Now, to my mind, such a canon is a horrible usurpation and tyranny, to which no Christian should ever submit. What! for such a man as the venerated Dr. Milnor, or Leigh Richmond, in the habit of praying without book, and entirely capable of pouring out his soul in warm, living language; for such a man, under circumstances of peculiar interest, or of great and startling emergency; or after a sermon, when sinners are awakened, and in tears, to be told, No, you must not offer an extemporary prayer; the canon forbids it! You shall be liable never to be allowed to preach the Gospel more, if you transgress the canon! For such a man, and for the congregation, too, while the spirit within him is groaning for utterance, to be limited to a rescript, formal, general Collect, of no adaptedness to the occasion! What is it but the grossest tyranny! an insult to God! an outrage upon the dearest rights of man! How nearly it savors of the proceeding of Darius the king, when, at the instigation of the presidents, governors, and princes, he made a " Decree that whosoever should ask a petition of any God or man, save of the king, for thirty days, should be cast into the den of lions." What right has the Church to prescribe prayers more than sermons? Why might she not, with the same propriety, prescribe a sermon-book; and decree by canon, that if any warm-hearted minister should presume to venture an exhortation, not prescribed in the book, hre should be cast out of the Church, or silenced, according to the canon?

How often is the Prayer-Book lean and barren, when compared with the occasion? I remember one gloomy Sabbath morning during the last war with Great Britain, when every man capable of bearing arms was summoned from my native village to meet the invading foe;-how desolate the Sanctuary seemed when none but the aged, the women, and the children were there; what tears were shed; what stifled sobs were heard, when the minister poured forth his prayer adapted to the dangers of their loved ones, and to the sorrows and fears of those who remained. I remember hearing the people in a town on the shores of Lake Champlain, near the northern line of Vermont, tell,-how on the 14th of September, 1814-when nearly all their men were gone across the lake to meet the overwhelming force of the enemy, who were only waiting the coming up of the fleet, to begin the combat; on the morning of that Sabbath, the British fleet was descried sweeping by; and as the bell was tolling for public worship, the roar of the battle began; they saw the smoke; they heard the distant thunder; their husbands and fathers and brothers were there. The man of God entered with a firm step into the place of worship, and without taking his seat, or a moment's pause-lifted up his hands and said, LET

US PRAY. Nor while that combat raged, did he cease to pray. nor the anxious congregation to mingle their tears and sobbings with their prayers. O, for the Church to come in with its canons at such a time: and say to the man of God, Here, take the book; the Church forbids you to call upon God, save only in this rescript form! Who is the Church, that comes thus to interfere with individual ministers and congregations; and to stand between their souls and the Throne, when they assemble to worship God?-But this inquiry belongs to another place, in which we trust it will appear that Christ has left no such authority-no such" Church" on earth, as the authority by which these canons and liturgies are framed and imposed.

But supposing, as we do at present for the argument's sake, that what claims to be " The Church" is such in reality, and may rightfully exercise ecclesiastical powers: even on this supposition, Christ has given no power of prescribing liturgies and ceremoaies for the worship of God, to any human authority. The commission to the Apostles was (and surely none may go beyond this)" Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." No Church authority, therefore, may go beyond, and charge upon the conscience, or lay an incumbrance upon the worship of God, beyond what Christ has commanded. John Cotton has well remarked on this passage, "if the Apostles teach people to observe more than Christ has commanded, they go beyond their commission; and a larger commission than that given to the Apostles, nor Elders, nor Synods, nor Churches can challenge."

But it is said that the Church has authority to order IN THINGS INDIFFERENT. Who is to judge whether the thing imposed be indifferent? Does the Church then judge a liturgy to be indifferent? Sponsors in baptism; and other things which she prescribes for the worship of God, and for the Sacraments;-does she judge these all indifferent? Under this notion of indifference were brought in all the mummeries of Rome; and Rome, as well as the English Church, judged that she had a right to overrule all scruples of conscience, as to what things were, or were not indifferent.

But imposing things indifferent is more than Apostles durst do; for when certain from Judea told the disciples of Antioch that they must be circumcised, and advice was asked of the Church at Jerusalem with the Apostles and elders; these having the Holy Ghost, concluded to lay upon them no greater burden than some แ NECESSARY things." Who now may go beyond, and impose things unnecessary, i. e. things indifferent? "What charter," says Stillingfleet, "has Christ given the Church, to bind men up to more than himself hath done? or to exclude those from

*

her society, who may be admitted to heaven. Will Christ ever thank men, at the great day, for keeping such out from communion with his Church, to whom he will vouchsafe (not only) crowns of glory; but it may be aureola, golden too, if there be any such there?" "The grand commission with which the Apostles were sent out, was only to teach what Christ had commanded them. Not the least intimation of any power given them to impose anything beyond what he himself had spoken to them, or they were directed by the immediate guidance of the Spirit of God." There were diversities of practice and varieties of observances among Christians; but the Holy Ghost never thought those things ought to be made matters of laws." "The Apostles valued not indifferences at all," "and what reason is there why men should be so strictly tied up to such things, which they may do, or let alone, and yet be very good Christians still?" "Without all controversy, the main inlet of all the distractions, confusions, and divisions of the Christian world, hath been by adding other conditions of Church communion than Christ hath done." "Would there even be less peace and unity in a Church, if a diversity were allowed as to practices supposed indifferent? Yea, there would be so much more as there was a mutual forbearance and condescension as to such things. The unity of a Church is a unity of love, and of doctrine, not a BARE UNIFORMITY of practice, or of opinion."

The remarks of Owen on this question are also in point. "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you-Пavra doa. The commission goes no further. Let the Liturgy be tried by this rule; and I cannot but admire, with what peace and satisfaction to their own souls, men can pretend to act as by commission from Christ, as the chief administrators of his government and worship on earth, and make it their whole business almost, TO TEACH MEN TO DO AND OBSERVE WHAT HE NEVER COMMANDED; and rigorously to inquire after and into their own commands, whilst those of the Lord Jesus are openly neglected."

But it is alleged that the Scripture says "Let all things be done decently and in order." This only forbids things disorderly and indecent in the worship of God. Within the wide range of what is orderly and decent, it leaves people entirely free. It can give no authority to impose a Liturgy, till it is first decided that to worship God without a Liturgy is disorderly and indecent, and subversive of the ends of worship. The remarks of John Cotton on this point are to the point and conclusive. "Suppose the Church of Corinth (or any other Church or Synod) should enjoin upon their ministers to preach in a gown. Å gown is a

decent garment to preach in, yet such an injunction is not grounded upon that text of the Apostle; for then a minister neglecting to preach in a gown would neglect the commandments of the Apostle, which indeed he doth not. For if he preach in a cloak he preacheth decently enough, and that is all which the Apostle's canon reacheth."

The DUTY of worshipping God involves the RIGHT to worship him according to our own conscience and His holy Word. It frees us from all Liturgies and ceremonies imposed by man. › In imposing such things by all the penalties within her power, and in debarring all who will not use these Liturgies and ceremonies, from the common privileges of Christianity, the Episcopal Church, as well as the Roman, while she claims to be exclusively THE CHURCH," is, according to her ability, a great persecutor and a schismatic. She has usurped Christ's prerogatives, and his people's rights; she hinders and forbids Christ's people from a free and conscientious discharge of the duties required of them. If they will not submit to her usurpations, she will, as much as in her lies, debar them from all Church privileges and ordinances, and deny them all participation in the public worship of God.

Ought there to be a doubt that this part of her settled policy and law, is a criminal usurpation, which no Christian should either submit to or abet-a course of policy and law, which that Church is bound forthwith to reform, and for whose past enormities she ought to humble herself in deep repentance? To deny men their civil rights is something; to plunder men of their property by highway robbery is something; but to usurp the rights of conscience in the matter of worshipping God, and in such a matter to "frame iniquity by law," is an outrage which ought no longer to be perpetrated by anything that claims to be The Church of Christ.

Examination of the grounds on which the Puritan Churches are charged

as schismatical. The Prelatical Doctrine of Schism tested by Scripture. Singular scheme for restoring a visible Unity. Scriptural view of Schism.

A GREAT outcry is made about the SIN OF SCHISM. Our Puritan Fathers, and all who worship God, save in the forms and under the authority of Prelacy, are denounced as SCHISMATICS.

The grounds on which these charges are made, are variousour accusers not appearing to have well digested the principles on which they would determine in what the sin consists; and, for that reason, laying down now one basis, and now another; consistent with themselves in nothing, save that in all shifting and changes, they keep still upon ground which would hand over the whole Christian world to despotism and darkness.

What is that guilty schism which is charged upon us? If you inquire of the books and missiles in which that charge is so currently made, you will find its essence to consist in one of these three particulars:

1. The breaking away of any body of Christians from the customs, or rule, of the Catholic, or Universal Church:

2. Worshiping God in public, or socially, without conformity to the Liturgy, or rituals of the National Church: or,

3. Departing from the authority of the Diocesan Bishop of the particular territory: or in not maintaining communion with, and subjection to, some Prelate of the Apostolical succession.

With regard to the FIRST of these grounds, we answer (1.) That if Schism consists in breaking away from the AUTHORITY of the so called Universal or Catholic Church-viz. the authority of a Catholic organization, having an earthly head, or bearing earthly rule over all Christians; then neither we nor our Episcopal brethren recognize any such organization or authority. The New Testament knows nothing of it. Nobody claims it, save Anti

christ.