virtue of a Divine efficacy inherent in the sacrament of Baptism," without effecting a change in the character and quality of the religion which she teaches,' is indisputably established.

And this being conceded, we may safely conclude -we are constrained to admit, that the proposal which I supposed you to make, is inadmissible.

Reverend Gentlemen,

With all deference and respect, I remain

Your obedient servant,

A LAYMAN,

Sincerely interested in the peace and welfare of the Church.

58

LETTER IV.

REVEREND GENTLEMEN,

In the first of the three preceding letters which I have addressed to you, I have demonstrated that the doctrine "that regeneration is wrought by virtue of a Divine efficacy inherent in the sacrament of Baptism," is "what is taught by our Church." And, in the second and third, I have shewn that the proposal of substituting the doctrine, "that regeneration is effected by the independent agency of the Spirit of God," for that at present taught by the Church, is inadmissible.

Now, from innumerable passages * in your Tract No. 1, it is evident that you look upon the doctrine which has been proved to be "what is taught by our Church with respect to regeneration," as erroneous and pernicious; shall I err, therefore —can I err ?— when I venture to surmise that, upon an attentive perusal of the three preceding letters, you will come to the conclusion "that your only alternative is secession from the Church ?"

* Vide Tract No. 1, pp. 6, 9, &c. &c.

In truth, that is the only course which, as honest men, you can be supposed to contemplate, when convinced that a doctrine, which you hold to be erroneous and pernicious, is "what is taught by our Church with respect to regeneration; and constrained to admit the impracticability of altering it, by a substitution of the doctrine you approve!

And yet, beyond all question, it is a course that should not be hastily resorted to that cannot be conscientiously adopted, except after diligent inquiry, and upon the most mature deliberation. For a causeless separation from the Church in which the Providence of God has cast the lot of a seceder, constitutes the sin of schism.*

Now schism is a sin of a perilous character: so say the Holy Scriptures. Yet it is one of which the existence is well-nigh universally disbelieved by the present generation. In truth, any man who seriously avowed a fear of falling into the sin of schism, would appear, it is to be feared, to the worldly-wise generation of the present day, well nigh as great a simpleton as he who confesses himself afraid of ghosts and apparitions! But, although men may forget, and therefore disbelieve, they cannot deny that there

The Author begs to observe that it is under an impression that these letters may be read by laymen whose ideas upon the subject are very indeterminate and lax, that he has deemed it advisable to insert the following observations on the sin of schism.

is such a sin as schism: they dare not aver that the word of God does not characterize it as a perilous one!

Gentlemen, it is not my purpose to enter into a lengthened dissertation upon the nature and heinousness of the sin of schism. But with your permission I will proceed to make a few incidental observations upon the subject, which will be found, I trust, by no means irrelevant to the matter in discussion.

It is not-I allow that it is not-every separation from the Church in which the providence of God has cast the lot of a seceder, that is schismatical and sinful to make it so, the separation must be causeless. It is the causelessness, so to speak, of the separation which constitutes the sin of schism.

Now, nothing can be clearer-it is impossible to lay down a more self-evident proposition-than the following: viz. that whatever any man, or all men, may think as to any fact, or with respect to any truth, cannot make the slighest possible alteration in the state or nature of that fact or truth. Consequently, it is evident that a man's separation from a Church may be causeless, and therefore schismatical and sinful, though he may think-though a multitude may agree with him in thinking-that he has a sufficient, nay, the very best, cause for his secession. Nay, though in his conscience-" upon real and substantial motives of conscience," as Lord Clarendon expresses it a man believe that he has a sufficient

cause for separating himself from the Church in which God's providence has cast his lot yet such a separation may, nevertheless, be causeless, and therefore unjustifiable and schismatical.* It would undoubtedly be so in every case in which the seceder had neglected to take every honest and reasonable precaution against imposing upon himself; in every case in which he had not used all possible-or, at any rate, an unfeigned and earnest-diligence to inform his conscience; in every case in which he had not resorted to, and conscientiously consulted, those who, from education, station, or other adventitious superiority, were either best qualified, or providentially appointed, to counsel and instruct him; in every case in which he had not deliberately considered, and impartially weighed, the various arguments adduced in favour of, or against, the separation which he contemplates. In short, in order to justify his separation from a Church in which the providence of God has cast his lot, a seceder must obtain-at least it so appears to me-full and decisive proof of the existence of actual and positive error, with respect to some doctrine or other point in difference of moment. For as by the law of England an arraigned person is holden to be

* It may be as well to observe, that with his wonted insight into human nature, Lord Clarendon speaks of what he terms "a certain glutinous compound, consisting of will and humour, folly, knavery, and ambition," as opposed to "real and substantial motives of conscience."

G