then to pour out their fiercest rage against "Evangelical Low Churchmen," charging them with being men guilty of "deception and fraud," "confederates of Rome," plotting in the dark in their "concealment of the Romanistic virus,”—we say it is not a little remarkable that this same class of men are seen at the present time playing a different sort of game. They come now cooing and billing around "Low Churchmen" as men who really may, perhaps, after all, have a little vital piety in them. But they have not lost a single particle of their bitter hate of Episcopacy; or of their own intolerance of any belief different from their own. Thus the Rev. Dr. Vermilye, a Dutch Reformed Minister, at a public meeting of the "Christian Union Society," called, it was publicly said, to discuss Bishop Potter's Pastoral Letter, a meeting opened with prayer by the Rev. Dr. Muhlenberg !-stigmatized that Pastoral with every opprobrious epithet which his imagination could conceive, or his tongue utter; as "a tail to the Pope's kite;" as "anti-Christian," &c., and wound up his diatribes of fury by declaring, "we must put it where it belongs, under the heel!" And this is what these fraternizing men mean by Christian Union! This is the sweet concord to which we are so affectionately invited.

Why these haters of Episcopacy have chosen the present as the time for their fresh onslaught upon the Church, is, of course, a mere matter of opinion. We confess we believe it to be the very same reason which summoned the late Unitarian Convention together in this city, the sessions of which proved the scene of such ribald blasphemy. The members of that Convention thought they saw something in the temper of our times rendering this a good opportunity to renew the war on Creeds, and positive Christian Institutions, &c., and so to substitute a mere system of Humanitarianism for the Religion of the Cross of Christ. But whatever the special incentives may have been, if any, for this renewed attack upon the Church, yet certain it is that repeated and systematic measures have been taken to commit our clergy, as many of them as possible, to a widesweeping radicalism, which should practically revolutionize the Church, and effectually overthrow the principles on which she is based,

And now we come to the most mortifying part of this history of details. A few of our clergy, holding prominent positions, have yielded to this outside management. A "Christian Union Society" has been formed; of this Society they have become members; they have attended its meetings; taken part in its discussions; and occasionally have avowed sentiments which, if reduced to practice, would of necessity do one of two things; they would either revolutionize the practical workings of the Church, as established in this city and Diocese, or they would produce an open rupture and separation between these gentlemen and the Church, of which they are ordained Ministers. There are not wanting indications that both these alternatives have been distinctly contemplated. This "Christian Union Society" held a meeting in the "Reformed Dutch Church," on Washington Square, on the the evening of April 6th. The New York Observer of April 13th gives the following account of its proceedings :-

"Three ministers of three different denominations spoke from Dr. Hutton's pulpit in the Reformed Dutch Church, on Washington Square, last Thursday evening. One of them was an Episcopalian, one a Baptist, and the third a Lutheran. The meeting was called to discuss the question of Christian Union. The Rev. John Cotton Smith, Rector of the Church of the Ascension reviewed the standards and practice of the Church of England and the Episcopal Church in this country, declaring with great emphasis, explicitness and power that there is nothing in the theory, in the foundation or the rules of his Church to forbid the interchange of pulpits and the recognition of the validity of the Ordination of non-Episcopal Ministers. For himself, he believed his Ordination to be essential to the well-being though not to the being of a Church, but he regarded Presbyterian Ordination as perfectly valid. Indeed he said that Episcopal Ordination was by laying on of "the hands of the Presbytery."

The movement, of course, did not, and could not, stop here. Such revolutions go not backwards, but forward, and that rapidly. In the Sunday morning newspapers of Easter Sunday, April 16th, the following notice appeared :—

"There will be a special Service this evening in the Church of the Ascension, corner of 5th Avenue and Tenth Street. The Rev. Dr. Muhlenberg will officiate, and the Rev. Dr. William Adams will preach. Service to commence at 71⁄2 o'clock."

This Rev. Dr. Adams is a New School Presbyterian, of New England Congregational origin and education, and holds, we suppose, the Congregational theory of the Ministry, Church and Sacraments, which prevails mostly among the New School Presbyterians. The Rev. Dr. John Cotton Smith, Rector of the Ascension, in giving public notice of this service, to his people on Easter Sunday, is reported to have done so in language which indicated, on his part, both determination and defiance of opposition, let the opposition come from whatever source it might. How this service was looked upon by outsiders may be seen in the following quotation, which The Moravian (newspaper) gives from the New York Observer :—

"After Sermon, the Rector, Dr. Smith, stated that the service was designed as a testimony to the grand doctrine of the essential Unity of all those who held to Christ as the Head, who was crucified for our sins and raised for our justification. A collection was then taken up to aid St. Luke's Hospital, a fitting and beautiful exemplification of the spirit of the occasion.

We record this event as one of more than local interest. It is a public, prominent and emphatic declaration that the barrier to ministerial intercourse between Episcopal and non-Episcopal pastors is one of feeling only, and that there is nothing in the rules or theory of the Church, to prevent any Clergyman here from doing as they have done many a time and oft in England."

We shall not stop now to notice at length Dr. John Cotton Smith's argument for Presbyterian Orders, drawn from "the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." (I. Tim. iv. 14.) Any tyro in Greek will tell him, what the learned Presbyterian, Grotius, confesses, "I do not dare to bring, in confirmation of this, that expression of Paul's," &c., &c., because “presbyterium signifies not an assembly, but the office to which Timothy was promoted." Neither do we here discuss at length this question of "interchange of pulpits," on the low ground of mere expediency. There are in this country some fifty or more distinct Religious Sects, a list of which is lefore us. If the Church is to recognize the Ministry of this heterogeneous mass of Sectarianism at all, by what rule is the line of demarcation and exclusion to be drawn; and who is to draw that line? If the Rev. Dr. John Cotton Smith may invite the New School Presbyterian, Dr. Adams, into his pulpit; so also the Rev.

Dr. may invite into his pulpit the Rev. Dr. Osgood, the Unitarian, or the Rev. Dr. Chapin, the Universalist, or the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, the Congregationalist, or the Rev. Dr. Weston, the Baptist; and, in this progress of breaking down the old bulwarks of the Church, our congregations will, assuredly, and at no distant day, be invited to a savory dish of the very newest kind of Christianity, as their Sunday morning's entertainment. The question is one, not merely of Orders, but of Doctrine, of Faith. The Church, we are quite sure, is not yet ready for an experiment of this sort, nor is she willing to be exposed to the probabilities of its occurrence.

Besides the instances of irregularity noted above, other Clergy of the Church have lately been in the habit of publicly fraternizing with Sectarian preachers; preaching in their pulpits, and admitting them to their own; and flaunting all this in the face of the public by advertisements, editorial notices, &c. The New York Independent thus describes one of these scenes. The Dr. Budington alluded to, is a Pelagian of the Taylorite School, and, doctrinally, thoroughly opposed to the whole teaching of the Church; while, ecclesiastically, he belongs to the most radical Sect among modern Sectarians ;—

"The Union Service in Brooklyn, last Sabbath evening, where the unusual if not wholly unprecedented arrangement took place, of a Congregational Clergyman preaching and conducting the Service in an Episcopal Church, was an occasion of much interest. Dr. Canfield very cordially invited Dr. Budington to take the entire Service into his own charge. Dr. Budington accepted it in the same spirit, and said, that if he were to preach in the Church of the Pilgrims, he should expect the pastor, if present, to conduct the opening exercises up to the hymn before sermon, and he should prefer to take precisely the course in Christ Church. This was done. Dr. Canfield read the prayers of his Church, then Dr. Budington ascended the pulpit, gave out a hymn, preached from John xvii. 20, 21, prayed as usual, gave out the closing hymn, and pronounced the Benediction. The large audience was profoundly attentive, and several Episcopal Clergymen present, expressed their unfeigned satisfaction in the whole exercise. We understand that one of the most distinguished of the Clergy in Brooklyn says, that Dr. Canfield had a perfect right thus to open his Church, if he thought proper, and that there is no Canon of the Episcopal Church against it. So this vast humbug of exclusiveness, on being boldly approached, vanished into thin air. Dr. Budington, in his discourse, cited both Bishop Burnet and Hallam, the historian, to prove that the Church of England, in its early days, fully recognized

the Ordination of the Reformed Churches on the continent, and of the Church of Scotland. And he quoted from Lord Bacon a strong expression of regret, that in his day, one man was found at Oxford who openly denied the Validity of such Ordinations."

We have not yet reached the worst phase of this exhibition of disorder. While sober-minded Churchmen in New York were querying whereunto all this would grow, and what was their own duty, Bishop McIlvaine, of Ohio, appears upon the stage. One of the three oldest of all our Bishops, he, too, fraternizes publicly with this same Dr. Vermilye, whose poisoned venom has since been poured out upon the Pastoral of Bishop Potter, as "Antichristian ;" and after partaking in a most humiliating discussion on Church Unity, the Bishop receives an official "Benediction" from the Presbyterian Dr. Ferris. In these days of "Secession and Rebellion," is this Loyalty ?" Is it for him, an appointed leader of a distinct portion of the army of the Church Militant, to obtrude within the ranks of his Rt. Rev. Brother of New York, and give countenance, openly and publicly, to a man who virtually denounces his Brother Bishop as Anti-Christ! and who threatens utter extermination of the Bishop's principles? Is not this sowing the seeds of "sedition ?" Is it honest ? Is it Christian? Is it doing as he would be done by? Is it not a flagrant violation of Law and Order? Or, are such things grievous and insufferable wrongs, only within the domain of the State, and not of the Church? If a Presbyter is prohibited by Canon from trampling upon the rights of a brother Presbyter, must we have a Canon to keep even a Bishop from setting such examples of intermeddling and disorder?

Look at the matter in another light. Is the Church in New York in such a deplorable condition, that it needs the introduction of the policy of the Diocese of Ohio? Must we, indeed, learn lessons of Church growth and progress from such a source? The Church in that Diocese, through the wonderderful foresight and untiring efforts of its first Bishop, has its College, Theological Seminary, and training Schools, such as no other Western Diocese can boast. The State of Ohio, in 1860, had a population of almost two millions; and in agri