No. VI.

A LETTER

From the Rev. William Atthill, M. A. Rector of Fintona, in answer to one addressed to him on the Subject. of Separation from the Established Church.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

Feb. 6, 1809.

IT was principally want of leisure which prevented me from immediately answering your letter; and the motive which made me anxious to write sooner, remains in full (if it has not by delay acquired additional) force, viz. lest silence should be construed into submission. When any person acts as you and your brethren have done, and then attempts to justify his conduct, we naturally look for strong argument and require indubitable proof. For, if the shadow of a doubt remains in your proof, in my opinion you can scarcely be justified in the sight of God for separating yourself, and much less for soliciting any other person to follow your example. But in your letter I must confess I find little strength of argument, and no conclusive proof; and I can only wish, if your cause be good, that you could have advanced something more satisfactory in its support.

You tell me indeed, that your principal object is,.

(not to combat my opinions, but) to remove a mis'take which I lay under about your refusing to hold religious communion with such as know the truth.' If I mistake your views on this point, I had good excuse for the mistake, even the avowed sentiments of the leaders of this separation. Then you and other separatists do not agree on this point of a believer's walk; this which was asserted to be so plainly revealed and triumphed in with such presumptuous confidence. Is it revealed? Then you are wrong. Is it not revealed? Then shame on those who have so stoutly maintained that it is. Can these men be in error, who have discovered all things belonging to a believer's walk laid down in the word of God, so that we cannot be ignorant of it unless we reject the apostolick scriptures? Can they be in error, and yet be confident? Then let not their confident assertions terrify any more. Let us know not the speech of them who are puffed up in the certainty of their own opinions, but the power.

You think our church, not only corrupt or wrong in some instances, but in its very founda'tion.'

Other foundation for the church of God can no. man lay, than that is laid, which is JESUS CHRIST THE LORD. On this foundation our church is built, declaring that there is salvation in no other name, and that we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merits of our LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST. (See 11th Article.) Whatever is built on this foundation only, in my judgment is a true church of Gop, though it may be a corrupt church. The

call to such a one you remark is, repent. Sound: this alarm instead of division, and I think you will act on more scriptural ground*.

Perhaps it would better have expressed your meaning, to have said it was corrupt in its constitution, than in its foundation. You give me your definition of a scriptural church: but I might dismiss it without saying a word, except that it is not a definition of scripture.

But are not the principles of this definition true? That the rules left by Christ for the regulations of his church are binding in every age, is most certain. No commandment of the Lord can be disannulled by man, That the rules left by the apostles speaking by commandment of the Lord are likewise binding to persons circumstanced as those to whom they were then addressed, and in the same sense which they then bore, is also true; but it is equally true, that they are not binding beyond these limits. That no man or set of men may introduce any ' other rules' for the outward walk of a church, is not so clear for scripture is silent on the point. And for aught you or I can know, it is a part of our Christian liberty, so that we may lawfully do it, or lawfully leave it undone. You add indeed, as necessary;' but in what sense you mean necessary, I do not un

It has lately been remarked, that every charge which the Lord brings against the seven churches in Asia, applies in full force to every national church. Would to God there were not too much truth in the observation! But be it so, Then address them as the Lord did those churches, and what becomes of the question of separation?

derstand. Is it as necessary to salvation? Then I agree with you. Is it as necessary to avoid sin and guilt of conscience? Here I agree also. Is it only meant as necessary to be observed in partaking of the ordinances of that church? I answer, how can it be otherwise? If a church walk by certain rules, how can it but be necessary that those who would join in her ordinances, conform to those rules, unless we would produce confusion in the church? Must not all things be done decently and in order?

But the establishment,' you assert, omits some of the rules left by Christ and his apostles,' i. e. omits to acknowledge them as binding, for this is the only conclusion which can be drawn from your premises. This is a weighty charge. Can you prove it? What are the rules, I beg leave to ask, the authority of which our church disallows?

Till you prove, or at least I am convinced of, the truth of your first charge, I must deny the second, that the establishment thinks it may substitute

human rules for divine from expediency. I am convinced such never was the thought of our church, The claim of authority to repeal divine, and substi tute human laws in their stead, was one of those usurpations of papal tyranny against which it nobly protested. This proves at least that the principle is not admitted-which is the thing you assert.

But if it does not substituțe, it adds human rules -I allow it. And what can be objected to this, I mean on scriptural grounds? But on this point I have sufficiently expressed my opinion above.

You say the rules left by the apostles are bind

'ing.' Do you maintain the same opinion concerning apostolick practices? If so, you are guilty of acting contrary to your own principles, and (what you assert no man or set of men have a right to do). yourself introduce a new rule for the church to walk by a rule neither left us by Christ or his apostles, viz. that apostolick practice is binding. Learn then to be consistent; either confess the error of your principle, that no new rule may be introduced,' or give up for ever the defence of the obligation of apostolick practice.

You next advert to the connexion of our church with the state; and your first argument on this head seems to amount to this-that the establishment cannot be a church of Christ, because, 'being con'nected with the state, its existence is necessarily dependent on that of the state. Does this consequence follow? There is a connexion between parent and child, husband and wife; but is the existence of one party necessarily dependent on that of the other? No; neither is the existence of the church on that of the state. The state might be overthrown in the present contest; some of the rulers in the church destroyed-its revenues alienated -but the church in its doctrines, mode of government, liturgy, and forms, would still remain. If many are attached to it from prejudice, many and real believers are attached to it from principle; because they believe its constitution in most things scriptural, in all things lawful; and because they feel and lament the bitter fruits which that hydrá