torical record we possess has represented Church Reform to have been clogged and disgraced. Church Reform and Church Plunder have, I believe, uniformly gone together.

Many, like the vile followers of a camp, joined the holier and nobler band, to profit by the confusion, and fly upon the spoil. Not only did the lust of gain contaminate the proceedings of the unbridled and rapacious Henry, but it also tempted the cooler and more principled Elizabeth; it overpowered the meek integrity and holy purpose of our Edward, and defied even the uncompromising zeal and controuling enthusiasm of John Knox. I know not what reasons we can discover in the present times, to presume that this sordid and inauspicious satellite of reformation, will be less close in its attendance than heretofore, that its cravings will be less importunate, its modesty less complaisant, or its scruples and honesty less accommodating.

Observe the mode in which “friends” of the Church, whether injudicious or pretended, demand reform, as though she were the corruptest Church in the whole world. Mark the ignorance, the short-sightedness, the misrepresentation, the malice, which pour in their tributary streams to swell the torrent roaring round her foundations. What proportion to these do the sober and sincere friends of the Church bear-what influence will they have in stopping or directing this torrent, when the mounds shall once have been thrown down, and the waters have begun their course.

The feverish spirit of change, and the mode in which it is demanded, denote an unsettled state of public opinion, a state in which the simple are made the tools of the crafty-the sincere, the dupes of the hypocrite-the timid, the followers of the reckless-and the indifferent, of the rapacious.

In these times, then, when an assault is threatened by enemies, when old defences have been taken away; when our very defenders are doubtful of the issue, and of the positions to be defended, let us ponder these words of our text-" A house divided against a house falleth."

In treating of this caution, and bringing its application more directly home to our situation, we come into contact with a delicate and painful subject. But I shall freely and boldly approach it, feeling strong in a spirit of charity and integrity of purpose. Important interests are at stake. To dissemble, or to slur over our real state, can produce no good effectfree examination may.

A division notoriously prevails in the Church :it is idle, it is uncandid, it is impolitic to attempt to shut our eyes against the fact. The existence of a party of Clergy and Laity, denominated Evangelical, places the Church in the very situation described in the text, and that in a time of no ordinary peril. We are "a house divided against a house."

But in these plain and frank statements let me not, I entreat, be for one moment supposed to speak unkindly or irreverently of those from whom I may have the misfortune to differ; nor let it be imagined,

that in the following remarks it is intended to cast the entire blame upon them. I am fully sensible that, in all cases where human agents are concerned, there must be faults on both sides. And I am desirous, as far as the bias of my own opinions and the infirmity of our nature will permit, to look at both sides of the question; to suggest remedies rather than dispense censures. If I attempt to probe, it will be with a desire not to hurt, but to heal. And here I beg to observe, once for all, that not only reverencing conscientious scruples, but also aware of the subtle and mysterious character of those matters on which our doctrinal controversies hinge, as I may, for convenience, use the terms Evangelical, Calvinistic, or Orthodox, in their conventional designation of either class, I POSITIVELY DISCLAIM their application as terms of reproach, or derision on the one hand, or of dogmatism and presumption on the other. I believe, (and shall adduce evidence to shew that my belief does not rest entirely on my own partial views) that the ultimate consequence of the formation of an evangelical congregation is the serious increase of dissenters, and consequently of danger to the Church.

And in this view of the subject I would press upon your consideration, whether there may not be some points in which, if we cannot meet, we might approach each other, without any compromise of principle, or any sacrifice of consistency, on either

side.

The first testimony which I shall cite, is that of

the Dissenters themselves. The modern historians* of the Dissenters claim, first for the Puritans, and next for certain Sectaries, to have been the sole depositaries of those doctrines which the Evangelical Clergy now preach, and they maintain that the Church of England was in a state of heresy and apostasy from her own articles, till the doctrines of the Calvinistic Dissenters were introduced by the Evangelical Clergy. They quote, in confirmation of this, the declaration of an Evangelical Clergyman †, that “the bulk of the kingdom lay under the judgment of an unregenerate ministry, and the people were perishing for lack of knowledge." They hold now, that true religion exists no farther than where it is shared with them, by what they term, “a new party in the Established Church." They describe the majority of the Church and its hierarchy, as a set of bigoted, irreligious, and illiberal men, restrained from persecuting the Evangelical party only because "they dare not give the Dissenters the majority, by adding such formidable hosts to their numbers."

It is obvious what effect this affinity, this claim of priority, and this charge of irreligion, especially if sanctioned by the language and the conduct of a party in the Church itself, must have in producing dissent.

And these historians thus acknowledge the effect.

* Bogue and Bennett.

+ The late Rev. J. Newton, Rector of St. Mary Woolnoth.

Assuming that the Gospel is preached and practised only by them, and by the Evangelical party in the Church, and that on the removal of an Evangelical Clergyman, the only place where his flock can find truth, is at the Meeting House; they say, “and though at first their prejudices against the place may be strong, they are gradually overcome, and the once zealous votaries of the Church, with their families, become members of a Dissenting congregation. In some instances, where the converts of an Evangelical Clergyman are numerous, they SECEDE FROM THE PARISH CHURCH IN A BODY, and form themselves into a society, retaining the use of the Liturgy and the Forms of the Church in their worship; but they become virtually Dissenters, protected by the Toleration Act, and cordially uniting with Dissenters, both in ministerial and Christian communion. In a course of years they are brought to esteem every thing external in religion only as it is conducive to the spiritual edification of Christians."

As they declare this positive consequence in the production of dissent, so they declare the negative; they allege that evangelical preaching does not diminish their numbers, or stop their increase in a parish, but say they," that very preaching has in ordinary cases given it (the dissenting congregation) as many hearers as it has taken away."

I am assured that my brethren of the evangelical Clergy will deprecate this consequence as strongly as we do; some may doubt it, others may attribute