the Divines of an argument, on which they are fond of expatiating, -that the mere profession of something under the name of Christianity has wonderfully improved the manners and the morals of society. I have no apprehension, that I give the Deists any advantage by avowing the truth. And I avow that I have read of very few forms of pagan idolatry, which exceeded in ridiculousness of absurdity, or in atrocious wickedness of principle and practice, some of the forms of religion long and widely current under the name of Christian. It is an acknowledged maxim, that the very worst thing is frequently produced by the corruption of the very best. And all the corruptions of Christianity, which have overspread the world in these "times of the Gentiles," so far from invalidating Scripture, Jo in fact authenticate it: just as in the times of the Jewish dispensation, the continued apostacies of that people from the God of Israel, and their various corruptions of the law of Moses, only verified what was declared in that law concerning their character.

And now I wish to mark distinctly, why I have been led, in this and some of the preceding Notes, to enter upon topics, which are not strictly within my department, either as a Scholar or as a Christian: topics, from which both myself, and those with whom I am in religious connexion, in general, studiously abstain. I have found that one of the prevailing prejudices, most unfavourable to our application for legislative relief, is connected with the sentiment, that civil society cannot subsist without Oaths; that we are therefore persons who do not merit any attention to our complaints, as our principle of refusing to swear (however conscientiously adopted) is hostile to the interests of the State. Am I not justified in endeavouring to remove a prejudice, which I am persuaded is groundless? This persuasion is intimately connected with my conviction of the divine command upon the subject: as I cannot admit the supposition, that Christ enjoins on his disciples any thing really hostile to the welfare of society. I have therefore been led, after stating the scriptural grounds of our practice in this matter, to look a little with the eye of reason, or common sense, at the current notion of the utility and importance of swearing :-not certainly with the vain expectation of inducing the Legislature to abolish the practice; but in the hope of influencing some of our Legislators to be more disposed to release a few Christians from heavy civil penalties for not complying with it.

Let not any thing of a political complexion, which I have offered on the subject, be so misunderstood, as to be considered the ground, in whole or in part, of our conduct as a religious body. That ground lies exclusively in the divine word; from the decision of which we have no appeal as Christians; and beyond which, in this or any similar case, we have no inquiry to make for the regulation of our conduct.

Here, however, I would add one remark. The more we look at the divine prohibition against swearing, the more we discern it in perfect harmony with all the fundamental principles of the Christian revelation. And though perhaps I should never have been led, except by that express prohibition, to perceive the unsuitableness of

the thing to the Christian character, yet for myself I confess, that with my present views of it, I dare not swear by any oath, even if that particular prohibition were expunged, or if it could be proved, (what I am sure never can be proved,) that it has a different import from that which I have marked. A sinful creature, deriving all his hope towards God—and a sufficiency of good hope, from the revelation of MERCY made in the Gospel; an altogether dependent creature, "kept by the power of GOD unto salvation," (1 Pet. i. 5.) must awfully depart from the high character to which he is called, when he imprecates against himself the forfeiture of the divine favour, if he fail of keeping his engagements with respect to his future conduct.

G. (page 3.)

We should consider it a

Again humbly pray for such relief, &c. relief quite adequate to all our wishes in this matter, if an Act were passed extending the legislative indulgence enjoyed by the Quakers, in the matter of Oaths, to any person, of whom two or more Quakers should certify, that to the best of their knowledge and belief he belongs to a religious society agreeing with the people called Quakers upon that subject.

This appears to be a suitable opportunity for presenting to the reader a short statement of the circumstances attending the preceding petition and the legislative enactment to which it led.

The severe forfeitures which the people, called Separatists, had endured, and the more severe sufferings to which they were exposed, through their refusal to swear, led them early to apply to the legislature for such relief as the Quakers had long enjoyed. A petition, similar to the preceding, was presented to both houses of Parliament, and continued to be for many years annually laid before them. In 1822, extensive circulation was given to printed copies of it, accompanied by Mr. Walker's notes, as they are now published. But though the petitioners' claims became thus more widely known, and the justice of them more generally admitted, no step was taken towards removing the grievance under which they laboured. A better prospect presented itself in 1830; and strong hopes were entertained that a still more comprehensive measure might be favourably received; one which should not be confined to the relief of a particular sect, but should embrace persons of all denominations who had a conscientious objection to Oaths. Petitions to this effect were framed by the Separatists; and to the printed copies which were then disseminated, Mr. W. added a summary of his Notes, in the form of uninterrupted observations. These differ so very little in substance from the Notes, that it has not beem deemed necessary to insert them in the present edition. The arguments by which he enforced the propriety, the superior facility, and the perfect safety of such an enlarged measure of relief, will be found in his correspondence. But on this occasion also the petitioners met with disappointment.

Their exertions to include others in the relief they sought, received no aid whatever from the many whom they supposed interested in an exemption from swearing; and a parliamentary investigation into the subject of Oaths terminated only in the abolition of a few hundreds of those imprecations which were hourly exacted in the Customs and Excise offices. The petitioners were decidedly averse from pressing their claims on the legislature without the sanction of the government; but this, neither their sufferings nor their patience nor the acknowledged justice of their demand succeeded in obtaining until 1833; when Lord John Russell, who had long been their advocate in Parliament, recommended their cause to the protection of the administration, of which he was then an influential member. On the 24th April, in that session, leave was given to Mr. Pryme, member for Cambridge, and Mr. Murray, member for Leith, to bring in a bill for allowing the people called Separatists to make a solemn affirmation instead of an Oath. It went through the different stages in the House of Commons, with the cordial support of ministry as well as of many other distinguished members, and with little opposition from any; and on the 24th June passed the third reading. On the 9th of August, Lord Gosford, who had shewn a warm interest about the bill, introduced it to the House of Lords, where it was strongly supported by Lord Suffield, Lord Plunket, and the Bishop of Chichester; and received a second reading. Owing to objections raised by some noble Lords in the Committee, an addition to the simple form of affirmation, proposed by the Separatists, was introduced, and submitted to on the ground of the essential difference between the most solemn affirmation and an oath. On the 19th of August, the bill, thus altered, came on for the third reading; when, after a sharp debate, in which Lords Gosford, Suffield, and Plunket, the Bishop of Chichester, and finally and conclusively Lord Grey, took part, it passed the House by a majority of nineteen-thirty-five being for and sixteen against it; and on the 28th of August it received the Royal Assent. This bill, drawn up by Henry Chance, Esq., of Stonebuildings, Lincoln's Inn, and containing but forty lines, attracted considerable attention by its strict legal precision, combined with a brevity not common in legal documents. The experience of its working, though short, has been sufficient to stamp it as a measure not less advantageous to society at large than to the parties more apparently benefited; and to remove the unfounded apprehension expressed by a late popular, though not always liberal member, ' that it was taking another screw out of the constitution.'-ED.

STATEMENT

OF THE

INTERRUPTION OF CHRISTIAN CONNEXION

BETWEEN THE

CHURCH IN LONDON

AND THE

CHURCH IN DUBLIN.

SOME REMARKS ON H. M.'s PRINTED LETTER;

AND

Some Observations on a Pamphlet,

ENTITLED

AN EXPOSITION, &c. OF THE GOSPEL,

AND OF THE

DENUNCIATIONS AGAINST THOSE WHO REJECT IT.

LONDON, June 2d, 1829.

As some disciples in Ireland, with whom we have been-and ought still to be-in acknowledged Christian connexion, may hear of the interruption of that connexion between us and those in Dublin, without hearing any distinct account of the circumstances which have led to it; for the sake of such it has been judged expedient to draw up the following Statement, and to print a few copies of it for private circulation among them.

For a long time, some of the brethren here have been pained by various reports which reached them of the course of the Church in Dublin, from which it appeared that their assembly had become the scene of strife and debate, and of all the evils necessarily consequent upon this. The last subject of protracted controversy among them has been the Apostolic precept given in 1 Cor. v. 11; to which we had all heretofore professed subjection. It is now more than five months, since one of their members was allowed, openly in their

meeting, to disclaim subjection to that divine command: and-instead of his being immediately brought under the discipline of the house of God, and removed from among them if it failed of bringing him to repentance,—the precept has since continued a subject of disputation in their meetings, the ungodly rejection of it has spread wider and wider among them, and it lately appeared that the infection was communicated from them to some members of the Church in London.

Various private attempts had been made by individuals here, in their epistolary communications with individuals in Dublin, to admonish them of their evil course, and to recall them to those scriptural principles of Christian fellowship, from which it was plain they had awfully departed. These attempts were ineffectual. Authentic accounts were received very lately, that their disputation seemed as far as ever from any termination; and that all the evils connected with it, and the toleration of those evils by those who professed to maintain the command, continued. Indeed, it was manifest, that if they thought themselves at liberty to play this kind of game with the word for five months, they could have no good reason for not continuing to play it interminably;-unless perhaps that they were tired.

However, it was the appearance of the plague in a few of our own body that immediately occasioned our interference as a Church. Those individuals were taken into discipline without delay: and although some of the cases looked very dark at first, yet, through the mercy of God, they all ended happily. The subject was at large laid before the assembled brethren on the 26th of April; and on the 3d of May, the Church commissioned two of us to write in their name to the Church in Dublin a letter of admonition and reproof, for the evils that had so long existed among them. A copy of that letter follows. If there be any discrepancies between this copy and the letter despatched, they are very few, merely verbal, and purely accidental.

'May 6, 1829.

To the Church of Christ assembling in * * * Dublin.

'Mercy and peace be multiplied!

'We have been deputed, dear Brethren, by the Church assembling in Portsmouth Street, LONDON, to address you in their name; and that in the way of admonition and scriptural reproof for evils, which exist among you, and the continuance of which would be inconsistent with the continuance of our connexion as Sister-Churches. We allude to the opposition which has been raised among you, and tolerated for months, against the Apostolic command in 1 Cor. v. 11.

'It is now some weeks, since a letter from one of the females in your body brought the melancholy intelligence that, after a great deal of discussion in your Church, you were then pretty generally of one mind for-(what we must term)-rejecting that command, as what could not be designed to regulate the conduct of the Corinthian disciples towards the wicked person spoken of, after he was put out from their body. That this is equivalent with the absolute setting aside of the precept, must be obvious to any disciple reading the