I have now finished the narrative regarding the suspicions that have sprung up in reference to the Episcopal College, and the charges which have been brought against it, on the one hand, and the answers and defences which have appeared, on the other. The question occurs, How shall we account for the evasions and obscure generalities to which the chief vindicators of the College have resorted-for their evident anxiety to dispel the suspicions of Presbyterians, and for their uniform omission, at the same time, to give any specific and clear disavowal of the uncharitable tenets with which the College has begun to be identified? I think that question can be solved. I believe the truth to be, that they do hold, with the theologians of Oxford, that prelatic Episcopacy is necessary to the being of a Church, that the imposition of prelatical hands alone can give authority to preach and to administer sacraments, and that Presbyterian ordinances are in consequence null, while, at the same time, they have not yet the courage, and it is plainly inexpedient, to stand forth and directly tell the great body of their countrymen that the ministers they love are invaders of the priesthood, and that they and their children are unbaptised, and separated from the fellowship of the body of Christ. In the Scottish Episcopal communion, the reigning doctrine on the subject of the Church is, and, from the days of the first nonjurors, has been, the present doctrine of Oxford-the doctrine of Hook and Palmer, of Pusey, Newman, and Froude of the British Critic-of the Tracts for the Times. To the duty of making good this statement by documentary proof, I shall now, with the Presbytery's permission, proceed.

I begin with a tract published a long time ago. It is entitled, "A friendly Answer of a Letter, &c. touching Presbytery, in which is plainly and fairly made appear, how justly the horrid sin of Schism, and sundry other gross errors, are chargeable upon the Presbyterians of Scotland. By a Suffering Member of the afflicted Church of Scotland. Edinburgh: MDCCXXVI." And it bears the sanction of authority, as being "agreeable to the sentiments of the Church, and worthy of approbation."

Speaking of Schismatics, the author expresses himself in these terms:

"they who wilfully break this indispensable union

and

do separate themselves from the Church of God, by crumbling into parties and factions, and by setting up opposite altars, in disobedience to our spiritual superiors the Bishops are SCHISMATICKS, who, by being such, do miserably exclude themselves, from all the covenanted and ordinary means, and terms of pardon and mercy offered by Jesus Christ in the Gospel."-Pp. 9, 10.

Again he asserts, quoting Bishop Pearson, and applying the language to Schismatics:

"As none of the inhabitants of Jericho could escape the fire or sword, but such as were within the house of Rachab, for whose protection a covenant was made: so none shall ever (unless through an unrevealed and extraordinary manner) escape the eternal wrath of God, which belong not to the Church of God."-P. 11.

Again he says:

"in Holy Scripture Schismaticks are styled 'Withered Branches,' 'False Apostles,' False Brethren.' They are, by St. Paul, in his first Epistle to Timothy, said to be proud, knowing nothing.' And in his Epistle to Titus, they are called, unruly, vain talkers and deceivers '-'whose mouths must be stopped.”—P. 11.

He says again

"And so exceedingly sinful and dangerous, Sir, is the joining in worship with schismaticks, that St. Paul hath expressly discharged all fellowship and communion with them.”—P. 12.

On page 18, he has the expression, "the damnable sins of schism and rebellion," and, in corroboration of his views, he gives an extract from Cyprian :

"Schismaticks, says he (Cyprian), though they are slain for confessing Christ, yet is the stain of schism so deep, their very blood cannot wash it out. It is an inexpiable crime, from which a man cannot be purged, tho' he die for Christ. Let him give himself to fry in the flames, or be torn in pieces by wild beasts, that shall not crown his faith with victory, but pass only for the punishment of his treachery. He may be slaughtered, but he shall not be crowned. For that man cannot be one of Christ's martyrs, who is not one of the Church's members.”—Pp. 13, 14.

Who, then, are the parties, to whom these dreadful doctrines apply? Who are the "Schismatics"? The author leaves not his reader in perplexity about that.

"Now, Sir, you may pretend to justify and acquit yourself from guilt, in this weighty and terrible affair, as much as you please; But, that THE PRESBYTERIANS IN THIS KINGDOM, and you, by being in communion with

them, are actually engaged in this sad, this woeful and miserable state of schism, is most undeniable: no matter of fact is capable of clearer demonstration."-Pp. 14, 15.

Such were the principles of Scottish Episcopalians 116 years ago. Twenty-four years nearer the present time, that is, in 1750, there was published a pamphlet on The Nature and Constitution of the Christian Church, of which I find that the late Bishop Jolly had a high opinion. In that pamphlet the following propositions

occur:

"A particular church is a certain number of believers in Jesus Christ, united to him by his visible representative, viz. their Bishop.”—P. 11.

The writer means a Bishop in the diocesan sense, and it follows from his doctrine that there cannot be a Church where there is not a prelate.

"The Catholic or universal Church is the whole body, or total sum, of these particular Churches."-P. 11.

This implies that those bodies of Christians, which are not under the rule of diocesan bishops, are excluded from "the Catholic or universal Church."

In an Essay on the Festival of Christmas, "by a Presbyter of the suffering Church of Scotland," and published in 1753, the author has a fling at the ministers of the Establishment in this way :

"St. Isidore, one of the best scholars of his time, and not sprung ex infima plebe, like Jeroboam's schismatical priests," &c.-P. 17.

The same writer supplements his essay with the following prayer for the Presbyterian clergy:—

66

Open the eyes of all those who usurp to themselves the sacred character of thy ambassadors, ministers of thy Word, and stewards of thy mysteries, audaciously presuming to take this office to themselves without being called of thee-to preach without being sent-and to transact and seal the Gospel covenant in thy name, without being clothed with thy warrant and authority for that purpose. Take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of thy Word, fill them with a just reverence for thy holy institutions, and let the remembrance of thy judgments on Corah, Saul, Uzzah, and Uzziah, convince them of the dreadful hazard of all such sacrilegious invasions of the priesthood, that, being sensible of the guilt, they may avoid the danger, by returning to thy flock and being made again one fold under one shepherd," &c.-P.47.

There was published, in the year 1799, An Abridgment of the Rev. Charles Daubeny's Guide to the Church,

by a worthy Scots Episcopal Clergyman, to which was prefixed a preface by Bishop Abernethy Drummond. `At page xii of the preface, Bishop Drummond expresses himself thus:

"Since our blessed Saviour has declared that there is but one fold and has reprobated all separations from it, the Editor finds himself obliged to maintain that THE TRUE CHURCH OF GOD IS OF ONE COMMUNION; and that schism is sinful and dangerous, though the far greatest part of the Christian world be involved in its guilt.”

"The True Church," he says, is confined to "one communion"—to one religious denomination! Hear him again, page xiii:

"while there are so many different Churches among us, he must say, that supposing (what he fears is not true) their faith and practice to be right in the main, all but ONE COMMUNION are deficient in an essential point-unity. And he begs them also to remember, that, for lack of one thing, the young man in the Gospel probably forfeited eternal life.”

66

We are here fairly warned that, if we do not belong to that "one communion " which alone, of the many communions in the country, is the true Church, we shall probably forfeit eternal life." How are we to know the communion to which it is so necessary for us all to belong? The following intimation will prepare us for finding that, in Scotland, it is a small body:

"Time was, when the whole Church of God was confined within the walls of Abraham's house: And, in the days of Ahab, King of Israel, though the little territory of Judea contained more millions than does Scotland, God knew of no more than seven thousand who had not bowed their knees to Baal. Need it, therefore, be matter of surprise, that the Church of God has again become a little flock ?”—P. xii.

But the Bishop leaves us not to grope in uncertainty; he puts an end to our suspense by declaring, page xix,

"The Episcopal Church of Scotland is such a Church, as all Christians in this country, not only may, but are in duty bound to communicate with, because if her communion is pure, and all Christians ought to be of one communion, then it follows that all who are separated from her must be in the wrong, and are, for their own safety, obliged instantly to unite with her."-P. xix.

After this, if the people of Scotland shall stand aloof from the "communion" which is thus identified with the "true Church," and adhere to Presbyterianism, let them know from Bishop Drummond, page x, that

"the farthest that a rational charity can go in favour of those who divide from the Church, when no sinful term of communion is required of

them, is to hope that God, whose mercy is infinite, may do more than he has promised, and if any of them are, upon the whole, upright, religious, and devout, he may on that consideration bestow upon them his uncovenanted mercy, notwithstanding of their having brought dishonour on his blessed Son's name, because they did it ignorantly and in unbelief. And the same, the Editor trusts, will be bestowed upon well-meaning Heathens and Mahometans"!

Was there ever a brighter example of philosophical calmness and impartiality than this Scottish prelate exemplifies, when ranking along with "well-meaning Heathens and Mahometans" those Christians who are unable to discover any warrant for prelacy in the Scriptures?

In the Abridgment of Daubeny, of which Bishop Drummond was the Editor, we find the following definition of the Christian Church :

"Where the Christian Sacraments are duly administered by persons regularly appointed to that sacred office, according to the plan originally laid down by the Apostles, there we find the Church of Christ."--P. 48.

"The plan originally laid down by the Apostles" was that of Episcopacy, according to this author. To the same effect, and still more explicitly, he says again :

"It is a prevailing notion that, where the Gospel of Christ is preached, there the Church of Christ is assembled. This notion, from its plausibility, has with many gained a degree of credit to which, upon examination, it will not be found entitled; for the Church is a public body, a duly-constituted society, under the direction of its appointed ministers, the Bishop, and, in subordination to him, the Presbyter, or Deacon; WITHOUT these, according to the Apostolic St. Ignatius, IT DOES NOT Deserve the name OF A CHURCH."-P. 39.

We find it then a settled point with Daubeny, that the only communion in Scotland, that "deserves the name of a Church," is the Scottish Episcopal body. Hear him now on the subject of Scottish Episcopal privileges:

"In this ONE Church, then, we have the sacraments of Christ's appointment, as seals of that covenant by which fallen man lays claim to eternal life. In this ONE Church we have the ambassadors for Christ, whose sacred office it is to administer, in the name of him whom they are commissioned to represent, the sacraments of that Covenant, which God on his part thereby engages himself to fulfil. In this ONE Church we have, moreover, the Spirit of Christ accompanying his own ordinances according to the promise made at the original establishment of this Church, that He would be with it always, even to the end of the world."-Pp. 49, 50.

See, next, what happens to them who forsake Episcopacy: