am discoursing; or rather to that disposition and that habit which are particularly apt to produce and encourage divisions in the church'.

It is also peculiarly applicable to this division of my subject upon which I am now entering. For it is not any corruption of doctrine of which the apostle complains; but of that spirit of ambition which induces men to press forward as leaders; which causes them eagerly to thrust themselves into that office, which should never be undertaken without the most serious and deliberate consideration, which even those who are best qualified to labour in it, never can, or should undertake without a deep sense of its awfulness, and of the heavy responsibility which is imposed upon all those by whom it is exercised.

How much this sort of error prevails among us, it is impossible for any man not to observe even upon the most transient view: and its wide and increasing extent will be distinctly shewn as I proceed according to the plan which I laid down,

You will recollect then that in the conclusion of my last discourse, having brought down the history of our church from the reformation to

For more on this head bishop Bull may be consulted, whom I have chiefly followed in what I have above stated. See Vol. i. Sermon vi. of his English works.

our days, I proceeded to consider the nature of the religious divisions which at this moment prevail in the country; and I distinguished the separatists from our establishment into two classes; the one differing from us upon fundamental points of doctrine; the other having no such objection to our communion. Of the former I then spoke somewhat at large: and it now remains for me to inquire into the state of those other brethren of ours, whose estrangement from us I consider as being, even upon their own shewing, unsupported by any sufficient cause: and who therefore are more directly im-. plicated in the guilt, whatever it be, of keeping up schisms in the church.

The course which I should naturally take would be to lay before you the different descriptions, by which the individuals of this class of sectaries are distinguished, with their particular tenets and the grounds upon which they attempt to justify their separation from, and hostility to, the establishment. But to any man who will undertake to do this, difficulties almost insurmountable will present themselves. For the truth is, as I have already observed, that the same variety, the same changeableness, nay, the same inconsistency will be found in this class of dissenters as in those which in my last discourse I noticed. The nonconformists in this kingdom (for this name, I apprehend, be

longs principally to those who differ not from us in doctrine, but object only to conformity on account of our discipline.) The Nonconformists of this time, I say, have so little of settled opinion, with respect to the causes of their dissent from us, they have indeed now so long taken it for an established truth, that their separation from us stands in no need of any apology, that we must not wonder if we find that the principle, or rather want of principle, upon which they justify their refusal to be connected with us, should keep them unconnected with each other.

To this state of things we may attribute the prevalence of that general appellation of dissenters, which is studiously affected by all sects. They reap from it two advantages: first, it is a common bond of union (and the only one equally comprehensive which could be devised, since it even takes in that other class of the Unitarians), in their opposition to the national church. It also supersedes the necessity of their ascertaining, nay, of their inquiring into the particular cause why they refuse to join in communion with us; or rather why they will not submit to the rule in ecclesiastical matters, which is established by law.

True it is, we sometimes hear of new and old Dissenters, now and then of Presbyterians, and very often indeed of Methodists. But it would

BR

be very difficult to apply with a distinctness, or certainty, sufficiently appropriate, even these denominations to the particular congregations. The real fact is, that in this, our day, with very few exceptions, all the distinctions upon which separation was wont to be justified, are done away.

Of course, when the substance of things is gone, the names can no longer be retained to any good purpose. The words "Presbyterian" and

Independent" are therefore scarcely ever now heard of as applicable to a congregation. The one would imply a form of discipline which does not exist; and the other, as denoting a denial of that, or any other such form, is no longer necessary to be used.

Indeed where there is so little certainty or permanency in the ground upon which any body of men meet together, it is rather to be expected that they would be cautious in assuming any distinguishing title. We find accordingly that those names which are, or have been appropriated to any sect of dissenters in these, or in former days, have not, for the most part, originated with themselves, but have been fixed upon them by other persons, who were struck with some singularity in their demeanor or practice.

But whatever may be the case as to the name, it must be agreed that in fact, and in substance,

the number of the Presbyterians, properly so called, nay, of the old Independents, is dwindling away, and that they both bid fair to be swallowed up in that more powerful and popular description of enthusiasts which go about under the name of Methodists; and who, without publicly professing that great latitude of principle in religious matters, upon which the advocates for the dissenters at large now rest the cause, do, in effect, avail themselves of it in the most extraordinary degree.

When

There is indeed something very surprising in the growth and prevalence of this sect. and how they first appeared I had occasion to mention in the beginning of these discourses; and you may recollect that hostility to the church, or at least dissent from her articles, even those which relate to discipline, did not originally form any part of their profession. Indeed some of the individuals of their body were decidedly adverse to the petition against subscription, which was presented to Parliament in 1772. They have therefore, by some of the advocates of the lax system, been said not to be properly entitled to the name of dissenters.

"What the mildness of these new dissenters is I cannot guess, nor what new dissenters he means, unless he has the Methodists "in his eye; if so, what right has he to call them dissenters? They pretend, at least, and in my opinion have pretty well nigh "made good their pretence, that they are equally orthodox, and