Bishop BURNET.

"Whatever some hotter spirits have thought of this since that time, yet we are very sure, that not only those who penned the Articles, but the body of this Church for above half an age after, did, notwithstanding those irregularities, acknowledge the foreign Churches, so constituted, to be true Churches, as to all the essentials of a Church."

Dr SHERLOCK.

"I am sure that is not a safe communion where there is not a succession of apostolical doctrine; but whether the want of a succession of bishops will, in all cases, unchurch, will admit of a greater dispute. I am sure a true faith in Christ, with a true Gospel conversation, will save men; and some learned Romanists defend that old definition of the Church, that it is cætus fidelium, the company of the faithful, and will not admit bishops or pastors into the definition of a Church."

Dr CLAGGET.

"From the apostles' times till the Council of Trent, the constant universal doctrine concerning the Church was this, that it is the society of the faithful, without ever inserting into the definition of it any thing relating to its being united to the pope, or any other bishop, as to a visible head."

Testimonies to the same purport might be multiplied indefinitely; but these may suffice to show that the Church of England is not chargeable with the illiberal doctrine of the Oxford school. They have been adduced for this end, not to prove that her divines were opposed to Episcopacy or indifferent to it, but that they adhered to it in such a sense as left them free to acknowledge other societies as true Churches of Christ. You may further consult, if you find it necessary,

Bishop PEARSON on the Holy Catholic Church.
Bishop BURNET on the Nineteenth Article.

CHILLINGWORTH, chap. v.

USHER on Episcopacy, &c.; and
HOOKER'S Ecclesiastical Polity.

I may add, that, in present circumstances, nothing can be more useful than a familiar acquaintance with the writings of the first English Reformers; and that you will find copious selections from them, in a very convenient form, in the twelve volumes of British Reformers published by the Tract Society.-I am, my dear Sir, &c.

LETTER III.

SECTARIAN EXCLUSIVENESS.

MY DEAR SIR,

It has been justly remarked, that "many persons, perhaps most, are tolerant or intolerant, according to their respective tempers, and not according to their principles." And hence, while some who have held latitudinarian views, have been violent persecutors,others, who have advocated strict, and even exclusive opinions, have been mild and liberal, both in their language and conduct. The tendency, however, of such high Church views as are promulgated in the Oxford Tracts, is to produce intolerance; and although in some cases that tendency may be counteracted, either by constitutional mildness, or the influence of Divine grace, it will manifest itself, in others, where it is less restrained, by a spirit of exclusive sectarianism, utterly opposed to the catholic spirit of the Gospel. And even in the selfsame mind there will often be a sore struggle between the cold bigotry of the head and the warmer feelings of the heart.

You will have no difficulty, I think, in discovering some traces of this tendency, and even perhaps of this struggle, in the Tracts for the Times. There is even an appearance of inconsistency in the way in which they speak of those who dissent from the Episcopal Church. Sometimes they are more liberal and indulgent, at other

times more stern and inflexible, as if either the Tracts were written by men of different tempers, or, if by the same individual, yet in very different moods of mind. There is occasionally an obvious reluctance to carry out their principles to the full extent of their legitimate application, and an effort, either to evade the avowal of it, or to screw up their courage to make it. Thus, while they lay it down as a maxim, that " as the sacraments, so communion with THE CHURCH is generally necessary to salvation in the case of those who can obtain it,” *. -a maxim which, when embraced with their definition of the Church as "the Church visible with its BISHOPS, priests, and deacons," might seem to exclude all except Episcopalians from the hope of salvation; yet, when the question is put, "Do you then unchurch all Presbyterians-all Christians who have no bishops?"-the answer is, "We do not exclude them from salvation; necessary to salvation, and necessary to Church communion, are not to be used as convertible terms."+ But again, there is a struggle betwixt this liberal feeling and the less liberal opinion which cannot coalesce with it. "Do we not hover about our ancient home, the home of Cyprian and Athanasius, without the heart to take up our abode in it, yet afraid to quit the sight of it; boasting of our Episcopacy, yet unwilling to condemn Separatism; claiming a descent from the apostles, yet doubting of the gifts attending it; and trying to extend the limits of the Church for the admission of Wesleyans and Presbyterians, while we profess to be exclusively primitive? Alas! is not this to witness against ourselves, like coward sinners who hope to serve the world, without giving up God's service." And so, on the whole, they seem to have resolved, although it might. be after an inward struggle, that "by showing a bold front, and defending the rights of the Church, we are taking the only course which can make us respected." §

It is true they protest against the charge of bigotry * No. 2, p. 3. + No. 4, p. 6. No. 25, p. 3. § No. 2, p. 4.

or intolerance; and one of their Tracts is entitled, “The Catholic Church a Witness against Real Illiberality." And what is their defence? 66 Bigotry or intolerance is the disposition to make unimportant points important, but the Catholic Church acts on the principle of insisting on no points but such as are of importance." "This is shown in the case of the parties within the Church, as well as the heresies and sects external to it, e. g., the Augustinians, the Jansenists, or the Arminians, among ourselves." "She can afford to receive within her pale varieties of opinion, imposing on its members, not agreement in minor matters, but a charitable forbearance and mutual sympathy," -an admirable proof of the latitudinarianism of a Church, but none of her liberality. Within her own pale she can tolerate much; beyond it, nothing, at least under the name of a Church. Acknowledge her bishops, and you may be a disciple of Augustine, or of Arminius, as you please, and yet be a good Christian; but cease to be a Churchman, and, whether Calvinist or Arminian, you must consent to be called a schismatic and an alien.

The Oxford writers speak much of the CATHOLICITY of the Church; but their peculiar views cannot be consistently maintained without destroying that noble and elevating doctrine, and engendering a spirit of EXCLUSIVE SECTARIANISM. They have no pretensions to the name of "The Catholic Church." They cut themselves off from the fellowship and sympathy of all other Churches, and seem even to glory in their isolation, saying, “The peculiarity of our reformation corresponded with the place assigned to us by God's providence, as an islandpeople, and both with God's blessing,- This people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.' This is the natural fruit-not of a belief in Episcopacy as a useful, or even as a divinely instituted office in the Christian Church,-for that belief may be entertained consistently with the maintenance of a truly * No. 82, p. 33.