inconveniences we are afraid of, and not to have recourse to violent remedies. My Lord, I make no scruple to call the setting up private meetings, declining the public congregations, and withdrawing themselves from your lordship's government, violent remedies. Such practice is apparently no better than a formal schism; a crime in its own nature hateful to God and men; and for which both those who set it up, and those who encourage it, must expect to give an account at the great day." There is still one remaining passage in the publication before me, to which, as it puts the unity of the Christian Church quite out of sight, I think it necessary to say a few words.

Among the concluding hints which this author gives for the practical direction of true Christians, we find the following one; which, from the liberal and philanthropic spirit that it breathes, is well calculated to gain credit in a world, uninstructed, as the present is, upon the subject to which it belongs. "Let true Christians," says our author, "cultivate a Catholic spirit of universal good-will, and of amicable fellowship towards all those, of whatever sect or denomination, who, differing from them in non-essentials, agree with them in the grand fundamentals of religion."

The good contained in this sentence appears in so questionable a shape, that an apprehension of the evil which may be derived from it by the uninformed Christian, leads me to conclude, that the author could not see it, in the light in which it will be seen by many readers. Whilst, therefore, I

* Wilberforce, p. 487.

honour the general sentiment, I must beg leave to state my objections to the wording of some part of it, when considered as drawing out a line of practical conduct for the Christian.

There is no fallacy by which common understandings are so readily imposed upon, as that by which a proposition of acknowledged truth, in its proper and restrained sense, is made to minister to a general and unlimited conclusion. In questions of nice discrimination, the far greater part of mankind, whose senses are not exercised to discern between good and evil, are not possessed of ability sufficient to qualify them to draw the line between what is and what is not to be admitted. Propositions which bring immediate conviction to the mind, from the evident truth contained in them, are readily embraced; whilst at the same time little or no attention is paid to the limitations by which those self-evident propositions are necessarily bounded. Hence it is, that a confusion of judgment, upon the most important subjects, ofttimes prevails in the minds of uninformed people, unfavourable to the cause of truth: when the admission of one proposition in an unlimited sense comprehends under it the rejection of another, which stands upon an equally firm foundation. In this case, they either determine upon a wrong conclusion, which necessarily leads to error; or in consequence of their remaining poised between two apparently opposite positions, which they know not how to reconcile, they are in that state of uncertainty which leads to no conclusion at all.

* Heb. v. 14.

In proportion, therefore, to the importance of the subject, should be the attention paid to the precise boundaries, within which every position, however incontrovertible in itself, ought to be confined; that no opening may be left for a general conclusion to be drawn, to the proper establishment of which other circumstances may be necessary to be taken into the account.

The proposition here alluded to is that by which a reader may be led to conclude, that provided the faith of the Christian be sound, provided he hold the grand fundamentals of religion, other considerations are not subjects of essential importance to him.

Upon what is to be understood by the grand fundamentals of religion there is no question. Where these are not admitted, there can be no Christianity. This is a position in which all who receive the Gospel must agree. But though there can be no Christianity, where the grand fundamentals of religion are not admitted, it does not follow, that where these are admitted, there remains no other subject of essential importance, to which the Christian need pay attention.

It may be asked, is every thing relating to the Church of Christ to be deemed non-essential, save what respects the profession of its peculiar doctrines? Such a conclusion, it is presumed, will lead the Christian reader further than the author meant. For upon this supposition, that every thing but the grand fundamentals of religion is a matter of no essential importance; the conclusion which the generality of readers will draw from the sentence

under consideration will be this; that provide they believe, what as Christians they must believe, it is a matter of no consequence what form of religious worship they adopt; whether they hold communion with the church, or the meeting-house; in other words, whether they assemble as members of the Church of Christ, or as members of a schismatic congregation.

The admission of this idea cuts up by the roots the unity of the Christian Church; and makes what the Apostles and first Christians wrote upon this subject somewhat worse than nonsense; for in this case they imposed on their fellow-Christians, by making matters in themselves indifferent subjects of very important consideration.

In short, this inter-communion (if we may so say) between the Church and the conventicle, so utterly inconsistent with the regular economy of Divine grace, can never lead to good. It must ultimately destroy the cause it is meant to serve. To point out its danger, we have only to ask, whether it be not possible for Christians to profess the true faith, and yet by disobedience to lose all the benefits expected from it? If so, there is, doubtless, something of essential importance with the Christian, besides the acknowledgment of the fundamentals of Christianity.

Korah and his company were swallowed up, not for any error in faith, but for disobedience of practice; not because they disbelieved any of the established doctrines of the Jewish Church, but because they rebelled against the Divine ordinance in its establishment.

It was not for their renunciation of the faith, but for their separation from the Church, that St. Paul, St. Clement, and St. Ignatius, in their addresses to the primitive Christians, expressed themselves so strongly and decidedly upon the subject of ecclesiastical unity; that it is impossible, one should suppose, for an unprejudiced reader of their writings, to harbour a doubt upon this subject.

Upon what ground, then, are we to conclude, that conformity to the established government of the Church, which in the primitive days constituted a subject of the first magnitude, is now dwindled down into an unimportant consideration? Can any thing which has received the sanction of the Divine institution in religion be deemed a nonessential? Can, for instance, the Divine institution of the Christian Church, become at any time a matter of no importance? Can the rule given by the Apostle to the members of that Church, in consequence of its Divine establishment, respecting their obedience and submission to the spiritual authority of their appointed governors, become a matter of indifference to the professors of Christ's religion? Can the cultivation of Christian charity, that bond of perfectness, as it is called; that Christian grace, which the establishment of the Church was in a particular manner designed to promote among men; in speaking of religious practice, can this be deemed a non-essential?

Our author, it will be urged, means no such thing. It shall be readily allowed that he does not. On the contrary, that he directs true Christians

*Heb. xiii. 17.