can he, even now deem such a reply conclusive? But let us return to your sermon of 1827.

You briefly review the creeds of the Primitive church, and conclude thus; "In all we find one Head spoken of, the Lord Jesus Christ, and union to him the character of his body the church. It has not two heads. And Him every true Protestant, in every part of the world, and all true Christians, to whatever particular part of the church, or outward denomination they may belong, recognise as the one only Head."

but

You show that "agreement in one faith is also an essential part of the unity of the church." It is, however, not the faith of Pope Pius IV., that of Holy Scripture alone, of which the Apostles' creed is an acknowledged summary. "This unity, Protestants have. And"-you ask-" is this no unity? Are Protestants so immensely and inseparably divided? Is there no agreement among them, when all that the church of Christ, for the first four centuries publicly declared she held essential to salvation, they publicly and constantly hold? Is there no unity of faith among them, when one true and upright Protestant travelling through the earth, wherever he meets with another true and upright Protestant, shall find him believing in the same God, the same Saviour, the same Holy Ghost, the same way of salvation by faith in that Saviour's merits, the same necessity of holy living and of dependence on divine grace, and a re

newal of heart and life, all the records of the same blessed volume of inspired truth, yea, everything in the Apostle's and other ancient creeds ?"* You then give the triumphant challenge: "And where, with the external appearance of concord so greatly boasted of in the Roman church, is her entire unity of faith? I speak not now of the unity of spirit, but I ask, where was the perfect unity of faith in the members of that church, when two of her most celebrated and zealous monastic orders, disputed respecting the immaculate conception of the Virgin, the Franciscans as vehemently maintaining as the Dominicans opposed it? When the Jesuits and Jansenists broke in upon the slumbers of their church, by long and loud contentions respecting the doctrines of grace? When it is a notorious fact, that not only Popes have decided against Popes, but councils against councils, and the church of one age against the church of another; and what canonized saints taught in one age as divine truth, and was received as such in the church for centuries, the Pope and his cardinals in later times condemned as pernicious error? On a point of fundamental importance as it respects the authority of the Roman church, and the obedience of her people, there is an entire disagreement among them; viz. where that infallibility resides, on which she supports her pretensions ;

* Sibthorp's Character and Tokens, p. 25.

some placing it in the Pope alone, some in general councils, some in both united, and others sometimes in one and sometimes in the other."*

Again you declare: “Among all real Christians there is an entire community in the object of worship. They have all one and the same Father, one and the same Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named; and one and the same Holy Spirit. In them is strictly fulfilled that prayer of Christ, That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, that the world may know that thou hast sent me.' The union of the Father and the Son is not a visible, tangible, nor external union. It is mysterious and spiritual. And such is the communion existing between all true Christians. It does not exclude, but it does not necessarily consist in outward communion. They have all one object, to glorify God, serve their Saviour Jesus Christ, and save their own souls and those of others; they have all the same enemies, Satan, the world, and sin; the same hope; mainly, the same trials, cares, and temptations; they have a communion of interests, joys, and sorrows. One and the same blessed spirit dwelling in them all, knits and unites them to each other, in the communion of the church militant; and by his hallowing influences

* Sibthorp's Characters and Tokens, p. 26.

and holy affections, and blessed hope which he produces in them, knits them to the holy angels and spirits of the just made perfect in the communion of the church triumphant; and thus is fully effected the communion of saints." *

Now whatever qualification any of the statements in this animated passage may require; yet it is impossible for us not to admire the spirit which pervades the whole, as well as the general force and cogency of the reasoning. We would gladly, if space permitted, extend our extracts. Perhaps you will think them already too long, but you must excuse us, for we love to linger with you in "the green pastures," and "by the still waters" of plain and simple christian truth, rather than to track your steps through the tangled wilderness of error. The work, however, though painful must be done; and we return, yet reluctantly, to your unhappy recantation of the sound doctrine and the hallowed sentiments which we have just recorded from your former writings; and we do it in the hope that we may gain, or rather regain our brother, and if not, that we may deliver our own souls.

You allege that many Protestants have owned the want of a centre of unity for the church.” Perhaps they may, unwisely enough, in our opinion. We have one great centre of unity in

* Sibthorp's Character and Tokens, p. 28.

Christ, and neither want nor would endure any other. We are well satisfied with that Episcopal jurisdiction under which it is our happiness to live; and we would not have our own diocesan amenable to Rome or to any other spiritual tyranny whatever. The earliest episcopal churches knew nothing of such a centre; and we may surely date the mighty evils which ultimately deluged the church, from the period when other bishops began to bow to the aspiring and ambitious claims of Roman supremacy.

We may grant you that the permanency of the succession of Roman pontiffs is not invalidated by the misconduct of individual popes, when you have made good your ground that this succession rests on as firm a basis as that of the Levitical High Priesthood. Till you have done this, it is fruitless to discuss a merely minor proposition, which perhaps might not stand with the greater, but certainly cannot stand without it.

From these observations you will perceive that we are at issue with you on your conclusion, which you thus state, (p 22.) "It is the recognition of this claim," namely, that of Rome to be the one true church—“ arising from due consideration of the principle which it involves," namely, the principle of the Pope's supremacy-" which must be a first step towards the restoration of unity, and to any effectual measures for remedying the disasters of the sixteenth century."