worship in the afternoon. If to sit loose in our obedience to ecclesiastical constitutions, give a title to the character of being a liberal-minded man; then were the rash and daring men of the last century, who, from their dislike to ecclesiastical subordination in particular, and to all constituted authority in general, in their mad career of reformation totally overturned both Church and state, liberal-minded to a degree; with which, I trust, none of their successors will ever attempt to vie.

You go on to say, that "whilst Mr. Jay manifests a spirit of love towards the established clergy, why should they not, in their turn, give to him and to others of their dissenting brethren that right hand of fellowship, in which the true unity of the Church consists?"* The object I had in view in my book was to ascertain the nature and constitution of the Christian Church, and to point out the advantages and disadvantages consequent on a communion with, and separation from it; but not to enter into an analysis of the conduct or motives of the separating parties. On this account I could wish that Mr. Jay's name had not been introduced; for the cause of separation is the same, whoever may be the party that espouses it. I am not speaking of the man, but of the principle: and "wise people should consider, that whatever examples there may have been of piety, learning, wit, or

* A Gentleman of my acquaintance gave this reason to one of Mr. Jay's admirers, for discontinuing his attendance at his chapel; because, in consequence of that preacher's uncharitable railing against the bishops and clergy, he could not consider him to be a minister of the Gospel of peace.

wisdom, joined with schism, they can never prove that schism is no sin: no man can be taken as an authority against the laws of God, and the great law of charity is supreme over all."

But when you say that the true unity of the Church consists in the established clergy attending the assemblies of their dissenting brethren, who have broken away from the visible Church in this country, and established a Christian society independent of it; you say, in other words, that separation from the Church is the way to promote communion with it; to which, when you have proved that union and disunion mean the same thing, and are calculated to minister to the same end, you may challenge my assent.

Your next sentence about essentials and fundamentals is a repetition of your friend Mr. Wilberforce's language; to which a sufficient answer has been already given. I would only observe, that the proof brought from Bishop Burnet was not meant to apply to the subject you are upon. The object he chiefly had before him, in his comment on the nineteenth Article, was to prove, in opposition to the supposed infallibility and usurped supremacy of the Church of Rome, which had engrossed to itself the title of Catholic Church, that the Church of England, as preserving the essentials and fundamentals of Christianity, was also a true Church. Now it is presumed, a bishop of the Church must consider the constitution of it, as established by Christ, or by his Apostles from spiritual direction, as among the essentials of Christianity; because * Letter to the Church of England, p. 14.

without it, the pure doctrine would not long be preserved in the world; and therefore Burnet could not mean that his description of a Church should have that extensive application which you appear to have affixed to it, by giving the title of Churches to the congregations of sectarists of every denomination. For if such was the bishop's meaning, he wrote against the established doctrine of the Church, of which he was an appointed governor'; and must stand condemned by the language of both Articles and Canons. Had the bishop foreseen that such a use would have been made of his comment, as to justify separation from the visible Church of Christ in this country, and thereby introduce that wild notion of Church unity, which you have attempted to graft upon it, we must do him the justice to suppose, that he would have guarded against it.

To rectify your notion concerning the Divine grace of Christian charity, which you apply to persons who are acting in direct contradiction to it; I take leave to recommend to your attention the thirteenth chapter of St. Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians; which was expressly addressed to the consideration of the schismatics, then arising in the Church of Corinth. In the preceding chapter, the Apostle had been arguing from the connexion and unity prevailing among the members of the natural body, whereby the general welfare of the body was promoted, to the necessity of a similar connexion and unity among the members of the spiritual body, the Church. And that the Corinthians might not mistake his meaning, he directs

their acadim to the immediate govern de hud in view, in the figurative alusion made use of a the serasing; by saling them planiy, ʼn he wante seventh verse, that they were the duty of Christ, and merchers in particuir. 4 the time the Apostle wrote this Episde, there was a schism in the Church of Corinth. Sme men, prvni of the distinction to which they thought themselves entitled by the superiority of their gis, had broken away from the order and mity of the Apostolic Church With a view to restrain these men from this self-sufficient practice, which the Apostle foresaw would ultimately tend to the ruin of the Church, he tells them plainly in the thirteenth chapter, that though possessed of all the gifts that could be mentioned, yet, if those gifts led to the breaking of the unity of the Church, by dividing them into separate congregations independent of each other, they would profit them nothing: for the great Christian law of charity, which "envieth not, vannteth not itself, is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things;" would, in a word, constrain them, as members of the Christian Church, to do any thing, to bear any thing, to give up any thing, rather than that the peace and unity of it should be broken.

Such is the meaning of this most striking chapter; in which the Apostle seems to have exerted all his powers of eloquence, in order to promote that most essential characteristic of Christianity, the love of

* 1 Cor. xiii. 4, &c.

the brethren, which your mode of writing upon this occasion appears calculated to destroy. The Apostle thought that all division among Christians was to be sedulously avoided; that Christian charity, the consequence of Christian unity, might be preserved. You think that it signifies nothing into what separate societies Christians are divided; "provided they agree in essentials and fundamentals, each separating party may adorn and exercise the divine grace of Christian charity in their own sphere." St. Paul, therefore, entertained sentiments on this subject, directly opposite to those which you seem to entertain upon it. He thought that division among Christians led to a breach of charity; and for that reason he exerted himself so much to prevent it. You think that the bond of charity may be preserved among Christians, who, in St. Paul's judgment, take the most certain way to break it, provided there is agreement in essentials and fundamentals; which in your language means, that provided they are all sound Calvinists, it matters not into how many different sects Christians are broken. Members of the Christian Church, and those who have separated from it, may all meet together, and live in Christian communion with each other; episcopacy, presbytery, independency either, or neither, or all three, it is all one. talk about the unity of the Christian Church, and the sin of schism, in the sense in which St. Paul talked of these subjects, and with the express view of preserving the of the Church, is in your peace idea" to do an essential injury to the Church of England, by holding her up as of an intolerant

To