vention, which they prefer to the one ordained by God. For, although a person may have been initiated into the Church by Baptism, the Ordinance of God, he is not considered by them as entitled to the privileges of Membership. He is not considered, indeed, a Member until he shall have submitted to that "rite of initiation" which they have themselves ordained ;"thus ye have made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition."* Baptism is rendered null and void, and of none effect, by their own invention, which is as destitute of common sense as it is of Scriptural foundation. Taking it for granted, however, that Baptism is what Mr. Scales defines it to be, "a sign and a means of grace," one thing seems to be unquestionable, that whatever the Church believes, Dissenters certainly believe in baptismal regeneration.

With regard to the Burial Service, but a few remarks will be necessary to shew the nature and spirit of the objections of your Dissenting fraternity. Sometimes the Church is stigmatized as being too uncharitable, but here she is said to be far too charitable; so that, act as she may, she will never be right with this " sect of determined dissatisfactionists." The part of the Service to which you particularly object, is this: "We, therefore, commit his body to the ground, in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life." By "the resurrection to eternal life," the Church evidently means the general resurrection. This is very clear, for in the Burial Service to be used at Sea, she says, We, therefore, commit his body to the deep, looking for the resurrection of the body when the sea shall give up her dead,”—which of course will be at the general resurrection. The meaning of the words "the resurrection," in both these passages, is synonymous, and by them the Church means "the general resurrection at the last day;" and, therefore, expresses just no opinion at all by them, respecting the eternal state of the person over whom they are used.

Mark, vii. 13.

Dissenters, however, are determined to have it otherwise. They will have it, that by “ the resurrection to eternal life," the Church means the resurrection to eternal life of every individual indiscriminately, over whom the service is read, whatever might have been his previous character. And in order that their objection may appear the more valid, they generally misquote the passage. Instead of reading" the resurrection," they read “ a resurrection," and then say, that the Church means a resurrection of that particular body then buried to eternal life. And so perverse are they, that if even shewn to the contrary, they will scarcely believe their own eyes. A Clergyman told me some time since, that he was once riding in a stage coach with a Dissenting Teacher, who was also Tutor of one of the Dissenting Academies, and in their conversation, the Dissenting Tutor misquoted the passage as above, and though repeatedly told by the Clergyman that he did not quote it correctly, he still insisted that he did. The Clergyman, therefore, on the arrival of the coach at the inn, requested the loan of a Prayer Book, and took it to the coach to the worthy Tutor, to convince him. The good man, however, in spite of all the attempts of the Clergyman, to show him the book, resolutely refused to look at it. Such is the nature of the objections, and such the conduct of some pious Dissenters, as they wish to be considered.

The Church, in this service, as well as on other occasions, very wisely proceeds on the charitable side of the question. For what has she or her Ministers to do, with sitting as Judges as to the eternal happiness or misery of any of those who professed to die in the Faith? How can mortal man dare to be so presumptuous, as to usurp a prerogative which belongs to Him alone, who knoweth the hearts of all flesh. The Judge of all the earth will do right, and in his hands we ought, whatever our own thoughts may be, to leave the eternal destiny of those who depart this life, and to prove our own work whether that be of God or not,

and to examine ourselves whether we be in the Faith, and whether that Faith be productive of good works or not, and whether we are preparing for eternity or not. "Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall." 66 Judge not that ye be not judged."

In the words, " that we may rest in Christ as our hope is, this our brother doth." I confess the Church does express a charitable "hope" respecting each person over whom the Burial Service is read; but then it is nothing more than a "hope," there is nothing of certainty about it. Such "hope," on the part of the Church, it is much to be feared, is too frequently misplaced. But is it not infinitely better to err on the side of charity, than that of severity and rash judgment? Without the gift of" discerning spirits," where could the line of distinction be drawn? It may be said, that the Church ought to express no hope respecting common swearers and drunkards. But, then, how could she act with regard to others equally as wicked, but not as notoriously so? What is to be done with the decent formalist, the close hypocrite, and the flaming professor, who may be at the same time a liar and slanderer; a case by no means uncommon? Dissenters, rather than find fault with the Church, ought in the plenitude of their charity, as they say they are "not of this world," to furnish the Church with a key or touchstone from "the other world," by which she may distinguish a varnished hypocrite from a true Christian. Being in possession of such means of detection, she might then be able to judge, and satisfy their" tender consciences.” Or do they fear, that if once in possession of such a criterion, we should, by way of experiment or curiosity, be able to unmask some of their own dear brethren? Methinks, after taking a skin or two off Mr. S., and many others of a similar stamp, we should discover a strange compound of crafty, ambitious, political, and other rubbish, scarcely capable of analyzation.*

It may not be irrelevant, while thus touching upon the Funeral Service to notice a curious instance of its effect. The story is related by Bishop

Besides, were the Church to act in the same respect towards Dissenters, as they wish her to act towards her own Members, she would fall under no small degree of their hatred and clamour. Dissenters, in dissenting and separating from the Church, commit the heinous sin of schism, which is, in my opinion, a greater sin than the sin of drunkenness; and therefore a great deal more frequently spoken against in the Word of God. Drunkenness is confessed by all to be a great evil, not so with regard to schism; many who would justly abhor the idea of committing the former, are by no means careful as to committing the latter. The sin of schism is so common in these latter days of the Church, that it is now scarcely thought to be a sin. This, however, neither justifies its commission, nor mitigates the punishment due to it; for notwithstanding its frequent recurrence, it is equally as heinous in

Sprat, in a visitation sermon, as having happened within the compass of his own knowledge.-" It was immediately after the happy restoration of Charles 11., when together with the rights of the Crown, and the English liberties, the Church and the Liturgy were also newly restored, that a noted ringleader of schism in the former times was to be buried in one of the principal Churches in London. The Minister of the parish, being a wise and regular conformist, (and he was afterwards an eminent Bishop in our Church,) well knew how averse the friends and relations of the deceased had always been to the Common Prayer; which, by hearing it so often called a low rudiment, a beggarly element, and a carnal ordinance, they were brought to contemn to that degree, that they shunned all occasions of being acquainted with it. Wherefore, in order to the interment of their friend in some sort to their satisfaction, yet so as not to betray his own trust, he used this honest method to undeceive them. Before the day appointed for the funeral, he was at the pains to learn the whole office of burial by heart. And then the time being come, there being a great concourse of men of the same fanatical principles, when the company heard all delivered by him without a book, with a free readiness and profound gravity, and unaffected composure of voice, looks and gestures, and a very powerful emphasis in every part, (as indeed his talent was excellent that way,) they were strangely surprised and affected, professing they had never heard a more suitable exhortation, or a more edifying exercise, even from the very best and most precious men of their own persuasion. But they were afterwards much more surprised and confounded, when the same person who had officiated, assured the principal men among them, that not one period of all that he had spoken was his own, and convinced them by ocular demonstration, how all was taken, word for word, out of the very office ordained for that purpose in the poor contemptible Book of Common Prayer. Whence he most reasonably inferred, how much their ill-grounded prejudice and mistaken zeal had deluded them, that they should admire the same discourse when they thought it an unprepared, unpremeditated rapture, which they would have abominated, had they known it to be only a form prescribed by authority."-Quarterly Review, No. 63, p. 39.

the sight of God as it ever was, and equally as dangerous to the souls of men. It is nothing less than a direct and open violation of those numerous commands which God has given in his Word for the preservation of unity, peace, and concord. I look upon schism, in fact, as tantamount to a renunciation of Christianity. What is it but a renouncing of the Church of Christa renouncing of her Ministers, and through them a renouncing of Christ himself? Do not schismatics, in forsaking the Church of God, and thus abandoning that machine which God has placed upon earth for the accomplishment of his great work of redemption in the salvation of men, and inventing new schemes of salvation for themselves, prefer their own wisdom, and their own ways, to the wisdom and ways of God? And as schismatics forsake the Church, and cut themselves off from her, they ought to be the very first persons over whom the Church should refuse her Burial Service to be read. If schismatics die with the sin of schism unrepented of, I see not how the Church can consistently consider them as brethren, or bury them as such. Neither can I see how Dissenters can consistently claim to be buried by the Church, as they frequently do, when they do not consider Churchmen as their brethren. The fact is, when speaking of themselves generally, and against the Church, Dissenters consider themselves as alone "the good, the pious, the holy"—"regenerated characters"-"the people of God" "the saints ;" and the Church may, therefore, very safely in their estimation express a hope," and even a "sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life" of every one of them. But as they charitably consider all others as 66 unregenerated characters"men of the world"-" unbelievers," and as being "ignorant of the Gospel," no "hope" whatever is to be expressed with regard to them. It may be said, that Dissenters do acknowledge that there are many pious and good men in the Church. I am aware that they do this; but allow me to say, that it is only to

66

T