LETTER I. Aston Sandford, Feb. 10, 1815. REV. AND DEAR SIR, I lose no time in remitting to you my revised thoughts on the subject of our communication; 1 though I feel, that Horace's caution to his friend is very applicable to the case; which I would also earnestly recommend to the attention of you and your friends. * Periculosæ plenum opus alese Did the whole, indeed, rest with the sentiments of Mr. Haldane and his associates, who are bold innovators on all ancient systems, I should feel less difficulty; because my remarks would involve comparatively a small company; and those not entitled to peculiar delicacy of opposition, of which they by no means exhibit the example. But, in stating what I have to urge, in favour of continuing in the established church, against their The communication to which the writer refers was made in the year 1813. objections, I cannot well avoid giving my sentiments on far larger, and more ancient, and highly respectable bodies of men; among whom, in former times, many of the most " burning and "shining lights" of the Christian church were found, and indeed some are at this day. I am far from a disposition to join the modern outcry against the puritans-the progenitors of many of our present dissenters. Had my lot been cast in those persecuting days, I can only doubt whether I should have been found among them or not, by questioning whether I should have had sufficient courage of faith and hope to join the persecuted party. Many, no doubt, who obtained an undue ascendency among them, in the turbulent days of Charles the first, and even before that time, were factious ambitious hypocrites : but I must think, that the tree of liberty, sober and legitimate liberty, civil and religious, under the shadow of which we, in the establishment as well as others, repose in peace, and the fruit of which we gather, was planted by the puritans, and watered, if not by their blood, at least by their tears. Yet, it is the modern fashion to feed delightfully on the fruit, and then to revile, if not curse, those who planted and watered the tree! I do not indeed think that any, in our favoured days, have so strong reasons for dissenting as the puritans had, even in the preceding times; much less, as they had who were ejected on the restoration of Charles the second. I am not disposed to vindicate, much less to panegyrize the whole body, or all their measures: but surely the guilt of the schism, whatever it was, did not wholly, or principally, belong to them. This division has continued till our time. I have no wish to charge all the blame of it on one party; or to plead the divine right of the established church, or of episcopacy; or to be severe upon dissenters; or on men who join them, especially where no adequate means of instruction can be obtained elsewhere. I should act unfairly, if, in what I urge for the lawfulness and expediency of continuing in the established church, by those Christians or ministers who now belong to it, I should, even by silence, leave it to be concluded that such were my views. I respect and love many dissenters, both ministers and people; I do not wish to proselyte them; but yet I think, cæteris paribus, Christians and ministers belonging to the establishment will do well to continue in it; and that in our days they have no sufficient reason for leaving it; at least when edifying means of grace, and fair opportunities of exercising the ministry are afforded them under its banner. This premised, to prevent misconstruction, I proceed more particularly to your question-' Is 'the church of England unscriptural?' From the connexion in which the question is placed, I supposed it to be asked by a disciple of the Haldanes. I am grieved that these innovators have found access to your people: not because I think their arguments formidable; but because they address the self-sufficiency of some, who are excited to set up for judges of things which they do not understand; and the scrupulous conscientiousness of others, who are so afraid of being wrong, that they can never be satisfied they are right; and are thus liable "to be tossed to and "fro by every wind of doctrine." But, when persons of any description ask this question, do they mean to insinuate, that the church of England is altogether unscriptural? or only that some things in that church are unscriptural? for these are widely different questions. And do they distinguish between what is unscriptural, and what is antiscriptural? For instance it may be unscriptural to wear a surplice; for that is not prescribed in scripture: but it is antiscriptural to worship images, or the host. They will hardly say, that the church of England is antiscriptural, or wholly unscriptural, in doctrine, as well as worship and external administration. And can they find any company of professed Christians, among whom there is nothing unscriptural? I own I have looked far around, and read many books, and thought very deeply on the subject, for a long course of years; but I have not yet met with such a company; or heard of such a company, except from the zealots belonging to it. These, in all churches, popish and protestant, episcopal, presbyterian, independent, or what not, see every thing right among themselves, and every thing wrong in those who differ from them: but, if I loved controversy, and were somewhat younger, I should feel a confidence that I could go through them all, one by one, and undeniably prove that there are some things right in all, and some things wrong in all; at least, if that is wrong which has no express warrant in scripture. Every impartial and diligent student of these subjects must allow, that the eager disputants on all sides are like the heathen philosophers of different schools, Gladium habent scutum non habent; and are therefore more successful in assailing their opponents, than in defending themselves. What then is to be done? Must we renounce Christianity? or decline all public worship, and the exercise of the ministry, till these disputes be settled? Or, must we form each a new sect, perfectly scriptural, at least in our own judgment or fancy? To say nothing of the immense mischief, beyond all calculation, of thus multiplying sects and rending the church; where is that man, possessed of even the least degree of humility, who will dare to think that his new modelled church is not in some points assailable; as all others hitherto have been? The very presumption that this is the case is antichristian: it is papal infallibility, which resides in many other places besides with the Pope at Rome, or in the church of Rome. Ought we then to continue in communion with a church in which we perceive some things to be unscriptural? To this I would answer; if some things are unscriptural in each church or sect, nothing but heedlessness or prejudice can prevent our perceiving them: and a man of enlarged mind, of impartiality, and competent knowledge, cannot be supposed to be ignorant of them. He then has no alternative; but either to continue where some things are unscriptural, or to join another company in which he perceives the case to be the same.But let it be remembered that things unscriptural are not always, nor generally, antiscriptural. When |