try-which is in extensive circulation-and a copy of which, with some similar publications, was very recently sent to one of the families in my own congregation. We are therefore called upon, in all plainness and boldness, to show cause why we altogether repudiate the asserted authority of any prelatic church whatever.

If the fact of the re-publication of these Oxford writings in this country, and their "beguiling many unwary and unstable souls," was deemed by Bishop McIlvaine a sufficient reason for his defence of those doctrines controverted by them, much more is this-together with the repeated boast that numerous converts had been made from among our clergy—an amply sufficient warrant for our vindication of the liberty of Christ against the unjustifiable pretensions embodied in this widelydiffused doctrine of apostolical succession.2

The authority of the church, which prelatists make an article of fundamental importance,3-in other words, the authority of prelates, this we believe to be one of the main pillars of the gorgeous structure of popery; the broad base, upon which has been erected that huge colossal fabric of superstition and spiritual despotism, around which such floods of human tears and blood have been made to flow. "Antichrist," say the Waldenses, in a treatise written A. D. 1200, "covers his iniquity by the length or succession of time-by the spiritual authority of the apostles-by the writings of the ancients, and by councils."

Nor does this system symbolize less with popery in "enforcing as necessary points of faith" what are not contained in the creed*—nay, in resting these exorbitant claims not on the Bible, but upon "oral tradition," and the perverted dogmas of the ancient church. On such grounds as these do prelatists proclaim that the name of catholic is appropriated to their churches, to the utter exclusion of all the various denominations of christians separated from them. On these grounds do they throw off all fellowship with protestants, and openly avow their friendship for Rome. "We are unwilling to speak harshly of the Romanists," say these divines. "Whatever be our private differences with the Roman Catholics, we may join with them in condemning Socinians, Baptists, Independents, and the

like. But God forbid that we should ally ourselves with the offspring of heresy and schism, in our contest with any of the branches of the holy church which maintain the foundation, whatever may be their incidental corruptions."1

Again we hear them say, "If no western church now-a-days is quite what its mother, the church of Rome, used to be, the catholic church in England, Scotland, and America, (that is, says the Tract, the protestant episcopal churches of those countries,) surely comes nearest to her, nay, so near, that they who have well scanned the mother's lineaments, can be at no loss to trace her features in her child," &c.2

Thus do they cast out the reformed churches as reprobate, as having committed "grievous sin" as "inexcusable"-and as having forsaken Christ." Thus do they boldly advance sentiments which, on their own principles, must be pronounced illiberal-uncatholic-and dyed in the gall of party spirit. And, while they are torn with intestine divisions, and pitted against each other, in the most resolute and determined antagonism; and split up into countless and sectarian clans; they assail the rights of all other churches, and proclaim war against all Christendom beside. For to use the language of their great Coryphæus, "in the English church may be found differences as great as those which separate it from Greece or Romecalvinism and arminianism, latitudinarianism and orthodoxy, all these, sometimes simply such, and sometimes compounded together into numberless varieties of school, *** each denouncing all the rest as perilous, if not fatal errors."

Now this arrogant claim to the prerogatives, and this assumption of the exclusive character, of the true church, Mr. Palmer (in his great work on the church) charges on the papists as "impudent pertinacity." But is this assumption less "impudent pertinacity," when made by prelatists, as it is by this writer himself, on their behalf, against us? Is it less "a monstrous fabrication," "founded on false premises," and "sustained by ignorance and bigotry," when uttered by the voice of prelacy, than when it comes forth in some Romish bull? Most assuredly not.

These church principles must terminate in the same results

1) Oxf. Tr., No. 25, p. 6, 8, 9.

2) Tract No. 153 of the Am. Prot. Episcopal Tract Soc., on The Ancient Things of the Catholic Church, p. 6.

3) Palmer on the Church, vol. ii., p. 368.

4) Do. vol. ii., p. 366.

5) See Newman on Rom., p. 418. Also the Bp. of Norwich in Schism., p. 508.

6) See Oxf. Tr., vol. i., p. 427, 428 and 429.

7) Newman as above.

8) See vol. i., p. 238.

in England and America, which have ever followed them in Italy and Spain, in Asia and in Africa. And if we will not sacrifice every thing that is pure in the truth-precious in the promises-spiritual in the ordinances-ennobling in the precepts and free, elevating, and refining in the spirit-of the gospel; we must stand fast in the liberty of apostolic christianity against all the innovations and the self-originated policy of ancient and modern church principles.1 Their views, these writers inform us, and those understood by the term evangelical, are as wide apart as socinianism and popery.2

Further, we remark, that we are summoned to this enterprise by the claims of charity and peace.3

To oppose prelacy is not, we again repeat, to oppose episcopacy; neither is it to impugn the character, standing, or piety of evangelical episcopal churches. In entering our protest against the anathematizing, excommunicating spirit of highchurch principles, we consider prelatists as they present themselves, in their self-chosen garb, "stripped of those better parts of their system"-those common principles of christianity, "which are our inheritance as well as theirs ;" and so contemplating them, in that aspect by which they are distinguished, as prelatists, it is surely for the interests of peace and charity, that their unscriptural and unchristian dogmas should be exposed.

A defensive war, when made necessary by the aggression of others, can never be wrong in principle, however it may be tarnished by the spirit in which it is conducted. On the contrary, it is only by such a war, vigorously and successfully prosecuted, that peace can ever be restored, and prosperity enjoyed. There is, in such circumstances, no alternative between war and liberty; or submission and enslavement. The question before us is, conformity to prelacy, or the justification of our claims to that inheritance in which we glory. To this image we must bow down and worship; or boldly avouch the Lord to be our God, and Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. While prelacy goes forth in her present crusade against the immunities and privileges of all other denominations, there is, and there can be, neither peace nor charity. By demanding uniformity, prelacy destroys and prevents unity. By branding as aliens from the christian commonwealth, all who worship God in a manner different from her-prelacy opposes what she miscalls schism, by what the Bible pronounces to be truly schism; for

1) See Anc't Christ'y, passim.
2) Hook's Call to Union, p. 44.

3) See note D.

illiberality, bigotry, intolerance; what are these but the very essence of schism? The rebuke given by Campbell to the fanaticism of Dodwell, who makes the very existence of christianity to depend on prelacy, is surely not too strong.

"Arrogant and vain man! what are you, who so boldly and avowedly presume to foist into God's covenant, articles of your own devising, neither expressed nor implied in his words? Do YOU venture, a worm of the earth? Can you think yourself warranted to stint what God hath not stinted, and, following the dictates of your own contracted spirit, enviously to limit the bounty of the Universal Parent, that you may confine to a party what Christ hath freely published for the benefit of all? Is your eye evil because he is good? Shall I then believe that God, like deceitful man, speaketh equivocally, and with mental reservations? Shall I take his declaration in the extent wherein he hath expressly given it; or as you, for your own purpose, have new vamped, and corrected it? 'Let God be true, and every man a liar.' You would pervert the plainest declarations of the oracles of truth, and, instead of representing Christ as the author of a divine and spiritual religion, as the great benefactor of human kind, exhibit him as the head of a faction-your party."

"Who, then, is the true sectarian? but he who thus denounces all, as sectaries, who are not of his sect? Who is the fanatic? if not he, who sees fanaticism every where, but in his own party spirit? Who is the enthusiast? but the man who makes a God of externals and non-essentials-while he finds enthusiasm in those only, who are in earnest respecting the grand objects of religion? Where is the schismatic? if not among those who term every thing schism, which does not accord with their own opinions?"2

How, then, can there prevail peace and charity, while it is still a question whether God or man is to be the Lord of conscience and the principle is still undetermined, whether man can impose as a fundamental doctrine of christianity, what Christ has not instituted or revealed as such? How can christians walk together in unity of heart, or of profession, while differing on these first elements of all church principles? There must be controversy, so long as these primal and momentous questions are matters of dispute. They affect the very being, and much more, the well-being, of the church. They involve, in their decision, the whole doctrine of charity. Their determination makes peace a duty, which must be ful1) Lect. on Eccl. Hist., vol. i., 2) See Schism, p. 341.

p. 90, 01.

filled, "as far as lieth in us,"—or separation and withdrawment, and avowed opposition, as imperative on all who would faithfully contend for Christ's kingly prerogative and crown. NEVER, while these church principles of prelatical usurpation are current, can the prayer of Christ be visibly fulfilled, when all his churches and people shall be seen and known to be ONE, being of one mind and of one heart, and preserving amid their differences of views, the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace. Such claims were rejected by the English reformers-by all the reformed churches-and by the greatest divines of all ages. They are in violent opposition to the spirit and principles of the gospel. "Let us," then, as said the Bishop of Norwich, in his late charge to his clergy, "let us abide by the faith of our protestant ancestors, whose object it was to proclaim that there was a deeper and more scriptural unity, than the unity of ecclesiastical organization, or of ecclesiastical detail,-I mean the unity of christian principle, the unity of the Spirit."

Then would the church of God have rest and be edified; displaying on the banners of the various divisions of her one sacramental host, the glorious motto of her own glorious Augustine, "In things essential, unity-in things not essential, liberty-and in all things, charity."2

Till that happy period arrive, which may God in his mercy hasten, forget not the admonition of the apostle-and stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ has made you free.

Finally, brethren, we would remark, that to this defensive warfare for the maintenance and preservation of our spiritual rights, we are imperatively summoned by the memory of our fathers. "It is no new thing, brethren, that has happened unto us," as wrote the imprisoned martyr Ridley to his brother Bradford; "for this was always the clamor of the wicked bishops and priests, against God's true prophets; the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord."

There has thus, as it plainly appears, ever been a spiritual aristocracy, which would make a monopoly of salvation, confining it to its own orders, succession and gifts, as the only and exclusive fountain whence it might be obtained.

Now, to that form of government, in which this spirit inheres, WE may be said to possess a hereditary antipathy. The history of presbyterianism, whether we look to its ancient defenders,

1) Charge of 1838, p. 22, &c.
2) In necessariis unitas, in

dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. 3) Letters of the Martyrs, p. 48.