rate from the Church." But here another question occurs, "What is the Church of England?" It is not "all the people of England." Papists and Dissenters are no part thereof. It is not all the people of England except Papists and Dissenters. Then we should have a glorious Church indeed! No: according to our twentieth article, a particular Church is "a congregation of faithful people (Cœtus credentium, the words in our Latin edition) among whom the Word of God is preached and the sacraments duly administered." Here is a true logical definition, containing both the essence and the properties of a Church. What then, according to this definition, is the Church of England? Does it mean, "All the believers in England, (except the Papists and Dissenters) who have the Word of God and the sacraments duly administered among them?” I fear this does not come up to your idea of "The Church of England." Well, what more do you include in that phrase ?" Why, all the believers that adhere to the doctrine and discipline established by the Convocation under Queen Elizabeth." Nay, that discipline is well nigh vanished away, and the doctrine both you and I adhere to.

All those reasons against a separation from the Church in this sense, I subscribe to still. What then are you frightened at ? I no more separate from it now, than I did in the year 1758. I submit still (though sometimes with a doubting conscience) to Mitred Infidels. I do indeed vary from them in some points of doctrine and in some points of discipline, (by preaching abroad, for instance, by praying extempore, and by forming societies.) But not a hair's breadth further than I believe to be meet, right, and my bounden duty. I walk still by the same rule I have done for between forty and fifty years. I do nothing rashly. It is not likely I should. The high-day of my blood is over. If you will go hand in hand with me, do. But do not hinder me, if you will not help. Perhaps if you had kept closely to me, I might have done better. However, with or without help I creep on. And as I have been hitherto, so I trust I shall always be, Your affectionate Friend and Brother,

JOHN WESLEY.

Farther Thoughts on Separation from the Church.

1. FROM a child I was taught to love and reverence the Scriptures, the Oracles of God: and next to these, to esteem the Primitive Fathers, the Writers of the three first centuries. Next after the Primitive Church, I esteemed our own, the Church of England, as the most scriptural, national Church in the world. I therefore, not only assented to all the doctrines, but observed all the rubric in the Liturgy: and that with all possible exactness, even at the peril of my life.

2. In this judgment, and with this spirit I went to America, strongly attached to the Bible, the Primitive Church, and the Church of England, from which I would not vary in one jot or tittle on any account whatever. In this spirit I returned as regular a clergyman as any in the three kingdoms: till after not being permitted to preach in the Churches, I was constrained to preach in the open air.

3. Here was my first irregularity. And it was not voluntary but constrained. The second was extemporary prayer. This likewise I believed to be my bounden duty, for the sake of those who desired me to watch over their souls. I could not in conscience refrain from it: neither from accepting those, who desired to serve me as sons in the Gospel.

4. When the people joined together, simply to help each other to heaven, increased by hundreds and thousands, still they had no more thought of leaving the Church than of leaving the kingdom. Nay, I continually and earnestly cautioned them against it; reminding them that we were a part of the Church of England, whom God had raised up not only to save our own souls, but to enliven our neighbours, those of the Church in particular. And at the first meeting of all our Preachers in Conference, in June 1744, 1 exhorted them to keep to the Church, observing, that this was our peculiar glory, Not to form any new sect, but abiding in our own Church, to do to all men all the good we possibly could.

5. But as more Dissenters joined with us, many of whom were much prejudiced against the Church, these, with or without design, were continually infusing their own prejudices into their brethren. I saw this, and gave warning of it from time to time, both in private and in public. And in the year 1758, I resolved to bring the matter to a fair issue. So I desired the point might be considered at large, Whether it was expedient for the Methodists to leave the Church? The arguments on both sides were discussed for several days; and at length we agreed, without a dissenting voice, "It is by no means expedient that the Methodists should leave the Church of England."

6. Nevertheless, the same leaven continued to work, in various parts of the kingdom. The grand argument (which in some particular cases must be acknowledged to have weight) was this: "The minister of the parish wherein we dwell, neither lives nor preaches the Gospel. He walks in the way to hell himself, and teaches his flock to do the same. Can you advise them to attend his preaching?" I cannot advise them to it. "What then can they do, on the Lord's-day, suppose no other Church be near? Do you advise them to go to a dissenting Meeting? Or to meet in their own Preaching-house?" Where this is really the case, I cannot blame them if they do. Although, therefore, I earnestly oppose the general separation of the Methodists from the Church, yet I cannot condemn such a partial separation, in this particular case. I believe to separate thus far from these miserable wretches, who are the scandal of our Church and nation, would be for the honour of our Church, as well as to the glory of God.

7. And this is no way contrary to the profession which I have made above these fifty years. I never had any design of separating from the Church. I have no such design now. I do not believe, the Methodists in general design it, when I am no more seen. I do, and will do, all that is in my power to prevent such an event. Nevertheless, in spite of all that I can do, many of them will separate from it; (although I am apt to think, not one half, perhaps not a third

of them.) These will be so bold and injudicious, as to form a separate party, which consequently will dwindle away, into a dry, dull, separate party. In flat opposition to these, I declare once more, that I live and die a member of the Church of England: and that none who regard my judgment or advice, will ever separate from it. JOHN WESLEY.

London, Dec. 11, 1789.

Thoughts on the Consecration of CHURCHES, and BURIALGROUNDS.

1. IT has been a custom for some ages, in Roman Catholic countries to have a particular form of consecration, for all Churches and Chapels: and not for these only, but for every thing pertaining to them; such as fonts, chalices, bells, sacerdotal vestments, and church-yards in particular. And all these customs universally prevailed in England, as long as it was under the papal power.

2. From the time of our Reformation from Popery, most of these customs fell into disuse. Unconsecrated bells were rung without scruple, and unconsecrated vestments worn. But some of them remained still: the consecration of churches and church-yards in particular: and many scrupled the performing divine service in an unconsecrated church : and could not consent that their bodies should be buried in unconsecrated ground.

3. Accordingly the consecrating of churches and churchyards has been practised in England ever since. But it is a thing purely indifferent, being neither forbidden, nor established by law. The case is different in Ireland. While the Earl of Stafford was lord-lieutenant of that kingdom, a law was made for the consecration not only of churches, but of church-yards also. And a Form of Consecration for both was inserted in the Common Prayerbook, which is used at this day: much resembling that

which Archbishop Laud used, in the consecration of St. Katherine-Creed's Church in London.

4. But such a law has never passed in England, much less been inserted in our Common Prayer-book. However, such consecration has been generally practised, though not authorised by the Legislature. "Is it then illegal?" That word is capable of a two-fold meaning. It may mean, either without any law in its favour, or against law. I do not conceive it to be illegal, in the latter sense. Perhaps it is in the former: I do not know any law that enjoins, or even permits it.

5. And certainly as it is not enjoined by the law of the land, so it is not enjoined by the law of God. Where do we find one word in the New Testament enjoining any such thing? Neither do I remember any precedent of it in the purest ages of the Church. It seems to have entered, and gradually spread itself, with the other innovations and superstitions of the Church of Rome. "Do you think it then a superstitious practice?" Perhaps it is not, if it be practised as a thing indifferent. But if it be done as a necessary thing, then it is flatly superstitious.

6. For this reason I never wished that any bishop should consecrate any chapel or burial-ground of mine. Indeed I should not dare to suffer it; as I am clearly persuaded, the thing is wrong in itself, being not authorized either by any law of God, or by any law of the land. In consequence of which I conceive, that either the clerk or the sexton, may as well consecrate the Church, or the church-yard, as the bishop.

7. With regard to the latter, the church-yard, I know not who could answer that plain question: you say, "This is consecrated ground, so many feet broad, and so many long." But pray, how deep is the consecrated ground?— "Deep! What does that signify?" O, a great deal! for if any grave be dug too deep, I may happen to get out of the consecrated ground! And who can tell, what unhappy consequences may follow from this!

8. I take the whole of this practice, to be a mere relic of