cised, and us who were; but He purified their hearts by that obedience to the faith, which is the "circumcision made without hands;" they having been "buried with Christ in baptism, and having risen again with Him through the faith of the operation of God." (Col. ii. 11-13). Why, therefore, should we provoke the long-sufferance of God, by imposing the yoke of bondage of the typical and burthensome ceremonies, which neither we nor our forefathers were able to endure; and which by their having been fulfilled in Christ are now become useless and unnecessary; and to insist on their observation is to resist the will of God. But we the Apostles unanimously believe, that the converted Jews will be justified and saved bh adding the Christian to their former faith; whereas, the Gentiles will be saved solely through the faith of the gospel (Rom. iii. 30), without any of the typical burthens of the law, which can neither save nor justify any man; and from which we are now altogether loosed and set free; for they are elected and called to be saints, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience, and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. (1 Pet. i. 2; 1 Cor. i. 2). Peter's speech was listened to with profound attention by the multitude without, and, still keeping silence, they gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, who declared to the Apostles and elders, what miracles and wonderful things God had wrought among the Gentiles by their ministry. James the Lord's brother, who it is said had not been one of the twelve, but one of the seventy to whom Christ's own throne in Jerusalem was given, after the illumination by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost had directed them, and who was the ordinary bishop of that city, sat president of this Council. He summed up the arguments and said that Simeon, that is Peter, had declared how God at the first had visited the Gentiles, according to the prediction of the prophet Isaiah (ii. 2), to take out of them a people for His name; "And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow into it." And to this agree the words of the prophet Amos (ix. 11-12); "In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as 1 in the days of old: that they may possess the remnant of Edom and of all the heathen which are called by my name." "Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world," that is, that from the beginning, God had designed the accomplishment of these prophecies, in no otherwise than as Peter had acted in the case of Cornelius. "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times, He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth; even in him.” (Eph. i. 10). Wherefore MY SENTENCE IS, that the Gentile Christians shall not be discouraged in their holy profession, nor burthened with the observation of the ceremonial law; but that we give directions in writing to all Christians to abstain from pollution of every sort; but especially in eating of meat that has been offered in sacrifice to idols; from fornication; from eating animals that have been strangled; and from blood, which being forbidden in the law of Moses, might give offence to believing Jews. "All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence; it is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [to do] anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak" (Rom. xiv. 20, 21); because Moses hath in every city synagogues, where the law is preached on every sabbath; and his followers might be offended. Then a letter was written to the above effect and sent to the churches of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, by the hands of Paul and Barnabas, with whom were associated other two Apostles, Barsabas and Silas, who exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them in the profession of the gospel. As soon as these Apostles arrived at Antioch, "they gathered the multitude together," and read the epistle to all the people, who rejoiced greatly at the comfort and consolation which the canon of the Council afforded them, of escaping from the bondage of the law of Moses, by which none of them had been or could have been justified. (To be continued.) THE CASE OF THE ARCHDEACON OF TAUNTON. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHURCH WARDER. SIR,-I think that I may reasonably ask, to have credit given me for so much as this: That THE DOCTRINE OF THE REAL PRESENCE, which I insist upon maintaining at any cost, I so insist upon because I am "persuaded," not only that it is "nothing but that which may be concluded and proved by THE SCRIPTURE," but that it is set forth in our Liturgy and Articles as being, in the judgment of the Church of England, "that which" is " cluded and proved by THE SCRIPTURE.' con This is no "new thing" in my case, but is the consistent "persuasion" of a ministry of twenty-four years, and, so far as I know, of a life. I have quoted above, from "The Form and Manner of Ordering of Priests," to show the character and extent of the obligation under which I have come, as an individual minister of the Church of England, to make ultimate and binding reference, for myself and for others, to Holy Scripture, in respect of "teaching" anything "as required of necessity to eternal salvation." It will be observed, how closely "the Form and Manner" corresponds herein with our sixth Article. Now, if any one says that the obligation imposed by these words is negative, that is to say, is against the "teaching" of anything "as required of necessity to eternal salvation," "but that, which may be concluded and proved by THE SCRIPTURE," I agree with him that it is negative, as against all attempts to enforce the "traditions of men," as necessary to salvation. But if he says that the obligation is only negative, I do not agree with him; for the same oath which binds me "to teach nothing as required of necessity to eternal salvation but that which I shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by THE SCRIPTURE," binds me to teach all doctrine as required of necessity to eternal salvation," of which I am "persuaded" that it is "concluded and proved by THE SCRIPTURE." 66 The meaning of my appeal to Holy Scripture, has been much misrepresented and misunderstood. I appeal to Holy Scripture, not as against the "Articles of Religion," but as for the "Articles of Religion," and against a wrongful interpretation of them, because I hold, as a first principle of my position as an endowed minister of the Church of England, what I have more than once sworn to-viz., that "all and every one of the said Articles are agreeable to the Word of God." Being accused therefore of depraving the Articles, I am bound to show that the only interpretation which I am able to put upon them, is agreeable to the Word of GOD, and I am ready to do this if I am permitted. I would observe here, that the principle of reference to Holy Scripture in the present case, is fully set out in Paper II. of my published Defence, pp. 79 to 84. I have seen no attempt even to answer that paper. I see that some of those who have written publicly against the course taken by the Court at Bath have, nevertheless, said, but said only in general language, that they do not agree with "my doctrine." Is this quite fair? Is it quite fair to cast upon me, and to leave, an imputation made publicly in this vague way? What is "my doctrine?" I disclaim having any doctrine of my own. I say "my doctrine” is that of "The Real Presence in the Sacrament, by virtue of the consecration of the elements, irrespectively of the faith, or want of faith, of the receiver." "My doctrine," BECAUSE [it is] the doctrine of the Church of England. Now, if these writers say that this is not what they mean, but that they refer to the specific points of the receiving unworthily" and the "worship" (which some men seem to think are all that is condemned in, and by, the late judgment), then they must mean that they do not agree, because "my doctrine," in these particulars, is "new and strange" to the reformed Church of England. Can they SHOW this? at least, are they not bound, in publicly stating a disagreement, to state also precisely what that is in respect to which they disagree, and why they disagree? The vagueness of imputation does me more injury than a hundred arguments. I wish to add a few words upon the public position of this case, as it presents itself to me. There are three main questions involved, two of them de facto present: the third a contingency which may or may not arise. These three questions it is very important to us all to keep separate and distinct. The first is-WHAT is assailed in and by these proceedings; and WHAT has been condemned by the present judgment? What therefore has to be defended on behalf of the Church of England? The second is what is the weight of the present adverse decision? The third is what would be the weight of an adverse decision by the Court of final Appeal, as affecting doctrine? For the first-if any man contend that what is assailed, has been condemned, and therefore has to be defended, is not the doctrine of the Real Presence, but something short of, or having no necessary connection with, this doctrine, I beg to remit that man to the history of the case, to its facts, and to its documents. For the second-the weight of the present adverse decision is, I conceive, that of the judgment of a single diocesan court; a judgment immediately appealed against upon every ground on which appeal can be made. For the third-I submit that it will be time to consider what the weight of an ultimate adverse decision of the courts is, as affecting doctrine, WHEN THAT DECISION HAS BEEN GIVEN. Your obedient servant, Archdeacon of Taunton. East Brent, Nov. 24, 1856. SHEFFINGHAM. A TALE. CHAPTER II. TOM LORD. On the day on which the events occurred that were narrated in the last chapter, Tom Lord went through a certain performance at his school that was not a little satisfactory to |