withstanding, however, all this, and more than this; and although we may subject ourselves to the charge of illiberality and harshness, we do not feel at liberty to "keep silence." The interests of truth, of charity, and of the great protestant cause, demand the candid and explicit avowal of our sentiments and our fears. The very fact that the true character and tendency of this system is not understood by many who receive it;-by many of the clergymen, and we believe the greatest portion of the members of the protestant episcopal church upon which it is fastening itself, and into whose veins it is infusing its poisonous influence, loudly demands that the subject should be fairly presented to their minds.

The remembrance also of the open, avowed, and continual reprobation of this doctrine, from the very first intimations of it until the present hour, as popish, and as dragging with it many popish consequences, by all our puritan, non-conformist, and presbyterian ancestors;1-equally requires that we, their posterity, should sustain them in their faithful contendings for the truth, as far as circumstances make necessary. The signs of the times, the ominous portents which skirt the lowering sky, and foretoken coming danger, the events which are daily transpiring around us, and the boasted and increasing converts to

produced any effect, popery has risen in estimation. It is not indeed immaculate; that is not pretended-but it is much more estimable than protestant slander has accounted it; and much is it lamented that the Anglican and Romanist churches do not better understand each others' good qualities, and make common cause against the incursions of that direful monster-protestantism." To the allegations that these Oxford divines are eminent for piety, for talent, and for opposition to popery, see the reply of Bishop McIlvaine in his "Oxford Divinity," &c., in which he shows that herein lies the greatest danger from their writings. See pp. 12, 27, &c., 30, 132, 133. Again, speaking of their service for Bishop Ken's day, he says, "a more barefaced result to all decent consistency with the principles of the Church of England was never perpetrated." p. 271.

"You disclaim," says Dr. George Miller in his Letter to Dr. Pusey, (p. 26,) "and doubtless with sincerity, any intention, or wish, to return to the communion of the church of Rome; but you do actually return to that assertion of

church authority, which by degrees was matured into the monstrous usurpation of the papacy."

See on this apparent opposition to Romish errors, and the greater danger to be apprehended in consequence of it, Lond. Chr. Obs., 1839, p. 631, &c.

Bib. Report, 1838, p. 116.

Mr. Taylor, in the second volume of his Ancient Christianity, declares that "the controversy which has been originated by the Oxford tract writers involves nothing less than the substance of christianity itself," (Dedication, p. 8,)-that "the venom of the Oxford tract doctrines has been insidiously shed into the bosoms of perhaps a majority of the younger clergy of the episcopal church," (p. 3,) and that "this system differs from popery theologically in several points, and politically or ecclesiastically; but that there is A SPIRITUAL AND MORAL IDENTITY OF THE TWO." (p. 69.) See also Note A.

1) See above in Lect. vii. See Neal's History; Price's History of Nonconform.; Pierce's Vind. of Dissenters, &c. Lond. 1717, part ii. ch. i. p. 6, &c.

LECT. XI.]

THE PRINCIPLES OF POPERY.

259

Romanism and prelacy; all conspire to determine the question of duty, and to inspirit us to put the trumpet to our mouths and blow an alarm in Zion.

We will, therefore, proceed to a more full consideration of this charge against this system, and to place it in such a light as that it cannot possibly be denied.

We will not, however, argue that, because this system is common to the Roman, and to the Laudean sect in the Anglican church, therefore, the Anglican church is popish; for it is very clear, how many things may be both scriptural and proper, although found in the Romish system, which, with much error, has also preserved much that is valuable and true. We will appeal, therefore, to evidence clear and incontrovertible; and which shall be authenticated by testimony from episcopalians themselves.

This tendency we will illustrate in the first place, by showing the analogy between this doctrine, as embraced by the Romish and by the Anglican churches.1

The church of Rome puts in the place of the one mediator Jesus Christ, not only angels, the Virgin Mary, and the saints, but the church in general, and every priest in particular. This vicarious religion, by which the heart is led to repose its cares, and to rest its hopes, upon something external to itself;-veiled as it is from full comprehension, by a character of mysteriousness and terror-is the very soul of superstition, and of the whole mass of Romish errors. Now the channel through which the full tide of this mysterious grace is made to flow is the church; and that tide itself is invisibly conveyed by the agency of this lineal succession, on which the honor, the power, the efficacy, and the increase of the church depends. This is the idol, not only of rabbinical and Romish, but also of protestant popery; which has its traditionary legends also, of which this doctrine is the manifestation. Or we may say, that as there is Jewish popery, so this is Gentile rabbinism; of both which, it is the inevitable tendency, to exalt man and dethrone God; to make void, and vain, and powerless, the divine record; and to confirm human authority; to establish a righteousness to be accomplished by works; and to overturn that righteousness, which is by faith in the meritorious righteousness of another.

These, therefore, are fundamental principles in the system of popery, that God has delegated to the visible corporation of the

1) That is, supposing this system to be embraced, as its advocates contend, by the Anglican church.

2) Whateley on Romish Errors,

ch. ii.

3) See McCaul's Sketches of Judaism, p. 2.

church, the entire management and control of man's spiritual relations, and has, therefore, committed to their trust the plenitude of grace: That this visible society is, by express appointment one, unchanged, and perpetual: That however wicked may be the persons who administer the government of this church, the church itself will be assuredly preserved indefectible, and its acts be ratified in heaven: And that the whole efficacy of the church depends on the transmission of this original communication of divine grace, in an unbroken succession of lineal descendants of the apostles.

On these apparently harmless propositions is reared the entire fabric of that spiritual despotism, which at length usurped dominion over the civil and religious interests of man-over his body as well as his soul-over his thoughts as well as his actions -which claimed to direct his understanding and to tutor his conscience which haunted him with fear through life, with terror in death, and then "delving into the sepulchre," followed him with its persecuting anathemas to the very fires of that penal wrath, from which it alone could deliver.1

Now every one of these principles, from which these consequences have flowed, are most certainly included in this prelatic theory; and are most fully avowed by its advocates. This doctrine of the apostolic succession is nothing more nor less than a second edition of the Romish anathema-extra ecclesiam prelaticam salus non esse potest. By confining to the clergy— and to one order of the clergy-and to a baronial and aristocratic class of the clergy-the exclusive, supreme, and heavenappointed right to all ecclesiastical power and jurisdiction— with the uncontrolled power of continuing their own succession, and of interpreting, by their authority, (i. e. the church,) the laws and doctrines of Christ's kingdom-there is a foundation laid, broad enough to sustain the most unbounded exercise of ghostly tyranny. These avowed principles justify all those practices, which necessarily flow from them, and by which the church has asserted her right to a universal lordship over the bodies and the souls of men.

This apostolical succession is distinctly affirmed by Mr. Newman, to be one of those many essential points, which the Romish and the Anglican churches, "in common both hold."

It is the same "ruling, grasping, ambitious principle," in both. In both, it is involved in that same profound obscurity which gives fitting room for fabulous legends, and unauthenti

1) See Dr. Rice's Considerations on Religion, pp. 79, 82, 83, 84. 2) See Henry Martyn in Hough's

Vindication, p. 64. He denominates this antichrist.

3) On Romanism, p. 56.

LECT. XI.] THE PRINCIPLES OF PRELACY AND POPERY.

261

cated affirmations.-In both, it is attended with the same errors in doctrine, and in practice.—In both, it places the efficacy of the gospel in its forms, and not in its doctrines; and the true power and validity of the ministry, in its commission, and not in its character, and qualifications; in its outward and genealogical relations, and not in any inward and spiritual call. In both, it involves the absolute exclusion from the christian pale, of the greatest part of protestant communions. In both, it presents an insuperable barrier to the reformation of what is corrupt.-In both, it implies indefectibility, and the continual presence of God's indwelling Spirit.'—And, in both, it is attended by the same insuperable difficulties, and monstrous consequences. Are we unjust in deducing such inferences from such premises? Let us then put ourselves under the guidance of Mr. Palmer. "If," says he, "communion with the Roman see (we say, the prelatical, or Anglican church,) be, as they say, absolutely and simply necessary, so that he who is separated from it, is cut off from the catholic church of Christ, then the Roman pontiff (i. e. the church, i. e. the prelates,) must be infallible, in defining controversies of faith; because it is not to be believed that God would impose the absolute necessity of communicating with him (i. e. it) otherwise. It follows equally, that he (the church) must have absolute power in ecclesiastical affairs; for, if he (the church) enforces anything under the penalty of excommunication, it must be obeyed. It also follows, that the church cannot fall into heresy, even when not defining ex cathedra, because no one can be entitled to forsake his communion," &c., &c.

This argument is just as conclusive when applied to the Anglican prelacy, as to the Romish hierarchy. Both make substantially the very same claims, to be the one, catholic church of Jesus Christ, and both, therefore, are responsible for all the consequences which such claims necessarily imply.5

1) Mr. Gladstone claims inspiration for the church, which is "an inheritance not only of antiquity, but also of inspiration."

2) See Lond. Chr. Ob., May, 1839, p. 290.

3) "Individuals among us," says Dr. Pusey, (Letter, p. 218, Eng. ed.) "are bound to remain in the church through whose ministry they have been made members of Christ." See Miller's Letter, to p. 73.

4) Palmer on Church, vol. ii. pp. 529, 530 and see, also, pp. 493, 497, &c. &c. Mr. Newman has a whole

lecture in proof of the indefectibility of the church, lect. viii.

5) Thus Mr. Keble, in his Discourse on Primitive Tradition, instances among other difficulties which he supposes must have lately exercised the minds of the Anglocatholic clergy, "how the freedom of the Anglican church may be vindicated against the exorbitant claims of Rome, and yet no disparagement ensue to the authority inherent in the catholic apostolical church." P. 6, ed. iv.

In illustrating the guilt of one

But clear as is this inference from the analogy between these two systems, in those elemental principles which sustain the whole fabric of Romanism, we are able fully to substantiate our charge, by plain and palpable facts.

In order, then, at once and most clearly, to establish the popish tendency of this doctrine, it is only necessary to show, that with it, all those other doctrines which constitute what is now designated Oxford divinity, are necessarily connected; and secondly, that these doctrines, thus springing from this dogma as their germ or root, and branching forth into all the ramifications of the system, are to be pronounced Romish in their char

acter.

Now, that this doctrine of prelatical succession does necessarily imply all those other doctrines by which the Oxford divinity is characterized, will appear from the fact, that these weighty consequences are deduced from this axiomatic principle by these divines themselves, while this connexion is urged upon their brethren as an irresistible argument for their adoption.

In a very able and elaborate treatise on "The American Church," contained in the British Critic, for October, 1839,

church throwing off all fellowship with others who yet hold to fundamentals, Bishop Davenant remarks: "Non miramur papistas, qui præter ipsum christum aliud fundamentum personale, aliud caput, alium sponsum dederunt ecclesiæ, omnes ecclesias abscindere et abjicere quantumvis fideliter et firmiter christo adhærentes. . . Nec miramur stultus eorundem clamores, quibus putant se perterrefacere posse ecclesias Christi." Adhortatio ad Pacem Eccl. Cant. 1640, p. 57.

1) See on p. 308.

That the British Critic may be fairly quoted as high authority in this controversy, will appear, from the following communication, taken from the Charleston Gospel Messenger for April, 1841:

"The British Critic.-Mr. Editor, allow me, through your pages, to call the attention of your readers to the above valuable periodical, which in a recent number of "The Banner of the Cross,' is thus highly commended by Bishop Doane, of New Jersey. 'It has been among my WARMEST WISHES that a publisher might be found who would give to the clergy and laity of our churches, and to all lovers of high intellect, imbued with PRIMITIVE piety, and CONSECRATED AT THE ALTAR of the

HOLY ONE, an American edition of this ABLEST of all the British periodicals, at a price accessible to all. I rejoice to say that better even than that has been done. Wiley and Putnam, of New York, will import the British Critic, (two annual volumes of five hundred pages each, in quarterly numbers,) if one hundred persons order it. It is an opportunity MOST AUSPICIOUS to the BEST INTERESTS OF THEOLOGY and literature, and I venture in my ZEALOUS desire for its success, to call the attention of my brethren to it under my own name. I speak advisedly, for I have been a subscriber to it from the commencement of the present series, and the whole set, now twenty-eight_volumes, are on the shelves of my library, and AMONG ITS CHOICEST CONTENTS. IT SHOULD BE IN THE HANDS OF EVERY CLERGY MAN, AND SHOULD CIRCULATE IN EVERY PARISH.

"A subscription list has been left at the library, Chalmer's street, and at Mr. A. E. Miller's book store. It is hoped that those who desire to see this valuable work circulate in our country, will use their influence in obtaining the requisite number of subscribers.'

Now let the reader contrast with