Presbyterians; and therefore, while we must ever deplore the condition of Scotland, and most earnestly desire that the people may be re-united in religious harmony, it is impossible for us to close our eyes on the origin of the presbyterian establishment in that country.

"With regard to all other sects in Scotland, which have seceded from the presbyterian communities, such as Glassite, Sandemanians, Seceders, Burghers, Anti-Burghers, Constitutional Associate Presbytery, Relief Kirk, Scottish Baptists, Bereans, Independents, &c.; the same observations apply to them all. Their predecessors, the Presbyterians, voluntarily separated themselves from the catholic church of Christ, and they, in departing from the presbyterian communion, have not yet returned to that of the true church. CONSEQUENTLY, THEY FORM NO PART OF THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST."

Similar are the sentiments expressed towards

BAPTISTS.

The Baptists, under the general head of dissenters, have already been dealt with according to the tender mercies of these high-church expounders of the will of God. It will not be necessary therefore to enlarge.

Mr. Palmer, on the Church, vol. i: p. 266, in replying to the objection that the Church of England is in error on the subject of baptism, says: "A difficulty of this kind, raised by a mere handful of professing christians, in opposition to the judgment and practice of the church, and of all sects, in all ages, from the beginning, is not worthy of attention. We may refuse all controversy on the subject, for, as St. Augustine says, 'Si quid horum tota per orbem frequentat ecclesia-quin ita faciendum sit, disputare, insolentissimæ insaniæ est.' In fact, there cannot be a more certain mark of heresy and apostacy from Christ, than such a condemnation of what the church in all ages has received and approved. If infant baptism renders our churches apostate, all churches must have been so for many ages, and therefore the church of Christ must have entirely perished, contrary to the promise of holy scripture."

In the Oxford Tracts, vol. i. p. 265, Baptists are ranked among those who err in respect to "FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES," and are further declared to have "departed from the truth, not only as concerns the doctrine of the laying on of hands, but also as concerns the doctrine of baptism, and OTHER OF THE FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES, according to St. Paul." Nor are they at all more lenient toward the

METHODISTS.

This large body of Christians have lately received very rough handling in the British Magazine, and other high-church courts of ecclesiastical law. In the Oxford Tracts, vol. i. p. 265, they are also dignified with a place among those who "err in one or more fundamentals," and are thus described:

"Methodists are subdivided into an immense variety of sects-the chief are, Wesleyans, Whitefieldians, or Lady Huntington's Ranters, or Primitive Methodists, Briantes, or Bible Christians, Protestant Methodists, Tent Methodists, Independent Methodists, and Kilhamites.

"These do not receive or teach the truth respecting the doctrine of 'laying on of hands,' which St. Paul classes among the fundamental doctrines of christianity, and by which the christian ministry receives its commission and authority to administer the word and sacraments. For they, one and all, reject the first (i. e. the apostolical, or as we now call it, episcopal), order of clergy, who exercised the rite according to the New Testament, and without whom there is no warrant from scripture for believing that the clergy can be appointed or the sacraments be duly administered."

Mr. Palmer, on the church, vol. i. p. 247, says: "The METHODISTS DO NOT PRETEND TO BE A CHURCH AT ALL; but call themselves a society or association, which they would represent to be united to the Church of England, and subsidiary to its ministrations."

So also at page 237, honorable mention is made of Methodists. "In fine, we use the name of catholic as appropriate to our churches, while we give other titles to the various denominations which have separated from_us; as Independents, Quakers, Swedenborgians, Baptists, Romanists or Papists, Huntingdonians, Methodists, Socianians, Unitarians, &c. None of these communities dispute with us the possession of this name except the Romanists; and their impudent pertinacity, in the assumption of it, induces sometimes the ignorant or the indifferent to countenance their claim in some degree."

So, also, as it regards the

LUTHERANS and Reformed CHURCHES.

Of these it is declared by Palmer on the Church, vol. i. p. 157, "The societies were not properly churches.

"That the lutheran and calvinistic were not properly churches of Christ, I argue thus," &c. See do. p. 383. "Several theologians, it is objected, even of the British churches, have acknowledged the lutheran and reformed to be churches of Christ.

"Answer. I admit that this opinion has been held by some writers; but they seem to have been influenced by the notion, that it was necessary for the justification of both the protestant and British churches. However, scarcely any theologian affirmed these foreign communities were perfect in all respects, according to the institution of Christ; and most of those who give them the title of churches, do so in a general sense, not meaning that they are churches in the strict sense of the term." See do. p. 397.

"Of these communities, whether collectively or individually considered, I affirm, THAT THEY ARE NO PART OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. This question has been recently so well treated by many able writers, that very little need be said on the subject." See do. p. 399.

And as regards the

DISSENTERS GENERALLY.

In regard to all other denominations who, living in the same country with Episcopalians, are on that account arrogantly styled dissenters, though they have no relation whatever to the episcopal church, other than as churches of Christ, much is said. This term, as we shall show, is one applied even in America.

"They are human societies. The will of man makes them, regulates them, unmakes them. They are, in a word, purely voluntary associations, and therefore cannot be any part of that church which is formed by the divine command, and by means instituted by God, and from which man cannot separate without most grievous sin." See do. p. 407.

"It is clear, then, that the principle of division is a principle of dissent, and therefore their community cannot form any portion of the church of Christ." See do. p. 407.

"And as every officer of a voluntary association or club, derives his commission entirely from those who create him, so the dissenting minister is commissioned to preach the gospel, not by God, but by man. He is the minister of man only, and therefore the dissenting communities being destitute of a true ministry, which is essential to the church, are not churches of Christ. I shall add nothing in a case so easy and clear." See do. p. 414. "Therefore, their separation from the Church of England was founded, not only in schism, but in heresy, and this being the case, they could not have been any part of the church of Christ, nor were they capable of forming christian churches." p. 403. See also page 402.

"THEY AND THEIR GENERATIONS ARE AS THE HEATHEN; and though we may have reason to believe that many of their descendants are not obstinate in their errors, still it seems to me that WE ARE NOT WARRANTED IN AFFIRMING ABSOLUTELY THAT THEY CAN BE SAVED. See do. p. 110.

The present feeling of liberality towards Presbyterians and others, is thus

rebuked in the Oxford Tracts, vol. i. p. 599: "Do not hover about our ancient home, the home of Cyprian and Athanasius, without the heart to take up our abode in it, yet afraid to quit the sight of it; boasting of our episcopacy, yet unwilling to condemn separation; claiming a descent from the apostles, yet doubting of the gifts attending it, and trying to extend the limits of the church for the admission of Wesleyans and Presbyterians, while we profess to be exclusively primitive. Alas, is not this to witness against ourselves, like coward sinners who hope to save the world, without giving up God's service!"

"When I say that dissent is a sin, I by no means thereby imply, that for that reason every dissenter is at once and necessarily a sinner. To say that a particular thing is a sin, is very different from saying that every one who does it is a sinner." See do. p. 355.

"I must observe, then," says Mr. Dodsworth on Romanism and Dissent, p. 14, "that there is often a kind of levitiy indulged in, when speaking on the subject of dissent, which conveys the idea that it is a very light and trivial matter. If a man ventures to speak of it as an evil, he is met by a smile at his supposed bigotry or simplicity. Now, if dissent is indeed, as I think has been shown, a breach of unity in the church-if it be that which we are taught to pray against in the same sentence with 'false doctrine and heresy,' with 'hardness of heart, and contempt of God's word and commandments,'-then it is a sin; and then to make light of it, is to subject ourselves to a reproof which we should not willingly incur-for 'fools make a mock of sin.' And then we should feel bound in charity to others who have been drawn away from us, in meekness and gentleness to warn them of their danger, because we must not 'suffer sin upon a brother.''

"So we do not exhort you to abstain from going to those assemblies because we attach any inherent virtue to our own ceremonies above theirs; but because, by so doing, you lend your countenance to that which the Scriptures pronounce to be sinful." See do. p. 15.

"I need scarcely add, therefore, that in order to obey the injunction in the text, you must refrain from ever sanctioning by your presence the assemblies of those whose standing is one of rebellion against the Lord and his church. If schism is sin, then to be present where it is practiced cannot be without culpability." See do. p. 16.

"But we must judge of dissent, not in reference to individual teachers, but as a system; and we may easily see, both from fact and reason, that its tendency is to infidelity." See do. p. 11.

Further, in the Oxford Tracts, vol. i. pp. 355, 356, it is said: "For when a man thinks the church unscriptural, he has good reason for leaving it, and is (what I have called above) a conscientious dissenter; though at the same time I am bound to say, I think his conscience a very erroneous one, which leads him to consider the church as unscriptural; and while I allow him to be conscientious, in one sense of the word, yet I also think him to be heretical-just as those who, (as our Lord foretold,) thought when they persecuted the Apostles 'they did God service,' were wrong, not in that they obeyed their conscience, but because they had not a more enlightened conscience. The light that is in' a merely conscientious dissenter, is what Christ has called 'darkness.'"

"Christ has appointed the church as the only way unto eternal life. We read at the first that the Lord added daily to the church such as should be saved; and what was then done daily hath been done since continually. Christ never appointed two ways to heaven; nor did he build a church to save some, and make another institution for other men's salvation. "There is no other name given under heaven whereby we must be saved, but the name of Jesus,' and that is no otherwise given under heaven than in the church." See do. p. 361.

These extracts, in addition to many more which shall be introduced in the course of the work, and which we could most easily multiply, may suffice to lead all our readers to appreciate the urgency of that demand which calls upon us to examine these arrogant pretensions.

NOTE B.

The meaning of this term, high church, is given by Dr. Rice. "Somebody," says he,* "has put forth a long story about Bishop Horsley's notions on this subject. But all this is as far from the subject, as it is discussed in this country, as we are from being high churchmen ourselves. There are men in England, who maintain that the clergy are entirely dependent on the State, and derive all their clerical authority from the laws of the landwhile others hold that, apart from the civil power, and all acts of the government in relation to the church, the ministers of religion have power and authority derived from the appointment of Christ. The latter of these, in Bishop Horsley's sense of the term, are high, and the former, low churchmen. But this has no connexion whatever with any controversy in this country. The church here derives nothing from the State; in all her branches she is entirely separate and independent. In Bishop H.'s sense, we are all high churchmen. But when we use the term, as expressive of th principles to which we never can be reconciled, we mean a man, who holds that all spiritual power is vested in him; that he is a substitute for Christ's person on earth; that he belongs to an order, whose official prerogative it is to come between God and man; to declare authoritatively the divine will to his fellow men, and to bind the source of all mercy and grace to the performance of his own covenant engagements, and thus give to man the assurance of salvation. And who adds to all these monstrous claims, the assumption, that all who differ from him in these particulars, and separate from his communion, are out of the pale of the church, and destitute of all warrant to hope for heaven. These are the principles against which we are pledged to wage war as long as we live. But at the same time, we delight to call every humble, pious episcopalian, brother, and to cherish towards him feelings of fraternal kindness."

We might make further reference to a treatise written expressly in defence of moderate, or low church men, entitled, "A Vindication of the Principles and Practices of the Moderate Divines and Laity of the Church of England," by the Rev. Edward Pierce, Rector in Northampton. Lond., 1682, p. 410, p. 80. The author shows that they were distinguished from the high church by all their practices and opinions, which he fully justifies. At p. 52, he urges moderatism toward dissenters, "because we agree not only in fundamentals of religion and government, but in the necessary adjuncts of worship," &c. See in Philad. Lib. No. 937, Miscellanies, vol. xvii.

See this distinction used also by Prof. Powell, in his Traditions Unveiled, p. 5, in reference to that party in the church, "the well-known and old established section of the church commonly designated as the high-church party."

NOTE C.

In his Review of Bishop Ravenscroft's Vindication and Defence, Dr. Rice remarks: "It was indeed the opinion of some,† that we had undertaken a work of gratuitous labor and trouble; that the extravagant pretensions of Bishop R. might be left to sink at once into the oblivion to which, it was believed, they are destined. We thought differently. It has for some time appeared obvious to us, that there is growing up a spirit in this country, which seeks for marks of distinction between itself and the mass of the people. As infidelity is out of fashion, and unitarianism is not popular to the south, there is a great demand, among people of a certain sort, (to use a phrase current among all good cavaliers ever since the "merry days of King Charles,") for a "religion fit for a gentleman." There is, also, among many of our republicans, a passion for ceremony, for pomp and show in religious worship. Others, moreover, too indolent, too much devoted to the

*Evang. and Lit. Magazine, vol. ix. p. 635.

†Evang. and Lit. Mag. vol. ix. p. 368 and p. 436.

world to secure scriptural evidences of their being in a state of salvation, are willing enough to look to their priests for assurance. High-church notions, then, do not sink under the influence of public opinion. It is necessary to make efforts to pull them down. The interests of the church and of the country require it. Under this conviction, we acted according to our sense of duty, and endeavored to show that the claims of this bishop could not be sustained either by reason or scripture." "But we will say, that when high-church principles were first broached among us, we thought that it was perfectly a work of supererogation to undertake to oppose them; that in this country their very extravagance, their opposition to the genius of all our political institutions, their obvious tendencies, would at once put them down. But they are growing. Their influence is felt even by evangelical men. Young preachers, who turned out warm hearted and liberal, are gradually screwed up to notions and feelings high enough to please a diocesan bishop. We see these things and lament them. It is our duty to expose the error, and give the warning. And as God may give us grace to be faithful, none within the sphere of our labors shall go unwarned."

NOTE D.

That we are thus required by the call of charity to examine and discuss this subject, is taught us by one of its most recent advocates. "The only question," says Mr. Percival, "then is, whether the episcopal (i. e. prelatical) scheme is true; if so, charity REQUIRES that we should teach it, and forbids our keeping it back." "The exclusiveness of that which professes to be an article of this one faith, affords a prima facie probability* of its being a genuine article of that one faith." "Believing," he adds, "the doctrine of the apostolical succession to be catholic and scriptural, I will never so far betray the cause of truth as to surrender it to the sole use of the erroneous papists." "They who believe this doctrine to be true, are only acting faithfully to God and to his people, when they calmly vindicate and bear witness to the truth."

And, once more, in the very spirit of fabulous invention, this writer adds to the assertion that all the churches during the apostles' time were episcopalian; "that, until the presbyterian scheme was invented in the sixteenth century, it had always been understood to be our Lord's intention that the church should continue episcopalian (i. e. prelatic) until his return."§

"Now when," as one of their ownselves has said, "when a religious system condemns us by name, and pronounces sentence concerning our eternal state in so decided a tone, and that simply because we dissent from some of its tenets, we not only think we have a right to defend ourselves and our religion, but consider it our bounden duty to examine the grounds on which a system of such pretension rests, and honesttly, though quietly, to avow our reasons for rejecting it."||

NOTE E.

The Rev. Dr. Muir, in his Sermon in Commemoration of the General Assembly of 1638, (Glasgow, 1838, p. 18-20,) thus eloquently alludes to the fathers of the church of Scotland: "That for exciting our gratitude, as on such a day as this, we may well cherish the remembrance of the men who were instrumental in procuring, and then transmitting the privileges of our protestantism. The zeal of David, the man after God's own heart, was truly exemplified in their piety, and wisdom, and sufferings, and constancy. Their strength of character and decis.un was great. Their devotion to the cause of Christ was greater. Persecuted in their adherence to that cause, they still

†P. 40.

*On Ap. Succ. p. 38. $P. 52. SP. 61. The Old Paths, by the Rev. Alexander McCaul, D. D., of Trinity College, Dublin. London, 1837, p. 3, No. 1.