25 chose the latter alternative. They determined to appeal from earth to heaven, and to cast themselves, their wives, and their little ones, on Him who feeds the fowls of the air and the beasts of the forest. The day fixed for the trial of their resolution and their consistency at length came,-the day fearfully anticipated but firmly met; it dawned upon them in the possession of that, which, but for conscience, they might have continued to retain,-it closed over them beggars and outcasts. "This was the beginning of sorrows." It was "the beginning of sorrows; "--but the question now comes, Was it also the beginning of schism? From that moment the men were separatists; were they also schismatics? It requires little, I think, either of common sense or of common candour to furnish the reply. Scripture, Reason, Humanity, answer No. The thing speaks for itself, The Nonconformist confessors had no alternative but separation or dishonour-a peaceable departure from those of their brethren who felt that they could obey the demands of the state, or a guilty participation of what they considered their sins, with the conscious commission of others of their own. Such was the origin of Dissent considered simply as separation from a form of religion established by law, By what occasioned it, it must be judged. Were we to take the ground of the Act of Uniformity being the suggestion of one of the religious parties, and the expression of its spirit and feeling towards the other, the question as to who were the schismatics would, in that case, be easily decided, as it would only be necessary to notice who, on that supposition, were the real and active agents in the separation that ensued. This ground, however, we do not take,—not because we might not, but because we wish to dispose of the question on premises the least favourable to ourselves. Admitting, therefore, that the one body of men were just as innocent of the Act of Parliament as the other,―admitting, further, that the most of the ejected ministers had long before separated from the Episcopal Church (a thing to be Ꭰ considered by itself) or had never belonged to it, and that they now separated from the Establishment, not because their brethren were inimical to union, but because the State decided against it,-still, even on this ground, their separation cannot be considered schism, so far as they were concerned. It was the mere exercise of a right, which every man possesses, to decline the favour of princes when it is to be purchased by dishonour; it was occasioned by the exercise of an authority which is not to be obeyed when it contravenes the higher authority of heaven. When required solemnly to declare what, in them, would have been falsehood, they "conferred not with flesh and blood," but sacrificed everything to "maintain their integrity: "-this was virtue, even if the men were mistaken in their opinions, and, as an act of virtue, and an act of sin, can never be identical, this and the "sin of schism" cannot be the same. In fact, the sin must rest, if it rest anywhere, upon those who acquiesced in a sectarian constitution of the Establishment, and not upon those who were compelled to leave it, -on those who sacrificed union to compulsory uniformity, for the sake of the advantages offered by the State, and not on those who sacrificed the advantages already in their possession, and rejected a hollow and superficial uniformity, for the sake of preserving from defilement the sanctuary of their conscience, and of advocating principles which have more to do with the promotion of union than what even they themselves at the moment understood. We are justified in taking this view of the subject, not only by the authority of Scripture and the reason of the thing, but by the recorded opinions of Churchmen themselves. This may be seen by the following passage which is coincident with the course of observation which we have chosen to pursue:-"If the Presbyterians, or Papists, were tomorrow the great majority of the nation, and if the constituted authorities of the land, King, Lords, and Commons, thinking either of these persuasions the best religion, were to establish it by law, I should then become a Dissenter, With my belief in the scriptural authority of Episcopacy, I could not conscientiously be a Presbyterian, and, with my knowledge of the anti-scriptural doctrines of the Church of Rome, I must separate from her communion."-Nothing can be plainer than this. Here is the distinction between a Church, an Establishment, and a Legislature, clearly illustrated. Here is not only the power of the legislature acknowledged, but the right of the legislature defended, of choosing what Church shall be the Establishment; and yet, even with this, the imperative necessity and duty of Dissent is maintained for those who cannot conscientiously obey the legal expression of the supreme will.-Now then, observe, this language is not only the language of a clergyman, but it is his language in a Tract published by the "Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge," and, therefore, it is no longer to be regarded as the language of a solitary individual, but as coming clothed with the sanction, and as uttering the voice, of the whole Episcopal bench! Here, then, we hav the principle of our ecclesiastical ancestors' separation from the Establishment asserted and advocated by every prelate of the land. They all concur in stating that, were they placed in the circumstance of our fathers, they would do precisely what they did. Would they consent think you, for this, to be branded as schismatics, and scorned as perpetrators of a sin more disgraceful than drunkenness? No: they would be "confessors" and martyrs," 'their posterity would approve their sayings"" and celebrate their sufferings, and rise up and call them blessed! We admit their principles, and approve their avowal, and we presume to think that what will defend them will defend us.-Let us hear, then, the conclusion of the whole matter. Dissent, considered simply as separation from a form of religion established by law, by law, even in the most strict and proper sense, not the enactment of an usurper, or of one class of the constituted authorities of the nation proceeding without the approval and concurrence of the others, but law as the united voice of the three estates harmoniously acting, and 66 66 that too in a province where Episcopalians admit that they are competent to have a will and to exercise authority,-considered as disobedience even to this, and as separation from those who obey, Dissent is not schism, the Archbishop of Canterbury, my Lord of London himself, with all their brethren besides, being judges, |