pretend to have them. They have performed the ceremony, practised the delusion, but their powers have not even the efficacy of that of the witch of Endor, who made a spirit answer to her call. He then says that no other professed minister of God can say the same. This latter assertion is most honourable to the understandings of those ministers of God, who dissent from episcopacy, and they owe the writer a little gratitude for this, his most gratifying testimony. Further, he says, that the Romanist has received the powers.

Who ever doubted this?

seeing the learned gentleman has derived all these mysterious and awful powers from Rome. It would, indeed, be a marvellous affair if the bestower of powers had them not himself!

But after this he states, what we hesitate not a moment in asserting to be a most deliberate falsehood-yes, falsehood-in the fullest sense of that word, so inharmonious to ears polite; but which we must insert, for want of a word, even in Johnson's Dictionary, more capable of expressing our sentiments. It is well known that the Puseyite regards the church of Scotland as a dissenting church, even though she is by Act of Parliament, as much an establishment as the church of England; and for the information of those who, perhaps, may be ignorant of the fact, we beg to inform them, that Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria, the supreme head of the English church, and defender of her faith, becomes a presbyterian, attends the presbyterian service, and is attended by presbyterian clergymen as chaplains, whenever she sets foot in Scotland. What will the Puseyite Professor say to this? But as he includes the Scotch church in the class of dissenters named, we have no objection to the company we are put in, esteeming it both more honourable and safe than that of the Episcopal church. We, therefore, assert, that our doctrines are founded, not on man or by man, but on and by the word of the living God. We, unlike the Puseyites, have received nothing from fallible man; our creeds and our beliefs, our catechisms and doctrines, are to be found written in the words of eternal truth; they are founded on Christ, and Christ is truth; Christ is our Head and our Rock, and Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

The doctrines of dissenters then, to sum up, are more Christian, more from Christ, more filled with the Divine breathings of God's truth, love, and power, than the doctrines of Puseyism, which are filled with all manner of follies and superstitions, blasphemies and delusions; a cheat to the people, and a curse to the nation. And, as the Rev. Mr. Binney, of London, said, so say we, that the doctrines of Puseyism are more de

structive than saving to the souls of men. It is also absurd to find the inferior members of a body pretending to powers, which their supreme head cannot exercise, as is the case with episcopacy. A poor curate can forgive sins; the supreme head, the Queen, cannot. He can give the Holy Ghost; she cannot. He can regenerate the soul of man; she cannot. He is without reason, and yet the Solomon of the parish; she has reason, and yet not accounted any thing like a Solomon. Such are the inconsistences which an absurd system cannot fail of having within it.

Concerning education, he says, "But for this very reason, you cannot educate without the church; no, nor without a distinct positive revelation from God, declaring the validity even of those appointments which seem to be made by nature. If the parent and state stand over the child, as ministers of God, the child will ask for their credentials. And how these credentials are to be conveyed, except by a distinct revelation, it is hard to say. The parent now will answer with the fifth commandment, Honour thy father and thy mother;' and the state with the express declaration of the apostle, 'Fear God, and honour the king.' But without some such voice from heaven, the mere fact that a child is to learn from a parent, and that government must exist wherever there is man, would scarcely be sufficient to sustain a claim to a divine authority. Therefore, both paternal and civil authority require the support and witness of the church, or they fall to the ground. But when they thus recognize the existence of the church as a commissioned ambassador from God, they must also recognize its full powers. And thus, if either parent or state attempt to educate a man without the co-operation of the church, without giving to it its due prominence and precedency, without allowing-nay, requiring the exercise of all the powers committed to it, they are flying in the face of their Lord and Master, and they must take the consequences. Education without the church is an absurdity; and, therefore, a system of ethics, which is not based upon the system of the church, must be an absurdity likewise."

Even so, says Professor Sewell.

We shall take a short and rapid sketch to see how the case stands.

If we take a review of the ages of the holy Catholic church which have gone by, (we mean since the commencement of popery,) we find that, instead of thinking it to be her duty to educate, she deemed it her imperative duty to keep the people in the grossest ignorance. And up to the present moment, wherever the popish priesthood have influence, there we find ignorance flourishing, like nettles and thistles in uncultivated ground. So that if the people had to wait till the re

suscitated Catholic church taught them, they would wait for ever.

In Scotland, the presbyterian establishment has her parish schools, in which she receives all that choose to enter. She asks them not whether they recognize her full powers and precedency; but says, "If you wish to learn, enter the school; the doors are open; if you approve of our system, well; if not, you can let it alone." But as long as the English church demands acknowledgment of her full powers and precedency, so long will she remain a stumbling block in the way of procuring from the state those blessings, so necessary for the well-being of

man.

As to education being an absurdity without the aid of episcopacy, we have found it to work so well without it already, that the mere ipse dixit of the learned, though Rev. Professor, will not, in any degree, lessen the truth of the fact.

"If I offer you a sovereign, you may doubt if it be good; but unless you take it in your hand as if it were good, and proceed to make some purchase with it, you will never know whether it be good or bad."

To this we merely remark, that if this be the only way in which the Professor can test the genuineness of a sovereign, we would advise him by all means to hold fast to the Moral Philosophy chair of Oxford; for however much he may go astray in divinity, he would lose himself entirely on the Exchange.

"And thus, notwithstanding the usurpation of popery, and the still worse errors of modern dissent."

Here we have, at last, the genuine feelings of the Puseyite, which, though he has striven hard to keep under, now breaks forth at the idea, that dissenters presume to contradict the " mysterious and awful" powers of the church.

Such, then, is Puseyism, that accursed heresy which has sprung up in the episcopalian church. Let dissenters think of the love it bears them, when the damning idolatries of Rome are preferred to their pure and holy worship. Is it love to God that here exhibits itself? No. It is the pride of life, and the love of power. Popery does not cry down the apostolic succession. Popery does not dispute the question of forgiveness of sins, the breathing of the Holy Ghost, and the other holy mummeries of the Puseyite's church. No; popery lives, breathes, in the very atmosphere of such doctrines; her existence would be at stake if she allowed them

to drop through. She hates dissent; for that implies the exercise of our reasoning faculties, whereby we forsook error, (the church,) and established a church founded on the word of the living God, whose word is our testimony, and whose laws are our

delight. Such is dissent; and can it be a matter of wonder that Puseyism falls foul of it? And whilst vain and empty boastings are the strength of Puseyism, we rely on the everlasting strength of Christ, our Rock, our Strength, and our Salvation.

Come to the

Come on, then, Puseyism! attack! Bring with you your liturgies, your litanies, your dead prayers, your creeds, your unknown, unwritten traditions, your fantastic ceremonies, and solemn mummeries, which make the gods in heaven laugh; and we, with the word of the living God, the Rock of Peter, will scatter your rubbish like a whirlwind, and leave not a wreck of Puseyism behind.

Of God's word he says,

"We can indeed add nothing; and we dare not take away anything."

If adding three words to a psalm, be not adding to God's word, then he is right; if adding the Apocrypha, be not adding, then we say he is still correct; and if omitting several parts, be not taking away, what is? We leave this for the Professor to solve. With regard to truth he says:—

"And, be assured, the moment a man professes this earnest enthusiasm for truth, you have reason to distrust him. There can scarcely be a surer sign that his theory will prove a lie. It is a strange paradox, is it

not?"

It is, indeed, a most strange paradox; and can only bring the subject at all to our comprehension, by the supposition that the Professor has been thinking of his own writings and the power of the church, when he wrote as we have quoted. According to the Professor's own theory, he must indeed be a liar of first-rate magnitude; a liar by profession, seeing he so strongly asseverates the truth of his statements, even to the forbidding of a "doubt" upon the point at all. This is certainly more than most men stretch to, and, therefore, we must class the Professor as chief and head of his own theory. And we must, of course, believe a man when he is lying to be telling the truth, more particularly if he does not assert the truth of his tales. "It is a strange paradox, is it

not?"

Of society he says:

"Whoever does not look back with reverence to the past, has no right to look forward with hope for the future; and a wise man who really understands the history of man, will regard the progress of society, both intellectually and civilly, as a decline rather than an advance."

Previous to the above, we did conceive the Professor to have had a little respect for the common sense of his readers; but we now perceive such to be entirely gone. He, no doubt, imagines that, as he has deprived his

readers of their reasoning powers, he may gull them with as much nonsense thinks proper.

as he We do not imagine that there is a single person within these realms (not a papist or Puseyite) who takes the same view as the Professor. If the latter has studied the history of man, he has done so to very little purpose, if the quotation we have given be the summum bonum of his researches ; for who, in the spirit of wisdom, could utter such folly?

Again, on education, he says:

"The syncretist government schools, on the new plan, were founded to teach a doctrine common to all sects, meaning all Christian sects, and none others. But the children of the socialists have been admitted into some; and as the socialists reject the Bible, the schoolmaster has been obliged to omit it. -Times' newspaper, March 6, 1840. All religion is gone! This, then, is one fatal mischief of such a principle."

Now, we are prepared to admit, with the Professor, that the system he alludes to is a most wretched one, and the principle most despicable. It is a low, mean, shuffling attempt to conciliate the infidel and the papist, and one which only such a man as the late premier could have been found to have applauded and proposed as a government measure. It was a dirty Whig trick, in order to catch papist and infidel votes. And what has been the result? Why, that the Chartists, who compose the scum and dregs of the earth, the sole composing parts of socialism, they, the vilest of the vile, have turned against the men who thus were base enough to crouch to them; and throwing their weight into the scale against them, did, at the last election, help very materially to give them a punishment which they most richly deserved for such an alliance. We would have, that the master in each school do commence the scholastic duties every morning, by the reading of the creed, the ten commandments, and a chapter of the Old or New Testament, and repeating the Lord's prayer. And thus we would not have the Bible in the hands of the pupils at all. They would be forced to listen respectively to what was read; and we should do much good, without offence to any. Those not choosing to allow their children the benefit of these lessons of religion, as thus prepared, being, in our opinion, better away than at the school, as they cannot be there for any good purpose.

66

Christianity was not promulgated to unite all men into one fraternity, as a wild fanaticism is now preaching in a neighbouring country, and a still worse indifference proclaims in this."

As there are many countries around us, and as the Professor has not enlightened us as to

the name of the particular country he alludes to, we suppose there will be no harm in guessing; and if we fix on Scotland as the country, and the "wild fanaticism to be the proclaiming of Christ's headship over his church, we surmise we shall not be far astray as to the real meaning of the quotation.

It is, indeed, rather absurd and ill-timed for such a charge against the Scotch church, considering the heresy which the mad divines of Oxford have of late been promulgating with such frantic zeal, and which was only repressed by the authority of their superiors. We say, that considering this, the charge of wild fanaticism is rather out of place; and in our opinion ought to have come from one whose hands were clean, and not covered with heretic leprosy.

To enter into a defence of this so-called "wild fanaticism," is not our intention, as it would be out of place; but we may remark, that our most hearty prayer to God is, that this "wild fanaticism" may succeed in all its wishes; and that Christ may, with glorious triumph be proclaimed, the sole Head of the Scottish church, in defiance of either the state or the heretics of Oxford. And, further, we most heartily pray and beseech God that it will, in his good time, be his pleasure to spread this "wild fanaticism" over the whole of England, and so reform the episcopalian church, and cleanse her of these foul and damnable heresies, that she may shine forth "a light to lighten the gentiles, and the glory of God's people Israel."

We shall merely add what appeared in that high church paper, the Morning Post, in the shape of a letter from a correspondent, likewise a member of the episcopal church. Of this "wild fanaticism" he says:-

"I trust that ere long, the Veto question will be taken up in the spirit in which it ought to be. I hope so, for the sake of preventing great and deplorable evils. I hope so, for the sake of the Scotch church, upon which establishment, though not a member, I look, and always have looked, with feelings of the deepest reverence and regard. The simplicity of its ordinances, and the strictness with which they are regarded; the unostentatious piety of its ministers; the unflinching, uncompromising integrity with which they have supported their church, through good report and through evil report; and the untiring and persevering zeal which characterizes all its members, both lay and spiritual, has always struck me with being peculiarly regardful, and as eminently entitling them to the respect and reverence of all classes of people, of all sects of religionists, and of the whole world."

We leave this as a legacy to the Professor, and trust, that he, and the clergy of his esta

What a precious set of touchstones are here enumerated! What convincing proofs they must be to the infidel, who denies the authority of the Bible; to the papist, whose idol is a god of bread; and to the Socinian, who blasphemously denies the grand doctrine of the Saviour's deity! How, in the name of common sense, can these things be made touchstones, if their source cannot be proved? Let the Professor answer this.

"As hatred for the ancient forms of the Catholic church, led naturally to the formalities of puritanism; but formalities which contained no truths, and which had no sanction but human invention."

If the Professor can prove the ceremonies and formalities of his church to be of God, and not devised by man, we shall declare him superior to Solomon in wisdom, and a god as to logic; and we ourselves will fall down before the "mysterious and awful powers of the church," worship and adore.

"So also forms are necessary to preserve the memory of these truths from one generation to another. Thus our liturgy has preserved to us the doctrines of the church, though the men of whom the church has been composed, have successively died away."

Ah! is this the case? Is the secret out? So, the Bible is not the preserver of truth; but the liturgy. We have now arrived at the why and the wherefore of all the absurdities in episcopal ceremony; we have now got the "touchstone" whereby we may try episcopacy, whether it be of God or man. But it appears that, for some reason or other, "unwritten tradition" has been thrown overboard, and a real written form declared necessary for the preservation of the truth. Well, wonders will never cease! and it is certainly plain that this is one. Professor Sewell has admitted that a form is necessary to the preservation of truth! Oh, what a knock-down blow this is to the aspirations of Puseyism, after the "unwritten tradition" of Rome! How will the Puseyite faction ever be able to revive this beloved doctrine? But the Bible is too common a thing for a Puseyite. It is too much reverenced by dissenters, ever to be liked by him. It does not fully enough declare the " myste

rious and awful powers of the church," for the Professor to admire it. And, besides, the Bible does not sanction lordly, political, bishops; but the liturgy does. The Bible does not make a rule for deans, canons, and the other small fry of the bishop's tail; but the liturgy does. The Bible sanctions no forgiveness of sins, but by Christ; the liturgy allows this blasphemy. In fact, all the stupid nonsense in Puseyism comes from the liturgy, which glorifies man, and neglects the Deity.

The Professor now informs us how he and his brethren fight the devil.

"And having prepared you-I hope not to turn away in ridicule, from what silly and ignorant men would now be disposed to call superstitious mummeries-I will take in order the chief ceremonies which the church would have performed over an infant, when she commences its education.

"The first is one, which in this age of miscalled enlightenment, when men can scarcely bring themselves to believe that there are either angels or spirits, much less that there are spirits of evil about us, will startle them the most.

"The church would have first taken the infant, and solemnly exorcised it; that is, by prayer, and breathing upon it, and making the sign of the cross upon the forehead, and imposition of hands, it would endeavour to free it from the power of an evil spirit, to which its birth subjected it."

We would recommend the dipping of the Rev. Professor, and his Puseyite brethren, in a horse pond, and, with the sign of the cross, drive out the devil which, in the shape of Puseyism, has most unfortunately taken hold of them.

"All things for good to them that love God; to them who are the called, according to his purpose, (Rom. viii. 28;) that is, to all sincere and baptized members of his church."

According to this, the Puseyites are those few who are to enter in at the strait gate, all others excluded; all who have not purchased a ticket of Messrs. Pusey, Sewell, Hook, and Newman-the price being their

reason.

"A philosopher proves a thing, and acts upon it just as vigorously as a Christian would act upon his belief, that the church alone, with its sacraments and ordinances, could save mankind,"

What a pretty mess we should be in, if such were the case; but it is some consolation to know, that these opinions are not from God, but the liturgy, and the man who utters them, possessed with Puseyism.

(To be continued)

or

THE church of Scotland, in resisting the tyrannic power of the civil courts, has been charged with guiltily breaking the law, and with rebellion. So was Christ; so were his apostles. But is the accusation true? on what is it founded? For what do the civil courts contend? To the latter query we would say, for the complete subversion of ecclesiastical authority, even in matters spiritual. The general assembly contends, not merely for its spiritual liberty, to act in accordance with the word of God, but also for the fundamental principle, on which alone obedience to civil authority can securely

rest.

The church has declared her intention to obey God rather than man, and, notwithstanding the interdicts of civil power, she stands forth, in the temples of the land, and preaches unto the people all the words of this life. That the church takes no new ground, but stands firm on her real and former position, we shall attempt to prove.

The principle of "non-intrusion" is a fundamental principle of the church of Scotland, by which it is provided that " no person be intruded into the office of the ministry, contrary to the will of the congregation to whom he is appointed." This principle, adopted and acted on by the church at her first institution, was carried into effect at different periods of her subsequent history in a manner adapted to the times. For instance, upon the final termination of the church's struggles at the revolution, (A.D. 1690,) the right of patrons to present to benefices being then entirely abolished, (1st William and Mary, ch. 23,) and a certain mode of " calling and entering of ministers" being substituted in its place, full authority was reserved for the church to put in operation her non-intrusion principle, which, under that act, she did, by deciding on the sufficiency of the people's acquiescence, as signified in a document styled "the call," which, being subscribed by them, along with the heritors and elders of the parish, was submitted to the presbytery for its decision. Seventeen years afterwards there followed the union with England, (A.D. 1707,) by which, in the most solemn manner, were "established and confirmed the said true protestant religion, and the worship, government, and discipline of this church, to continue without any alteration to the people of this land in all succeeding generations. In less than five years from the date of union, the British parliament passed an act, (10th Queen Anne, chap. 12, A.D. 1712,) by which patronage was restored; and it was enacted that the presbyteries should be "obliged to receive and admit" the presentees of pa

trons, as it was under the law previous to the revolution. This act was a gross and infamous violation of the treaty of union, which had so lately been agreed to, and received the most strong and decided animadversions from the Scottish people; and so powerful was the feeling against such an infamous proceeding, that for many years afterwards, this traitorous act lay a dead letter on the statute book, none attempting to carry it into execution. In the mean time the church acted precisely as she had done under the revolution settlement, and as if such an act was not in existence; and it was not until the year 1730 that the majority in the church began to lay aside their non-intrusion principle; that pastors were forced on the people, not unfrequently at the point of the bayonet. Thus it was, how intrusion raised its monstrous head within the pale of the Scottish church, springing into vigour and life, as the vital principle of godliness gradually forsook the majority of the clergy, who sinking down into sloth, formed those Erastian principles which have so long been as a curse on all the acts and exertions of the church. And this Erastianism is of the same nature now as it was then, and those imbued with its principles have the same feelings, preferring, as they would, the destruction of all usefulness in the church, rather than forego that cold morality, and ridiculous formality, which so remarkably distinguishes the members of assembly, who are not ashamed to deny the great Head of their church for the sake of some family or political influence, which is the stirring impulse that actuates the worldly minority, who, in violation of their ordination vows, have not scrupled to reject Christ as the great Head of the church, setting up in his stead, a corrupt state and a legal court. Such are the men who, destitute of real Christianity themselves, screech out rebellion against the loyal and faithful followers of their Sovereign Lord the King of kings, the manifested God. They, in the malignance of their narrow minds, have not scrupled to bow to the political dissenter, and lick the very dust under his feet, to obtain his miserable aid. And they, with all the bitterness of feeling which the glorious spectacle of a self-reforming church establishment must excite, stretch out the right hand of fellowship to the very men whom they would so rejoice to see lie trampled in the dust.