alone can contend with it with any substantial success, though branded by folly and ignorance with the mark of that apostacy which it most conspicuously exposes and confounds. Because the papist appeals to antiquity, it is most absurdly argued that all such appeals must be popish; when little more than common sense can be needed to shew that, if Popery can substantiate her appeal, there is no possible contravention of her claims. The church, it is admitted, was founded in the days of the Apostles, not in those of the Reformers; and if the latter founded an establishment, instead of purifying one which was already in existence, we are sure that such establishments, whatever called, could not have been, the church. Those who claim for our church an apostolical origin, and for her ministry an apostolical succession, make a demand which, if conceded, establishes her title to allegiance; but those who regard her as only three centuries old, certainly cannot be expected to make much impression on the votaries of a church unquestionably of far higher date, while they are equally unable to controvert the dissenter, who, though a little more modern than the church of England thus regarded, would not be more distinctly and palpably disconnected from all apostolic contact. Dr. Hook's admirable sermon is, perhaps, in the possession of all our readers; and yet, if only on the principle of adorning our pages with his lucid statements of argument, and manly bearing in his office, we will venture to transcribe a few passages. Having stated the historical question as concerns the English Reformation, Dr. Hook thus illustrates his point: About two years ago, this very chapel, in which we are now assembled, was repaired; certain disfigurements removed; certain improvements made: would it not be absurd, on that account, to contend that it is no longer the Chapel Royal? Would it not be still more absurd if some one were to build a new chapel in the neighbourhood, imitating closely what this chapel was five years ago, and carefully piling up all the dust and rubbish which was at that time swept from hence, and then pronounce that, not this, to be the ancient chapel of the sovereigns of England? The absurdity is at once apparent; but this is precisely what has been done by the Roman Catholic or Papist. The present Church of England is the old Catholic Church of England, reformed, in the reigns of Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth, of certain superstitious errors; it is the same Church which came down from our British and Saxon ancestors, and, as such, it possesses its original endowments, which were never, as ignorant persons foolishly suppose, taken from one Church and given to another. The Church remained the same after it was reformed as it was before, just as a man remains the same man after he has washed his face as he was before; just as Naaman the leper remained the same Naaman after he was cured of his leprosy, as he was before. And so regularly, so canonically, was the Reformation conducted, that even those who thought no reformation requisite, still remained for a time in the Church; they did not consider what was done (though they did not approve of it) sufficient to drive them into a schism. It was not till the twelfth year of Queen Elizabeth's reign, that, listening to the exhortations of the Pope, they quitted the Church and formed a new sect, from which the present Romish dissenters have descended, and in which were retained all those errors in opinion and practice, all that rubbish which the Catholic Church in England had at the Reformation corrected and swept away. Let it always be remembered, that the English Romanists separated from us, not we from them; we did not go out from them, but they from us. The slightest acquaintance with that neglected branch of learning, Ecclesiastical History, will convince us of this. They left the Church of England, to which they originally belonged, because they thought their Bishops had reformed too much, had become too Protestant; just as Protestant Dissenters left us, because they thought we had not reformed enough-that we were, as they still style us, too popish. The one party left us because they wanted no reform, the other because, instead of a reformation, they wished a religious revolution—the Reformers of the Church of England carefully preserving the middle path.-Pp. 11-13. The question between the Church and the dissenters is thus luminously stated : Although causelessly to separate from such a Church must be a schismatical act, yet we do not uncharitably pronounce sentence of condemnation upon those who have, by circumstances over which they have had no control, been brought up without its pale. In error, of course, we believe them to be, but certainly not in such error from that circumstance as to endanger their salvation: and if we suppose them, as we must do, to lack our privileges, this ought only to make us respect them the more if at any time we find them (with fewer advantages) surpassing us in godliness. We do not confine God's grace and favour to the Church, for we remember, that though Job was not a member of the then Church of God, still he was a man eminently pious and highly favoured; we remember, that though Balaam was not in the Church, yet he was an inspired prophet; we remember that Jethro also, the father-in-law of Moses, though not a proselyte to Israel, (and the Church at that time was confined to the Israelites,) was yet a servant of God; we remember that the Rechabites were actually commended by God at the very time He passed censure upon those who were then his Church-the people Israel. Remembering all this, we say not that other denominations of Christians are cast out from the mercy of God through the Saviour because they belong not to the Church; all that we say is, that it does not follow that these concessions must render void the divine appointment of the Church, the divine command to all nations, and of course to all mankind, to be united with it, or the scriptural evidence for episcopacy as the divinely sanctioned organization of its ministry; -and we contend, that a treasure having been committed to us, we are not to undervalue it lest we should offend others, but are to preserve it in its purity, and in all its integrity to transmit it to our children and our children's children. -Pp. 19, 20. The conclusion of the discourse is fully worthy of the preacher and his theme. Against the Church the world seems at this time to be set in array. To be a true and faithful member of the Church, requires no little moral courage. Basely to pretend to belong to her while designing mischief against her in the heart, this is easy enough; but manfully to contend for her because she is the Church, a true Church, a pure Church, a holy Church, this is difficult to those who court the praise of men, or fear the censure of the world. May the great God of heaven, may Christ the great Bishop and Shepherd of souls, who is over all things in the Church, put it, my brethren, into your hearts and minds to say and feel (as I do), "As for me and my house, we will live in the Church, we will die in the Church, and if need shall be, like our martyred forefathers, we will die for the Church."-P. 23. That such a sermon should have met with much opposition,-that its author should have had to encounter much vituperation, is only what might be naturally expected. Neither the papist nor the dissenter could be supposed to view with much complacency an argument which cut away the ground from beneath them both, and exposed the futility of their respective causes to the mind which, of all others, they were most concerned to pervert. But that any churchman, any clergyman, could feel otherwise than grateful to Dr. Hook, seems inconceivable. Yet, if we are to believe the title of the second pamphlet at the head of this article, one brother of the gown has been roused by this sermon to a degree of acrimony equal to that which either papist or dissenter might be conceived to entertain. But we do not believe that title; it is quite impossible that any clergyman could have felt or reasoned as its author has done. Least of all is it possible that a minister of our sober and well instructed church would have claimed a right, not to confute Dr. Hook by learning, but to silence him by-INSPIRATION! Yet this insane claim does the Ripon "clergyman" actually make. Our readers distrust us-well, here are the ipsissima verba : Were I to hold my tongue, the fire would burn in my bones till I should be constrained to lift up my feeble voice; not that I take any glory to myself because I am enabled to see into these errors, for I was once in total darkness as to spiritual things, but when it pleased God, in FULFILMENT OF HIS EVERLASTING DECREE, to cause the light to shine into my heart, then I HAD A SPIRITUAL FACULTY IMPARTED TO ME, whereby I am enabled to discern between the things that differ, and to approve those that are more excellent. To Him be all the praise. "One thing I know, whereas I was blind, but now I see;" and this sight I did not acquire, but received; and the same God who called me out of gross and palpable darkness, may see fit, in his own time and way, to make known to the Doctor and his fraternity, that they are "blind leaders of the blind," (Matt. xv. 14,) and then appoint them as faithful ministers of the true light. I do not therefore boast or think myself any way superior to such persons. [How unpresuming!] No, God forbid: "by the grace of God I am what I am." It is "not I, but CHRIST IN ME"!!!-Pp. 12, 13. There is nothing in the ravings of Swedenborg which can go beyond this; and, after quoting it, we are not quite sure that we are acting courteously by our readers in doing otherwise than dismissing this maniacal scribbler to his proper obscurity; yet it may not be unamusing, nor, perhaps, uninstructive, to give him a glance or two; for "The raven, rook, and pert jackdaw, and even Dr. Hook's fanatical opponent may serve to show how naturally extremes coincide; for he utterly denies apostolical succession for his brethren, while he claims personal plenary inspiration for himself; he thinks Dr. Hook inclines too much to the doctrines of a church which arrogates infallibility, while he claims that stupendous attribute forhimself! he holds that no man can be a lawful minister, who is not a pious man; and herein he coincides again with the church of Rome, which makes the intention of the minister essential to the sacrament; so that, in his view, Dr. Hook, being lost in error and hallucination, has no power to administer the communion at all! and those who have received the elements from his hands have been under a delusion in supposing they partook of the sacrament! For one other passage which we shall adduce from the "clergyman" of Ripon we may hope some excuse, inasmuch as it enables us to recur to Dr. Hook's eloquent sermon, and to remind our readers of the following plain and intrepid assertion of the Church's independence and authority: Bless God, then, we may, that the true Church is established here in England, and that while as patriots we would support its establishment for our country's good, we can also, as Christians, conscientiously conform to it; yet it is not on the ground that it is established by the State, but on grounds much higher and holier than these, that in this sacred place we are to state its claims. So entirely independent is the Church (as the Church) of the State, that were all connexion between Church and State at this very moment to cease, (though we may be sure the monarchy would be destroyed,) the Church, as the Church, would continue precisely as she now is; that is to say, our bishops, though deprived of temporal rank, would still exercise all those spiritual functions, which, conferred by higher than human authority, no human authority can take away; still to the vacant sees they would consecrate new bishops, still ordain the clergy, still confirm the baptized, still govern the church; our priests, assisted by the deacons, would still administer the sacraments and preach the Gospel; our Liturgy, even though we were driven to upper rooms of our towns, or to the very caves of the desert, would still be solemnized. We may be sure of this, for this very thing has happened in times past. When the United States of America were English colonies, the English Church was there established: at the revolution the State was destroyed. Monarchy has there ceased to exist; but the Church, though depressed for a time, remained uninjured: so that there -among the American republicans-under the superintendence of no less than sixteen bishops, you will find her sacraments and ordinances administered, and all her ritual and liturgical services celebrated, with not less of piety, zeal, and solemnity than here in England; there you may see the Church, like an oasis in the desert, blessed by the dews of heaven, and shedding heavenly blessings around her, in a land where, because no religion is established, if it were not for her, nothing but the extremes of infidelity or fanaticism would prevail. -Pp. 6-8. On this statement the Ripon "clergyman" comments thus: The Doctor asserts, that were all connexion between Church and State to cease, "the Church, as the Church, would remain precisely as she now is." I should agree with the Doctor, providing we defined the church as the Scripture does, to consist of the members of Christ's body, (Eph. i. 23,) even of those whom the Father gave unto him; since no outward circumstances can affect their interests as the Church, "for nothing," says the Holy Ghost in Rom. viii. "shall separate them from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." But such is not Dr. Hook's meaning. By the Church here he evidently means the Episcopal Church of England, which is widely different from the Church of Christ. Does the Doctor, then, mean to say, that the loaves and fishes have no influence in holding together the heterogeneous and divers parties who constitute the ministers of our Established Church? What motive has induced many to wear the Church's livery, but that they receive, or hope to receive, the Church's pay? Why are numbers educated (as it is called) for the Church, but that there is some good living in prospect, which will enable the individual to live as a gentleman! The separation once effected, and the temporalities in consequence taken away, and hundreds of our clergy would leave her ranks, to seek some other mode of living. And of the rest, how opposed and divers their views of the principles of the Church! Could there be a voluntary league between fire and water, between light and darkness? I think that I can observe sufficient difference, even on the bench of bishops, to cause me to have a shrewd guess that some would throw down the standard, and others fight for the generalship; while a few quiet spirits among them would be so grieved at a review of the past and present conduct of the belligerent spiritual ones, that they would secede from the unholy alliance, and draw with them the most useful and decent of the clergy: but perhaps even this small body would divide again-and may be, again; for we find one Spiritual Lord advocating the principles of the Oxford Divines, another from a platform denouncing them, and another indifferent as to their existence. The grand link that binds many to the Established Church is, not her doctrines, which they wish altered; nor her discipline, which has long been asleep in company with her doctrines; but her gold, that glitters so bright as to dazzle the eyes of its pursuers, and they therefore can see no other objects in their true character, like a person whose eyes have been dazzled with the sun. I must allow, indeed, that an episcopal religious community might still continue, or rather perhaps many episcopal ones, which would widely differ from each other, both in doctrine and discipline. How can any one assert that the Church of England, if separated from the State, would remain the same; when, if he takes the different churches in any one town, he will find the preaching in them as various and as cameleon-like as possible? It cannot be denied that we are a most divided body, and that sentiments the most discordant and opposed are held under the sanction of the same Articles, to which all parties profess at least to agree; but many who have set their hands to these same Articles remain in ignorance of their contents, having, I suppose, perfect confidence that what the Church says must be right, and it is therefore useless, and a work of supererogation, to search and examine for themselves. So greatly dazzled are many of our ministers, either by the influence or the money which as church ministers they enjoy, or are steadfastly looking after, that, owing to a weakness of sight produced thereby, they guess at what they would wish the Articles to be, instead of taking them in their plain, literal, and grammatical sense. However, take away the blinding tendency of influence and temporalities, then such would no longer perjure themselves for nothing; but would instantly have such tender consciences, that certain obsolete and unsavoury doctrines would have to be expunged, for them to remain as members of the Church. Let any candid observer say, whether we have not given a true picture of what the Church is, and of what therefore it would necessarily become if the grand inducement and bribe to enter the Church (as it is called) was taken away-i. e. were the State to resume what it has granted, or what it has permitted the Church of England to hold as temporalities. May not the following words be applied to many in the present day: "Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased in goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eye-salve, that thou mayest see." (Rev. iii. Î7, 18.)—Pp. 6—8. Had we read this passage by itself, we should have thought we were perusing the vulgarisms of a Towgood, a Conder, or a James; and indeed it seems a concentration of the filth and ignorance of them all. But those arch-slanderers at least had the consistency not to belong to the communion they calumniated. Our infallible Riponian, however, can manage to exist not only uncontaminated, but luminous, amid all this corruption ! a diamond in a dunghill! "The Episcopal church of England is |