregation: "It is decreed by us all, and it is equal and just, that every one's cause shall be heard where the crime was committed; and that a particular portion of Christ's flock shall be assigned to each pastor, which he is to govern, being to give an account of his conduct to the Lord."

In the public worship, the lector, clerk, or reader, read the Scriptures, without the people reading with him. They had no musical instruments. After reading, singing, preaching, and praying, they administered the Lord's supper. "This food," says Justin Martyr, "we call the Eucharist, and no one may partake of it but he who believeth those things to be true which we teach, and who has received the remission of sins and the baptism of regeneration, and liveth as Christ commandeth." And in regard to "Baptism," Barnabas, in his Catholic Epistle, says, "We go down into the water full of sin and filth; and we ascend, bringing forth fruit in the heart.”

Other testimonies might be produced, but these are sufficient to prove that the Christian churches, before the time of Constantine, and when the spirit of the world was not

suffered to prevail among professing Christians, were founded and governed in their discipline and worship, upon the same principles as the English Dissenting Baptist churches.

At that early period very large churches existed in Britain, which suffered most distressing persecutions from the Roman emperors. Such simple-hearted Christians as we have described in foreign parts were the churches in this country, until the close of the sixth century, when they fell victims to the sectarian zeal, and antichristian policy and cruelty of Austin, the booted apostle, at Bangor, near Ches

ter.

The long dark night of popery which was thus introduced into Britain, continued till the Reformation, which was commenced by Wickliffe in the 14th, and was finished in the 16th century.

Besides the Reformers in church and state at this latter period, of whom Lord Thomas Cromwell and Archbishop Cranmer were the chief persons,* there were those who were reformers as regarded the corrupt principles of popery in regard to religion simply, irrespective of the religion of the church as by law established. These were that illustrious band of men, consisting of Tyndal, Frith, Barnes, Garrett, Hierome, and others. The first of these worthies having translated the Scriptures into English, the rest assisted in the distribution of his New Testament, and made it the only standard of their principles, and the only rule of their conduct. By these, and their numerous disciples, the principles of free inquiry were widely propagated; they taught that Christ was the only supreme head of the church on earth, and that his will was to be learned from the Scriptures alone.

That any writer should have designated these martyrs the "Fathers of the English church," is a gross misnomer: they were in no other sense her fathers but as she is Pro

The chief thing accomplished by these great and good men, was their getting the Scriptures translated by Coverdale; and afterwards, prevailing on the king, Henry VIII, to sanction Tyndal's translation. In the year 1540, one edition of what was called "the Bible of the larger volume," was printed, as Tyndal had left it, without the Apocryphal books, which had been translated after Tyndal's death by John Rogers, and appended to Tyndal's, called Matthews's Bible, A copy of this very curious edition, (which was "ordered to be read in churches") is in Sion College Library.