they had not a more enlightened conscience.

"The light that

is in" a merely conscientious Dissenter is (what CHRIST has called) "darkness." I say this before passing on to consider (as I mean to do) the other kind of Dissenters, those, viz. who dissent for some lesser difference, merely lest you should suppose that I consider a person absolved from all guilt, on the ground of his being conscientious: for as a good conscience is a great treasure, so a dark conscience is like the blind leading the blind. Now then let me address myself to that large number of persons who have no material objection against the Church as to its doctrines or discipline, and who do not think that a Dissenter will be saved a bit more than a Churchman; who, indeed, are so far from condemning the Church, that they always feel rather disposed, when acknowledging their Dissent, to make a sort of apology or explanation for their leaving the Church, as, e. g. that "it was so far to go to Church," or that "their health was weak," or no good sittings were to be had," or that "they had an objection to the clergyman of the parish," or that "they were more edified by the service at Meeting, as more spiritual," or such reasons. I shall begin by placing before you some arguments, which indirectly support my assertion concerning the sinfulness of Dissent.

66

(1.) Christians are required to unite in serving God in mutual charity and hearty concord. Hence such directions as these from the Apostles to different Churches, viz. that they should endeavour to keep "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," that they should be "like-minded, having the same love," being "of one accord, of one mind, standing fast in one Spirit with one mind," that they should "walk by the same rule, and mind the same thing," that "with one mind and one mouth they should glorify God, the FATHER of our LORD JESUS CHRIST," that they should "all speak the same thing," that there should be " no divisions among them," but that they be "perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment '."

As to the construction which some persons put on such passages, viz. by making them refer to an unity in the spiritual Rom. xv. 5, 6;

1 Phil. ii. 2; i. 27; iii. 16 1 Pet. iii. 8. Eph. iv. 3. xii. 16. 2 Cor. xiii. 11. 1 Cor. i. 10.

sense, to a mystical union of the faithful all over the world, in the invisible Church of CHRIST, it is clearly inadmissible. For as a matter of reason, what can be the use of such strong and repeated exhortations to an union, whose only external sign is a profession of charitable indifference to all diversities of religious opinion, and whose principal bond of union is a secret internal feeling, as to which no one can exactly judge his neighbour. And yet in the New Testament, directions are given concerning such divisions, as respecting a thing, of which every Christian can judge. And further, as a matter of fact, the Church or body, in which unity is preserved, is spoken of as a visible body. Vid. Matth. xvi. 18; xviii. 17. 1 Tim. iii. 15. 1 Cor. xii. Eph. iv. 4-12.

(2.) Obedience to superiors is enjoined. This command seems to me, to give a double sanction to the legitimately appointed authorities of the Church. First, An authority indirectly, in as much as duty to the State requires of us obedience to all those who have the sanction of its authority for their dignities, provided always, obedience to them does not involve some sacrifice of principle, so as to be against our consciences'. Hence, since the time that Church and State have been united, it becomes the duty of a good subject to pay reverence and obedience to the appointed ministers of religion, upon civil as well as upon religious grounds. Secondly, An authority directly, because obedience to spiritual superiors is separately enjoined. E. g. "Likewise ye younger, submit yourselves to the elder," 1 Pet. v. 5. :-(you will see from the first and second verses, that the elders mean spiritual superiors, who are set over you.) And again, "Submit yourselves unto such, and to every one, that helpeth with us, and laboureth." 1 Cor. xvi. 16. "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for

1 E. g. If the State religion became Roman Catholic, it could not be our duty to conform to that, because we should thereby compromise some of the fundamental articles of our faith, and admit others to be fundamental, some of which are not so and others, which not only are not so, but are moreover in themselves false. On the other hand, if the State ordered the observance of Saints' days, or a day of national humiliation, it is the duty of a good subject to observe them.

your souls, as they that must give account." (Heb. xiii. 17.) Again, "We beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the LORD, and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love for their works' sake." (1 Thess. v. 12, 13.)

(3.) It is also a command to Christians, not to give a brother cause of sorrow and offence. Now any separation must do that. The question therefore is, whether the grounds for it are such as to compel us, from regard to our own souls, and even out of Christian charity to him, to separate from communion with the body to which he belongs, that we may thereby make him acquainted with the danger there is to his eternal salvation in remaining in a body, from which we feel obliged, for conscience sake, to come out. If we do not think we endanger our salvation by continuing in the Church, we are not justified for mere matters of opinion, and things, which we do not hold to be essentials of religion, to cast a reproach upon the body, from which we remove as from a thing unclean', and to give pain, doubts, and cause of dissensions, by thus withdrawing.

I proceed next to some direct arguments in support of the assertion, that separation, as such, and when not on account of some fundamental doctrine, is a sin.

1st. Hear what Scripture tells us should be our conduct towards those who cause divisions, and then consider, whether such persons are brought before us as exercising a proper liberty of choice.

"We command you in the name of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother, that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition which ye have received of us." (2 Thess. iii. 6.)

"Nevertheless, I do not hesitate to express a persuasion, that our own case happily is such, in the Established Church of England, that we may rightly, and are bound to, receive the faith of our forefathers, as delivered to us in its authorized form, by the same measure of acceptance, in kind, as we receive Scripture itself: not hastily taking part against it (as so many do,) on account of incidental or subordinate objections; but accepting it in Christian duty, as it is, and abiding by it, until, after experiment of holy living, it shall be proved perilous, or as least inadequate, to the soul's welfare, according to the very terms of Scripture."-Miller's Bamp. Lec. p. 15. note.

"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, nor bid him GoD speed." (2 John 10.) "These are they who separate themselves, sensual', having not the Spirit." (Jude 19.)

"I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them." (Rom. xvi. 17.)

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even to the words of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railing, evil-surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness, from such withdraw thyself." (1 Tim. vi. 3-5.)

2ndly. Consider the manner they are represented in, who cause disunion in the Church. The terms are, indeed, so harsh to modern (so called) liberal notions, that one feels sure of incurring the reproach of being a bigot for venturing thus to apply what we read in Scripture; and the general view respecting these passages probably is, that the time of their application is quite gone by, and that they have long since become a dead letter. And yet, reflect these terms are not used of persons, who were infidels, or heathens, or of those who corrupted the main doctrines of Christianity. St. Paul blames the Corinthians, because they expressed a preference for one teacher above another, and though they all taught the same thing, still he says of such a difference," that there are contentions among you," and speaks of it as an evidence of their "carnal mind." (1 Cor. iii. 3.)

1 Sensual:-The Greek word, which is so translated, does not at all imply a person who lives a vicious and voluptuous life, given up to the lusts of the flesh, but a person who rules himself, and walks according to the visible course of things in the world around him, trusting entirely to human reasonings in religion, and to what is called " fleshly wisdom," and having no part in that wisdom, which is from above.

2" Which cause offences," i. e. causes of perplexity or pain to others, stumbling-blocks, obstacles, snares, &c.

3rdly. There are many passages in the Epistles, in which the ways, dispositions, and practices of false teachers are described, concerning which the learned differ much, and determine differently the sort of opinions condemned in them. Allowing, however, what weight is fair to this circumstance, yet after all look at them attentively with a view of finding whether they will give you any light for the guidance of your conduct in this matter; and, while you consider them, bear the following remarks in mind:

1. That which is condemned in these persons is either their professing false doctrine, or their making disorder, disturbance, and disunion in the Church. If you think any of them apply to the second, then such passages apply to my argument here, because they go to prove, that making a separation and disputes in the Church is wrong.

2. You will learn from some of them that a person may think himself quite sincere in leaving the Church, and, yet his own heart may have deceived him, though it cannot deceive GOD, who will call him to account hereafter. 2 Tim. iii. 13. 2 Thess. ii. 11.

3. You will see that heresy and schism are placed along with bad passions, and bad actions, and vicious dispositions, as if in some way connected with them, and as if we may therefore be called to give account for these opinions, just as much as for those actions, and passions, and dispositions of mind. 1 Tim. vi. 3. 20; i.3, 4. 2 Tim. iv. 3; iii. 13. Gal. i. 9. 2 Pet. ii. 18. 10; iii. 16. Tit. i. 10; iii. 10, 11. 2 Cor. xi. 13. 15. Acts xx. 29. Matt. vii. 15. 2 Thess. iii. 6. 11. 2 John 9. Eph. iv. 14. Jude 16. Phil. i. 15, 16.

4thly. Consider the case of Korah in the Old Testament. He was a priest of the second order, and with other Levites, withdrew his obedience from the High Priest. There was no matter of doctrine or worship in dispute between them and Aaron, nor any other dispute than that of Church government. And yet how terrible was his punishment. In his case we cannot evade the application to the Gospel times, because St. Jude makes it for us, speaking of those who "perish in the gainsaying of Core." Jude 11.