selves to an implicit submission to their authority. When he intimates with a sneer that we set up the Bible alone," without note or comment," as our "only standard of faith," he knows perfectly well that these words, "without note or comment," were never used by any one as having reference to a standard of faith at all-that we simply associate on this basis, associate with many of his own church, in a great and holy effort, than which nothing in this age is more truly catholic, to spread the gospel of life through the dying nations of mankind. We charge the Bishop with no jesuitical intention. But if these things result from no moral infirmity, they must from infirmity of some other kind-that perhaps of his position. He really holds no doctrine opposed to private judgment and has asserted none. But in this day, when all aspire to be champions of Episcopacy, he must needs be one among them. So he goes into the field hoisting the high church flag"NO PRIVATE JUDGMENT"-but yet with a courage so unequal to the war, if not with a discretion superior to it, that while he seems to be even with the times, he is actually, shall we say unwittingly, found maintaining our opinion against us! And it is only a part of his mistake that having taken our opinion for his own, he should give us one that is nobody's. Whether it is most deferential to acknowledge his sincerity or to deny it, we can not so easily judge, and therefore leave him to choose. Undoubtedly the mere expression by which he declares that "the interpretations of the church in the first two centuries constitute the only sure basis to rest upon," may be taken in a sense to which we do not agree. But when he praises the English reformers (p. 7) for having ascribed no "Popish infallibility to the early Fathers," and for having used them only as a "most useful guide," he declares, as plainly as he can, that he himself receives no teaching of the first two centuries with implicit submission, and reserves the right of private judgment against the "only sure basis of the church"-which is exactly our opinion. True, he intimates an opinion that the early Fathers had some peculiar advantages for knowing the truth, which we might choose to offset by some peculiar disadvantages resulting from the rawness of their experience, and the Judaizing or paganizing propensities of their mental habit, as well as by the fact that we of a later age have seen so many errors, Episcopacy among the rest, tried out and made to display their pernicious effects in actual history. He might cast the balance in favor of a father of the second century, and we of a father of the nineteenth century. Still we are both upon the common principle of private judgment-we only judge differently. If we are wrong in this, if the Bishop truly means to waive all private judgment, and bow to the first two centuries as conclu.. sive authority, why does he not say it, and go to work like a bold-spirited man and a scholar to maintain his position. We are ready to meet him with volumes of patristic absurdities, and show to the satisfaction of reasonable men that "the wayward fancies of individuals" were never more rampant than in the first two centuries. Why did he not prove the contrary, or if it is too much for a Bishop to prove his declarations, why does he not assert the contrary?—that when Clement, the first and most sober of the Fathers offers his ridiculous argument for the resurrection drawn from the silly fable of the Phoenix, and interprets the scarlet rope which the harlot Rahab let down from the wall, as representing the gospel scheme of salvation, it is good infallible truth-that the fanatical and anti-Christian sentiments that strew the epistles of Ignatius are the very doctrine of Christ-that the silly vagaries of Barnabas are to be received as sound exegesis of the Old Testament-that the vituperations of Tertullian are the spirit of Jesus, and his declarations against early baptism, and against the morality of second marriages, a sure basis for the canons of the church-that when Bishop Papias declares a millennium to come so fruitful that every single grape will yield more than two hundred gallons of wine, he is better authority than Bishop Miller. It is barely possible that the Bishop may have misunderstood the doctrine of our churches on this subject. The early Puritans took strong ground, we know, in behalf of the Scriptures as the only and conclusive authority in matters of faith. We do the same, though not excluding any collateral evidences or subsequent explanations which are aids to the discovery of their meaning. And does not the Bishop himself declare, (p. 6,) that "the English reformers maintained the supreme authority and sufficiency of the Scriptures?" Possibly the early Puritans may have used stronger language than this, though we know not the instance. And as to the church forms "those catholic and primitive usages which were in accordance with Scripture,” (p. 6,) and which the English reformers are said to have reverently sifted out by this test and retained, if the Bishop will tell us how they ascertained what usages were in accordance with Scripture, we will tell him how the Puritans rejected them, viz. because they were not in accordance with Scripture, violations of its spirituality, pomps hostile to its power; both by private judgment. For though the English reformers stoutly rejected private judgment, in words, they did not altogether renounce their wits, and under that form took it back again. In which respect they somewhat differ from the Bishop, who renounces his wits, at the beginning, in a futile endeavor both to retain his private judgment and to let it go. But while we require of the Bishop, with all due reverence, that he will give us back our opinion and dare to take one with the church champions he emulates, we have no disposition either to claim his facts or his arguments. After laying down his "only sure basis" in the interpretations of the first two centuries, he vindicates the English reformation as coinciding in sentiment by the following exquisite proof, (p. 7)— In the "Necessary Doctrine of a Christian Man," agreed upon by the whole church of England, in the year 1543, it is declared that "All those things which were taught by the apostles and have been, by an whole universal consent of the church of Christ, ever sith that time, taught continually ought to be received," &c. Now if the reader will suffer a little amusement, let him turn to Palmer on the Church, (Vol. I, p. 456,) and there also he will readthe "Necessary Doctrine of a Christian Man," agreed on by the whole church of England, in 1543, says, &c. giving the same extract above recited. But Palmer gives it to prove that the stout old Romish doctrine of church authority was the doctrine of the English reformers, where it has a reasonable application. But the Bishop of Connecticut thinks that if it will do for Oxford, it will certainly do for any true Bishop, and so he puts it down by the side of his little "only sure basis" in the first two centuries. The English reformers boldly said"ever sith that time," stretching their only sure basis down through the Roman apostasy and through all the filth of church history. The Bishop looks out from his skulking. place in the first two centuries and discovers a pleasant confirmation of Again; immediately after the Bishop's interlocutory paragraph above quoted, in which he declares our doctrine of private judgment, with as much clearness as will do in these flagrant times of Episcopacy, he goes on directly to say, (p. 8)" It was under these views of PRIVATE JUDGMENT, that the reformation of the church of England was conducted. The result is embodied in our book of COMMON PRAYER." What! a general exercise of private judgment-(we do not stop here to ask what a "general exercise may be which excludes particular exercises under it, for the Bishop is averse to "metaphysics") -general exercise of private judgment acknowledged to be "the inalienable right of every man" in the English reformation! And that in a time, when men were going to the flames every month for their opinions! when it was a decree of the church that "whosoever through his private judgment doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the church, ought to be rebuked openly," when the convocation of the church was solemnly enjoining it on the clergy, "above all things, to be careful never to teach aught in a sermon to be religiously believ ed, except that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and which the catholic fathers and bishops have collected from that very doctrine !" (A magnificent and brilliant work to preach in that day!) Yes! this is that "general inalienable right of private judgment" which prevailed in the English reformation! And Vol. II. 20 the book of common prayer is "the embodied result," says the Bishop. Well does he call it the "monument" of the Reformation. If he had found a mausoleum for it too, the discovery would have been equally appropriate. The truth is, that the English church, in what is called its reformation, was and continued to be a Romish church, in every thing but the accident of a monarch's lusts and a leaven of Puritanism, (the thing existed long before the name,) which made itself felt, till it could be endured no longer. And Palmer, who knows how to make his arguments meet his conclusions somewhat better than the Bishop of Connecticut, has shown by a full investigation of facts, that the English reformation made no infringement on the doctrine of church authority, as it stood under the Romish rule. It is now, he maintains, the true doctrine of the Eng. lish episcopate. Let our country. men understand, where the sympathies of this Anglican religion lie. Is this the faith for Americans? Above all, men of New England! is it the faith for you? Having settled his doctrine by these inimitable arguments-our doctrine by the arguments of Oxford-the Bishop proceeds to congratulate his church on the blessed effects of church authority, as contrasted with the manifold desolations of Protestantism, in other forms and families. "The communions," he says, (p. 8,)" planted by Calvin and Zuinglius have become deeply imbued with Socinianism and infidelity. Those founded by Luther and Melancthon have been corrupted by rationalism and every species of vain philosophy. The stern church of John Knox has shared, to a great degree, a similar fate, and is more. over rent by internal divisions. Has Puritanism enjoyed a happier destiny, either in Europe or in this country? Let the schisms, the heresies, the infidelity, the fanaticism, which have every where sprung up from its distractions, answer the question." Then behold the contrast! "Surrounded by all this desolation, the Protestant Episcopal church in this country appears as an 'oasis in the desert!" (p. 9.) Our unclassical readers may not understand, how beautifully primitive the Bishop is, in this allusion. He refers to that famous oasis in the Lybian desert, made known to literature and consecrated as a poetic symbol, long before the only sure basis was laid. There was the more than primitive church of Jupiter Ammon, bowered in verdure in the midst of an ocean of sand. Alexander caught the rumor of its gorgeous rites, turned aside from the conquest of the world, and marched his sweltering legions thither to see so great a sight. There the priests had it according to their will, and a most saintly place it was. Being a sacred caste by themselves, having the people to be servants of their will, and one of their number set on high to preside in "exact conformity with ancient rules," (so says the book,) nothing could excel the condition of elysian splendor in which they moved, the order and priestly pomp of their forms, or, if report be true, the wondrous effect of their magic rites. It was in fact the paradise of ecclesiastics! But if we can not praise the acuteness of the Bishop's argument, we must certainly concede the propriety of his imagery. We descend then from his poetry to his argument. And what if the churches of the German and Swiss reformations have become a prey to rank and dismal errors? To bring the matter home at a stroke, we affirm without scruple, that with all their heresies and frigid neologisms, their state is yet greatly to be preferred to that of the Anglican Episcopal church. And if we were this day to import a religion, we should not hesitate, a moment, to make out an order on Germany in preference to the English episcopate. This, we suppose, is not the general opinion of our friends, but we have our reasons. As far as we can discover, the sense of reli gion is much stronger in Germany, and the attendance on Christian wor ship more general, than it is in England. We verily believe that there is more of the power of Christian truth in Germany, than there is under the twice dead formalism, which reigns in most of the English church es. The German religion gives the key of knowledge to the people, and holds, at least, a friendly relation towards them. Anglican Episcopacy, on the other hand, has ever been a jealous enemy of popular education and of every effort to elevate the masses, and has thus made the very name of religion odious to them-justly odious. The German ministry retains more of the true Christian simplicity; it is not so corrupt and secular-certainly not so rapacious as the ravening wolf hood miscalled by the epithet clergy in England-the lord bishops acting Dives in their fine linen at the rate of three hundred thousand a yearthe younger sons of noblemen parceled off to their riotous "livings," acting the prodigal without either acting or teaching his repentance, and escaping the husks by tithing the corn-a race of priestly extortioners in the name of Christ Jesus, hunting, drinking, gaming and swearing under cover of the apostolic succession-not novices in doctrine, because they have not advanced so far-stealing their sermons to supply the want of their head, and plundering the poor to fill the want of their body-piercing to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, not by their arguments, but by their extortions-examples to their flocks, only as they show them, by example, how to wear the fleece. The picture holds with many honorable exceptions-it nevertheless holds. There is not such another spectacle on earth-no, nor ever has been, whether in the Romish church or any other-of a priesthood in total opposition to the simplicity and spirituality of the gospel; for the Pope of Rome has this reasonable apology for his princely estate, that he unites the office of a temporal ruler. And this too, it will be observed, in a church where the ministry is every thing; for when you have named prelacy, succession, ordination, orders, tithes, you have made an inventory of the topics which alone are treated, by the English clergy, as a body with real earnest. To prop up the system which feeds so much of pride and rapacity, is of course a prime object, and the priestly prerogatives are valued for what they are worth. Besides, there is in the German churches, in the worst estimate we can make of their faith, a spirit of freedom and intellectual activity, which will soon be moved to seek some corrective for their errors, because of the spiritual pover. ty they suffer under them. But a church bound up in formalism, having the whole interest of its priest hood arrayed against its purity-a church which has made itself strong by making religion itself contempt ible the reformation of such a church must be a slow and possibly a hopeless work. And we are of opinion, much as we love sound doctrine, that it is better to suffer a bad heresy for a few years, than a Pharisaism equally bad for as many centuries. What then does it signify for the Bishop and clergy of Connecticut to shed their tears over Germany? Let them go back and pour them into the polluted lap of their mother. She that conceived them hath done shamefully; for she said I will go after my lovers that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, mine oil and my drinks. But the Bishop is afflicted also by the miserable distractions and schisms of Puritanism, particularly in this country, while his own church, compacted into unity under "the standard of faith" in the book of common prayer, is a beautiful oasis, in the moral desert, created by others round it. Had we said as much, it would most assuredly have been set down for a specimen of that cruel irony and sarcasm in which we are supposed to abound. A standard of faith in the book of common prayer! Doubtless the Episcopal churches and bishops agree in receiving the book as a standard, and so do all the families of Puritanism agree in receiving the Bible for a standard. And what is more, these families, if we include the greater divisions, the Congregational, the Presbyterian, the Dutch Reformed, the Baptist, and (if they will suffer the classification) the Methodist, hold a real and substantial agreement of opinion, as a generous and philosophic criticism would amply show. Nay, we do, at this moment, hold the articles of faith in the book of common prayer more substantially, uniformly and consistently than the churches and bishops of the Anglican episcopate, whether in England or in the United States. Every person of only tolerable information, in respect to church matters, will recognize a true picture in the following passage from Hill's "Sale of the Curates," a satire in which he lays open the rottenness of his church, in regard to the articles and other matters most faithfully." Some suppose that though the reformers [in the articles] wrote in one sense, [the Calvinistic,] it might be taken in another, [the Arminian ;] others, that they were meant in two senses, the direct opposite to each other, [i. e. to unite the Calvinists and Arminians ;] others, that the sense of them is but one, [Arminian,] but the direct opposite to their obvious [Calvinistic] meaning; and a fourth set have made it out that they mean every |