down to ruin as a nation; the vessels of mercy, the preachers of the everlasting gospel; and these not confined (as the apostle declares) to the Jewish nation, but taken from among the Gentiles also!' 1 Cor. i. 12. Now I say this, (forasmuch as every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I, of Apollos; and I, of Peter; and I, of Christ ;) is Christ divided, &c. An apparent improvement: and the passage, one which should somewhat abate the zeal of teachers for baptizing into their own denominations. Ch. iii. v. 15. If any man's work shall he burnt, he will suffer loss: but he himself will be saved; yet so as through the fire.' Improved greatly; and wants only may for will,' in the latter case. Ch. iv. v. 3. 'But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you, or by human inquiry: yea, I do not even judge myself.' Improved would have been better begun with Though.' Ch. vi. v. 2, 3. Know ye not that the saints will judge the world'— 'that we shall judge angels?' Let down in a note, after Dr. Priestley but with greater scepticism, to the following sense: It may possibly signify nothing more than that the final state of mankind shall be determined agreably to the declarations of the gospel, which was first promulgated by Carist; to which declaration all the professed disciples of Christ, in succeeding ages, however they may have differed upon other points, have borne their unanimous testimony.' Ch. viii. From 'We know' in ver. 1, to the same words in ver. 4, is made a parenthesis, putting the first we know' into clear connexion with what then follows, thus: we know (for we all have knowledge, &c.) that an idol is nothing, &c.' This is a manifest improvement. Ch. x. v. 16. The cup of blessing for which we give thanks, is it not a participation of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation of the body of Christ?' Manifestly better than the C. T. It is not the cup that is blessed-and a common partaking' is plain English, as put from Newcome in the note: who, however, sees not beyond the blessing of the cup. In what follows, I think there must be allusion to a proverbial saying, One bread one body:' that is, they who are fed alike, are alike in constitution. And this thing is true of Christians; but in a sense not attainable by the mere outward taking of bread and wine, denominate it as we may. Ch. xi. v. 10. For this cause the woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the messengers.' Awkwardly put, enough: the cause, expressed before, is that the woman is the glory of the man, and subject to him and should show it by her appearance. Here we have a second cause (if it be rightly rendered), which relates to the' messengers occasionally sent from the separate assemblies of the men to those of the women.' (Note from Taylor.) But if we go so far, may we not admit also of messengers from the assemblies of the women to those of the men where the veil or covering would be yet more needed? Or I may conjecture, if I please, that the angeloi were MEN presiding where the women met-to whom these were accordingly to show subjection. Ver. 15-16. I think something is lost, that was once in this place; and that ver. 16 belongs to what follows. Ch. xii. ver. 11. But that one and the same spirit worketh all these things, dividing to every man severally as he pleaseth.' Note of the Editors: Divine inspiration is here personified. So our Lord saith of the wind, John iii. 8. The wind bloweth where it listeth.' The apostle does not mean to teach that the spirit of God is a real person, a distinct intelligent agent, but that God distributeth spiritual gifts according to his pleasure.' On which I remark: 1. That the apostle says, ver. 6, There are different operations [of the spirit] but it is the same God who performeth all in all. Then, ver. 11. All these things doeth one and the same spirit, dividing, &c. It is God who performeth that which the Spirit doeth. And seeing that God is a spirit, and they who dwell in love dwell in Him and He in them; that the heart of man, or the believer in his whole nature sanctified, is the temple of God, and the spirit indwelling there is God— how shall we escape the consequence, that the Spirit is God and a person; that is, (to take their own terms,) 'a distinct intelligent agent' in the ministration of gifts, and in man's sanctification? See 1 John iv. 12—16, &c. Ch. xiv. v. 29. And let two or three prophets speak; and let the others discern.' What 'others?' The other prophets appears the most natural sense: but then, they were all permitted, at these meetings, to speak one by one. It was clearly not the public preaching of the gospel, but the church met select for the mutual edification of the members. And what were they to discern or judge of, but this: whether they had any thing given them, and what, to say to the church? At these meetings, where doctrine was first promulged and discussed, the women were not to partake with the men, in questioning the prophet or the assembly: they were to be satisfied at home. Why? The contrary practice would have led to the assumption of authority, by some of them, over the men. Thus we may reconcile the apostle's prohibition in one place, as to one sort of meetings, with his regulation in another place, for their conduct in another and more general gathering. (To be concluded in No. CX.) I was very desirous of including in this Ninth Part the whole of the matter relating to this important doctrinal controversy: but it has overrun the space allotted to it so far, that I am under the necessity of deferring a portion to the Tenth; in which the work also is intended to be finished; and which will be published with the least possible delay.-Ed. Ackworth, 2d Mo. 1837. ART. I. Of the office of Churchwarden, as formerly subject to be filled by Quakers; with the case of a Friend released from the obligation to serve it, by the Consistory Court of London. I have given at length, in my Second Volume p. 113-120, my own case as churchwarden elect for the parish of West Ham ; with the proceedings and correspondence which ensued upon my refusal to serve. The escape for the Quaker was, in that instance, found only in the voluntary act of a kind neighbour, in offering himself (after much time had been consumed in fruitless attempts at compulsion by the vestry) to serve as his SUBSTITUTE,—the legal provision of the deputy having been, for reasons there stated, absolutely declined. I have now the pleasure of recording, towards the close of my work, the triumph of Christian charity and more liberal views, in the sentence of Dr. Phillimore on a Friend, cited before the Consistory Court of London, for the same Ecclesiastical offence. I have been favoured with the document here abstracted or inserted at length, by the party himself. At a Vestry held for the parish of Allhallows, London Wall, 30th March, 1836, Samuel Theobald, of Bishopsgate Street, was elected Underchurchwarden for said parish. He refused at the time to serve, and stated most of the reasons afterwards urged in his defence in Court: but the Vestry appears to have confirmed his election on the 7th of the Month following. Receiving a notice to attend the visitation of the 14th May, he made personal application to the Archdeacon-which was replied to by the Registrar in the following letter: VOL. V. SIR, Archdeacon Pott having communicated to me the object of your visit to him, and desired me to call or write to you respecting it, I beg to inform you that the circumstance of your being a Dissenter from the Church of England does not exonerate you from being liable to be elected Churchwarden, and if so elected, you must either serve personally or by deputy, such deputy being approved of by such persons, and in such manner, as such officer (Churchwarden) should by law be approved of: this is the only exception made in the Act of Toleration, in favour of lay members of dissenting congregations. It will, therefore, be necessary for you either to attend on Saturday next, to make the affirmation faithfully to execute the office, or appoint a deputy, such deputy to be approved of by the parish, to act in your stead. I am, Sir, P. C. Moore. He attended the visitation, and refused the affirmation above mentioned; notice of which was forwarded to the Vestry. At a Vestry held on the 19th of the same month, it was in consequence "Resolved, that Richard Webb Jupp, the Solicitor to the parish, be instructed to attend the Ordinary, and inform him thereof, that measures may be taken by him accordingly." He was, on the 4th of June, cited to appear at Doctors' Commons accordingly. Copy of the Citation. Joseph Phillimore, Doctor of Laws, Official in and throughout the Archdeaconry of London, lawfully constituted. To all and singular, clerks and literate persons, whomsoever and wheresoever, in and throughout the said Archdeaconry, greeting: we do hereby authorize, empower, and strictly enjoin and command you, jointly and severally, that you peremptorily cite, or cause to be cited, Samuel Theobald, of the parish of Allhallows, London Wall, in the City of London, and Archdeaconry aforesaid, to appear personally before us, our surrogate, or some other competent judge in this behalf, in the Common Hall of Doctors' Commons, situate in the parish of Saint Benedict, near Paul's Wharf, London, and place of judicature there, on the third day after he shall have been served herewith, if it be a general session, by day, or additional court day then next following, at the time of the sitting of the said court, and there to abide, if occasion require, during the sitting thereof, then and there to make and subscribe the usual declaration of a churchwarden, pursuant to the statute in such case made and provided. And further, to do and receive as unto law and justice shall appertain, under pain of the law, and contempt thereof, at the promotion of Thomas Adey, a churchwarden of the said parish, and what you shall do or cause to be done in the premises, you shall duly certify us, our surrogate, or some other competent judge in this behalf, together with these presents. Dated at London this fourth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six. At the Consistory Court, held the 16th June, Samuel Theobald attended, and, after a few questions from the judge, had his case postponed for a week. On the 23d the judge gave him the offer, either to go into the case, or send in his reasons in writing at the next court-day: he chose the latter. At the Court held the 4th of August he was admonished to attend on the 6th of the ensuing month: and, after the usual forms of replication, &c. gene through at this and two subsequent sittings, and some further delay indulged to the Friend on account of indisposition, the cause came on before Dr. Phillimore, on the 25th of November, 1836. Thomas Adey, chosen churchwarden along with S. T. was the promoter, in course, of the suit. In the Court of the Archdeacon of London, Nov. 25th, 1836. "ADEY against THEOBALD." Dr. Burnaby stated, that this was a proceeding by the churchwarden of the parish of Allhallows, London Wall, on behalf of the parish, against Mr. Samuel Theobald, who had been duly elected churchwarden, and who had refused to serve or take upon himself the office; and who now prayed to be heard upon his petition. Ex-parte S. T.-Samuel Theobald, of No. 1, Bishopsgate Street, a member of the Religious Society of Friends, having been elected to the office of churchwarden, in the parish of Allhallows, London Wall, apprised the Vestry of the said parish, that he must, on conscientious grounds, decline to undertake the office; at the same time expressing his entire willingness to perform such part of the duties as did not involve a violation of the wellknown and acknowledged scruples of the Religious Society of which he is a member, with reference to ecclesiastical matters. The said parish of Allhallows having, through their solicitor, thought proper to carry the subject forward to the Ecclesiastical Court for its decision, Samuel Theobald is induced most respectfully to state the following reasons why he has declined to comply with the requisition to serve the office of churchwarden. His objection is grounded on the very nature and essence of the office itself, as obviously an ecclesiastical one, having for its object to take care of the goods, repairs, and ornaments of the church; to present offenders to the Ecclesiastical Court; to levy the rate; to see that the parishioners attend duly during the service, with various other duties annexed, relating to the discipline of the church. This objection is confirmed and enhanced by the searching and comprehensive terms of the declaration on taking office, whereby the person elected declares that he will truly and faithfully execute the office of a churchwarden, and according to the best of his skill and knowledge, present such things and persons as to his knowledge are presentable by the laws ecclesiastical of the realm. Samuel Theobald states, with all deference, that the Religious Society of Friends, as is generally known, never voluntarily make payment of church-rates; and he submits that, as a member of that Society, he cannot, with any regard to his consistency as an upright man, and with any respect to the force and meaning of words, make the foregoing declaration, on undertaking the duties to which it refers, whereby it would be incumbent upon him to make and enforce the payment of rates repugnant to his tenets and principles. the The provision made by the 1st William and Mary, commonly called the Act of Toleration, whereby those who scruple to undertake the office are allowed to execute it by a sufficient deputy, might be supposed to afford to a Friend an immediate relief from the difficulty above mentioned: Samuel Theobald, however, in common with other members of the Society, feels that to him it affords no relief. It is not such au alternative as he can em. brace with peace of mind, in the consciousness of integrity, of sincerity, and consistency with his religious profession. It is a maxim not less of Christian |