Scriptures, that this idea is an awful mistake, originating in real disbelief of the word of God. Christ's kingdom is a kingdom which cannot be moved not one of the stakes thereof shall ever be removed, neither shall any of the cords thereof be broken. (Heb. xii. 28. Is. xxxiii. 20.) of the forms of nominal and professional Christianity there is an endless variety. But real Christianity is ONE and UNCHANGEABLE: because "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever;" and his word, like himself, "endureth for ever." (Heb. xiii. 8. 1 Pet. i. 25.)

Yet undoubtedly Christianity is part of the laws of England. But in what sense can I understand this acknowledged legal principle? Does it mean that every man in England must profess himself to be a Christian? or not avow that he disbelieves the Christian revelation? Certainly not. A JEW, though a native of England, is not subject (I believe) to any legal penalty for avowing himself a Jew; for avowing that he considers Jesus of Nazareth an impostor. Nor can it mean that the English law prohibits the publication of direct attacks on the English revelation. I have never heard of a prosecution commenced against any bookseller, for publishing or selling the writings of HOBBES, of SHAFTESBURY, of HUME, of GIBBON, or even of VOLTAIRE himself. And when I consider the free sale of the works of the last author, (which I should be very sorry to find legally prevented,) I confess myself puzzled to understand what class of infidel writings precisely is illegal in this country. I have heard it described as that in which Christianity is opposed, not by sober reasoning, but with scurrility and wanton ridicule. I own that I never found any more scurrilous ribaldry, or more destitute of any thing like calm and philosophic reasoning, in the writings of THOMAS PAINE, than in some of the pieces of the philosopher of FERNEY; and, (without thinking either of them a conjuror,) I do consider the former a more acute man than the latter, though not so witty.

However, I can understand in general, that the publication of such an infidel work as PAINE's Age of Reason is illegal. And I am far from questioning the right of any legislature, to make enactments against such a publication. But let me be pardoned for saying, that I question the policy and wisdom of such legislative interference. There was a period when Christians were subject to legal penalties for opposing the absurdities of Paganism, or for refusing to conform to its rites and their sufferings for this are recorded under the name of persecution. It seems a strange thing, that those who bear the name of Christians should have long turned the tables upon the

modatam, recte ut opinor, monent eruditi. Nempe hæc publica admonitio non potest habere locum nisi in cœtu minore, ne speciem quidem auctoritatis civilis præ se ferente, seque ipsum e Christi præceptis liberrime gubernante. In statum ecclesiæ externum et civilem, qui apud nos est, hæc disciplinæ Christianæ pars parum convenit.”-Was I not justified, when I formerly adduced this passage, in subjoining the following question? "Why do these men continue to have portions read to their congregations from the antiquated Bible? Is it not time to have a new one composed by the new Apostles? Or would it not be more suitable to read a section of the ecclesiastical canons, framed by clerical convocations for the government of the Church?"-Thoughts on Religious Establishments, &c.

infidels; and should now inflict civil penalties upon those who gainsay Christianity.

To protect the persons and properties of Christians, as well as of all other peaceable subjects, is certainly among the legitimate objects of human legislation and government. But I own, that I think there was sound wisdom in the remark of the politic TIBERIUS, when some wanted to draw down punishment on one who had violated the divinity of AUGUSTUS ;-DEORUM injurias DIIs curæ. And I am so well assured of the stability of real CHRISTIANITY, and of the vanity of all assaults upon it either in the way of argument or ridicule, that I should wish the freest scope to be afforded to its assailants. Perhaps also the contrary course gives them an importance, which they do not intrinsically possess; and affords them too specious a pretext for representing-that the thing which they oppose needs to be screened from examination by human authority. However, it is only as a Christian, and not as a politician, that I express this opinion. To the latter character, I am not ambitious of making the least pretensions.

Well: I have arrived at some tangible meaning for the principle, that Christianity forms part of the law of the land. It is a violation of the law of the land, to speak or write against Christianity in a certain way; however difficult it may be to define what that way is. But is this the only meaning of the principle? I suspect that it is generally supposed to mean something more; but that there is no definite and precise idea of its further import.

Does it mean, that any one of the various forms of religion, current under the name of Christianity, is exclusively patronized and supported by the State? I should think that it cannot mean this. There is certainly in England, and in Ireland too, a form of religion, to the profession of which peculiar advantages are assigned by law. But, (not to urge that even there the profession of this is not enjoined by law, and that other forms have a legal toleration, which we cannot suppose would be conceded to violations of the law,) if we cross the Tweed, we shall find another form of nominal Christianity to be the one established, peculiarly favoured, and supported by the legislature and if we go to his Majesty's dominions in North America, we shall find a third. I shall not argue the question,* whether Popery be or be not established by law in Canada. It is confessedly the religion supported by the state: and to its priests even the Protestant inhabitants are, or were, (for I will not go out of my proper sphere to examine whether any legislative change has been made in this respect,) bound by act of parliament to pay their tithes.

His

The reader may find some curious information on this subject in a pamphlet entitled, "An Account of the Proceedings of the British and other Protestant Inhabitants of Quebec," &c. 1775, by the present venerable Baron MASERES, formerly Attorney General of the Province.-In using the terms Popery and Papists, I really do not wish to give offence: nor can I understand why they should offend any, who acknowledge the wickedest Popes of Rome as Christ's Vicegerents upon earth. I should be very glad to think that they were becoming ashamed of that blasphemous absurdity. But I do not choose, either to sacrifice truth by calling them Catholics, or to violate the propriety of language by calling them Roman Catholics.

Majesty's Protestant subjects there are obliged by British law to contribute to the support of a religion which Protestants consider Antichristian.

I can understand the reason of that; though I more than doubt its policy. But, by parity of reason, I should look for Popery to be the favoured religion in Ireland also. Ireland, my unfortunate native country, has long been presenting a lesson to our legislators, which perhaps they will yet learn to read. One of its many pages is that, which exhibits the great mass of the people, amidst all their poverty, providing and supporting a religion for themselves; not only independent of any aid from the state, but in opposition to every political discouragement.-But I withdraw from the question, whether it be politically wise for the governors of a state to embarrass themselves with the care of providing religion for the people. It is a question, on which I cannot avoid having a decided opinion; but I desire not to obtrude it. I am not insensible also, that it is often much harder to correct a political evil which has long existed, than it would have been to avoid it originally. Yet, perhaps, it might be salutary, that legislators should have their eyes opened to the real nature even of those evils in the State, which admit not an. immediate cure; in order to apply palliatives, if not gradual remedies.

I have been betrayed into these remarks, by considering the meaning of that legal principle,- that Christianity forms part of the law of the land. And I believe I must throw it back upon the lawyers. For the more I consider it, the more obscure and doubtful it becomes in my view.

E. (page 3.)

No political inconvenience has been found to result from the indulgence, &c.-That it is agreeable to the principles of the Constitution of this kingdom, to afford every indulgence consistent with the safety and good of the State to the conscientious scruples of all religious people, who demean themselves as sober, quiet, and industrious subjects, we conceive it requires no argument to prove. And that we

so demean ourselves, we can confidently appeal to all who know us : nor would the scriptural principles on which we act allow us to keep in our connexion any character known to be of an opposite description.

That the indulgence with respect to Oaths heretofore granted to the Quakers, and also to the United Brethren, is not injurious to the interests or welfare of the State, we humbly conceive may clearly be established; though we are aware that some think the statement controvertible. If it can be justly controverted,- if the indulgence afforded to the two other sects be found injurious to the public interests, we freely admit that we could not without presumption look for an extension of it to us. The welfare of individuals, however grievously affected, must give way to the public good.

With respect to the United Brethren, or Moravians, I believe that they do not in general avail themselves of the Act: * and even when

An Act passed in the twenty-second year of George II. for encouraging the people called Unitas Fratrum, or United Brethren, to settle in America.

the Act was passed in their favour, only some individuals among them had any scruples about swearing. It only remains therefore to show, that in the case of the Quakers, the admission of their solemn Affirmation, in place of an oath, has not been injurious to the welfare of the State.

And here I believe it will be allowed by all, that their evidence, wherever it is admissible by law, stands as unimpeached for truth and integrity, as if it had been confirmed by Oath. But it may be objected that the public weal is affected from time to time, and the ends of public justice defeated, by their refusal to give evidence upon Oath, in cases where this Affirmation is not received. It is true. but is this the consequence of the legislative indulgence, which receives their Affirmation in civil matters? Is it not rather the consequence of not extending that indulgence to criminal cases? Previous to the Act passed in favour of the Quakers, did they give evidence on Oath upon any occasion, on which they now refuse it? No: they only suffered more for their refusal; and the severity and publicity of their sufferings contributed, perhaps more than most other circumstances, to spread their principles.

We resemble the Quakers in this respect, that we could not retain in our religious connexion a person who would swear by any Oath; and that we feel ourselves called to suffer patiently whatever consequences may follow from this principle. Whether the principle be or be not detrimental to the public welfare, is a question which I think it here superfluous to discuss; though I shall meet that question also in the next Note, and prove that Oaths have none of that political utility which is commonly attributed to them. But the only real question in the present case seems to be, whether it be conducive to the public good that we should be exposed to much and continued suffering, for acting as we feel ourselves bound to do by the word of God.

We cannot apprehend that the British Legislature will participate in the narrow sentiment avowed by a magistrate of Dublin, (Alder. man **) that "Government ought to exterminate from society such principles" as ours. In fact, a principle seriously taken up from the Scriptures cannot be effectually opposed, or exterminated, but by showing that it has no real warrant in the Scriptures. If indeed it be judged politically expedient to try our steadfastness, by leaving us to still greater and longer sufferings than we have already sustained, in the expectation that we shall abandon our principles;—we have nothing to say, but that we hope to be strengthened for the trial by a power superior to our own.

Some have questioned the expediency of extending the desired indulgence to us, from an apprehension that among the various sects of Dissenters, others would desire to share the indulgence with us, or would prefer an equally strong claim to participate in it. In reply to this objection it may be sufficient to remark, that, even after obtaining from the Legislature the utmost indulgence for which we look, we should remain (like the Quakers) subject to numerous privations and disabilities, incapacitated for filling various situations, or exercising various professions, in which Oaths are required. And surely these remaining disadvantages would be sufficient to prevent any

from professing an agreement in principle with us, unless they have the same conscientious conviction, and the same willingness to sacrifice worldly interests to that conviction of Christian duty. Any person, who at present either has no scruple about taking Oaths or who takes them in opposition to existing scruples, would still have abundant motives for continuing to act as he does; and for deprecating the idea of being put on a level with us, even though we had obtained all the legislative relief which we seek.

F. (page 3.)

Substituting a solemn affirmation for the imprecatory engagement of an Oath. So little is thought about swearing in this country, that many who take oaths have never considered the precise nature of the act. I have found many, who assumed that there is no essential difference between an Oath and a very solemn Affirmation: and the language of some writers, who express themselves on the subject in vague generalities, may be thought, by those who wish to think so, to lend a kind of countenance to the opinion. But it is really indisputable, that the Legislature has contemplated an essential difference between the two things. For, while the law gives every latitude to the variety of forms in which Oaths shall be administered, according to the various principles or customs of the juror; it is only by a special Act of Parliament that the solemn Affirmation of some individuals is admitted, in place of an Oath; and even their most solemn Affirmation is not admitted, except in civil cases.

But the imprecatory import of our Oaths is indeed very obvious, from the express terms of the form, in which they are most statedly administered: and I have to own with shame how long I wilfully shut my eyes against this; and imposed on my own conscience the idea, that the words "So help me God!" might be understood as a prayer for the divine aid and assistance in fulfilling the engagement. Archdeacon Paley, (whom I quote, not as a divine, but as a civilian, and a man confessedly of a clear head and extensive information,) speaks honestly here-"The energy of the sentence resides in the particle so; so, i. e. hac lege, upon condition of my speaking the truth or performing this promise, may God help me, and not otherwise." And thus, as the writers of the Encyclopædia state, every OATH is "accompanied by an imprecation of the vengeance of God, or a renunciation of his favour, if what we affirm be false, or what we promise be not performed."

The particular phrase-So help me God! has been borrowed from the old Romans; among whom we find the language, Ita me Dii juvent, &c.—in such a connection as decides its import. Nor is the imprecatory import of the English phrase less unequivocally established, when we observe how it is occasionally employed for the purpose of confirming by oath the truth of an antecedent assertion: as-"So help me God, it is true." But, in fact, Judges and lawyers are every year reminding the Jury or the witnesses, that they have 'pledged their hope of eternal life, arising from Christianity, for the truth of their verdict or their testimony.'

I believe it is well known also, that when the court is examining