junctures when the influence of Religion is more than ordinarily serviceable to the State, which the magistrate cannot so 'well improve to the public advantage, unless he have the Church ' under his direction, to prescribe such public exercises of Religion as the exigencies of the State require.' On this curious argument, the author of the Letters remarks, with equal force and justice,

In plain English, the magistrate may prescribe Te Deums and Fasts, whenever it suits his purposes,-engage Christian ministers to preach down his political opponents,-obtain acquiescence in his measures, just or unjust, on pain of damnation,—and hurl against his enemies the terrors of the next world in addition to those of the sword. Belshazzar's profanation of the sacred vessels of the Temple at an idolatrous feast, was nothing to this! One would think the good Bishop had forgotten on which side he was writing. If any one be convinced, by such an argument, of any thing but the danger to Christ's religion, by placing it thus under the control of the civil governor, I can devise no process of reasoning that is likely to undeceive him. p. 102.

6

Nor does he omit to notice the particular State Prayers' and State Festivals,' which are enjoined in the Church of England.

The regular appointed prayers for the long life of the King, stand in strange contrast, methinks, with the setting aside for a solemn thanksgiving (as you are sure, in the regular course of things, must be done), the day of his death, i. e. the day on which his successor will begin to reign. It might be suspected, not without a shew of reason, that if King William, instead of safely landing his forces on the 5th of November, had been on that day drowned in a storm, you would have been at this time solemnly celebrating that event, and repeating a form of thanksgiving to Almighty God for having a second time, on that day, overthrown in a miraculous manner a wicked and treasonable attempt on the royal House of Stuart. This I say might have been suspected, even had the Chruch been in all such cases left to her own discretion; but the suspicion amounts almost to a certainty, when it is considered that all these things are dictated by those in power for the time being.' p. 123.

To the same subject belongs his complaint of the Unalterableness of the Church Liturgy and Articles; so that, as he most truly observes,

The members of the Church of England are even in a greater strait than the Church of Rome, whose pretence to infallibility only compels them to maintain, in theory, that each of their institutions was perfect at the time when it was established; whereas you,' he continues, addressing himself to the members of the Church of England, have to maintain, in practice, the unerring rectitude of your own, not only originally, but for ever. They may say, this is no longer expedient; but your institutions are like "the law of the Medes and Persians, which

altereth not, even after two or three centuries. For you cannot alter any thing without the cooperation of the civil power; and with it you are too wise to take any such steps ;-lest, when once called in, it should do more than you would wish. P. 173.

Some very sensible remarks occur with regard to the English laws relating to Marriages.

'Marriage consists, in our view, of two things-a civil Contract, which makes the offspring legitimate in the eye of the law, and involves temporal obligations, and a Vow before God. Now, with respect to the first, it ought to be competent to persons of all persuasions to form the civil contract, without any violence to their religious principles, however erroneous, and without any interference with religious rites whatever. Oliver Cromwell was right for once, in causing this civil contract to be made before the civil magistrate. Neither Jews, nor Turks, nor Christians, can object to this, if they choose to live under the laws of the land. The Magistrate, therefore, ought to certify and register the due contraction of this engagement. But as for the religious rite, that should be left to the religious community to which each person belongs. I cannot but think in the case, for instance, of the Unitarians, that there is both a species of persecution and of profanation committed. I need not tell you that I abhor the faith of the Unitarians;-so I do that of the infidel Jews and Mahometans ;-but I think that none of these should be compelled, in order to contract a marriage, to be witnesses and partakers of a ceremony which their conscience condemns; and it is, under these circumstances, a degradation of the minister, and a profanation of the ceremony, that it should take place. *** But many of the English clergy seem to think, with Paley, that the solemnization of a marriage by a Justice of the Peace, (though without forbidding any previous or subsequent religious ceremony which the consciences of the parties might dictate), was calculated to degrade the clergy. They stickle for their exclusive right of solemnizing marriage between those who think the ceremony blasphemous, and who blaspheme the doctrines implied in it! One has scarcely patience with men who thus perversely glory in degradation. They remind me in many points of the dog in the fable, who mistook the clog round his neck for a badge of honourable distinction. pp. 126-128.

What has been done, and what is likely to be done hereafter, with regard to the disgraceful state of things here alluded to, affords a fair sample of the pertinacity with which a certain party successfully defend every abuse in the ecclesiastical institutions of England. Once and again have the Unitarians petitioned Parliament to be allowed the indulgence, actually enjoyed by the Jews and Quakers, that of legally solemnizing their own marriages, without employing the ministers or the ritual of the English Established Church. Once and again have their petitions been rejected! One learned Prelate is reported to have said, that he would not give them credit

for any scruples of conscience about the matter and Parliament itself seemed to be of opinion, that it was better that their consciences should suffer violence, than that the venerable rust which, during two centuries and a half, has incrusted the institutions of the Church should be injured by any profane attempts to purify them. So the question rests for the present. But as the Unitarians will probably persevere, their individual complaint is likely in time to be listened to,-and, in the usual comprehensive spirit of our legislation, we shall have a sort of privilegium enacted, to redress that particular grievance-the enemies of reform gladly yielding thus far, in order to obviate more alarming evil, the removal of abuses by a general law founded on the plain principles of wisdom and justice. Nor is their policy a bad one; for, amidst the prevailing selfishness of mankind, general principles have little chance of finding an advocate, when once individual interests are satisfied.

a

In addition to the injury thus sustained by the Church, from their undue exercises of authority on the part of the State,— the author of the Letters' maintains that the State suffers in its turn. On this point his remarks are extremely ingenious, and substantially just;—at least they are quite sufficient to show that an Established Church, which is objectionable in many of its practices, and exclusive in its terms of communion,' is necessarily a dead weight on the shoulders of any Government which supports it. Warburton had quoted these words from the Icon Basilike

• Touching the government by Bishops, the common jealousie hath been, that I am earnest and resolute to maintain it, not so much out of Piety, as Policy and reasons of state. Wherein so far indeed reason of state doth induce me to approve that government above any other, as I find it impossible for a Prince to preserve the state in quiet, unless he hath such an influence upon churchmen, and they such a dependence on him, as may best restraine the seditious exorbitances of Ministers' tongues, who, with the keys of heaven, have so far the keys of the people's hearts, as they prevail much by their oratory to let in or shut out both peace and loyalty.'

"Now the

Upon this the author of the Letters proceeds. magistrate, by admitting and excluding to the exercise of their function such ministers as he thinks fit, has certainly a great control over the members of that church which he so governs; but what influence will this give him over Dissenters? Their ministers will have all that independent influence over their flocks, from which he dreads such danger to the State. But why should it be expected that this influence should be exerted in hostility to the existing government? I see no rea

son to apprehend this as long as the Church is left in its original, independent condition; but as soon as the civil magistrate identifies himself with the Church, to which Dissenters are neces→ sarily opposed, by making himself the head of their adversaries, he himself makes them his enemies." The alliance of Church and State, necessarily drives the enemies of the Church to be enemies of the State likewise; and thus occasions the very evil from which it professes to secure us. This is no imagi nary case. Experience has shown that the religion of the Presbyterians is not necessarily hostile to the British constitution; but the blow which it aimed at the Church of England, in the reign of Charles I., necessarily passed through the sides of the regal power, because the regal power stood before it, as an ally. Being the natural enemies of the Church, they were made enemies of the State; and it is possible they might not have resorted to violent means, had the Church possessed no coercive power, but might have been content to employ arguments, when arguments alone were opposed to them. At any rate, they would have had no excuse for so acting; but when the Church is endued with coercive power, she loses her privilege, and must expect that coercive power will be employed against her. Put up thy sword into its sheath: for all they that take the • sword shall perish by the sword.'

If therefore the magistrate would effectually preclude, instead of increasing, the danger in question, he must do his work thoroughly; he must not only prohibit, but completely extirpate, by a vigorous persecution, all religions except the one established. Half measures generally defeat both the objects they aim at. Dismiss your prisoners without ransom,' said the old Samnite to Pontius, the general who had captured a Roman army; if this does not please you, kill them all; and take away either their will, or their power to hurt you. Instead of this, he made them pass under the yoke-and dismissed them ardent and implacable foes.

These evils in the existing state of things, with some others which we have not room to notice, induce the author of the Letters to wish for a total change of system. The alteration which he proposes is indeed sufficiently simple; he would remedy the mischiefs which he laments, by entirely dissolving the connection between the State and the Church. The Church should regulate its own concerns with the same freedom that is enjoyed by the Universities, and should ask of the State no other favour than that protection which a government is bound to grant to every class of its subjects. But, it may be asked, does the author seriously think that the Church will ever be

persuaded to pay the necessary price for obtaining this freedom? His answer is, that she has paid the price for it already. -that from the moment the State consented to tolerate Dis senters, the terms of the alliance between it and the Church were broken,—and that the Church may now, in all fairness, pack up its goods and chattels, and remove to some freer station, where it may enjoy them, without being subject to any control.

That such a prospect is no more than the dream of a warm imagination, the author himself, we suspect, must be fully aware. He cannot possibly expect that any class of the State's servants will be allowed to resign their commissions, and yet to retain the full pay and emoluments of active service. If they talk of the profanation of being governed by secular authority, the Civil power may well reply to them, in the words of the Emperor Frederick the First, Episcoporum ego quidem non affecto hominium-si tamen eos, de nostris regalibus, nil • delectat habere. Qui si gratanter audierint, Quid tibi et Regi? consequenter quoque ab Imperatore non pigeat audire, Quid tibi et possessioni?'

But the author of the Letters denies that the clergy are to be considered as the servants of the State, or that they depend upon that character for their emoluments. How the Church of England,' he says, 'came into possession of that prop ty which her officers now hold, is an inquiry which may serve to amuse ❝ those who delight in antiquarian researches; but it is not rele❝vant to the present question. The actual right of the Church to her property is founded, (like that of individuals to their's) in Possession." (p. 136). The shallowness of this, however, is obvious. Possession may do much for individuals; but when it is pleaded in behalf of an order, the question must always be, by what titles and what authority that order is constituted. The right of the Church to her property,' says the author,but of what Church ?-Of the Church of England? But is it not plain, that from the moment that the national establishment is dissolved, there must cease to be any Church of England? Who ever heard of the Church of the United States of America? There might be an Episcopal Church of the Thirty-nine Articles in England; but on what grounds such a society, however learned and respectable, could pretend to claim property provided only for the National Church of England, we must leave to others to discover.

But let us suppose, for an instant, that the Episcopalians of the Thirty-nine Articles were suffered to usurp the property of the National Church, is the constitution of their sect, for such