spirit." Page 20,

disturb her peace."

"It is to attempt to break and Page 157.

You would tell us, probably, in the language of Dr. Edwards, (a rigid Calvinist in the beginning of the last century, with whose writings I should judge you to be perfectly well acquainted) that "it is high time to learn sobriety, and to be sensible of the sufficient mischief that has lurked under the pretence of advancing the unity of the Church; "* and that, if we would attain to the character of being liberal-minded men, we must give up all Church ideas, which have been derived from Apostolic precept and primitive practice; and accommodate ourselves to the present popular notions upon that subject. In order to promote what you are pleased to call the true unity of the Church, the established clergy must go to the meeting-house; they must lay aside all prejudices about the necessity of regular ordination and Church communion; the wall of the Lord's vineyard must be thrown down, that Christians may walk in and out, backward and forward, at their will; and then, Sir, in your judgment, the established harmony of what you are pleased to call the Churches of our blessed Lord's vineyard, will be complete; and the attempt of every honest guide to lead the members of Christ's Church in the old paths, will be vain.

But though the world may go after you, and though a divine of the old stamp, in these days of unparalleled liberality, (and thence it may be too truly added, of unparalleled danger) must not expect to be popular; yet, Sir, I have made up my * Dr. Edward's, of Cambridge, sermon on the 1st of May, 1707.

mind on this subject, being perfectly satisfied not to be more liberal-minded respecting it than St. Paul was.

Much more might be said upon this important subject; but as I shall have occasion to touch upon it again in the course of this letter, I for the present pass on.

You say, Sir, in page 154, that "you must praise Mr. Green, for keeping as close to the Church as he can, by reading her excellent service; especially as he does not in sentiment differ from her a tittle; so that he certainly is a much more faithful son of the establishment than one who extolls its constitution, but undermines its plain doctrine." Your meaning, Sir, is perfectly intelligible; but as it is my wish to pass over, as much as may be, all personal attacks or insinuations, I have only to reply to what you have above advanced, in the words of the Apostle, that "with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: He that judgeth me is the Lord."

According to the nineteenth Article you say, "that is a Church where there is a congregation of faithful men, and where the pure word of God is preached." There is a very convenient way of quoting adopted by some people, which consists in taking just as much of a passage as suits their purpose, and in leaving the rest. Such appears to be the case at present. You wish to make it appear, that every congregation of Christian people, where the pure word of God is preached, constitutes a

* 1 Cor. iv. 2, 4.

Church. To substantiate this point, you bring the authority of the nineteenth Article, which, according to your partial manner of quoting, is calculated to lead the reader to the desired conclusion. The words of the Article in question are these: “ The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly administered according to Christ's ordinance." The pure word of God then must not only be preached, but the sacraments must also be duly administered according to Christ's ordinance, to warrant the application of the term "visible Church of Christ" to any congregation of Christian people. Now the twenty-third Article of the Church says, that it is not lawful for any man to take upon himself the office of ministering the sacraments, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same, by those who have public authority given unto them to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard. But, according to the doctrine of the Church of England, of which you profess yourself a member, and to one of whose Articles you appeal on this subject, those persons only have authority to send ministers into the Lord's vineyard, who are the appointed governors of it, according to that ecclesiastical constitution which was settled by the Apostles. It follows therefore, from these premises, upon the authority of our Articles, that in whatever Christian congregation ministers duly qualified to administer the sacraments are wanting, there the visible Church cannot exist. You proceed to say, that "where the pure word is not preached, we are by

natural consequence warranted to declare, that no true Church exists; and in that case, the parochial temple becomes a conventicle, and the minister of the Church a schismatic." Page 154.

You will excuse me, Sir, if I do not see any natural consequence in this case; but, on the contrary, a very dangerous consequence that may be drawn from such a position. I mean neither to disparage or offend you, when I take upon me to assert, that you are but a sciolist in theology, if you are yet to learn, that, however bold the position may seem, that may be a true Church, in which the pure word of God is not preached.* The distinctive title true Church, in this case, must be understood as referring simply to the regularity of its constitution, abstracted from the corruption with which the profession of that constitution may be accompanied; and, thus understood, the expression is to be justified. For in this sense that may be constitutionally true, which is at the same time practically false. That may, for instance, be a true Church, so far as the form of its constitution is concerned, in which the pure word of God is not preached. Under such circumstances, it is, indeed a Church in error; and consequently, so far as that error prevails, not what it ought to be. But error in a Church does not destroy its constitution. Error may be reformed, and the Church thereby restored to perfection. If you will turn to the Revelations, you will find the Churches of Asia were accused of gross errors, but their candlestick was not removed; that is, they did not

* Vindicia, c. iv. p. 203 and 305.

cease to be Churches, till their errors were found to be incorrigible. The Church of Rome, as I have before observed, from great authority, is a true Church, though a Church in which the pure word is not always preached. As such, it is a corrupt Church; but is still suffered to exist, as a very conspicuous branch of the visible Church of Christ. When a Church shall have arrived to that extreme state of corruption, as no longer to be entitled to the distinction of being a Church, it is God's business to determine, not our's; and when this has been determined, the event will prove. At the same time it must be said, that the reader must possess little claim to discrimination of judgment on this subject, who does not clearly distinguish between the constitution of the Church, as a society Divinely instituted, and the corruptions to which such constitution may at times be made subservient.

Indeed, if man be to take upon himself to deter mine when error in a Church shall take away from it its distinctive character, the remedy in this case will prove worse than the disease. However much to be deprecated error is in any case, yet error in the Church is not so bad as error out of it; for it is under some restraint, and on that account not likely to be carried to such an extent, as when men are left to their own imaginations. But you have found out a short way of settling this matter. You say, where the pure word of God is preached, there

is the true Church; and where that word is not preached, there is no true Church. Now as many parts of your publication are expressly calculated