If

Attend also to what Mr. Newman says:scripture-reading has, in England, been the cause of schism, it is because we (the Church) are deprived of the power of excommunicating, which, in the revealed scheme, is the formal antagonist and curb of private judgement*." The same author, in his 'History of the Arians of the fourth century,' speaking of those who denied the doctrine of Christ's deity and what he thought to be the evil consequences of their conduct, says, "It is but equitable to anticipate those consequences in the persons of the heresiarchs, rather than to suffer them gradually to unfold and spread far and wide after their day, sapping the faith of their deluded and less guilty followers." That is, as Archdeacon Townsend, in his Charge to the Clergy of Allerton,' observes, it is better to inflict punishment upon the persons of the heresiarchs than to wait to confute their opinions, because those opinions are injurious." Atrocious as this passage is, it is followed in the very same page by one still more atrocious : "In this," says Mr. Newman, "lies the difference between the treatment due to an individual in error and to one who is confident enough to publish his innovations. The former claims from us the most affectionate sympathy and the most considerate attention; the latter should meet with no mercy. He

* Newman's Treatise on Romanism, p. 170.

assumes the office of the tempter, and so far forth as his error goes, must be dealt with by the competent authority, as if he were embodied evil."

The fiercest inquisitor could not have used language more intolerable,―more hateful than this, or have set up for himself a defence which would better subserve his malignant and cruel purposes.

I have detained you a long time with this exposition of some of the leading doctrines and principles of the party denominated Puseyites; but it was, in a great measure, unavoidable, as I wished you to see and understand, from what they themselves say, the character and tendency of the system which they are so eagerly and so successfully propagating through the land.

In advancing such views and pretensions one would suppose that, like the augurs of old, they could not, when met together in friendly converse, look each other in the face without smiling. But we are assured that they are in earnest, and in earnest therefore we will meet them. The worst feature belonging to their system is the threatening aspect which it casts upon our civil and religious privileges. It denies and denounces liberty of conscience and the right of private judgement. If it could obtain the power, it lacks not the will to curb and restrain both. It becomes us then to be upon our guard, and to remember that our security

consists in our sensitiveness to the approach of danger. Our religious liberty cannot be preserved without constant watchfulness. If we sleep, the enemy will come and sow tares. If we are careless and indifferent about our religious privileges, we shall forge the fetters of our own bondage, and shall only want, what our indifference will well deserve, a tyrant to come and fasten them upon us. Let us, therefore, look to ourselves and take heed to our ways. Let us resolve never again to be entangled with the yoke of bondage, but steadily to maintain and firmly to hold fast the liberty with which Christ has made us free.

LECTURE II.

HAVING in the preceding lecture laid before you a statement of the leading general principles which are held and maintained by that section of the Church of England now commonly known and distinguished by the name of Puseyites, I shall now proceed to inquire more particularly into the grounds and reasons on which those principles are supported and defended. There is one word which is used by them so often and in such a manner as to render it proper and expedient that we should begin our examination of their system by an inquiry into its scriptural meaning. The word to which I refer is the very common and familiar one of the Church. What is this? what are we to understand by it? what is its use and signification in the New Testament? I ask these questions because when we hear, as we are continually hearing, of the authority of the Church, of the decrees of the Church, of the voice of the Church, we are apt to think of some corporate body or society, endowed with pepowers and privileges, and altogether distinct

culiar

from the greater or lesser communities of Christian believers. There are few general or abstract terms which have been more perverted and abused than this of the word Church. From this perversion and abuse the Oxford divines are by no means exempt. In saying this I do not mean that, when formally defining the word, they are so absurd as to give it a meaning altogether different from that which is its undoubted signification, but that in the abstract form in which they so commonly use it, it appears as the representative of some mystical entity, what it is no one can tell, or where it is no one can say,—whose voice, as declared by them, is to awe and subdue the minds of the people into reverential acquiescence and obedience.

What then is the original and scriptural meaning of this word Church? I answer, that in its original acceptation it signified an assembly of any kind ; afterwards, and among the first Christians, it came to signify an assembly for religious purposes,-for Christian devotion and instruction. In the New Testament we find it used in two senses, denoting sometimes a particular society of Christians meeting together in one place, and sometimes the whole body of Christians considered in their collective capacity. Thus we read of "the Church at Jerusalem," "the Church at Antioch," "the Church of Ephesus," meaning the different societies of Chris