}

pacy. It may be urged, that faith in Christ includes the principle of obedience to his institutions; and therefore to resist them, is to show the want of that obedience which flows from faith. Doubtless the faith of Christ does include such a principle. But this no more proves particular views of church order, than it proves particular views of any thing else which is regulated by Christ's authority, to be the "indispensable condition of salvation." Habitual disobedience to any of his known commands will exclude from his kingdom. Yet there are sins both of ignorance and infirmity which consist with a gracious state. And why an errour about church-government is not to be classed among these, the Bible has assigned no reason. And if the high church-men will push their own doctrine, it will compel them to excommunicate each other in their turn. For it is no secret that there have been material differences among them on their favourite theme: and nothing can exceed their confusion and mutual contradiction, when they attempt to found their hierarchy on the scriptures.

At times, we acknowledge, they concede the possibility of "penitence" and a "true faith" out of their church, for it is upon this concession that they rest their charity for the non-episcopalian. But as their concession is in diametrical repugnance to their argument, it only lets us see that

they flinch from, the consequences of their own doctrine.

Upon the whole, we have the best evidence that they lay an unwarrantable stress upon the form of ecclesiastical order, by erecting communion with their priesthood into an "indispensable condition of salvation." The alarm which they have sounded on this subject, is vox et præterea nihil, mere noise; and need give no disquiet to the most timid conscience.

2. Our next observation is, that as Mr. H. and his fellows have denied all communion with Christ, to non-episcopalians they are bound to show, that there is at least, more of the truth and efficacy of the gospel in the Episcopal church than in all other connexions. This is not drawing invidious comparisons between Christian denominations, but on their own principles, a per-. fectly fair comparison between the church of Christ and a set of associations which do not belong to it. We shall account it no hard task to prove as much of the church of Christ according to our views; nor ought they. For assuredly, if there is not within his church much more of power and love, and of a sound mind;" much more of the fear of God; of "receiving Christ Jesus the Lord" and "walking in him;" of reverential attendance upon his worship; of domestic and personal godliness; in one word, much more of the spiritual life, and of that "holiness without

which no man shall see the Lord;" if much more of these things be not found within his church than without it, "what doth it profit ?" Will Mr. H. meet the ordeal? Will he accompany us from temple to temple, from pulpit to pulpit, from house to house, from closet to closet, and agree, that in proportion as there is little or much of "pure and undefiled religion" in them, their grade in the scale of Christian churches shall be low or high? Is it, then, a fact, that in the church which boasts of the only valid ministrations, and the exclusive prerogative of being in covenant with God, there is more evangelical preaching; more of Christ crucified; more plain, close, decisive dealing with the consciences of men, upon the things which belong to their peace, than in many of the churches which she affects to despise? Is it a fact, that her "authorized priesthood" are more scrupulous about the preservation of pure communion; that they object more strongly to the admission of mere men of the world; and are more active in excluding from their fellowship the openly irreligious, than are others? Is it a fact, that they adopt more prompt and vigorous measures to expel from their pulpits doctrine which flies in the face of their avowed principles, and is acknowledged by themselves to be subversive of the Christian system? Is it a fact, that in this "primitive Apostolic" church, the sheep of Christ and his lambs are more plentifully fed with "the bread of

We

God which came down from heaven?" Or that she has less to attract the thoughtless gay, and more to allure those who become seriously concerned about their eternal salvation, than is to be found in hundreds of churches which she virtually "delivers unto Satan ?" Are these facts? appeal to them who have eyes to see, and ears to hear; especially to them who "have tasted that the Lord is gracious." The interrogatories and the appeal are extremely painful: but we are driven to them by the champions of the hierarchy, who appropriate communion with Christ to their own connexions. We, therefore, put them upon their trial before the bar of scripture, of conscience, and of public criticism. We demand the evidence of their exclusive fellowship with the Redeemer; we demand it for our own sakes; we insist upon their showing, according to his word, the superiority of their practical religion both in quantity and quality. If they cannot or will not answer, no rational man will be at a loss for the reason.

An Episcopal church we do know, in which there are hundreds of ministers, and thousands of their people, who are "valiant for the truth;" who exemplify in their own persons the loveliness of the Christian character, and who, with respect to themselves, will never shrink from the strictest investigation. Would to God, we could say as much for all non-episcopalians! But these members of that church who give, in "the fruits of

righteousness," unequivocal proof that the "Spirit of Christ is in them," are not the persons who advance or defend such claims as are set up by Messrs. DAUBENY and HOBART. On the contrary, they most cordially welcome to their bosoms, as heirs with themselves of the grace of life, all those "who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity:" and they are hated, reviled, persecuted, by those very same high churchmen, who, like Mr. H. and his friends are for confining the covenant of salvation to their own precincts.

We have reached only the threshold of the work which we proposed to enter and examine. But if we have detained the reader with preliminary matter, it is because we could not do justice to the subject without it. He is now in possession of facts and reasonings to show that the actual discussions relative to Episcopacy, are not to be classed with those wrangles of party which amuse ignorant zealots, and disgrace sober inquiry. Nothing less is agitated than the question whether as non-episcopalians, we are to walk in the "faith of the gospel," in "joy of the Holy Ghost," and with a "hope that maketh not ashamed;" or be shut up under condemnation, reprobated by God and man? As we did not begin the controversy; nor engage in it till after long forbearance under multiplied provocation; and not even then, till we felt ourselves called upon, by an imperious sense of duty, to vindicate