not be readily brought home to their comprehension. There is a difficulty I admit. But the difficulty is not to find the passages, but to make others understand their application; e. g., (1) the passages from St. Paul against schism, and causing divisions; (2) the exhortations to preserve unity, from St. John's and St. Paul's epistles ; (3) the power of excommunication* given to the church; (4) the evidence of different ministerial orders in the apostolical church, conferred in one unvarying manner, drawn from the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles, particularly those to Timothy and Titus; (5) the church mentioned as a visible body. But, if it be a visible body, must not the bonds of union be visible? Can there be a visible church whose terms of communion are invisible? Surely it cannot be denied, that there are passages from scripture clearly and decisively referring to these subjects in some way or other. And if so, thus much may be further affirmed-that assuming a man to stand in a position of an authorized teacher, and looked up to, and respected as such, he would not find himself unable to convince his hearers of the manner of their application.

(Obj. 4.) There are many in whose eyes such a course would be objectionable. Those would be pained who cannot bear the appearance of pronouncing an uncharitable condemnation, and on grounds which are not quite clear. Those again, who are called, by some persons, enlightened church-men, would take offence. They would consider such views narrow, and inconsistent with what they term the spirit of Christianity; they would regard the open maintenance of such opinions in itself a proof that the dissenters have claims, and grievances to be redressed, because they are compelled to pay towards the support, or participate in the rites, of a church (e. g. in marriage) which does not hesitate openly to condemn the principle upon which the communities to which they belong are formed. Lastly, dissenters generally would be offended at such a line of conduct. What has been before said may be repeated in answer to the two first classes of objections. Those who do not like any appearance of condemning others on a doubtful point, would feel no distress, if they heard principles only, and not persons condemned; and if all remarks on these subjects were directed to explain the view of the church and were confined to general statements without any particular applications. Next, that many of those who, calling themselves enlightened Christians, stigmatize such views as bigoted and intolerant, should take offence at any statement of them, is, as has been observed, scarce to be regretted. Their cold conformity in the leading and general doctrines of Christianity is scarcely to be called communion. They are amongst us, but they are not of us. It may even be doubted how far they really agree in their way of receiving these few doctrines which

The obvious question then arises, can such a power really exist, if all descriptions of professing Christians are considered as properly belonging to Christ's church? If so, the power is but a name, for a man cannot be put out of the church, if, when excluded from one body, he can always find admission in another of equal worth and dignity.

they profess to hold in common. On the offence likely to be given to dissenters a few words may be added. It is true they will at first be indignant, will talk of popish superstition-priestcraft-spiritual pride-apostolical simplicity-Christian liberty, &c. &c. They will ask, with mixed feelings of sorrow and anger, "when will Judah cease to vex Ephraim, and Ephraim to envy Judah ?"* They will speak of the freedom from prejudice among their enlightened members, who occasionally come to church, e. g. in Lent, on Christmas day, or when there happens to be service at church and none at meeting. It may be said too, that the dissenters would be so excited to renewed and bitterert attacks on the church, complain more and more of their grievances, and gather fresh strength to their arguments in the eyes of lax and ill-instructed churchmen. Add to this, to make the case worse, some will fall away from the church, and become either dissenters or despisers (openly perhaps) of what they call ultra-orthodoxy, or clerical bigotry. Even friends may say, you are doing disservice to your own cause, you are bringing the church into danger by the extravagance of your pretensions. In answer to all these considerations, allowing them the full weight claimed for them, I ask the following questions:-Is not the ground of offence the speaking truth, simply but boldly? Are not those who might be disposed to believe the truth prejudiced in the firmness of their conviction by what must be called either a sort of underhand propagation of it, or as if we ourselves hesitated, and did not feel sure of its importance? Further, may not ignorance on these points render indifference as to persuasions excusable, where there have not been opportunities of inquiring into the subject?

Surely if these questions be answered in the affirmative, there should be an end of such careful consideration of consequences. We must assert the truth, and leave results to the disposition of a higher power. It should also be remembered, that you have a right to assume those who attend your church to be church people, or at least to address them as if they were. A Roman catholic would not be expected so to preach as never to hurt the feelings of chance protestant frequenters of his church. Why should it be thought improper that a clergyman of the church of England should occasionally explain passages of scripture which involve a condemnation of the foundation principle of dissent, in the way of caution and admonition to his flock? Were

It is curious, that this favorite oratorical flourish among dissenters conveys in fact a concession of the very point at issue. Why did Judah vex Ephraim? Or again, would a dissenter say, that I laid an uncharitable charge against every individual Ephraimite, and called him a rebel, if I asserted, that the ten tribes were guilty of rebellion--or that the nation was a rebellious nation?

Without wishing to withhold the just eredit for moderation and impartiality due to so many of the most respectable and gifted members of dissenting establishments, or to say what may seem undeservedly harsh, may it not be doubted, whether more systematic, more bitter, and I must add, in many cases, more unfair attacks could be circulated than are at present made by many dissenters against the church? I only mention this to shew, that the question is not, whether avoiding these subjects would prevent these frequent attacks, but only whether acting upon the views here advocated would be likely to multiply them.

the institutors of these dissenting bodies so careful in all cases to avoid giving unnecessary pain to the members of the church from which they separated?

There remain two observations, to which I wish to draw attention, in order, so far as I can, to place the reader in the light under which I view the subject, that he may the better judge of my feelings, and the spirit in which these remarks have been written.

I. If the apostolic succession-episcopacy-distinction of ordersunity-obedience to properly appointed pastors-schism-be not doctrinal facts of the Christian religion, but if they are only topics either in themselves non-essential to Christianity, or, which comes practically to the same point, topics on which we ought not, in Christian charity, to think of determining or insisting on, in reference to dissent as it exists around us, then I must confess my honest opinion, that the subject of separation is, generally speaking, very unfairly and hardly judged among zealous churchmen. Certainly my own view of it would undergo a great change. At present I term that man, and that man only, a conscientious dissenter, who feels obliged to secede from the the church, having, upon trial and experience, found the insufficiency of her doctrines towards holy living, and who therefore concludes, that an adherence to her tenets, or a continuance in communion with her, which would be a tacit adherence to her tenets, would be to endanger his eternal salvation. Unless his strong feeling and conviction amount to this, I conceive a man to be wrong in seceding. But give up the maintenance of the above grounds for conformity, as doctrinal truths, which I firmly believe them to be, and then I should conceive any of the following to be justifiable grounds for separation :-e. g., if a man thinks the dissenting system better adapted to the religious state of the times, or of himself in particular-or that, upon the whole, the cause of religion would be served by the abandonment of the present church system-or that he prefers the dissenting modes of teaching, or preaching, or their services, or general administration, &c. &c.

My opinion may be right or wrong, but it accounts for my pressing an open assertion of these subjects by the clergy in the course of their ministry, because they appear to me to involve the very essence of our churchship. Most of the other grounds, which are usually brought forward in defence of the church, seem to me mutatis mutandis* to be applicable in defence of any other dominant ecclesiastical system. The ground here insisted on seems to me to suggest the most proper answer to the question-Why am I a churchman? It seems to me rather a confusion to answer, as is often done, that the doctrines

I say mutatis mutandis, because my assertion of the paramount claims of the church is, so to say, external to all consideration of the soundness of its particular doctrines. Suppose a member of the church of England to think some doctrines of the Romish church more scriptural than ours, another, or some among any other denomination of Christians, well, the argument here followed precedes these considerations, in that it goes to establish a prior claim of authority for the church's exposition of doctrine; and so is a protest against the entire independent right of private judgment, and a caution against its licentious use.

and ordinances of the church are strictly scriptural, or that services similar to those which it uses have been in use among Christians from the earliest ages; or that the beauty and excellence of its Liturgy and Articles is such. For, in a certain way, answers of a somewhat similar kind might be made by members of dissenting bodies; and therefore they do not apply exclusively enough to our own. Further, such answers do not appear to me either apposite or logical. For the question does not imply a doubt on these points, but rather presupposes the contrary: for if a man were doubtful about these, the more natural form of question would be-Why should I belong to a body which has this antecedent objection against it?

The state of the case, upon their own shewing, between the church and certain dissenters, is this :-we, in common with the church of England, hold all essential doctrines, and therefore it is for you members of the church to shew cause, why, upon this assumption, it should not be free to any to leave your communion without further reason than some preference for us, even though he have no objection against you. They are here met upon their own grounds, and both the paramount claims of the church, and the nature of the sin in such principle of dissent would be asserted and explained.

II. In speaking of dissenters, my remarks apply exclusively to those who have become such, who, having been born and bred members of the church of England, are no longer so. These are properly separatists, and these are the persons here in view; to bring whom to a careful reconsideration of the grounds of their separation seems to me the principal aggressive measure which churchmen are called on to adopt towards dissenters. Those who have been born and bred otherwise are not strictly to be termed separatists, nor do I regard them as such. They are, and always have been without, but they went not out from us. We consider, indeed, that they are in profession of error, but they have not exchanged what we hold to be truth for that error, nor have they contributed at all to the breaking up of church unity. Neither is it to be expected that the arguments in behalf of the church views should have the same force when addressed to them, as they undoubtedly ought to have had when addressed to those who, in spite of them, and in spite of predilections of birth, education, &c., have yet abandoned the church. Moreover, they are no otherwise comprised in censures passed on dissent as such, than every Mahommedan or Jew is to be considered as individually condemned by every condemnation of the religion which he professes, or than every individual Israelite in condemning the ten tribes as rebels.

Still further, however, to claim for these opinions a fair and serious consideration, and still further, to protect them against a careless rejection as bigoted and illiberal,-terms, from the application of which I would wish to shield them, only in order to their obtaining an impartial hearing, and in the hope of their working on any one a practical conviction at once of their truth and availableness,—I shall conclude with the words of one, to whose memory scarce any educated man would venture to attach such a charge, and of one whose metaphysical powers and strong religious feelings give weight and value to his judgVOL. VII.-March, 1835.

2 N

ment, whether as a philosopher or a Christian :-"The only true spirit of tolerance" (says Coleridge) "consists in our conscientious toleration of each other's intolerance." And, speaking more at large on the same subject, he continues-" But notwithstanding a deep conviction of our general fallibility, and the most vivid recollection of my own, I dare avow, that as for opinions and not motives, principles and not men, I neither am tolerant, nor wish to be regarded as such. According to my judgment, the profession of perfect tolerance in respect of all principles, opinions, and persuasions, those alone excepted which render the holders intolerant, is mere ostentation and hypocrisy. By so saying, a man either means that he is utterly indifferent to all truth, and finds nothing so insufferable as the persuasion of there being any such mighty value or importance attached to the possession of truth, as should give a marked preference to any one conviction above any other; or else he means nothing. That which doth not withstand hath itself no standing-place. To fill a station is to exclude or repel others; and this is no less the definition of moral, than of material solidity." Under such protection I am content to leave my opinions. Be these opinions right or wrong, let the words of Coleridge shelter me from the charge of uncharitableness, because I positively assert them. Would that the sight of his name would so far influence any reader as to lead him to a serious and careful investigation of these subjects, both as to the proofs by which they are supported, and as to their practical bearings, with a full determination to act upon the conclusion to which such an investigation may bring him. For myself, I have a deep and strong conviction that they are truths of great practical importance, that the gradual disuse or withdrawal of them has been of serious detriment to the interest of the church, and indeed I may say, of true Christianity; and that the revival and public assertion of them, after a time and when the first appearance of aggressive hostility in so doing has passed away, may, by God's blessing, work a good effect upon the minds of all well disposed churchmen, as well as of many who are not with us, but have the cause of truth at heart, and who seek for it with diligence and earnestness, and, above all, in a humble, charitable, and Christian spirit.

R. F.

THE ADAMIC CREATION.

THE second chapter of Genesis is, I believe, generally considered as a recapitulation of the first, with some additional circumstances; but I think there is sufficient reason for supposing it a distinct account of a totally different transaction. In the second chapter, we read of beasts of the field and plants of the field (or cultivated land); in the first we are told of beasts of the earth, of herbs and trees upon the earth. This is at least a remarkable distinction, whatever the meaning of it may prove to be. The conclusion I have come to concerning it is this:-that early in the sixth period of creation, before the