address God as their Father, to regard Christ as their Brother, as well as Redeemer, and the Holy Ghost as their in-dwelling companion and sanctifier."*

Turn we now to read the inscriptions written by the Bishop's finger on the standard of New Jersey Episcopacy; and here we see traced, in broad and legible lines, the following sentence:

"The true Catholic Pastor, who thus receives the Word of God, with the transmitted witness of the CHURCH; who guides himself by the Holy Scriptures, not as he understands them, but as Catholic antiquity has revealed, and as Catholic consent has kept their meaning; will be chastened and schooled by the submission of his judgment to the wise and good of every age, into the child-like spirit which God will bless."

And what says the Bishop of Ohio as he contemplates these doctrines, and gazes upon these unfurled standards? He lifts up his warning voice in solemn tones: "I am constrained to say that every further step has produced a deeper conviction on my mind," ** that "it is a systematic abandonment of the vital and distinguishing features of the Protestant faith; and a systematic adoption of the very root and heart of Romanism."

"A Gambier Romance," cries the editor of "The Churchman." "Slight shades of difference, which tincture the views of dif ferent members of our household of faith," re-echoes the Bishop of Connecticut.

There is one man more, whose name is as familiar in our Congregational and Presbyterian Churches as one of our household words; an aged and venerable man, whose life has been spent in a simple and faithful testifying of the truth as it is in Jesus; and who is now ready to descend into the grave,† followed by the lamentation-" My father! My father!" by thousands of the most devoted ministers of Christ in all communions; an able and a faithful man; a scribe well instructed in the law of God; that man we should like to hear if it may be, on these matters which are daily growing to be of so much consequence in the Episcopal Churches both of England and in the United States. What says the venerable DR. MILNOR of the system of doctrines emblazoned on these unfurled standards? Let us hear him :

"When I can bring my mind to believe, that instead of my Bible as the guide of my faith I am bound to dishonor this best of heaven's gifts, by admitting tradition to a co-equal rank; when my charity shall so fail that I can consign my fellow Christians of other names, whatever be the strength of their faith in Christ, and the holiness of their lives, to the uncovenanted mercies of God, because of their not belonging to a Church gov

"Charge" by Rt. Rev. T. C. Brownell, 1843. † Since deceased.

erned by bishops, consecrated by succession from the Apostles; when I dare assert that that order is requisite, not only to the perfection and completeness of a Christian Church, but to its very existence; when I am convinced that I must ascribe exclusively to the Apostolical Commission, the derivation of the grace of the Spirit and our mystical communion with Christ; to believe the truth that the sacraments of the Church are the ONLY CHANNELS whereby the gifts of the Holy Spirit are conveyed to men *** when I can be so presumptuous as to claim, as a minister of Christ, the power of personally absolving individuals from their sins. *** When I can make these admissions and subscribe these sentiments, I may join the ranks of the men of Oxford."

It is most obvious that the debates in the Episcopal Church at the present day, are but the revival of the same contest which Wickliffe, the Reformers, and the old Puritans maintained against the tenets which form the basis of the Romish apostasy. Is the Evangelical system of faith, in opposition to the Romish, consistent with the Prelatical claims? Can this controversy be long maintained without drawing into question the Prelacy itself, and the very dogmas concerning ordination, the sacraments, and apostolic succession, on which the Prelatical character and claims are made to rest? If I have scanned the lessons of history aright, the controversy, which is now rending the bowels of the Episcopal Church, is soon to be hushed up; the evangelical party are to be silent; and the whole body is quietly and imperceptibly to yield to the Tractarian tendency towards Romanism; or else the controversy is to follow in the track of the same old contest in the days of Wickliffe and the Puritans; and Prelacy itself is to be called in question in the end. If I have read history aright, the only alternative to the friends of Evangelical truth in that communion is, either finally to acquiesce in the prevalence and triumph of the principles which they now denounce as "the root and heart of Romanism," or like the old Puritans, to abandon the system of Prelacy itself and come out from the midst of her. Of the reasons for these conclusions, you shall judge in our survey of the course which this same controversy has repeatedly taken in days of old; and of the principles which must ever continue to turn it to that course.*

*

Let us turn from this digression. While Wickliffe turned his *The author was gratified, some months after the delivery of this lecture, in reading, in the New Englander, the able article of Mr. Barnes, on " The position of the Evangelical Party in the Episcopal Church," in which he discusses the question so conclusively, "whether the objects at which they aim, can be secured in that communion; or whether they do not necessarily meet with obstructions in the organization of this Episcopal Church, which will certainly prevent the accomplishment of those objects."

Since that time we have seen the leaders of that party avow themselves determined to bring the question to an issue; and declaring themselves ready rather to

3

Let us turn from this digression. While Wickliffe turned his artillery against the mendicant monks, his university, the regular clergy, and the people applauded. While he stood forth the champion of his country against the exactions of the Pope, his king and the parliament sustained him. The Pope, indeed, thundered out his anathemas, and denounced his death. But Wickliffe found those who were able, first to delay his trial, and afterwards to protect him. But when Wickliffe translated the Bible into the English tongue; when he poured the light of heaven upon the thick darkness that reigned around him; when the Romish clergy saw their superstitions likely to be undermined by a scheme of doctrine whose necessary result was to set the consciences of men free from the domination of ghostly power; and when in addition to all this, the prelates saw that the very basis of their prerogatives was likely to be overthrown and destroyed; then the life of Wickliffe was indeed in danger. The wrath of his enemies was extreme; the English prelates, the Pope, the priesthood, and the civil arm, were leagued for his destruction. But, with a series of remarkable providences, the Lord watched over him, till on the last day of A.D. 1384, he died in peace.

It is the rejoicing of High Churchmen, that England was delivered from the arm of Wickliffe, even though it was only to be thrown, for more than another hundred years, into the jaws of the Pope. Says one of them, "Had Wickliffe succeeded in shaking the established system to pieces, one can scarcely think, without some awful misgivings, of the fabric, which, under his hand, might have risen out of the ruins. ** If the reformation of our Church had been conducted by Wickliffe, his work, in all probability, would have nearly anticipated the labors of Calvin, and the Protestantism of England might have pretty closely resembled the Protestantism of Geneva; Episcopal government might have been discarded; *** the clergy might have been consigned to a degrading dependence on their flocks." "Had Wickliffe flourished in the 16th century, he might have been ready to perish in the gainsayings of such men as Knox and Cartwright; at all events, it must be confessed that there is a marvellous resemblance between the Reformer with his poor itinerant priests, and at least the better part of the Puritans who troubled our Israel in the days of Elizabeth and her successors. The likeness is sufficiently striking, almost to mark him out as their prototype and progenitor; and therefore it is, that every faithful son of the

submit to martyrdom, than to the prevalence of the dogmas which they oppose. But the General Convention has met, and Puseyism triumphs. After a feeble struggle the contest is hushed. So much is settled; that no effectual resistance to Puseyism is to be expected in that communion.

Church must rejoice with trembling, that the work of her final deliverance was consigned to him."*

We accept the resemblance; we receive Wickliffe with open arms, and gladly enrol him among the ranks of our ever honored fathers, the Puritans of old England.

At Wickliffe's death the art of printing was not invented; nor was it yet to be revealed to the world till after the lapse of half a century. Wickliffe's translation existed only in copies written out by hand; and yet, in his lifetime, they multiplied and spread rapidly. With great zeal, the Reformer had preached and published his doctrines; having sent out, besides his translation of the Bible, nearly two hundred volumes from his indefatigable pen.

These were now condemned as heretical, and as many as could be found were committed to the flames. His translation of the Word of God, so far as copies could be discovered, was also consumed. But the seed was sown, and would continue to spring up. Even before Wickliffe's death, a law was passed, aimed at him and his followers, ordaining "That all who preached without license, or against the Catholic faith, should be arrested and kept in prison till they justified themselves according to the law and reason of holy Church," and that law and reason of holy Church was the good pleasure of the bishop.

Forty years after the death of Wickliffe, his bones were, by order of the council of Constance, taken from the grave, and publicly committed to the flames. Still the seed of the Reformation would continue to spring up. Taught by the writings of Wickliffe, many embraced the true Gospel in England. Copies of his writings found their way to the continent, and became the seeds of a rising Reformation there; which Rome vainly endeavored to overwhelm in fire and blood.

The law of Richard II., though rigorously enforced, proved insufficient to suppress the rising Reformation. When Richard was deposed, the usurper, Henry IV., was willing to do the enraged ecclesiastics a further pleasure. In the second year of his reign, A.D. 1401, it was enacted, "That if any person was suspected of heresy, the ordinary [the bishop, or the one having jurisdiction in his stead] might detain them in prison, till they were canonically purged, or did abjure their errors; provided that the proceedings against them were publicly and judicially ended in three months. If they were convicted, the diocesan or his commissary might imprison or fine them at discretion. Those that refused to abjure their errors, or after abjuration relapsed, were to be delivered over to the secular power; and the mayors, sheriffs, or bailiffs, were to be present, if required, when

*Le Bas.

the bishop or his commissary passed sentence; and after sentence they were to receive them, and in some high place, burn them to death before the people."-(Neale.)

"By this law," says Neale, "the king's subjects were put from under his protection, and left to the mercy of the bishops in their spiritual courts; and might, upon suspicion of heresy, be imprisoned and put to death, without presentment or trial by a jury, as is the practice in all criminal cases." The Bishop's suspicion stood instead of an indictment; the bishop's suspicion was instead of proof, unless the suspected person could purge himself; the bishop's judgment was the sole test of what constituted heresy; he was accuser, jury, and judge; and who could stand against the suspicious displeasure of a brutish and incensed bishop?

Nor was this law sufficient; for in the beginning of the reign of Henry V. who ascended the throne A.D. 1413, it was further enacted, "That whosoever they were, that should read the Scriptures in the mother tongue, they should forfeit land, cattle, life, and goods from their heirs for ever, and be considered heretics to God, enemies to the crown, and most arrant traitors to the land."

Such was the state of religious liberty in England, in the glorious conquering times of Henry V. Nor were these laws left to be a mere terror. By law it was made a part of the sheriff's oath," that he would seek to repress all errors and heresies, commonly called Lollards:" " and it is," says Toulmin, "a striking instance of the permanent footing which error and iniquity gain when once established by law, that this clause was preserved in the oath long after the Reformation, even to the 1st of Charles I., when Sir Edward Coke, on being appointed sheriff of the county of Buckingham, objected to it, and ever since, it has been left

out."

The wrongs inflicted, the sufferings endured under these laws can never be told. There were no historians among the poor victims of these oppressions to register their tears and to chronicle the months of their imprisonment. From the beginning of these persecutions to the accession of Henry VIII., a century rolled away. The witnesses were slain. The rising light was quenched in blood. Darkness, almost unbroken, reigned once more over the land. Rome and the Romish clergy of England rejoiced once more in a reign unbroken and undisturbed.

But if there were no historians to chronicle the sufferings of them who loved the Word of God, the public records tell what public records may disclose, of their afflictions even unto death. Hundreds of examples are on record in which men and women were, on suspicion of heresy, seized, imprisoned, tortured, buried in their dungeons, or given to the flames.