\\ v; ii J I w LETTER TO A FRIEND PUSEYISM. BY MACLEOD WYLIE, ESQ. BARRISTER AT LAW. " Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."— Colossians ii. 8. *' Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying -which is in faith." — 1 Timothy i. 4. " The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul : the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." — Psalm xix. ?. LONDON : PUBLISHED BY L. AND G. SEELEY, 169,. FLEET STREET; AND SOLD BY - ' ' W. H. DALTON, COCKSPUE-STREET ; AND F. BAISLER, 124, OXFOED-STRKET. 1842. (one shilling.) PRINTED BY I.. AND G. SEELEY, THAMES DITTON, SURREY. A LETTER, My Dear Friend, The subject of the following pages has so long ceased to be a topic of conversation between us, that I am uncertain whether your sentiments respecting it, remain altogether unchanged. But I fear that they are still entirely unaltered. In the good providence of our God, who fixes the bounds of our habitation (Acts xvii. 26.) my feet are now directed towards a foreign land ; and it may be, that in the flesh, we shall meet no more. I vnsh, therefore, at parting, to address you again, respect ing the difierence, in things of vital interest to us both and to all men, which unhappily exist between us ; and to endeavour in a spirit of afiection and faithfulness, to lay before you my humble objections to your opinions. In doing so, 1 frankly own, that I make no pretensions to human learning, and that I can advance little or nothing beyond those reasons, which, by far abler men, have been already stated. Yet, as I feel that you, and probably some more of my friends, may be inclined, at least patiently, to read a letter, and that, a parting one, from me, and as I know that the Lord often works by very feeble instruments, I am emboldened to write and to publish this short appeal. I understand that the corner-stone of your system is the au thority of the Church ; the corner-stone of mine is Christ. You are zealous for things ecclesiastical; I venture to treat them as of slight importance, when compared with things spiritual. You advocate a joint rule of faith — the Bible and Tradition ; I say A that ' the Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants.' You tell me, that those churches only, are branches of the Church of Christ which are governed by bishops, deriving succession from the apostles ; I believe, that the Church of Christ consists of " all those who do confess God's holy name," (Communion Service) whether they were baptized by Felix Nefi", or the Arch bishop of Canterbury, — whether converts, renewed in the spirit of their minds, by the preaching of a Presbyterian Brainerd, or the writings of an Archbishop Leighton. You mourn over the ' schism ' of dissenters in your neighbourhood, while I, knowing something of the circumstances of that neighbourhood, rejoice that " Christ is preached " by them, " yea, and will rejoice." You leave such, however holy, however zealous, however much honoured in an attendant blessing on their labours, to " the uncovenanted mercies of God ; " while I acknow ledge as brethren, " all who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity." You call the Lord's Supper ' a feast upon a sacri fice,' the minister ' a priest,' and the table an ' altar ;' I know of no sacrifice on earth but the " sacrifice of praise and thanksgiv ing," and I believe all true Christians are priests who ofier that : I know of no other sort of earthly priests (in the sense of ' one who oSers a sacrifice,') and I know of no earthly altar. You consider the reading of the Liturgy, and the administration of the Sacraments, the minister's chief duty ; I regard preaching as his principal and most important labour. You think that all infants baptized by a minister duly appointed, are necessarily regenerate, and in that sacrament, are " translated out of the kingdom of Satan, into the kingdom of God's dear son ;" while I believe none to be so regenerate, who do not, by the fruits of a holy life and conversation, and by striving against sin, prove that they are the temples of the Holy Ghost. These are, I believe, some of the main difierences between us ; expressed (so far as I am able to express them) without any straining of your sentiments, or of my own. Now, I do not wish to enter into them in detail, but rather to strike at the root, and to ask how is it, that two persons, professing, both of them, to be anxious and sincere inquirers, should think so difierently? The answer is, I apprehend, that your creed is founded on ' the teaching of the Church'— mine on the Bible only. It IS clear that one of us must be very far wrong. But we agree in thinking religion " the one thing needful ;" and our differences relate to that subject. One of us, therefore, must be in essential error, and in consequent spiritual danger. How important then is it, to approach the consideration of the matter in a spirit of earnest and humble prayer, — and in simpli city and godly sincerity ! May the spirit of truth direct us, en lighten our understandings, and " teach us to profit !" You hold your present doctrines, because, you say, they are ' the teaching of the Church ;' and you think, that it is the duty of every Christian to obey that teaching. Then, let me ask you, what would have been your creed in the year 800, or at any time from that period down to the Reformation ? I am sure, you will admit, that during that period the Church of Rome, (being then the teacher of nearly all professed Christians) taught very many awful heresies, and made void the law through its tra ditions, " teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." You will admit that the Church of Rome introduced and encou raged idolatry, overturned the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone, and taught very many things which you and those who agree with you, profess to think, were not sanctioned by what you call ' Catholic antiquity, ' any more than by the word of God. Now I ask you, what, in any period of the Church of Rome's corrupt supremacy, ought to have been the doctrine of a chris tian respecting Justification, Purgatory, the Invocation of Saints, Prayer for the Dead, Transubstantiation, and Celibacy of the clergy ? You will either tell me he ought then to have believed what his priest, and the then church taught him — in which case, you know, he would have been led into grievous errors ; or you will say, that he ought then to have appealed from the corrupt church to antiquity, and believed what the primitive Church taught and held. In that case he must have exercised his judgment to ascer tain that his church was wrong ; and if so, it appears, that christian people are to be allowed to judge of what the church they are members of, teaches ; and may go to the Fathers ; and are supposed to have sense enough to be able to form a judg ment as to what they read there, while they have not sense enough to understand for themselves the Bible ! Christians, ac cording to your system, are supposed to obey their appointed ministers, so long as they shall preach what the Church teaches; A 2 6 that is what the early Fathers unanimously agree upon as the faith. Whether their ministers do so preach, the people may judge by referring to those Fathers of the Primitive Church ; and the people are further permitted to examine for themselves what points these Fathers agree upon, that is, to form a judg ment as to what those points of agreement are ; while they, who are allowed to do this, are to deem themselves quite incapable of forming a judgment for themselves by reading the Bible, as to the doctrines of that blessed book. I cannot understand how those who deny the right of private judgment, and yet allow an appeal to the Primitive Fathers, can be deemed consistent. I apprehend that I am stating the case fairly. You do not want any one to be taught, or to believe, fundamental or vital errors or heresies, of any sort. Any Papist who is so taught, you would own has a right to try, whether such teaching is in deed " the voice of the Church." That, you say, he must ascer tain by Catholic antiquity, by the consent of the Fathers. He can only examine in this way for himself, by the exercise of his private judgment. Then how, when that right is once let in, is it afterwards to be excluded ? Or, with what semblance of con sistency can it be contended, that a man who is able to form a sufficient judgment as to what points there are, on which the ancient writers in their many volumes agree, is unable to form a sufficient judgment as to the meaning of the words of the Bible? I believe that, in both cases, a man will err, whose understand ing is not enlightened by the Holy Spirit. There is nothing in the Fathers more intelligible than the words of the inspired vo lume. There is no magic in the works of the Fathers, which renders them less " hard to be understood," than the words of the Bible. The Holy Spirit, in both cases, is the only sure teacher ; and the difference I take it, is, that in the case of the Fathers, the Spirit has given us no promise that He wiU use them for our instruction, while He Himself hath taught us, that the " Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation, through faith, which is in Christ Jesus." But, suppose the case of a man prior to the Reformation, who was taught by his priest to adore the Host ; to worship the Vir gin Mary ; to invocate saints ; to pray for the dead ; to believe in purgatory ; to trust in his own merit for salvation ; to shut himself up in a monastery ; and to resolve on leaving his pro- perty to be spent in procuring masses for the repose of his soul. Suppose this man to doubt "whether these things were so;" and to possess a Bible in his native tongue. Suppose him not to understand Greek. How could he appeal to primitive antiquity? He could not read the Fathers ; perhaps he could not afford to buy them. And yet with the Bible in his hand, he must not do as the Bereans so nobly (Acts xvii. 1 1) did, and bring his teach er's words to the test of " the law and the testimony," Suppose the case of a man in our own day, taught by his parish minister that all the wicked people in the parish who have been baptized, are regenerate and are children of God ; that the preaching of the Gospel is a subordinate part of the minister's duty ; that the Lord's table is an altar ; that all the dissenters he knows are schismatics ; that the Church of Scotland is in a state of schism, that a man must be sanctified before he can be justified ; that the Bible is not the only rule of faith and prac tice. Suppose this person referred for a confirmation of these doctrines, to the voice of the Church. It will not be denied that he would be entitled to ascertain what this voice really spoke, and if he could buy and read them, he would be at liberty to examine the Fathers. But if he could not do either, then per haps he might refer to the works of learned men ; and there, he would find, that Archbishop Cranmer, Archbishop Ussher, ' the learned Selden,' ' the ever-memorable- John Hales,' Dr. Light- foot, Chillingworth, Bishop Jewell, Joseph Mede, Archbishop Leighton, Bishop Hall, Baxter, Dr. Adam Clarke, and many more, whose learning could not perhaps be easily surpassed, differed most materially, some of them, on all of these points, and some of them on a few of the points, from Archbishop Laud, Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Bishop Bull, Dr. Heylin, Dr. Thorndike, Dr. Hammond, and Mr. Law. In these days particularly he would find Mr. Faber and Dr. O'Brien (the present Bishop of Ossory) two men of acknowledged piety and learning, differing as to the primitive doctrine of Justification with Mr. Newman and Dr. Pusey. And then again, he would find all these writers united together, in opposition to all the Romish divines, from Bellar mine and Bossuet, down to Milner and Dr. Wiseman, on the subject of ' the Voice ofthe Primitive Church,' as to the points in difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome. Those who agree with you, are apt to object to allowing the Bible to be the only rule of faith and practice, on the ground that so many differences of opinion have arisen among Protes tants, who have exercised the right of private judgment. You point to Calvinists and Arminians, to Baptists, Quakers, Indepen dents, and Presbyterians, and appear to think that if such a rule is so little a certain one, it cannot be a safe one. I am very sure that if the argument be worth any thing, it is equally strong against your joint rule of faith and practice. The differences among learned men as to what tradition teaches, prove pretty clearly, that to learned men as authorities respecting the voice of " Catholic Antiquity," no anxious inquirer can go for a solution of his difficulties. And yet it is on these learned men that all who do not understand Greek, must rely. But then, I know, that it is common to refer to the supposed fact, that Christians now practise Infant Baptism, receive the Canon of Scripture, and observe the first day of the week as the Sabbath, on the authority of the Church ; and it is inferred that if the authority of the Church be good for one thing it must be good for another. Nothing can be more illogical. I find a practice among Christians of baptizing infants ? Why do I ap prove of it ? Because I go to the Scripture, and find there abun dantly sufficient to justify such a practice, and nothing to forbid it. I find, I repeat, quite enough to show, at least to me, that such a practice is not contrary to the mind and will of God. And therefore only, I acquiesce in the practice. But many persons I love and honour, think the practice unscriptural. Am I to deem them heretics ? Am I to question or doubt the fact, that John Bunyan and Robert Hall, Dr. Carey and Andrew Fuller, were true members of the Church of Christ ; or to in sist upon their adopting this ancient practice, when I myself own that though it may be justified by Scripture, it is not in the Scriptures any where expressly commanded ? Surely, if I adopt this practice, because it is thus justifiable, and for this reason only, I am not bound to adopt any other practice or principle, though generally used, either formerly or at present, in the Church of Christ, if such other practice or principle will not abide the test of a reference to the law and to the testimony. In the same way I reply to the argument in favour of the authority of the Church, which is drawn from our observing the Sabbath on the first day of the week. I find that that practice also is not unscriptural, but rather is dearly to be justified out of the word of God. And then as to the Bible : Suppose it true, that I acknow ledge certain writings and none other, to be inspired, because the Church thinks so. What then ? For my own part how ever, I must premise, that I do not, on the sole ground of the authority of the universal assent of Christians, acknowledge the canon of Scripture ; I rather hold that to all who believe in the Son of God, the Scriptures of truth must appear to possess adequate internal evidence of their inspiration. Every true be liever, I doubt not, feels that the " law of the Lord is perfect," and finds it " sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb." (Psalm xix. 10.) But 1 say, suppose we take the Bible as the word of God because the Church says that it is so, and for that reason only. What then ? If it 6e the word of God, then I am to give it implicit credence, and to believe nothing contrary to what it says. The character of being the word of God which the Church herself has given it, forbids that Church teaching any thing contrary to its divine and perfect precepts. If I find that this word of God tells me that it is to be interpreted by the Church, then and then only, to the Church I will go for its interpretation. If it do not tell me to go to the Church for its interpretation, but to " search the scriptures," to " seek out of the book of the Lord and read ; " if it tell me how noble were the Bereans, because they searched the Scriptures to see if what even an apostle taught them, " were so ; " then woe is me ! if I do not diligently use the Scriptures, as the lamp to my feet and the light to my path ! When it is shown to me that this word of God contains directions to me to go to any human au thority whatever for its elucidation, then to that human au thority, whatever it may be, I hope humbly and cheerfully to go. But while the Church tells me that the book she gives me is the word of God, she cannot presume to force on me any other guide, which that book does not sanction. Then, the question is, does the Bible, in point of fact, point to, and sanction any mode of interpreting its contents ? The question is not, do the Fathers say that the Church is to interpret the Scriptures ; no ; but, does the Bible say so ? If it do, then I own is the right of private judgment excluded, — then is the Bible not the sole rule of faith and practice. And whether it do say so, or 10 whether it do not, is a point which every Christian to whom the Church accredits the Bible as the word of God, must be allowed from that word of God to ascertain. To give the Bible, and then, as of course, to claim a right to interpret its contents, is plainly in itself unjustifiable. The right of the Church to in terpret the Scriptures, cannot possibly rest on any interpreta tion of the Scriptures by the Church, unless indeed we think it proper to reason in a circle. For it would be absurd to say that the Church is the interpreter of Scripture; the Church says that the Scriptures teach that the Church is to interpret Scripture ; — therefore. Scripture says that the Church is to interpret Scripture. To assume as premises, a foregone conclu sion ; and then, by that assumption, to succeed in arriving at that conclusion, (being the point from which we started) is a mode of reasoning, which I well know that you would be among the first to ridicule as absurd. My dear friend, it is the characteristic and peculiarity of Christianity that it is adapted to the poor. One of the signs of His being " He who should come," which our blessed Lo:fd vouchsafed to give the disciples of John the Baptist, was, that " the poor " had " the Gospel preached to them." So in like manner the poor in these days find the Scriptures to be indeed of all writings in the world, the most plain to their comprehen sion. There may be things in them which they, as well as other people cannot, as yet, fully understand — words relating to " the secret things" which " belong unto the Lord" — words relating to future events (to which, however obscure, we are nevertheless commanded to " take heed,") or words relating to the purposes, and decrees, and electing love of God. But re specting these things. Catholic Antiquity is to the poor no accessible authority ; and certainly the learned are no safe guides ; for sure I am that they are very much unsettled among themselves, on many points, concerning which, they might often derive useful knowledge from the simple and the poor. Your system would leave the poor man to collect his theology from the teaching of a minister, without appeal to that blessed book, which probably is the only book in all the world he pos sesses or can understand ; and would give him, instead of that appeal, a reference to " Catholic antiquity " and " the consent of the fathers," — a reference which I have shewn must lead to 11 bewilderment in the controversies of the learned. For my part, I own that I object to ' theology,' so called, being so highly exalted, and scriptural Christianity being so lightly esteemed ; I lament to see a learned preferred to a holy and spiritual clergy ; and I do earnestly hope that all who, like yourself, are in these days of novelty, following the guidance of those who are famous for the wisdom and learning of this world, may be led, ere long, more adequately to value " the foolishness of preaching," whereby chiefly, in all ages of his church it has pleased God, " to save them that believe." You will then, I hope, look very differently on all, whatever they may call themselves ; however weak some of their scruples may be, who, though they do not approve of our church's discipline, preach in simplicity the doctrines of her articles and homilies and creeds ; and will rejoice to find their preaching so acceptable, and so useful to the poor. The state of this country with her teeming population of immortal beings, so many of whom are left by the church (I speak of the fact, without now adverting to how it has arisen) as sheep without a shepherd in crowded manufacturing towns, or, which is, perhaps worse, in rural villages supplied with the ministrations only, it may be, of a sporting clergyman or the casual attendance of a pluralist, is a theme for mournful and deep reflection. Shall we venture to deny the right of holy men to teach these be nighted souls the way of eternal life ; shall we who with all our fellow-countrymen, rich and poor, so soon must stand before the judgment seat of Christ, shall we dare to forbid that man casting out devils, who, with the zeal of an apostle, and with the gifts, the graces, and the fruits of the Spirit of God evident in his life and conversation, devotes himself to the conversion of sinners, and the edification of God's people ? It may be very true (I fear it is) that among dissenters, some preach the gospel of " contention ; " but it is unfortunately as true that some also among the church preach, (I will not say, they preach the gospel) for filthy lucre's sake. And I cannot understand that charity, which sees the fault in the one class, and passes over it in the other — which indiscriminately deals with the first as schismatics, and with the second as successors of the apostles. No ! rather let us be thankful, whatever we may think of a suc cession of persons from the apostles, that the Lord continues to the poor, the succession of doctrine ; and generation after gene- B 12 ration has fed his people, and gathered into his fold the wander ing and the lost, by the means as well of the baptist missionary and the presbyterian minister, as the faithful bishop or the zea lous curate. I repeat that the gospel is adapted to the poor and unlearned. Of such the mass of the world consists. Thanks be to God, the gospel is to all who believe, whether wise or foolLsh, the wisdom and the power of God ! It speaks (so far as I have known and felt it) of a simple path ; of a single way ; of a high priest in the heavens ; a life of faith on earth ; the necessity of a new birth ; and of holiness, without which, no man shall see the Lord. I look in the Bible in vain, under the Christian dispensation, for any honour placed on the wise of this world. I find something very contrary indeed to the opinion that such are those whom the Lord commonly "calls" (I Corin. i. 26); and I look like wise in vain for any sanction of the hypothesis, that any who love the Lord Jesus, are depending on " uncovenanted mercies." And I speak as an unlearned man. I sympathize with those who ' know, and know but this ; their Bible true,' and who value that book dearer than their lives, for that, they know, that it is able to save their souls (James i. 21), and " to make them wise unto salvation." {2 Tim. iii. 15.) I press the consideration of the condition of the poor under your sj'stem, because it strikes me as very important. For my part I never met among the poor with a Puseyite ; yet I have known many poor, "rich in faith," who doubtless will sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, when many who are first shall be last — men whose bibles had instructed them in all saving knowledge of the truth, and who out of that book drew daily supplies of nourishment for their souls. It is such men who practically preach against the doctrines of tractarianism ; who evidently are walking with God in the light of his countenance, and whose minds are illuminated with the divine knowledge ; who never heard of the fathers ; who never thought whether their minister preached agreeably to the voice of Catholic anti quity, but rather inquired whether he preached what they read in their Bibles ; who prayed, if he did, that he so who watered others might be watered also himself (Proverbs xi. 25) ; and for whom, if he did not, they prayed still, but taking heed what they heard (Mark iv. 24) went elsewhere (it may be to dissent- 13 ing chapels) there to hear " the joyful sound." I ask you how your system could apply to such as these ? In order to such an application they must be taught to unlearn what their Bible teaches them, and must be referred to a Catholic antiquity to -which they can by possibility have no access. Now such is not the tendency of the doctrines I would recom mend. When we say that the Bible "containeth sufficiently all things necessary to salvation," * we refer to that standard of truth which is unquestionably infallible, which has been the means of the conversion of myriads, which was given and provided for the edification of God's people. It may be, that those who take that book, as their sole rule of faith and practice, may differ ; but God can and will take care of his own church. It is not because you see the ark trembling, that you are to supply it with a support it does not really need, and which God has not appointed. You may deem your device for pre serving union very complete — a successive priesthood and a visible church speaking by definite accredited authorities. But " the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." (1 Cor. iii. 19.) Your plans for union always have failed and always will. " He that handleth a matter wisely shall find good, and whoso trusteth in the Lord happy is he." (Proverbs xvi. 20.) The world, with out so trusting in the Lord, thinks it handles matters wisely in many things, which result, however, in defeat, mortification, and constant proofs that the wise are taken in their own craftiness. (Job V. 13.) Thus the popish church (" drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus," Rev. xvii. 6,) promoted ' unity ' by its horrible persecutions, but found that ' the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church.' The Presbyterians in the 17th century, grossly oppressed the Church of England, with the same aim and the same success. The act of uniformity was passed to force ' unity,' but lo ! nearly all the dissent we have in England sprang from it. And, now-a-days, what can be the result of exalting forms and ceremonies which " all are to perish in the using," and of magnifying human authority, and teaching men to drink not of the wells of salva tion, but of the ' dirty puddles of men's traditions,' and of hold ing forth even ungodly clergymen as the successors of the Apostles, and as the only accredited ambassadors of Christ * See the Ordination Services, and the 6th Article of the Church of England. B 2 14 in the parish — what, I ask, must inevitably be the result of all this ? Not unity. Every one who will read his Bible and who drinks of the fountain of life, must know how wrong such fancies and practices are ; and. therefore, many by these things will be driven from the Church of England, for many will be weak enough to look not at the Church speaking for herself in her confessions of faith, and at her numerous, holy, and devoted ministers, and at the high honour the Lord has put upon her ; but at the persons who now arrogate to themselves unscriptural authority. The Church in all ages has contained very many weak believers, and many sound believers of simple minds ; but the Lord, nevertheless, will carry the lambs in his bosom (Isaiah xl. 11) and lead them into green pastures; and though these in seeking elsewhere the preaching of the gospel, may cause much disunion ; yet, believe me, the sin, if there be schism in their changes, will lie more at the doors of those who startled and drove out these persons, than with themselves. It is indeed useless to seek for outward unity below. In the Corinthian church some were of Paul, some of Apollos, some of Cephas. Disunion is to be lamented, no doubt ; but if we have the unity of the spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life, we may well be content and thankful. It is this which spiritual Christians in the Church now enjoy with many dis senters, and with many continental Protestants. But the Puseyite (I use not that term offensively) in his zeal for out ward unity excludes the more important unity— he has no fellowship with Oberlin in France, with Chalmers in Scotland, with the Missionary Williams, with Dr. Morrison in China — and while he, in his college, is dreaming of the unhappy state of these men, because they are out of episcopal jurisdiction, the Lord by them, and such as them is arousing and awakening a nation, or is sowing seed which will germinate throughout the world, and in all eternity. I should be thankful if I could hope that we shall ever see the day, when all true believers will agree in discipline, as well as in fundamental doctrine. But I have no such hope. Yet I doubt not, God's people will be led into all saving and necessary truth, and will " agree in the truth of His holy word." But as I know full well that the adoption of the joint rule of faith, (the Bible and Tradition,) would not in fact lead to more out- 15 ward unity, than the recognition of the Bible only ; I do not see why we should consent to change our doctrine. If your joint rule be a more certain rule, then why are the Puseyites and the Papist, who both acknowledge it, outwardly separate ? And if it be not a more certain rule of faith, how could it pro mote even outward unity ? We must, I fear, be well content, to find differences continue amongst Christians. Those who are strong must bear with the weak. There probably always will be those, for instance, whose views will differ respecting predes tination ; and those who will make such diff'erences, of suffi cient importance, to be the points of outward separation. You could not alter this by adopting another rule of faith, besides the Bible. Men might and would differ in their judgment as to what Tradition says, as well as to what the Bible teaches. They ever have done so, they do so now, and they ever will. The result of the doctrines I urge upon you, then, is not to increase disunion, — is not to supplant another doctrine, by which disunion would be prevented. No, it is simply to leave Chris tians to the word of God, as the standard of their faith. And surely here is no marvel. If apostles when they spoke, were understood by all who heard, why should they be less compre hensible in their writings ? If men do not agree when they have one book only to refer to, and that the word of God, — how can they be expected to agree, when besides that book, they have many more ? Moreover, the Bible contains truth, without any mixture of, error. That cannot be asserted, and is not asserted, respecting the Fathers. Many of the Fathers advocated celibacy and monachism, and some, as Tertullian, and Origen, and Eusebius, were, as you are aware, unsound in some important articles of faith. What security for additional good can there be in re ferring men not to the Bible only, but to Bible and these Fathers ? I might support my view by one of those catalogues of great names of which the writers in the Oxford Tracts (calling each a catena patrum,) appear so fond. But this is not necessary, and there fore I will only add, that I am not advocating opinions unknown to the holy or the wise, inasmuch as I have the sanction, I be heve, of all or nearly all those, who have been most instrumental in promoting vital godliness in this kingdom. I apprehend that it will not be denied, that I may safely claim the sanction of 16 Archbishops Ussher and Leighton, of Bishops Hall, Reynolds, and Hopkins ; of Lightfoot, Howe, Baxter, Owen, Flavel, Matthew Henry, Bunyan, Doddridge, Watts, Wesley, Scott, Newton, Martyn, and Chalmers, among laymen of Sir Matthew Hale and Robert Boyle, of Howard and of Wilberforce — and I might add, of all the chief Reformers in England and abroad, — men " whose praise is in the churches." You may tell me, that the Churches in Geneva and in Ger many, had, a short time ago, sunk into a state of doubt ; and that these were churches professing to build on the Bible only, as their rule of faith. Might I not retort with the example of some of the seven churches, which nevertheless (accord ing to the episcopalian argument,) were founded by Apostles, and were governed by Bishops according to the apostolic order ; and by a reference to the Greek Church, which has erred, though according to the Puseyite argument, giving its authority in favor of the joint rule of faith ; by a similar reference to the Church of Rome ; and above all, by a reference to our own church, which in the course of the last century, had at least two Socinian Bishops on the bench, and which confessedly had fallen into torpor ? While on the other hand I might ask, if the adoption of the Bible only, as a rule of faith, be so sure to lead to uncertainty, — how it happens that in Scotland and among the Presbyterians of Ire land, there is in doctrine, such harmony, and as I humbly think, such soundness ? I am not aware how the difficulties of 3'our system can be overcome. If the poor and unlearned are to be instructed by their parish minister alone, speaking the voice of Catholic an tiquity, then supposing them not able to refer to that recondite thing themselves, they must depend on him. And in all candour let me ask, what is the security thus given ? I am, I hope, an attached member of the Church of England. But it is idle to deny, that the opponents of the circulation of the Bible without note or comment, were found among high churchmen, (now generally transformed into Puseyites) ; that those who resisted the revival of religion of which Wesley and Whitfield were the instruments, and persecuted those men, were of the same class ; that those against whose opposition, in point of fact, missions have been estabhshed ; the church building Acts to promote church extension were carried ; scriptural education has been en- 17 couraged ; the slave-trade and negro-slavery have been abolished, were of that class also. I look back to the time when a bishop ric in Ireland was not an unfrequent road to a wealthy peerage, and the rich Bishop of Derry lived at Rome ; when bishops in England died (not a few of them,) worth enormous sums of money ; when there were balls in Lambeth Palace, and farce and novel writers among the clergy ; when patronage was notoriously worse administered by the church dignitaries than by the Government or private patrons — though the Prime Minister himself was a Socinian ; and when pluralism and non residents abounded. And I come down to these days to regard some of the appointments of the late Government ; to see the Rev. Sidney Smith with " a cure of souls ; " to see bowings at the altar, and candles on it, and an exaltation of the clergy as if they were the Church, and forms preached instead of" Christ and him crucified : " to see also fox-hunting clergymen in some counties ; and further, to see such difference in opinion among the clergy, that I marvel how they can all continue members of the same church — some high Calvinists, some Arminians, some for Baptismal regeneration, some regarding it as a " pestilential error," — and seeing all these things, how is it reasonable to think a man necessarily in safe guidance, because preached to, and instructed by, a minister of the Church of England ? You may tell me that each minister is bound by the prayer-book, and that to that each man may refer for a statement of what the Church recognizes as primitive and catholic doctrine. But I find as much difference as to the doctrine of the Prayer Book, as I do among Dissenters themselves respecting the teaching of the Bible, in matters of discipline. Nay more, I find your own party declaring the Articles ofthe Church of England to be articles of comprehension, — drawn up for the very purpose of embracing as many persons of different opinions as possible. I find Tract No. 90, the organ of a very large body in the Church, contend ing for the right of members of the Church to interpret the Articles " in the sense of Catholic antiquity," not according to their plain and grammatical meaning. I see most singular diversities of opinion respecting the Baptismal regeneration, justification, apostolical succession, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and the doctrine of election among learned ministers of the Church, all of whom, however, equally appeal to the 18 book of Common Prayer, for a confirmation of those various opinions. Then whatsort of certainty is obtained by this appeal ? The scriptural rule is simple : " If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God." (1 Peter iv. 11.) " To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, itis because there is no light in them." (Isaiah viii. 20.) " Though we or an angel from heaven come and preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached, unto you, let him be accursed." (Gal. i. 8.) These are the words of the Spirit. Now mark how a man judges who refers to this infallible standard alone. You speak of Baptismal regeneration, and declare every in fant who is baptized by a minister episcopally ordained, to be re generated, and made a child of God, an heir of God, and a joint-heir with Christ. I turn to the Bible, — and find St. Paul telling Christian converts, that " neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." (Gal. v. 6.) I find Philip the deacon baptizing Simon Magus, and directly after, I find St. Peter declaring him to have neither part nor lot in the matter, and to be in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity. (Acts viii. 23.) I find that the cases in which re mission of sins attended Baptism, were the cases of adult be lievers, and that the result only ensued in the fulfilment of two prior conditions — faith and repentance. Not a word do I find of any man being regenerate and born again in baptism, with out fulfilling these conditions. I see that the Spirit " bloweth where it listeth," (John iii. 8.) and is like the wind, ungo- verned by man ; and then I wonder at men pretending to the power, by virtue of their office, of infallibly and invariably con veying that Spirit to whom they will. I read of Cornelius and his company being baptized by the Holy Ghost, before they were baptized with water. (Acts xi. 15, 16.) And turning to the world around me, and seeing it still "lying in wicked ness," (1 John V. 19.) seeing godless godfathers and godmothers promising they know not what, and performing none of their promises ; seeing myriads of baptized infants growing up into sinful men, and enemies of the cross of Christ ; yet, never theless, on the other hand, finding as happily we also do, in the narrow way of life, " here and there a traveller," and all such agreeing in their testimony to the fact, however it may be 19 ridiculed and gainsayed, that they have felt themselves altered beings, that " old things have passed away, and all things have become new; " (2 Cor. v. 17.) that they have another and a new comprehension conveyed to them of the things of the Spirit of God which formerly they understood not ; (1 Cor. ii. 14.) and finding all such, whatever their diff'erences, walking in holiness of life, generally in mean estate and condition, living in unity of spirit and in the bond of peace, though differing as to disci pline, — seeing all this, I say, can I with the Bible, and the Bible only, in my hand, put down all these men, who though much spoken against in their lives, are, I find, generally honoured when dead, as fanatics and enthusiasts, and as false witnesses ? Must I not rather acknowledge that the Lord is now working as He did in the days of the Apostles, and that salvation is "not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God who sheweth mercy." (Rom. ix. 16.) Then as to the preaching of the Gospel. I remember well the ' awe,' you expressed yourself to feel when you heard that a vei-y worthy man in your neighbourhood, a layman, was to preach a sermon in the Baptist chapel. Now this may be un- canonical, and ' Catholic antiquity ' so called, may have led you to feel much shocked. But the Bible does not appear to cause any such anxiety. When the persecution began in Jerusalem, and the disciples, who were then above five thousand in number, (Acts iv. 4, vi. 7) were all (except the apostles) scattered abroad, (Acts viii. 4.) they all went abroad preaching, and God blessed their labours. (A.ctsxi. 19 — 21.) These surely were not all ordained. Then again, when Apollos, whose praise is that " he was an eloquent man and mighty in the scriptures," and " instructed in the way of the Lord," and " fervent in spirit," heard of Jesus Christ from Aquilla and Priscilla, he without any commission from any apostle, went and preached the Gospel forthwith, and " mightily convinced the Jews." (Acts xviii. 26.) Moreover I read of a man who was casting out devils, and I hear the disciples asking our Lord to forbid him. The answer is, " Forbid him not, for he that is not against us is for us," (Luke ix. 50 ; and see also Mark ix. 39.) I find the household of Stephanas taking upon themselves the ministrations in the Corinthian Church, (1 Cor. xvi. 15.) What shall we say to these things ? Shall we venture to deny the work of the Holy 20 Ghost when we see it, in the conversion of sinners through the preaching of men not episcopally ordained ? Shall we forbid the casting out devils ? Shall we bid an Apollos be silent, al though he succeed in mightily convincing the Jews ? Shall we command the disciples, when scattered abroad, from making known the glad tidings to all people that, " God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever be lieveth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John iii. 16.) But alas ! we hear of a John Bunyan imprisoned many years because he would preach the Gospel, — that was the head and front of his offending; of a five mile act, for bidding any preaching by nonconformists within five miles of any corporate town. We find in these present days such men as Adam Clarke, Robert Hall, Williams the missionary. Dr. Carey, Clayton, Burder, Andrew Fuller, Jay, Bunting, Steinkoff, Neflf, treated as schismatics, and the Church of Scotland as " Samaria." Bring these things to the test of the law and the testimony — and then I wot not how we can thus make sad whom God has not made sad. (Ezek. xiii. 22.) I know that some will say that they do not deny the right of these men to preach, but that they merely deny their right to administer the sacraments. Now I humbly contend that much injury has already ensued, and much more must inevitably follow, this exaltation of the sacraments as if similar to sacrifices, and requiring the ministration of a priesthood analogous to the .Tewish, I cannot understand how it can be contended that those whom John Bunyan baptized, if they were in fact true believers, were less duly baptized than the Queen of England. And certainly anuncanonical style of baptism did not prevent the ' schismatics ' I have above enumerated and very many more being " baptized with the Holy Ghost," and promoting and extending the kingdom of their Father and our Father, and their God and our God. And here again I turn to the Scriptures, and I find Philip the deacon, who was ordained to no office except to serve tables, (Acts vi. 2.) bap tizing in Samaria, and baptizing the eunuch of Queen Candace. And it may be gathered from the epistle to the Corinthians, that St. Paul did not deem the unordained Apollos and Stephanas less duly authorized to perform all the functions of ministers, than even himself. Then for apostolical succession. I ain told that that only, is th