ings of conscientious Jews; nothing more determined than his opposition to every attempt at vitiating the free spirit of Christianity with that of Jewish servitude. I think this ought, in substance, to be our rule of conduct towards our Roman Catholic fellow Christians: it strikes me, that there is a great similitude in the two cases; and I cannot but wish that they who are so zealous to proselyte Roman Catholics, were to take St. Paul's mode of proceeding with Jews into their serious consideration. It was his most anxious desire to bring as many of those native sheep into Christ's fold as was possible; but not by withdrawing them from that which they had received by tradition from their fathers. He always acknowledged that they might be true Christians, and yet retain their attachment to the Law of Moses. He rather appears to prefer their continuance in their old habits,-" In the calling," says he, "wherein any man is called, therein let him abide with God." And, as an instance, he enjoins, that" if any man be called, being circumcised, let him not become uncircumcised;" that is, clearly, let him not make it a point to relinquish Jewish peculiarities: such liberality to our Roman Catholic fellow Christians I wish we could exercise. But, I imagine, we must be better initiated. into St. Paul's true doctrine and spirit, before we shall be either disposed or fitted to imitate his conciliatory conduct.

Perhaps you may think it strange that I should be so tenacious of mental liberty, and, at the same time, place so much value on adherence to our

Established Church; but, more probably, you yourself are well aware that the authority claimed by our Church is of a perfectly different kind from that claimed by the Church of Rome. Our Church pretends to no decisive control of men's minds and consciences; in all matters which affect everlasting salvation, she herself bows implicitly to the written word, and pronounces it, in that greatest concern, the exclusive standard. She is far from limiting the Church of Christ to her own pale; she regards herself only as a genuine and sound portion of the co-harmonised and firmly compacted body; and she exercises no other authority than that, without which she could not have preserved for one hour, either her own organic character, or her co-organisation with the body at large.

In fact, her authority is confined to those two great objects, public worship and public instruction without uniformity in these two instances, the very being of a Church would be lost: the individual Christian would have no security, that, in his next attendance on public worship, his pious feelings might not be outraged or his faith perverted. If to be "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine " be a calamitous state, the necessity of some adequate preservation is self-evident. To afford such a preservation, less definitive measures than those of the Church of England would, I conceive, be unavailing she, accordingly, says to all," If you continue with me you must submit to my guidance in all public acts of religion; " but she holds out no threat of everlasting damnation to those who leave her fold.

She rejoices only in such followers as are liberal and enlightened; though she cherishes and fosters all that are humble and self-diffident. And where could the latter class be more safe; or the former class find more solid satisfaction? Yet, were the Church of England to exercise less authority than she has hitherto exerted, what pledge would remain for the same satisfaction, or the same safety?

I, therefore, feel myself entirely consistent in depreciating the authority claimed by the Church of Rome, and in deeply valuing that which is exercised by the Church of England. I cannot but regard the former, however overruled for important good, as the main movement in the "mystery of iniquity;" whereas, in the latter, I seem to myself to see the most valuable gift that Divine Providence has yet conferred on the Christian world. The entire institute which has been thus preserved to us, and which could no otherwise have been preserved, in my mind, rises far above all verbal appreciation. The united testimony of the best understandings and the finest feelings in the most highly qualified community upon earth is itself powerful, and, I should think, not to be reasonably resisted; but, far beyond this, the esoteric disciple of the Church of England has an incommunicable, though perfectly explainable, "witness in himself," that her sanctuary is, in a degree, yet unmatched on this earth, a vestibule to" the holiest."

In adhering, therefore, to the Church of England, and in deferring to that authority which she

exercises, I am rationally owning the rule of Providence, and wisely availing myself of its beneficence. Were I ignorant and uninformed, what folly would it be for me to leave this land-locked harbour, and commit myself to the trackless and tempestuous sea of unsettled religion? And, using all the light I can collect from things present or past, where could I hope, equally or similarly, to find rest for my soul; yet, wherein would this rest consist, or, where might it have long since been, had our Church been guarded by less strict uniformity?

But, against the Church of Rome I have further to maintain, that the ground on which she rests her claim is as fallacious, as the claim itself is exorbitant. She pretends to support herself by the agreement of the Catholic Church; but I venture to assert, that this agreement is directly against her on the point in question, and that the Church of England has substantially adopted the primitive principle. The latter has revered and yielded to the true and legitimate authority of the Catholic Church, in honestly keeping in her view the "quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est." The Church of Rome has, in point of fact, regarded that authority just as far as it served her purpose; and, to prevent all difficulty on this head, has professedly and imperatively turned the view of her disciples from the consensus omnium to the decision of the existing Church tribunal.

Vincentius Lirinensis, whom the Roman Catholic writers are fond to quote, makes it the duty of each individual Christian, in case the great body of

the Visible Church should appear to deviate into error, instead of following the existing Church, to adhere to pure antiquity. If such be the duty of an individual, it is still more that of a large body. And, what else did the Church of England at the Reformation, than follow the spirit of Vincentius's principle? And, it may even now be asked, Where, except by the Church of England alone, has this principle been practically and consistently maintained?

I said, that the Roman Catholic writers are fond of quoting Vincentius; but they even circulate a translation of his work, and call it a golden treatise. Yet, certain it is, that the appeal of individual Christians to antiquity, which he recommends and enjoins, is represented, even by the more moderate of their Church, to lead to, if not to be a symptom of, heresy. For, to have recourse to antiquity, against an apprehended misguidance of the present Church, is, at once, to dispute the decisive authority of the present Church, and to exercise one's own judgment; inasmuch as it is the business of judgment to discern and ascertain that agreement of wise and holy men in past ages, which constitutes what, in Jeremiah, is called "the old paths," wherein, it is there said, we shall find rest to our souls.

But, the Church of Rome is not only jealous of reference to antiquity in her individual members, but is herself disposed to regard its guidance with convenient limitation. The Abbé Fleury's reflections on modern laxity of discipline, and degeneracy of devotion, brought upon him the