disregarded, is a perfectly irrelevant question, provided there is no refer. ence to such article or law on the face of the securities themselves the purchasers have bought, trust ing to the explicit promise of the state, and the state can not be permitted to assert that the promise is not absolutely binding. Now how can a state, when thus indebted, be ever released, except by a full payment to the creditors? Her legislature, in the wanton exercise of what is called parliamentary omnipotence, may profess to affirm or to nullify the contract, just as they may profess to nullify the laws of Congress, or to release the citizen from the obligations of an oath. On the same principle, a giant may discharge himself from paying the debt which he owes to a dwarf. The dwarf has not sufficient physical strength to compel the giant to be honest, and perhaps the holders of her bonds can find no tribunal that will constrain Mississippi to pay either the principal or the interest; but when we speak of a release from the obligation of a debt, we refer to some other discharge than that of club law. Right and wrong are still realities, justice-as between individuals respectively, or between a community on the one side and individuals on the otherhas a fixed moral, and not a conventional, meaning; and we accordingly ask once more, how can a state, when indebted, be ever released, except by a full payment to the creditors? Her actual inability to pay, even if it be that of utter bankruptcy, alters not the fact of her indebtedness; she will be justified in not paying while this inability continues, but she is still a debtor, and as soon as her solvency returns payment inust be made.

We are here arguing, it will be seen, upon the assumption that the rights of the creditor are equally sacred, whether the debtor is a natural or an artificial person, a

single citizen, or a sovereign state. And what can render these rights less sacred in the latter case than in the former? The words, right and obligation, are perfectly recip rocal terms. If a state can sustain the relation of creditor, it can also sustain that of debtor; if she possesses all the unquestioned rights originated by the one, she can assume all the obligations which appertain to the other. The remedies may indeed be different in the two different cases, but the rights and obligations will be reciprocally the same. Can then the individual debtor be ever released from his indebtedness, except by actual payment, or by the creditor's voluntary relinquishment of the debt? We know, as who does not know, that every commercial country has its bankrupt laws, and insolvent laws, and statutes of limitation, and we mean not to assert that such legislation is unnecessary; but what do all such laws truly affirm? That the debtor has been thus released from the obligation to pay his creditor-is this their declared intention? Or is it this; that while the obligation on the one side and the right on the other continue the same, the state will not assist the creditor by the process of her courts to enforce his rights? It may be expedient for the commonwealth or the monarch to enact such laws, the complicated relations of commerce may render it indispensable, but, as has been already said, these laws take away the remedy merely, they do not and they can not lessen the right nor the obligation. Suppose the insolvent or the bankrupt should again accumulate property; is he not as sacredly required to pay his creditors, as if the laws had never professed in any sense to discharge him? His obligations to his creditors were created by the eternal principles of justice, and not by the acts of a legislature or the rescripts of a despot; how then can

any human legislation set him free? He contracted his debts, not as a mere member of a political society, not as a citizen or a subject, but as a man, as a moral being; and whence does civil government derive the power, we ask, to extinguish such obligations? If the state can release him from the duty of paying his debts, it can release him from the duty of speaking the truth; for the obligations of justice are as absolutely sacred as those of veracity. If it can lessen in the least degree the sanctity of any one right and of its corresponding duty, it can abolish all rights, it can release from every duty. And are we then asked, why, if such views are to be sanctioned, does so much misapprehension on this subject prevail, why do men so generally consider themselves released from all indebtedness by the operation of these specific laws? We will give a twofold answer: most men are willing to adopt the laws of the land as their own standard of morality; and but very few men are strictly, absolutely honest. Twenty

generous, kind, amiable persons can be found, as we believe, where there is one strictly honest man. Theirs are the virtues of impulse, or of instinct; but his is the virtue of immovable principle.

Did the limits which we have prescribed to ourselves permit, we could pursue this train of illustration at length; but we must close. The subject in many of its aspects, is indeed most unwelcome; but our motto, although we rest on other hopes than those of the ancient Roman, is—“never despair of the republic." Mississippi herself appears to be awaking, slowly indeed, to a recognition of the dishonor which she has thus attached to her own name. So large a body of her citizens are now insisting that these repudiated bonds must be paid, that they will ere long, as we trust, become the majority. And the justice, the equity, of the whole matter is so apparent, that even her partisan politicians must in mere shame retrace their own footsteps, when the tempest which they have temporarily excited shall have passed away.

Catholics in the countries included within "the Roman obedience," and the members of the Greek communion in Russia and the East, constitute the one catholic church, now unhappily divided by mutual misunderstandings, but hereafter to be gloriously reunited; and that all "dissenters" who have either sepa rated themselves from this catholic body, or have been in due form excluded from it, are without the pale of that church out of which there is no salvation. The cool atrocity of such a system-wrought out with all sorts of sophistry, and propped up with all sorts of authorities-a

system which, without a shudder, consigns to perdition such saints of God, as Owen and Bunyan, Watts and Doddridge, Edwards and Erskine, Fuller and Dwight, Brainerd and Carey, and all, however distinguished by the fruits of the Spirit, who have dared to trust in Christ without trusting in the intercession of a human priesthood-indicates not only an unsound judgment, but a disordered moral sense, on the part of the Oxford author and his American editor.

We have now an opportunity of becoming further acquainted with Bishop Whittingham, as he exhibits himself in a "charge" addressed by him to his clergy at Baltimore, in the month of June last. In the marks of scholarship and of a vig orous though erratic mind, it answers well to the reputation of its author; and on the whole, it leads us to entertain a more respectful opinion both of his intellect and of his moral and religious sensibilities, than we had been able to gather from his editorial labors betowed on the volumes of Palmer. It seems important to notice the manifestations of opinion in the Episcopal church, especially such as proceed from men of eminence and of official or personal authority. The The interests of pure Christianity may be promoted, by bringing before the public the true points of difference between the system prevalent in that church and the evangelical system. In this point of view, a certain Episcopal charge recently published in New England, has an importance which will justify us in reserving it for a distinct and deliberate consideration. A solemn official announcement of the opinion of the Episcopal church in one of the New England states, on "the errors of the times," is a document, the value of which in determining the true character and position of that church in relation to evangelical religion, no reasonable man

can question. The charge now before us has merits of its own in respect to extent of learning, force of thought, and dignity of style, far superior to the common standardwe will not say of Episcopalian, but of episcopal literature. The authority of Dr. Whittingham is not merely official, but personal. He speaks not simply as the bishop of a diocese, but as a ripe scholar, a practiced professor, an earnest thinker, a zealous and enthusiastic sectarian. In the progress of the controversy now pending between the system of "organized unity," and the system of "individual responsibility," we shall expect to hear often from the author of this charge.

It is a great mistake, to suppose that the difference between the Episcopal church and other communions called evangelical, is merely or chiefly a difference about organization and forms. As we understand the matter, and as Bishop Whittingham understands it, the dif ference respects the very nature and being of Christianity. Some Episcopalians, we are aware, do not so understand it. There is a small but respectable party in that church, who are most honest in the belief, that a ministry consisting of prelates, presbyters, and deacons, is of divine right, and was instituted as such by the Apostleswho hold that every Christian community not taught and governed by such a ministry, is irregularly and imperfectly organized-who heartily adopt the forms of their own church, as on the whole better than any other existing mode of public worship-and who, at the same time, hold distinctly and unequivo cally, the doctrines of the evangelical system. But these persons do not give character to the Episcopal church. Of some of them it may be said, that though they are in that church, they are hardly of it. In her history, in her constitutional

structure and tendencies, in her liturgy, in her actual position and influence, "the church" as a body is entirely against them. They are Christians more than they are "Churchmen." The genuine Churchman, who is well grounded in what are called "church principles," holds a system of religion, which, just in proportion as it is distinctly developed, is directly antagonistic to the religion of the New Testament. Multitudes, including not a few of the Episcopalian ministry, hold that system vaguely, in its mere rudiments, and with various incoherent admixtures of the true Gospel. In many such, the truth which they receive counteracts the error which they mix with it, and becomes effectual by the grace of God to their spiritual regeneration, and to the salvation of their souls. In Episcopalian pulpits, and even in those which are episcopal, there is often a vague and obscure way of touching upon the great truths of spiritual religion, which on the one hand, never brings home to the careless conscience, lulled to repose by the steady observance of formalities, the great duty of immediate repentance-and on the other hand, rarely astounds such hearers as may be accustomed to evangelical ideas, with any explicit denial of the doctrines of grace. Sometimes this is simply the legitimate result of vagueness and obscurity in the mind of the preacher. Sometimes, we suspect, it may proceed from a well considered " reserve in the communication of religious knowledge." The consequence is, that, within and without the Episcopal church, the system of doctrines fairly belonging to that church-the actual difference between that sect, as a sect, and the great catholic communion of evangelical Protestants-is to a great extent imperfectly understood.

We turn then to Bishop Whittingham's charge-an official produc

tion of a chief dignitary of the Epis copal church; and we inquire, what is the theory of Christianity held by this learned and able writer?

66

"THE BODY OF CHRIST." When we see this phrase in the work of an Episcopalian, we are at no loss to conjecture what the writer is thinking of. It is continually assumed by such writers, that inasmuch as the church is the body of Christ, therefore some definite or ganized society, under the name of the church, must be exclusively Christ's body, and membership in that organized society is the only known union of the soul to Christ. In accordance with this assumption, the author before us talks about "the revealed plan of salvation through membership in the body of Christ," (p. 3,) meaning that there is no salvation revealed for any who are not subject to the regula tions and officers of that particular society, or fraternity of societies, which he recognizes as the only church. In accordance with the same assumption, he affirms that "the Divine commission of the ministry, in apostolical succession, as the authorized dispenser of justifying and sanctifying grace in the sacraments of regeneration, and of the communion of the body and blood of Christ, has been the unin terrupted doctrine of the church, since she received it in and with the Scriptures, down to the present day." p. 15. In the same way of reasoning, he sets it down, in language borrowed from Bishop Bev. eridge, as the utmost achievement of the "skill and power" of Satan, in his "spite at our church," "to draw as many as he can from its communion"-that is, from the communion of membership and subjection in that particular organization which is governed by bishops, and ministered to by sacrificing priests and preaching deacons "and to make them schismatics; that so, being separated from the

body, they may not partake of the spirit that is in it, nor by consequence receive any benefit from this promise of our blessed Savior to the governors of the catholic and apostolic church in all ages, 'Lo, I am with you always, to the end of the world."" p. 16. In like manner it is declared by our author, that "the Scriptures afford no authority for believing that Christ can be truly preached otherwise than in the church," (p. 17,) that is, in the church as organized under a prelatical government, professing to have come down, in an uninterrupted succession, from the apostles. In the same way, our author "teaches the reality of the interest in Christ which pertains to membership in his visible Body ;" and he declares, that "of the Body which the sacraments unite and seal as His, it is explicitly revealed that it is His body, into which, entering by baptism, we are baptized into Jesus Christ, and have put on Christ, and in which, eating His flesh, and drinking His blood, we dwell in Him, and He in us." p. 18. In the same way, it is declared that the redemption through the cross of Christ, is" applied to the individual believer by the Spirit in the ordinances ;" and that it is "the grace transmitted in the church, from the Root through the branches vitally joined to it by faith, which alone enables them to bear their fruit." p. 20. And, not to multiply these quotations unnecessarily, it is said in the same way by this same author, that the true knowledge of "the Gospel in its fullness, its freeness, and its power," is "the knowledge of Christ as the Savior of the Body, and therefore of its members as in the Body-of ourselves as members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones, nourished and cherished by his Spirit, ministered in his ordinances, and received by faith." p. 21.

These views are not Popery; al

though the Roman Catholic church holds substantially the same views. We have not made these quotations for the sake of stigmatizing them as Popery, or Romanism, or even as Puseyism. Pusey and the Oxford Tractarians hold these views it is true; but we have yet to learn that these views are peculiar to the writers of that school. Popery, or Romanism, is not the doctrine which the church of Rome holds in common with other bodies of nominal Christians. Puseyism is not that doctrine which the Tracta rians hold in common with the formularies and the most honored prelates and authors of the Anglican church, in almost every successive age since the Reformation. What Hobart held, and Seabury-what was held by Sancroft and Laud, by Montague, Cosins and Andrews, by Bancroft and Queen Elizabeth— what stands as it were engraven on

a rock in the catechism and offices of the church-is not Puseyism, but "church-of-Englandism." The quotations which we have given are valuable, as exhibiting frankly and with high authority, a scheme of religion which is diligently propagated in many portions of our coun try, and which has much to recommend it to the deceitful and cor rupt heart of unregenerate man, but which is not always stated by its advocates with so little reserve. The system may be briefly and me. thodically summed up in the follow. ing propositions.

1. Christ as a Savior is related, not directly to individual sinners who repent and believe, but only to the church as a visible corporation, and to individuals only as members of that corporation. Consequently, the doctrine of election, as it is com monly called-the doctrine which "considers the election of the individual believer as the immediate end of the Divine counsels"-is a great mistake, a piece of "Calvin's misspent ingenuity." p. 6. God's