6: "Suppose some Episcopal ministers having arrived at the conviction that some of their church canons were wrong," "would it be regarded as anything else than a most _astounding presumption_, for such men to dare to change the character of the church canons and denounce some of them as errors, and at the same time to maintain that _they themselves are the true representatives of the Episcopal Church_, and can _unchurch_ others ?" Here are three positions, all of which we regard as erroneous.

In the _first_ place, it is not presumptuous, but a Christian duty, when ministers of a church are firmly convinced, that the avowed standards of their church contain some tenets contrary to the word of God, publicly to disavow them, that their influence may not aid in sustaining error; and if the majority of a synod participate in this opinion, it is their duty to change their standards into conformity with God's word.

The Augsburg Confession itself was such, a disclaimer of Romish errors, and avowal of the truth: and if it was the duty of the ministry in the sixteenth century to make their public profession conform to their belief of Scripture truth, it is equally the duty of every other age.

But although their case involves the _principle_ objected to by the _Plea_, the following cases are more exactly analogous.

The Episcopal ministry and laity did, after the American Revolution, change their doctrine, that the king is the head of the church and adopted the opinion that no civil officer, as such, has any office in the church.