of their labours. They have been taught by their principles to exclaim-" If Christ be preached--we rejoice!"

But there is one effect which, as the result of recent attempts to revive the spirit of hostility towards Dissenters, will be of essential advantage to their cause. Compelled as they now are, by every method in their power, to state and vindicate their peculiar principles, those principles will become more generally known, and be more warmly cherished. The continued sun-shine of friendly feeling might have relaxed the tenacity of their grasp; but the storm which now rages against them, and to which, in some cases, those are contributing their proportion, who might have known better, will only make them wrap about them more firmly than ever the garment of liberty and independence. They will not be afraid or ashamed to avow their reasons of dissent; and the circulation of them must inevitably produce impression. The idola theatri-the prejudices which rest only on the authority of others-the mere dicta of philosophers and priests, have long since lost the power they once possessed; and men will venture to think and to speak for themselves. Where habits of free inquiry are formed, and in exact proportion to their influence, the reasons of nonconformity will be fairly and candidly investigated; and they require investigation only, in order to ensure their success.

We rejoice in the anticipation of these results, because in this country we consider what has been termed the cause of Dissent, to be intimately combined with the progress of religious liberty and evangelical truth. It is the testimony of one, who can never be suspected of any favourable leaning towards the party, and whose political predilections were as much opposed to their general principles, as his scepticism, that the precious spark of liberty was kindled and preserved by the Puritans alone; and it was [is] to this sect, the English owe the whole freedom of their constitution.' But our readers shall have a specimen of our Author's reasonings on this subject.

• Established churches have never been friendly to liberty." The very constitution of a hierarchy fits it for the work of tyranny. It is much better suited to the genius of an arbitrary than a free government. To the former it may yield a principal support; to the latter it must ever prove dangerous. The clergy considering themselves as the allies of the state, yet, having no civil department, are disposed on all occasions to strike in with the current of the court: nor are they likely to confine the obligation to obedience within any just and reasonable bounds. They will insensibly become an army of spiritual janizaries. Depending, as they every where must, upon the sovereign, his prerogative can never be exalted too high for their emoluments, nor

*Hume.

can any better instruments be contrived for the accomplishment of arbitrary designs. Their compact and united form, composing a chain of various links, which hangs suspended from the throne, admirably fits them for conveying that impression, which may soothe, inflame, or mislead the people."

When the comprehension bill was brought before Parliament, several Members in the House of Commons, who were the friends of the Dissenters, opposed it on the following singular ground: " If this bill," say they, "pass into a law, two thirds of the Dissenting Ministers may enter the establishment. They will, in consequence of this, acquire the esprit de corps of the clerical order; at any rate their successors will. Our clergy were never the friends of liberty-we have found them to be the advocates of prerogative, and unconcerned about the rights of the people. The puritans, the nonconformists, and the dissenters, have been the steadfast assertors of the liberties of Englishmen. If the number of those who continue out of the church be considerable, they will have an influence which will be beneficial to the cause of freedom, and the act which tolerates them will remain inviolate." Legen, pp. 179, 181.

The present age is distinguished above all that preceded it, by the general spirit of liberality, and the prevalence of accurate and scriptural views of the rights of conscience. There is a national as well as a legal toleration; and this state of feeling is chiefly to be attributed to the diffusion of knowledge, and to a practical demonstration of the benefits that result from the suppression of force, and the virtual, if not the formal repeal of penal statutes on the subject of religion. But the fact that the repeal is not formal, is a decisive proof that the hierarchy of England is what it was in the days of the Stuarts; and that our liberty is not in the slightest degree to be ascribed to any change for the better, in our ecclesiastical constitution. Indivi duals connected with the Church, and the Clergy in general, have of course been subjected to the general causes of melioration; and the change which has been gradually wrought on the public mind, by the obvious inadequacy of magistrates, pillories, and prisons, to arrest the progress of religious innovations, has necessarily had its share of influence on our bishops, 'curates, and all congregations committed to their charge.' But for this melioration we are indebted to the State-not to the Church; to the spirit of the times, not to the principles of the Establishment. If the clergy as a body were friendly to the cause of religious liberty, why are the Test and Corporation-acts still on our statute-book? Why are they generally found supporters of every measure that tends to restrict the privileges of Dissenters, and sufficiently lukewarm about the rights and claims of their seceding brethren? Did the Clergy-even the evangelical Clergy, display any interest in the exertions that were recently made, to resist a legislative encroachment on those

rights? No-they "passed by on the other side!" Individuals might unite with the Dissenters; but there was no declaration of general feeling on the subject; and the major part of the Clergy were every where active supporters of the projected amendment. Had there been any alteration for the better in the principles and spirit of the hierarchy, any disposition to recognise the sacred rights of conscience, any radical change in the genius and tendency of the system, it was natural at that time to look for the proofs of it: but nothing of the kind appeared.

'Had the state,' observes our Author, on the subject of the Test,' 'been left to its own unbiassed judgment and decision, this relic of a barbarous age would long since have disappeared. The church, and the church alone is responsible for its continuance; nor will she remove the stigma of intolerance from her character, till she has employed her powerful influence for the repeal of every persecuting statute. Let the bishops in the upper house, and the friends and brothers of the Clergy in the lower, present petitions to parliament for this express purpose; and in three nights, the triumph of justice over intolerance would be proclaimed, to gladden the hearts of persecuted millions. That such an application will ever be made, from this quarter, is perhaps too much to hope from human nature; but until this step is taken, the smoothness of the Velvet Cushion, and the adroitness with which it throws the onus of persecution from where it ought to rest, upon the short-sightedness of the Legislature, will only lead some to imagine what an admirable cushion it would be for one of the modern descendants of Layola. When the Dissenters made their last great effort to obtain relief from the oppression of the Test laws, during the administration of Mr. Pitt, that minister felt every disposition to espouse their cause; but the church set up its usual alarm, and the project failed.' pp. 150-151.

The cause of dissent is vitally connected with the essential principles of the Protestant cause. Those principles are--the exclusive sufficiency of Scripture, and the right of private judgement. Abandon them, or modify and neutralize them by methods of human decree, and you identify that cause, as far as the modification extends, with "the mystery of iniquity." Within those limits it is no longer protestantism, but popery; and popery without its consistency. It is the obvious excellence of dissent, that it exhibits an undisguised, unequivocal, and prominent testimony in favour of those principles. It perpetually recognises them as unquestionable and authoritative; and hence the just views of religious liberty, which pervade the body of Dissenters. For the same reason, they are always the firm and consistent supporters of Civil Liberty, and most determined advocates of the British Constitution. We believe there is not a Dissenter in the kingdom, who would not subscribe ex animo to the following spirited and just observations.

VOL. IV. N. S.

G

The last of the Stuarts was driven from a throne, of which the whole family had proved themselves unworthy; and the nation has ever since been freed from all oppression, except what a persecuting church has laboured to exercise, controuled, however, by the wholesome restraints of law, and the mild, counteracting influence of the House of Hanover,-which God Almighty long bless and preserve! Jonathan, I am a loyal man, and would most willingly lay down my life for a monarch who rules by the laws, and derives his title from the people. I would maintain the monarchy in splendour, and reverence even the persons of kings; but I will never abet tyranny. We have a constitution, and while it lasts the nation will be happy. An essential part of that constitution is the monarchy, and that monarchy will continue as long as the rocks by which we are surrounded, if it so long answer the end of its creation. When it ceases to do this, it will sap the foundation of its own stability, and a pebble will overthrow it: Those writers who deify tyrants, and impugn the principles which placed the Guelphs upon the throne; who would extinguish the flame of freedom, and identify loyalty and the blind servility of superstitious homage to the false divinity of kings, are preparing the way for oppressions, which are always avenged by their own inevitable consequences.' pp. 244–245.

Such are the genuine and constitutional sentiments of Dissenters. Their attachment to the reigning family, and the principles which established them on the throne, has been uniformly consistent and indisputable: and, notwithstanding, they are still proscribed and calumniated! The principle of the Test and Corporation Acts, is most ably exposed and refuted in the volume before us: there is however one view of them to which we particularly wish to direct the attention of our readers; and, as it constitutes the fundamental ground of rational dissent, we trust a minute detail of our convictions will not be deemed irrelevant to the object immediately before us.

The enactment of penal and disqualifying statutes, is founded on the implied right of the civil magistrate to interfere in matters of religion. It is freely conceded, that to a certain extent moral and religious principles must be recognised and sanctioned by the legislative authorities. Could we imagine a social compact formed on the principles of absolute scepticism, and excluding all references to the existence of a Supreme Being, and the consequent responsibility of human actions before a Divine tribunal, we should behold a state of society, very different from any which we have been accustomed to contemplate. There could, in fact, be no society at all. The volcanic eruptions of anarchy and crime would scatter and annihilate every bond of union. There must be, in the radical principles of a well constructed government, a direct recognition of the existence of a Deity, and of a future state of rewards and punishments. Without this incorporation of the primary truths which

constitute the foundation of all morality and religion, the authority of civil government would be subverted, and its legislative enactments could secure no permanent influence on the characters and actions of meu.

But it is possible for these general convictions to prevail in a particular state or society, and to be at the same time so combined with other sentiments, as to produce among different classes of the community, corresponding diversities of character and of practice. All the while, there may be no infraction whatever, on the order and interests of the community. There may be the same general subjection to the laws, and the same active and patriotic exertion for the public. weal. Let us suppose these variously modified sentiments, all, be it remembered, connected with, and springing out of, the principles sanctioned by legislative authority, to operate at length in the formation of separate voluntary associations, expressly framed for their support and diffusion, by just and pacific measures. Here an interesting question suggests itself:Would it be either right or expedient for those who might happen to be entrusted with the legislative or the executive powers of the government, to select from the mass of opposite opinions, that particular system which they, or which the majority, preferred; to attach exclusive privileges and immunities to the advocates and friends of that system; to enact laws for its exclusive support; to give it all the consequence of a monopoly; and to involve dissentients, to any extent whatever, in civil disabilities, as the consequence of their not belonging to this privileged incorporation?-Would this be either right or expedient?-It is obvious, that the question now proposed, has nothing to do with the comparative superiority of the system referred to. It may be, for all that affects the present inquiry, the most rational combination of principies and institutions, that was ever presented to the world.

But, after all, the simple question is -Should it receive from the authority of civil government, that exclusive patronage which would confer, in any degree, and on its account alone, a monopoly of secular privileges, and subject the adherents of other systems, to any kind of restrictions whatever? The answer to this inquiry, is, in our apprehension, obvious and determinate. Such an incorporation is neither right in point of principle, nor expedient in point of fact. From whom does the magistrate or the government derive the right of interference as to particular opinions and practices on the subject of religion? What is there in the specific design of civil government, to require this interference? What is it to the legislature or the administration of a country, whether I choose to worship God in a conventicle, or in a cathedral; by means of a liturgic service,