irregularity occurring under such circumstances.*** It is no wonder, therefore, that the advocates of this theory studiously disparage reasoning; depreciate all exercise of the mind in reflection; decry appeals to evidence, and lament that even the power of reading should be imparted to the people." The reader perhaps may know that this is not the first time allusion has been made to certain bishops, whose reputed dissenting parentage or other like misfortunes, have led their brethren to question the entire validity of their ministrations! The advocates of this doctrine have unwittingly involved the church of England in the guilt of schism! Has not this community often protested against the papal heresy, and openly avowed her dismembership from Rome at some time past. But why this rent in the body, and what was the date of its occurrence? It will be replied by some that Rome was the schismatic by departing from the apostles' doctrine, and thus compelling England to leave her communion, if she would retain her own original purity. "True, Rome is heretical now," say the tractarians, "nay, grant that she has thereby forfeited her orders; yet at least she was not heretical in the primitive ages. If she has apostatized, it was at the council of Trent."* Do they then admit that up to this period Rome was orthodox? Why then did the anglican church separate from her * Oxford Tracts, No. 15, p. 10. mother before this time? Previously to the year 1545, when the council of Trent was held, the pope's supremacy had been renounced; a dissolute king and a murderer made protector and supreme head of the church of England; and the great reformation commenced! According then to tractarianism this spiritual body must have separated without an adequate cause! Error is defended with blows rather than with arguments, and this may account for the bitter spirit now displayed towards the reformers, whose names have been pronounced hateful. Either the Anglican or Romish church must have been schismatic. If Rome be guilty of schism, is it not perilous for the hierarchy of this country to trace their lineage through her? but if she be innocent, then is England itself chargeable with the unpardonable sin. Dissenters are thankful that they have not to extricate themselves from the horns of such a dilemma. Tractarians, by their rejection of the doctrine of justification by faith, heed not the "voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God," and yet are afraid openly to avow themselves among them "who had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image." They therefore say, "the glory of the English church, is, that it lies between the (so called) Reformers and the Romanists." Fond of giving heed to fables they might, in their mystic sense, repeat the old advice : "Utque ferant æquos et cœlum et terra calores, Nec preme, nec summum molire per æthera currum. Inferiùs terras; medio tutissimus ibis. Neu te dexterior tortum declinet in Anguem, Neve sinisterior pressam rota ducat ad Aram ; Inter utrumque tene." Non The anti-scriptural character of this doctrine is further exhibited in its persecuting spirit. Churches of the greatest purity in faith and discipline have been proscribed because not belonging to the same order. Curses, more numerous than those pronounced from mount Ebal, have been poured on the heads of dissenters, many of whom have been declared beyond the reach of mercy, or saved, yet so as by fire. conformists refer with delight to their commentator, Matthew Henry-their critical expositor, Doddridge— their lyrist, Isaac Watts-their essayist, Foster-their orator, Hall-their allegorist, Bunyan-their missionaries, Morrison, Carey and Williams, whilst time would fail to enumerate their divines, including Howe, Charnock, Owen, Baxter and Fuller In the very mention of such names they feel themselves communing with the spirits of just men made perfect. But is their memory blessed to the apostolic successionist? Perhaps he has secretly said "Master we saw one casting out devils in thy name and he followeth not us; and we forbad him because he followeth not us.' Could : all the good effected by each of the above eminent characters be known, even the anglican priesthood must feel the force of the Saviour's reproof "forbid him not for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me; for he that is not against us is on our part." Think of the tens of thousands of churches planted in our own country, in Wales, in Scotland, in Ireland, throughout the continent, in our colonies, in the islands of the pacific, in Africa, and in the far east. He that would anathematize these fellowships, because they refuse to give heed to endless genealogies, does he breathe the spirit of the apostle who said, "notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached: and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice." May we not tell them "ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of." This feeling, uncurbed by civil authority, would lead to the sword, the faggot and other species of violence; so true is it that "whoso hateth his brother is a murderer." It has been well remarked by a dissenting minister* "how wide has been the departure from the true scripture idea of schism-is sufficiently exemplified in the fact, that it is regarded with horror, and is pronounced to be a dreadful sin, chiefly by those, whose communion is forsaken for another. The bare separation itself; or even the mere circumstance of * See an admirable prize essay on schism, by Professor Hoppus, L.L.D., F.R.S. being connected with a denomination which has once separated, has often been enough to provoke the charge of schism. On the contrary, though the conduct of those who have left a christian society, may have been really schismatical, while they were in it, little is apt to be thought of the past by the community with which the separatists now unite. So different is the medium of vision to those who lose, and to those who receive adherents to their opinions! Would christians return to the inspired sense of the word schism, and allow their minds to be thoroughly imbued with the apostolical idea of this evil, as the indulgence of a contentious, unbrotherly, proud, domineering, calumnious, uncharitable spirit in religion, there would be more hope of mutual justice, and of restoration of unity." This system has proved awfully delusive. Intelligent inquiry is decried, superstition fostered, blind credulity commanded. What is the result? the mind becomes enslaved, forgets that religion is a reasonable service, and deems passive obedience to the priest the very essence of virtue. The poor man goes on the sabbath to 'his church;' there he hears a reputed successor of the apostles, "speak great swelling words of vanity," saying, "this is the only church in this realm which has a right to be sure that she has the Lord's body to give to his people." A dissenting minister is alluded to in terms of reproach as an unauthorized teacher, whose expositions of God's word can do no H |