their communion; that they alone, of all to whom salvation by grace is so freely published, are received into covenant mercy,—all this appears to us as nothing else than a proud and sanctimonious self-righteousness, which we can only regard with unmingled abhorrence. There is an atrocity of character in this spirit, which can unchurch the saints of God of every age, in every Christian communion, save one, and consign them, if not to perdition, to God's uncovenanted mercy; -in all this there is an atrocity of character, which, in other days, has found, as it seems to us, its just expression in the fires of Smithfield, and in the slow torture of the auto-da-fe. Episcopacy holds no fellowship, no communion with us,dissenters. "The Episcopal church, deriving its Episcopal power in regular succession from the holy apostles, through the venerable church of England," makes public declaration, through its bishops, that it has "no ecclesiastical connection with the followers of Luther and Calvin." Be it so. To all this we do not care to object. But we have a right to our own conclusions respecting a religion characterized by such exclusiveness. We have already learned, from Planck, the able expounder of the constitutional history of the Christian church, the origin of these high-church dogmas in the ancient hierarchy. A profound expositor of the constitutional history of England has also sketched the origin of these high pretensions in the English church. They are of comparatively recent origin, dating back only a few years antecedent to the settlement of the Puritans, in this country. They sprang, also, from the same spirit for which high-church Episcopacy has ever been so much distinguished,—that is, unmitigated hatred of the religion of the Puritans. Bancroft, the chaplain of archbishop Whitgift first broached these doctrines; but archbishop Laud has the credit of re-affirming and establishing them. "Laud and his party, began, about the end of Elizabeth's reign, by preaching the divine right, as it is call ed, or absolute indispensability of Episcopacy; a doctrine, of which the first traces, as I apprehend, are found about the end of Elizabeth's reign. They insisted on the necessity of Episcopal succession, regularly derived from the apostles. They drew an inference from this tenet, that ordinations by presbyters were, in all cases, null." Of Lutherans and Calvinists, they began now to speak, "as aliens, to whom they were not at all related, and schismatics, with whom they held no communion; nay, as wanting the very essence of Christian society. This again brought them nearer, by irresistible consequence, to the disciples of Rome, whom, with becoming charity, but against the received creed of the Puritans, and, perhaps, against their own articles, they all acknowledged to be a part of the catholic church."7 7. Episcopacy is monarchical and anti-republican. It is monarchical in form, monarchical in spirit, and, until transplanted to these states, has been, always and everywhere, the handmaid of monarchy. And here it is a mere exotic, which is altogether uncongenial with our own republican soil. Its monarchical tendencies and sympathies are clearly exhibited by Hallam, a historian of extensive, and profound erudition, whose work on the Constitutional History of England, Macaulay characterizes as "the most impartial book that he ever read." "The doctrine of passive obedience, Episcopacy taught in the reign of Elizabeth, even in her homilies. To withstand the Catholics, the reliance of Parliament was upon the 'stern, intrepid, and uncompromising spirit of Puritanism.' Of the conforming churchmen, in general, they might well be doubtful."8 The doctrine of the king's absolute authority was inculcated by the Episcopal clergy. "Especially with the highchurch party it had become current."9 Under Charles I, "they studiously inculcated, that resis 7 Hallam's Constitutional History, Vol. I. pp. 540, 541. 8 Ibid. pp. 262, 263. 9 lbid. pp. 437, 438. tance to the commands of rulers was, in every conceivable instance, a heinous sin. It was taught in their homilies."19 "It was laid down in the canons of convocation, 1606.”11 Sibthorp and Mainwaring, "eager for preferment, which they knew the readiest method to obtain, taught that the king might take the subject's money at pleasure, and that no one might refuse his demand, on penalty of damnation." And for such true and loyal sentiments, Mainwaring was honored with a bishopric by Charles, and Sibthorp with an inferior dignity. James considered Episcopacy essential to the existence of monarchy, uniformly embodying this sentiment in his favorite aphorism, "No bishop, no king.”12 Elizabeth and her successors, says Macaulay, "by considering conformity and loyalty as identical, at length made them So." "Charles himself says in his letters, that he looks on Episcopacy as a stronger support of monarchical than even power an army. From causes which we have already considered, the Established Church had been, since the Reformation, the great bulwark of the prerogative."13 She was, according to the same eloquent writer, for more than one hundred and fifty years, "the servile handmaid of monarchy, the steady enemy of public liberty. The divine right of kings, and the duty of passively obeying all their commands, were her favorite tenets. She held them firmly, through times of oppression, persecution, and licentiousness; while law was trampled down; while judgment was perverted; while the people were eaten, as though they were bread."14 cy Great objection was made to the introduction of Episcopainto this country, on account of its monarchical principles 10 Hallam's Const. Hist. Vol. 1. p. 264. 11 Ibid. pp. 567–570. pp. 43, 44. Boston ed. and tendencies, so entirely adverse to the popular spirit of our government and our religion. It was received, at last, only on its making large concessions to the spirit of our free institutions. In the revolutionary struggle, great numbers of that denomination, and a larger proportion of their clergy, remained the fast adherents to the British crown. Indeed, the monarchical spirit of Episcopacy, and its uncongeniality with our free institutions, is too obvious to need illustration.15 Our fathers came here to establish" a state without king, or nobles, and a church without a bishop." They sought to establish themselves here, as "a people governed by laws of their own making, and by rulers of their own choosing." And here, in peaceful seclusion from the oppression of every dynasty, whether spiritual or temporal, they became an independent and prosperous commonwealth. But what affinity, what sympathy has its government, civil or religious, with that of Episcopacy? the one, republican; the other, monarchical; in sympathy, in principle, in form, they are directly opposed to each other. We doubt not that most of the members of that communion are friends to our republican government; but we must regard their religion as a strange, unseemly anomaly here; a religious government, arbitrary and despotic, in the midst of the highest political freedom; a spiritual despotism, in the heart of a free republic! 15 See an extract from Chandler's Appeal on behalf of the church of England in America. N. Y., 1767, cited in Smyth's Eccl. Republicanism, which concedes fully the monarchical spirit of Episcopacy. CHAPTER XI. PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. THE religious worship of the primitive Christians was conducted in the same simplicity and freedom which characterized all their ecclesiastical polity. They came together for the worship of God, in the confidence of mutual love, and prayed, and sung, and spoke in the fulness of their hearts. A liturgy and a prescribed form of prayer were alike unknown, and inconsistent with the spirit of their worship. In the following chapter, it will be my object to establish the following propositions. I. That the use of forms of prayer is opposed to the spirit of the Christian dispensation. II. That it is opposed to the example of Christ and of his apostles. III. That it is unauthorized by the instructions of Christ and the apostles. IV. That it is contrary to the simplicity and freedom of primitive worship. V. That it was unknown in the primitive church. I. The use of forms of prayer is opposed to the spirit of the Christian dispensation. "The truth," says Christ, "shall make you free." One part of this freedom was exemption from the burdensome rites and formalities of the Jewish religion. "The Lord's |