information, you will be abundantly convinced, that the doctrine delivered by me on the present fubject is of a much older date than Popery.

The unity of the Christian church was the doctrine of JESUS CHRIST: it was confequently the doctrine of his Apostles; and was moreover the uniform doctrine of the church for 1500 years. As I bear you record, that you have a zeal for GOD, I have therefore only to beseech you, in the language of ST. PAUL," to hear me patiently." Acts xxvi. 3.

It will be allowed on all hands, that a church, or ecclefiaftical fociety, the members of which are united to God and to one another, by a Divine.covenant, has been formed in the world; and it will, it is prefumed, be as generally allowed, that God only can make or constitute a church. The church fo conftituted is called by the Apostle the body of CHRIST, and Chriftians the members of that body. 1 Cor. xii. 27. From whence it follows, that there can be but one body or church of CHRIST. Though the church of CHRIST, therefore, may be divided into feveral branches or particular churches, as from dif tance of place and circumstances must be the case; yet it cannot be divided into distinct and separatechurches, unconnected and independent of each other; for

this would destroy the unity of the church. The unity of the church then is formed by that bond of communion, which, in confequence of that Divine covenant which is common to all its members, confo lidates, as it were, all the several scattered parts or branches of the Christian church into one connected body, under the title of the Catholic Church of CHRIST.

To be in the church communion, therefore, figni fies to be a member of the church or body of CHRIST; which, however difperfed, is but one all the world over; in confequence of which the Chriftian communicates, as circumftances may require, with any branch of the Chriftian church, in whatever quarter it may be situated.

From hence the true notion of a feparate church, or feparate communion, in which the fin of fchifm confifts, may be clearly understood. For, though many allow that there is fuch a fin as fchifm, and appear sensible of the enormity of it, they yet take fuch pains to avoid the charge of its being brought against themselves, that, in their description of what is to be understood by a feparation from the church, they so confound the fubject, as that neither they

themselves, nor any one else, shall understand what it is,

2

But if, according to the premises, "there is but one church and one communion, of which ef all true Chriftians and Chriftian churches are, and ought to be, members," then those churches which are not members of each other, are separate churches.

"Where there are two churches which are not members of each other, there is a fchifm, though they agree in every thing elfe, but in one communion; for there is a divifion of the body of CHRIST: and where churches own each other's communion, as members of the fame body, there is no fchifm; though they are as diftant from each other as East and Weft."*Whenever, therefore, there is a new church, or a fociety of Chriftians calling themfelves a church, gathered out of a church already conftituted and regularly established, and formed into a distinct and separate society, this, by dividing Chriftian communion, makes a notorious schism. The application of this pofition to the cafe of all thofe different focieties of Chriftians who separate from the established church in this country, is left to yourself. My object is only to ftate clearly the nature of fchifm,

*See" Refolution of fome Cafes of Confcience, which respect Church Communion, by Dr. SHERLOCKE, in London Cafes, vol. i. page 60.

as it was understood by the primitive church, and as it is now understood by our own church; which confifts, to make ufe of primitive language, in fetting up altar against altar; by which, in confequence of that bond of communion, by which the church of CHRIST was defigned to be held together, being broken, Chriftians are divided from each other.

Having thus briefly laid before you the true meaning of thefe important words, church communion and fabifm, I turn to page 179 of your publication, where you have given me a long extract from the writings of a Dr. EDWARDS, who if he be the fame Dr. EDWARDS who has been mentioned in a former part of this letter, was, what, I ain forry to fay, fometimes happens to be the cafe, a diffenter in principle, though a churchman by profeffion. The Doctor, after fetting out with a proper definition of the word fchifm, "that it is an unlawful breach of the orders and inftitutions of the Chriftian church, and an unwarrantable feparation from its communion," by degrees fteals off from the ground upon which he fet out; till, after having proved that there is no church, that Chriftians can be called upon to hold communion with, he concludes, "that thofe profane perfons are the true feparatifts from the

church, who never worship GoD in public." So that, according to the Doctor's ingenious difquifition on this fubject, to feparate from the church, and fet up a communion in oppofition to the communion of of the church, means no more than to absent from the worship of it.

According to the Doctor's first position in favour of feparatifts from the church, that they cannot poffibly be schifmatics, becaufe" there is not one individual affembly that worships GoD according to the manner prescribed in scripture, but they are ready to communicate with it:" there will be no fuch thing as obligation to church unity, and confequently no fuch thing as fchifm in the world. For I would be glad to know, what manner of worship was prescribed in fcripture for the direction of Christians in this refpect, when the Apostles confidered every separation from the communion of the then established church as fchifm. If the obligation to church unity depend upon a manner of worship prescribed for that purpofe in fcripture, and no fuch manner of worship is to be found, there can be no fuch thing as church unity at all: confequently, those who created divifions in the primitive church, might have told the Apostles, in reply to their cenfures on that fubject, that they