"THE Liberty, wherewith Christ hath made us free," is Liberty in all that concerns the soul, in its Relation to and in its Intercourse with its Maker; it is spiritual Liberty in Faith and Worship. The Christian Religion has removed all obstructions between man's soul and God, all ceremonies and mediations, all sacrifices and oblations, all priests and propitiations. Jesus Christ is the only Mediator between God and man; his Gospel, received into the heart and interpreted by the reason, is the medium of Christian Salvation. Thus we receive his Gospel as committed to the everlasting records of the New Testament. We acknowledge no other authority; we ask for no one on earth to mediate for us; so long as we have the Bible, we allow the Divine right of no institution or office, as essential to our knowledge of the terms of Christian salvation, or to our application of them. We take the Bible and say, this is our priest, our charter,. our covenant, our creed; it needs no supplement of man's contrivance; we are responsible to God alone for its use.

Yet in saying all this so distinctly and positively, we directly oppose the professed convictions of many disciples of Jesus Christ, who maintain and insist as positively upon the necessity of an authority, external to and coexistent with the - 3D S. VOL. XVII. NO. III.

VOL. XXXV.

35

authority of Scripture. us, are not done away; Scripture requires a supplement in Tradition, to explain it, to be a commentary upon it; an institution called the Church is the earthly fold, with its enclosures and its shepherds, through which alone the sheep of the covenant can be introduced into the heavenly fold.

Priests and Sacrifices, they tell

The Bible, or the Church, this is the great issue for the higher departments of controversy in our day. The question is not a new one, but it takes new forms and aspects. It is to be agitated in our day with a power and an interest, of which as yet the community has but a faint conception.

This question has long been before the world under different shapes and names; it now presents itself under the name of "Puseyism.” The use of that word is to be regretted, for it is indecorous and unjust. Custom and necessity may to a degree be an apology for it, for the word now expresses a system, and is the title of a controversy in which all professed Christians have an interest and a share. To those who ask what non-Episcopalians, and Unitarians especially, have to do with this controversy, we answer, with great brevity, we have an interest in deciding the essentials of Christian Faith, in opposing superstition, bigotry, and priestcraft.

The controversy embraces this issue, whether the Scriptures alone, or the Scriptures and Church Authority taken together, decide the obligations of Christians, and the conditions of Salvation. The length and breadth of the issue suspended is simply this, shall every doctrine of faith, every ceremonial of worship, every institution of religion, expose itself to the free scrutiny of all professing Christians, so that they may ask the reason for it, may claim to understand and approve it? Or shall there be an authority external to Scripture, that of the Church, which shall challenge the reverence and obedience of Christians, which shall decide, or rather, prevent all controversies, which shall enjoy prerogatives and enrobe itself in the solemn folds of mystery and sanctity? This is the question, which is now expressed by the word Puseyism. It is a great question; we wish clearly to apprehend the issue, to know whither it looks, whereto these things will grow. It is not for the sake of controversy, that we institute the inquiries and utter and vindicate the views, which, under a sense of responsibility, we now present. We do not wish to glory in the confusion, which now distracts those who,

agreeing in the necessity of Church Authority, are divided only as to the how much or how little of it they must allow. We are looking for a better lesson. We wish to have calm and clear apprehensions of important truth; and standing as we do, at the extremest possible distance from the principle of Church Authority, we wish to define our position.

The first point, which we would aim to make as clear as language will express it, is to present the essential issue of the question before us. It is to decide, not what form of Church Discipline is most expedient, effective, or dignified, most ancient or prevalent, but whether any external or supplementary authority, or government of any kind, is to be linked with the reception and study of the Bible. Let it be distinctly understood, that here is a question with two sides, and that the intelligent Christian must rank himself upon the one or the other side, knowing the conditions of his choice and meeting all that it involves. There is the true Protestant principle, that if a man has the Bible in his hands, and never sees a church, a priest, or a sacrament, never hears of a creed or a council, he still has all that is necessary to his knowledge and improvement of the terms of salvation. This is one side of the question now in agitation. We adopt this side. with our eyes and ears open. We know all that it involves of sectarianism, fanaticism, rationalism, and infidelity. Yet we choose it, we prefer it, we identify ourselves with it, we glory in it, we would die for it with joy, if it needs more confessors. The other side of the question is that, which includes more or less of Church Authority, supplementary help with the Bible, whether it be the writings of two Fathers or of twenty, the traditions of one century or of six, one creed or three creeds, five points of doctrine, or thirty-nine articles of faith, one saving ordinance, or two saving sacraments, one order of priests, or three orders of clergy, a Pope, or a council, or a presbytery. There are very many sects who take this side in common, and embrace the sentiment which maintains the necessity of Church Authority. All individuals and all communions are on this side, who impose a creed, if it be but one single line. The parties upon this side are in continual contention as to how much of this extraScriptural Authority they are to adopt. Thus far we are at issue with all of them. We take the other side, and keeping the liberty of choosing all forms, rites, discipline, and institu

tions, first in accordance with the spirit of our religion, and then with reference to our edification, our conscientious preferences, and our taste, and then with reference to the fitness of place and time, we are ready with all charity and humility to say, that we are on the better side, and to invite at least all that hesitate to come to us.

Let the distinction between these two sides be clearly understood; let not the line which divides them ever be blurred; let all the conditions and consequences of committal to either of them be known; let there be no subterfuges; no reserve; no sweetening of bitter pills for the sake of disguising them; let theories be consistently followed out; let us choose the good, even if evil result from it, rather than the evil with the hope, that it will issue in good. Choose intelligently, and then be consistent.

Now let us put in a plea of Justification; some but not all will think it necessary. Why, it may be asked, why not be satisfied with taking your own side and keeping aloof from the other side? We answer, because we are crowded and shall soon be trampled upon. And we give a more solemn and significant answer even than this. We say, that the great and holy truth, which in spite of our differences is common to both divided parties, is hazarded and jeoparded by unconsecrated weapons, and by a departure from the rules of Gospel warfare. Church Authority has ever concerned itself more with consciences than with sins. We cannot maintain our ground without defending it. The liberty, which was obtained by protest, must be secured by argument and good use.

It is hard to dispute, it is disagreeable to bring into contempt anything which mingles itself with the religious sentiments of a professed Christian. In opposing the pretensions of Ecclesiastical Authority we must offend those who approve it. But why? Why need we offend them? They will tell us that we deny what they approve, we contemn what they revere. Be it so. But before yielding to the pain which we inflict, and murmuring at it, would it not be wise to ask yourselves why you hold doctrines which may be thus attacked and contemned, why do you maintain a point involving the eternal interests of others as wise, as pure, as sinful, or as sincere as yourselves, and a point which seems to them altogether absurd and not to be allowed? Look then first to the doctrine which we attack, and reconsider it, spend your first

excited feeling and interest there, be sure you are right in it, and then hear what we say, we, who have all the means of learning the truth, and all the desire to learn it that you have. Be careful how you hold doctrines which those, over whom you have no advantage, are induced by every Christian feeling and hope, which they cherish, to impugn. We do not deny your Christian character, your spiritual attainments, your religious liberty, or the acceptableness of your mode of worship to the Father who is a Spirit. We will honor you for every grace and virtue which you exhibit; we will worship with you, if we cannot enjoy the mode which we prefer; we will exchange with you all sympathies and charities, we will call you worthy disciples of Jesus Christ, and pray to be admitted with you into his kingdom. Neither will we question your liberty to connect with your Christian professions a belief in any documents or terms which you may please, nor will we deny your right to institute those modes of governing your churches, disposing your services, ordaining your clergy, and administering the sacraments, that may recommend themselves to you. On all these points, however, you are as much open to our scrutiny and criticism, as we are to yours. But what we do and will do, in spite of the bugbear charge of attacking the Church which is preferred against us, is to impugn some conditions, which you make essential on our part to the reception and enjoyment and rewards of the Christian faith. We charge you with adding to the terms of Christian salvation, of confounding some of the most trivial and some of the most unwarrantable and some of the most pernicious conditions with the Gospel of the grace of God. We differ with you as to what is essential, and what is not essential, to the prevalence and security of Christian truth and principle on this earth. We read history, we observe the experience and ask the opinions of our fellow men, and from all these sources we learn that everything that makes the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or religion in general, oppressive, repulsive, uninviting, or questionable, has no part in it, tends to nourish infidelity and to cause confusion of the truth with falsehood, and is therefore to be put away. Men justly dread every doctrine which has once written itself in their blood, and wrung their nerves, and riven their sinews, and poured boiling lead into their throats, and burned them at the stake. The doctrines which do this we call doctrines additional, supple