Unless Bishop Jolly held that Presbyterians, and others who are not of the Episcopal communion, are included within the Catholic Church, and that ministers who are not episcopally ordained, are "successors of the apostles," he must be regarded as explicitly teaching, in this extract from the Catechism, that forgiveness of sins is a blessing which none but Episcopalians can enjoy. We shall soon see that he had no such view of the "Catholic Church," or of the Christian ministry, as to imagine the one to contain any who were not Episcopalians, or the other to comprehend office-bearers on whom the hands of a prelate had not been laid. I proceed to give some quotations from a Tract of his, entitled, Some plain Instructions concerning the nature and constitution of the Christian Church; the Divine appointment of its Governors and Pastors, and the nature and guilt of schism. On pages 4 and 5 of the Oxford edition, the Bishop says:

"the_ordinary way to eternal life and salvation is through the Church; by entering into that society, and remaining a sound and lively member of the same, daily advancing in all holy conversation and godli

ness.

"It must, therefore, be a matter of the highest consequence, to be well assured that we are members of the Church of Christ, that mystical body of which he is the Head; which he purchased with his own blood, and enlivens with his Spirit, and to which all the promises of the Gospel

are made.

"But forasmuch as there are variety of sects among us, all assuming to themselves that venerable name, and these being very different, if not contrary, to one another, and disagreeing in such points as are essential to the true Church, how shall the unlearned, persons of a common rank and ordinary abilities, be able to judge in this case?"

"How shall the unlearned, persons of a common rank and ordinary abilities, be able to judge in this case," and to find out whether they are Christians, "members of that mystical body of which Christ is the Head"? Bishop Jolly will help them. Let us hear him again.

"it is plain from Scripture, that, IN ORDER TO BE A CHRISTIAN, one must not only believe the doctrine, but must likewise be admitted a member of the Church of Christ, and continue a subject to THAT government in it which was instituted by our blessed Lord the Founder of it."-P. 6.

There is no ambiguity here; all that we have now to do is to learn from the bishop what "that government'

was which was instituted by our Lord; and then we shall know thoroughly how to be a Christian.

"As we find none in the New Testament who had authority to minister gospel-ordinances but the Apostles, and those ordained by them; and as we also find that from that time to the days of Calvin, none had authority to minister the word and sacraments but Bishops as successors to the Apostles, and those ordained by them; so we conclude, that none can at this time have any such authority, but those who are episcopally ordained."-P. 19.

"None can have authority to minister the word and sacraments, but those who are episcopally ordained.” What next?

-"the Christian Bishop has succeeded into the room of the Jewish High Priest, and the Presbyters and Deacons into that of the Priests and Levites.

66

Wherefore, having thus seen what governors and pastors Christ appointed in his Church, and the necessity of their commission in order to the valid administration of the Sacraments, it will now be easy to form a proper notion of the constitution of the Christian Church, and of the nature and guilt of schism."-P. 22.

Yes, Bishop Jolly; and it will be easy to do another thing-it will be quite easy now to know the way to be a Christian; for it is very evident that, according to you, the way, and the only way, is to be a staunch Episcopalian.

"As every Jew was bound to be in communion with the High Priest, and to offer his sacrifice upon the altar at Jerusalem, so every Christian is bound to maintain communion with his proper Bishop, and to join with none but such as are in communion with him, either in celebrating the Christian sacrifice, or in any act of religious worship; that being THE ONLY WAY to be in communion with Jesus Christ, the invisible Bishop and Head of the Catholic Church.”—P. 24.

"The only way to be in communion with Jesus Christ" is to be subject to a diocesan bishop!

"St. Ignatius, who lived also in the times of the Apostles, hath so many passages for Episcopacy, and for doing all things in unity with the Bishop, in his writings, that it would be tedious to transcribe them. · All of you,' says he to the Church of Smyrna, follow your Bishop as Jesus Christ the Father, and the Presbyters as the Apostles, and reverence the Deacons as the command of God. Let no man do anything of what belongs to the Church, without the Bishop. Let that Sacrament be looked upon to be firm and effectual, which is administered by the Bishop, or him to whom the Bishop has committed it. Wherever the Bishop is, there let the people be; as where Christ is, there the heavenly host is gathered together.' Agreeable to this, St. Cyprian defines a particular

or diocesan Church, to be a people united to their High Priest or Bishop, and a flock adhering to their Pastor; and thence he infers, that the Bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the Bishop; and that if any be not with the Bishop, they are not in the Church. So that a particular Church or diocese is a certain number of believers, clergy, and people, united to Jesus Christ, by his visible representative, viz. their Bishop; and every such Church is a completely organised body within itself, under its own proper head and the Catholic or Universal Church is the whole body, or total sum of these particular Churches."-Pp. 24, 25.

The precious words of the Redeemer to his disciples, 66 I in you, and you in me"! Who can restrain his indignation at the clumsy and revolting parody, "the Bishop in the Church, and the Church in the Bishop"! And let it be marked, that here we are expressly told that the catholic or universal Church is made up of the whole body of the Episcopal Churches. We have thus been brought to these two conclusions-that, in order to be Christians, we must become Episcopalians, and that the true Church is the Episcopal communion! See now the privileges of Episcopalians :

"All the benefits of Christ's passion are appropriated, and all God's promises of grace and mercy to men, are made to them that are in the Church; as there is but one body, and one Spirit, so they only who are of this one body, the Church, can partake of the Spirit which is in it; they only who are members of that body, whereof Christ is the Head, can be influenced and enlivened by that blessed Spirit which flows from Him. This divine Spirit, as a principle of grace and immortality, being one of the exceeding great and precious promises which Christ has given to his Church, can never be obtained but by the means and ordinances which he hath prescribed in the Gospel for the conveying of it, and they are none other than the Christian Sacraments, by which we are made and continue members of the Church.”—Pp. 30, 31.

The next extract is on the subject of schism :

as the one Bishop is the principle of unity to a particular Church, by our union with whom we are united to the One Invisible Bishop, Jesus Christ; so schism, in any diocese, consists in a causeless separation from the communion of this one Bishop, whereby the schismatics are separated from the communion of the Invisible Bishop, and so from the whole Catholic Church, in heaven or in earth.”—P. 25.

Such is the state to which Presbyterians are held to have reduced themselves, by what is called their "causeless separation" from the communion of the Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church. Hear him next in regard to Presbyterial ordination:

"Our Elders, Presbyters, or Priests are only successors to the Bishops,

Elders, or Presbyters of the Apostolical age, who had no authority to ordain; and therefore, if any of them pretend to ordain, such pretended ordination is not only presumptuous, but PERFECTLY NULL AND INVALID; and the Sacraments administered by such pretendedly ordained persons, are not the Sacraments instituted by Christ."--P. 19.

"The sacraments administered by such pretendedly ordained persons" as the ministers of the Church of Scotland, "are not the sacraments instituted by Christ." Again:

66 none can

have authority" "to minister the word and sacraments,” "but those who are episcopally ordained." "Whosoever pretends to administer Baptism or the Lord's Supper, being not thereto authorised by the institution, does not administer these Sacraments, though he uses the form of words appointed for such administration, but only performs a natural act. But it is not the natural act, but the institution that makes them Sacraments. If then they are not ministered by such as are authorised by the institution to administer them, THEY ARE NO SACRAMENTS, and consequently OF NO VALIDITY.”—Pp. 19, 21.

The doctrine here is, that none of the children connected with the Church of Scotland is baptised. Presbyterian ministers have attempted to baptise them; "pretendedly ordained persons have "pretended" to baptise them; but the sacrament of baptism not one of them has received; that which has been done is of no validity. The whole Scottish nation is unbaptised, with the exception of the handful of Episcopalians that are among us, and probably also of the adherents of Rome. When such is the case, can we wonder at the following burst of Bishop Jolly's indignation against the men who have covered the land with heathenism?

"If we see any person usurping any part of the sacred office, teaching though he be not sent, or pretending to administer the sacraments, and to bless, as a priest or minister of God, though he be not called, how can we imagine, that it is lawful for us to be taught, or blessed, or to offer up our prayers by the mouth of such an invader of the priesthood; or how can we give the least countenance to these invaders by our presence at their administrations, without being partakers of their crime?"-P. 29.

But Bishop Jolly protests against being counted uncharitable; he maintains that he and his friends perform "a duty of Christian charity" (p. 30), when they give their views to the world; and he is pleased to assure us that he and they "make great allowance, as they trust our compassionate Saviour does also, for the case of those

whose invincible ignorance or prejudice will not let them see the truth of these principles"!

In connection with these strong statements of the inefficacy of Presbyterian ordinances, and, particularly, of the nullity of Presbyterian baptism, let me request attention to a canon of the Scottish Episcopal Church, on "The due administration of the sacrament of baptism." The canon in question is the xxiid in the code of 1828, and it contains the following remarkable words :

-"whereas from the unhappy multiplicity of religious sects in this country, cases frequently occur, in which persons, from conscientious motives, express a desire to separate themselves from such sects, and to unite themselves to the Episcopal communion, it becomes a matter of serious importance to furnish a rule to the clergy, by which they may be directed in such cases. It is, therefore, enacted, that in all instances where the applicants shall express a doubt of the validity of the baptism which they have received from the minister or pretended minister of the sect to which they formerly belonged, the clergyman of the Scottish Episcopal Church, to whom the application shall be made, shall (if he desire it) baptise the person in the form of words prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer by the Church of England in similar cases of doubt.”

From the concluding language of this canon it may possibly be supposed, that the Church of England has an analogous rule, and gives directions to her clergy for "similar cases of doubt." But any supposition of the sort will be wholly erroneous. A "similar case of doubt" would be the case of a private individual having a doubt of the validity of his or her own baptism; whereas the cases of doubt for which the English Church provides, are those in which the ministers of Christ, after an examination of facts, have doubts of the validity of the baptism of children that are brought to them. And the rules of the two churches, so far from being "similar, are directly contrary to each other. The English rule is, that the circumstances shall be enquired into by the minister, and that baptism shall take place only if he shall be in doubt whether there has been a valid baptism before. But the Scottish Episcopal rule, strange to say, deprives the clergyman of all right of judgment in the matter, and appoints that baptism shall be administered, if the party, the male or the female applicant for Scottish Episcopal privileges, shall have doubts of the validity of a former baptism. The Church of England says