of Christians; from whence it follows, ther the laws on the one hand, nor the .ine on the other, are of themselves sufficient, ostractedly considered, to determine the constitution either of the state or of the Church. Where the Church is, there the pure doctrine ought always to be found; and there, generally speaking, it will most certainly be found; but as the pure doctrine is sometimes found where the Church is not, therefore the pure doctrine does not constitute the only mark by which the Church is to be known.

The characteristic mark, then, by which the Church of Christ, as an ecclesiastical society, is distinguished in the world, is its Apostolic government. Where this mark is not to be found, the visible Church, according to the idea that has always prevailed on this subject, does not exist. And the reason why so much has been said at all times upon the necessity of Church communion, and the evil consequences resulting from separation from it, is, because the government of the Church, by which the unity of it is secured, is necessary to the preservation of the essential object, for the promotion of which it was originally established.

From the foregoing premises, the difference between a corrupt Church, a schismatical Church, and a congregation not possessing the essentials to make it a Church, will, according to the old and established notions, be clearly ascertained.

* Vide Preface to " Guide," page 29; and " Guide," p. 30 and 42.

A

corrupt Church is in possession of the essentials necessary to the being of a Church, though, in , communion with it consequence of its corruption, may be dangerous and sinful. the present Church of Rome. ruption, and it will become a with its corruption it is a true one, for the reason above given.

Such a Church is Purge away its corsound Church; but

A schismatical Church is a Church that breaks off from communion with the Catholic Church, as the Novations and Donatists did of old. Under this head are also to be classed those congregations of Christians, assembled under an épiscopal clergy, who maintain an independence on the bishop in whose diocese they are situated, and to whose government they ought to be under obedience. Such is the case with those episcopalian congregations in Scotland, if they may be so called; who, by breaking away from the centre of unity in their respective bishops, are thereby become schismatical; and, as such, would, in the primitive days of the Church, have had the heaviest of ecclesiastical censures pronounced against them. My hearty desire to God, for take brethren in Scotland, is, that they may my this subject into serious consideration. Would to God that they would reflect upon the injury they are doing to the unity of the Christian Church in general, and to that of their own Church in particular; the purest Church, perhaps, this day in Christendom.-Would that they would call to mind the memorable words of that primitive bishop and martyr, St. Ignatius-"O o yag X158 101, 8001 μετα τ8 Επισκοπε εισιν : ” and at the same time look forward to the account they will one day have to

give to that Head of the Church, whose commission they hold.

Bearing some resemblance to these independent congregations, are those places of public worship which the licentiousness of the present times have introduced among us; where, though the Liturgy of the Church of England be made use of, both minister and people, by breaking away from all connexion with the bishop, are living in a state of schism. In such places, Sir, the service of the Church of England is not performed, as you say, in page 155, "according to the rites of that Church;" for the rites of the Church of England require, that its service should be performed, not only by an episcopally-ordained minister, but also in a place subject to episcopal jurisdiction. In such extra episcopal places of worship, to which I am now alluding, you may have the words of the Liturgy De forms of the Church; but the service of

and the

"

the Church, according to the rites of the Church of England, you certainly have not, nor can have.

Every congregation of Christians, which is not formed according to the plan of government established by the Apostles, possesses not the essentials to make it a Church. It is, therefore, upon the authority of those canons to which you have appealed, not a true and lawful Church. The conclusion from the foregoing consideration shall be drawn in the words of Dean Sherlock, to whose discourse I would refer you for the complete handling of this important subject.

"It is thought of late days, not only a very innocent and lawful thing, but the true Catholic

ま

spirit, to communicate with Churches of all communions. Thus, some who communicate ordinarily with the Church of England, make no scruple to communicate in prayers and sacraments with Presbyterian and Independent Churches; and Presbyterians communicate with the Church of Eng land and with Independents, whom, formerly, they charged with downright schism; and some think it very indifferent whom they communicate with, and, therefore, take their turns in all. But this is as contrary to all the principles of Church commu nion, as any thing can possibly be. Christ hath but one Church and one body; and, therefore, where there are two Churches divided from each other by separate communions, there is a schism and rent in the body; and whoever communicates with both these Churches, on one side or other, communicates in schism. Now, if schism be an innocent thing, and the true Catholic spirit, I have no more to say, but that the whole Christian Church, ever since the Apostles' times, has been in a great mistake. But if schism be a very great sin, and that which will damn us as soon as adultery and murder, then it must needs be a dangerous thing to communicate with schismatics.

"The sum of all in short is this: besides these men who justify their separation from the Church of England, by charging her with requiring sinful terms of communion, (which is the only thing that can justify their separation, if it could be proved). there are others who separate lightly and wantonly, fo want of a due sense of the nature of Church communion, and our obligations to preserve the

"

unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. They have no notion at all of a Church, or no notion of our Church, or know not wherein the unity and communion of the Church consists; and these men think it is indifferent whether they communicate with any Church at all, or that they secure themselves from schism by communicating sometimes with one Church and sometimes with another; that they may choose their Church according to their own fancies, and change again whenever their humour alters. But I hope whoever considers carefully what I have now written, and attends to those passionate exhortations of the Gospel to peace, and unity, and brotherly love, which cannot be preserved but in one communion, which is the unity of the body of Christ, and the peace and love of fellow members, will not only heartily pray to the God of peace to restore peace and unity to his Church, but be careful how he divides the Church himself, and will use his utmost endeavours to heal the present schisms and divisions of the Church of Christ."*

I would only observe, in addition to what has been said, and with a view of narrowing this subject as much as may be, by confining it to the Christians of this country, that that established orthodox national Church of which we boast, can bring forward more arguments to justify her in challenging conformity to her communion, than perhaps any Church that ever yet existed in the

* See "Resolution of some Cases of Conscience with respect to Church Communion," by Dr. Sherlock, in London' Cases, vol. i. p. 88, et seq.