the world for attempting to reform the religion of his country? The Jewish priesthood.-Who was it that drowned the altars of their idols with the blood of Christians for attempting to abolish Paganism? The Pagan priesthood. Who was it that persecuted to flames and death those who, in the time of Wickliffe and his followers, laboured to reform the errors of Popery? The Popish priesthood.-Who was it, and who is it that, both in England and in Ireland since the Reformation-but I check my hand, being unwilling to reflect upon the dead, or to exasperate the living."* We also are unwilling to reflect upon or to exasperate, but our business is with plain truth. Who, then, was it that since the Reformation has persecuted dissentients from its creed, and who is it that at this hour thinks and speaks of them with unchristian antipathy? The English Priesthood. It was, and it is, the state religion in some European countries that now persecutes Dissenters from its creed. It was the state religion in this country that persecuted the Protestants; and since Protestantism has been established, it is the state religion which has persecuted Protestant Dissenters. Is this the fault principally of the faith of these churches, or of their alliance with the state? No man can be in doubt for an answer. We are accustomed to attribute too much to bigotry. Bigotry has been very great and very operative; but bigotry alone would not have produced the disgraceful and dreadful transactions which fill the records of ecclesiastical history. No. Men have often been actuated by the love of supremacy or of money, whilst they were talking loudly of the sacredness of their faith. They have been less afraid for religion than for the dominance of a church. When the creed of that church was impugned, those who shared in its advantages were zealous to suppress the rising enquiry; because the discredit of the creed might endanger the loss of the advantages. The zeal of a Pope for the real presence, was often quite a fiction. He and his cardinals cared perhaps nothing for the real presence, as they sometimes cared nothing for morality. But men might be immoral without encroaching upon the Papal power-they could not deny the doctrine without endangering its overthrow. Happily, persecution for religion is greatly diminished; yet, whilst we rejoice in the fact, we cannot conceal from ourselves the consideration, that the diminution of persecution has resulted rather from the general diffusion of better principles than from the operation of religious establishments as such. In most or in all ages, a great portion of the fla. gitious transactions which furnish materials for the ecclesiastical historian, have resulted from the political connexions or interests of a church. It was not the interests of Christianity but of an establishment, which made Becket embroil his king and other sovereigns in distractions. It was not the interests of Christianity but of an establishment, which occasioned the monstrous impositions and usurpations of the Papal see. And I do not know whether there has ever been a religious war of which religion was the only or the principal cause. Besides all this, there has been an inextricable succession of intrigues and cabals of conflicting interests and clamour and distraction, which the world would have been spared if secular interests had not been brought into connexion with religion. Another mode in which religious establishments are injurious to the civil welfare of a people, is by their tendency to resist political improvements. That • Miscellaneous Tracts, by Richard Watson, D.D., Bishop of Landaff, v. 2. same cause which induces state religions to maintain themselves as they are, induces them to maintain the patron state as it is. It is the state in its present condition, that secures to the church its advantages; and the church does not know whether, if it were to encourage political reformation, the new state of things might not endanger its own supremacy. There are indeed so many other interests and powers concerned in political reformations, that the state religion cannot always prevent alterations from being effected. Nor would I affirm that they always endeavour to prevent it. And yet we may appeal to the general experience of all ages, whether established churches have not resisted reformation in those political institutions upon which their own privileges depended. Now, these are serious things. For after all that can be said, and justly said, of the mischiefs of political changes and the extravagances of political empiricism, it is sufficiently certain that almost every government that has been established in the world, has needed from time to time important reformations in its constitution or its practice. And it is equally certain, that if there be any influence or power which habitually and with little discrimination supports political institutions as they are, that influence or power must be very pernicious to the world. We have seen that one of the requisites of a religious establishment is a "legal provision" for its ministers that is to say, the members of all the churches which exist in a state must be obliged to pay to the support of one, whether they approve of that one or not. Now in endeavouring to estimate the effects of this system, with a view to ascertain the preponderance of public advantages, we are presented at the outset with the enquiry-Is this compulsory maintenance right? Is it compatible with Christianity? If it is not, there is an end of the controversy; for it is nothing to Christians whether a system be politic or impolitic, if once they have discovered that it is wrong. But I waive for the present the question of rectitude. The reader is at liberty to assume that Christianity allows governments to make this compulsory provision if they think fit. I waive, too, the question whether a Christian minister ought to receive payment for his labours, whether that payment be voluntary or not. The single point before us is, then, the balance of advantages. Is it more advantageous that ministers should be paid by a legal provision or by voluntary subscription? That advantage of a legal provision which consists in the supply of a teacher to every district has already been noticed; so that our enquiry is reduced to a narrow limit. Supposing that a minister would be appointed in every district although the state did not pay him, is it more desirable that he should be paid by the state or voluntarily by the people! Of the legal provision some of the advantages are these; it holds out no inducement to the irreligious or indifferent to absent themselves from public worship lest they should be expected to pay the preacher. Public worship is conducted-the preacher delivers his discourse-whether such persons go or not. They pay no more for going, and no less for staying away: and it is probable, in the present religious state of mankind, that some go to places for worship since it costs them nothing, who otherwise would stay away. But it is manifestly better that men should attend even in such a state of indifference than that they should not attend at all. Upon the voluntary system of payment, this good effect is not so fully secured; for though the doors of chapels be open to all, yet few persons of competent means would attend them constantly without feeling that they might be expected to contribute to the expenses. I do not believe that the non-attendance of indifferent persons would be greatly increased by the adoption of the voluntary system, especially if the payments were as moderate as they easily might be; but it is a question rather of speculation than of experience, and the reader is to give upon this account to the system of legal provision, such an amount of advantage as he shall think fit. Again. Preaching, where there is a legal provision, is not "a mode of begging." If you adopt voluntary payment, that payment depends upon the good pleasure of the hearers, and there is manifestly a temptation upon the preacher to accommodate his discourses, or the manner of them, to the wishes of his hearers, rather than to the dictates of his own judgment. But the man who receives his stipend whether his hearers be pleased or not, is under no such temptation. He is at liberty to conform the exercise of his functions to his judgment without the diminution of a subscription. This, I think, is an undeniable advantage. Another consideration is this:-That where there is a religious establishment with a legal provision, it is usual, not to say indispensable, to fill the pulpits only with persons who entertain a certain set of religious opinions. It would be obviously idle to assume that these opinions are true, but they are, or are in a considerable degree, uniform. Assuming, then, that one set of opinions is as sound as another, is it better that a district should always hear one set, or that the teachers of twenty different sets should successively gain possession of the pulpit, as the choice of the people might direct? I presume not to determine such a question; but it may be observed that, in point of fact, those churches which do proceed upon the voluntary system, are not often subjected to such fluctuations of doctrine. There does not appear much difficulty in constituting churches upon the voluntary plan, which shall in practice secure considerable uniformity in the sentiments of the teachers. And as to the bitter animosities and distractions which have been predicted if a choice of new teachers was to be left to the people--they do not, I believe, ordinarily follow. Not that I apprehend the ministers, for instance, of an independent church are always elected with that unanimity and freedom from heart-burnings which ought to subsist, but that animosities do not subsist to any great extent. Besides, the prediction appears to be founded on the supposition, that a certain stipend was to be appropriated to one teacher or to another, according as he might obtain the greater number of voteswhereas every man is at liberty, if he pleases, to withdraw his contribution from him whom he disapproves, and to give it to another. And, after all, there may be voluntary support of ministers without an election by those who contribute, as is instanced by the Methodists in the present day. On the other hand, there are some advantages attendant on the voluntary system which that of a legal provision does not possess. And first it appears to be of importance that there should be an union, an harmony, a cordiality between the minister and the people. It is, in truth, an indispensable requisite. Christianity, which is a religion of love, cannot flourish where unkindly feelings prevail. Now, I think it is manifest that harmony and cordiality are likely to prevail more where the minister is chosen and voluntarily remunerated by his hearers, than where they are not consulted in the choice; where they are obliged to take him whom others please to appoint, and where they are compelled to pay him whether they like him or not. The tendency of this last system is evidently opposed to perfect kindliness and cordiality. There is likely to be a sort of natural connexion, a communication of good offices induced between hearers and the man whom they themselves choose and voluntarily remunerate, which is less likely in the other case. If love be of so much consequence generally to the Christian character, it is especially of consequence that it should subsist between him who assumes to be a dispenser, and them who are in the relation of hearers of the gospel of Christ. Indeed the very circumstance that a man is compelled to pay a preacher, tends to the introduction of unkind and unfriendly feelings. It is not to be expected that men will pay him more graciously or with a better will than they pay a tax-gatherer; and we all know that the tax-gatherer is one of the last persons whom men wish to see. He who desires to extend the influence of Christianity, would be very cautious of establishing a system of which so ungracious a regulation formed a part. There is truth worthy of grave attention in the ludicrous verse of Cowper's A rarer man than you It is easy to perceive that the influence of that man's exhortations must be diminished, whose hearers listen with the reflection that his advice is "plaguy dear.” The reflection, too, is perfectly natural, and cannot be helped. And when superadded to this is the consideration, that it is not only sold " dear," but that payment is enforced-material injury must be sustained by the cause of religion. In this view it may be remarked, that the support of an establishment by a general tax would be preferable to the payment of each pastor by his own hearers. Nor is it unworthy of notice that some persons will always think (whether with reason or without it) that compulsory maintenance is not right; and in whatever degree they do this, there is an increased cause of dissatisfaction or estrangement. Again, the teacher who is independent of the congregation-who will enjoy all his emoluments whether they are satisfied with him or not-is under manifest temptation to remissness in his duty; not perhaps to remissness in those particulars on which his superiors would animadvert, but in those which respect the unstipulated and undefinable, but very important duties of private care, and of private labours. To mention this is sufficient. No man who reflects upon the human constitution, or who looks around him, will need arguments to prove that they are likely to labour negligently whose profits are not increased by assiduity and zeal. I know that the power of religion can, and that it often does, counteract this; but that is no argument for putting temptation in the way. So powerful indeed is this temptation, that with a very great number it is acknowledged to prevail. Even if we do not assert, with a clergyman, that a great proportion of his brethren labour only so much for the religious benefit of their parishioners as will screen them from the arm of the law, there is other evidence which is unhappily conclusive. The desperate extent to which non-residence is practised, is infallible proof that a large proportion of the clergy are remiss in the discharge of the duties of a Christian pastor. They do not discharge them con amore; and how should they? It was not the wish to do this which prompted them to become clergymen at first. They were influenced by another object, and that they have obtained-they possess an income: and it is not to be expected that, when this is obtained, the mental desires should suddenly become elevated and purified, and that they who entered the church for the sake of its emoluments, should commonly labour in it for the sake of religion. Although to many the motive for entering the church is the same as that for engaging in other professions, it is an unhappiness peculiar to the clerical profession, that it does not offer the same stimulus to subsequent exertion; that advancement does not usually depend upon desert. The man who seeks for an income from surgery, or the bar, is continually prompted to pay exemplary attention to its duties. Unless the surgeon is skilful and attentive, he knows that practice is not to be expected: unless the pleader devotes himself to statutes and reports, he knows that he is not to expect cases and briefs. But the clergyman, whether he studies the Bible or not-whether he be diligent and zealous or not-still possesses his living. Nor would it be rational to expect, that where the ordinary stimulus to human exertion is wanting, the exertion itself should generally be found. So naturally does exertion follow from stimulus, that we believe it is an observation frequently made, that curates are more exemplary than beneficed clergymen. And if beneficed clergymen were more solicitous than they are to make the diligence of their curates the principal consideration in employing them, this difference between curates and their employers would be much greater than it is. Let beneficed clergymen employ and reward curates upon as simple principles as those are on which a merchant employs and rewards a clerk, and it is probable that nine-tenths of the parishes in England would wish for a curate rather than a rector. But this very consideration affords a powerful argument against the present system. If much good would result from making clerical reward the price of desert, much evil results from making it independent of desert. This effect of the English Establishment is not, like some others, inseparable from the institution. It would doubtless be possible, even with compulsory maintenance, so to appropriate it that it should form a constant motive to assiduity and exertion. Clergymen might be elevated in their profession according to their fidelity to their office; and if this were done-if, as opportunity offered, all were likely to be promoted who deserved it; and if all who did not deserve it were sure to be passed by, a new face would soon be put upon the affairs of the church. The complaints of neglect of duty would quickly be diminished, and non-residence would soon cease to be the reproach of three thousand out of ten. We cannot, however, amuse ourselves with the hope that this will be done, because, in reference to the civil constitution of the church, there is too near an approach to that condition in which the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. If then it be asserted, that it is one great advantage of the establishment that it provides a teacher for every parish, it is one great disadvantage, that it makes a large proportion of those teachers negligent of their duty. There may perhaps be a religious establishment in which the ministers shall be selected for their deserts, though I know not whether in any it is actually and sufficiently done. That it is one of the first requisites in the appointment of religious teachers is plain; and this point is manifestly better consulted by a system in which the people voluntarily pay and choose their pastors, than when they do not. Men love goodness in others, though they may be bad themselves; and they especially like it in their religious teachers: so that, when they come to select a person to fill that office, they are likely to select one of whom they think at least that he is a good man. The same observation holds of non-residence. Non-residence is not necessary to a state religion. By the system of voluntary payment it is impossible. It has sometimes been said (with whatever truth) that in times of public discontent dissenters have been disposed to disaffection. If this be true, compulsory support is in this respect a political evil, inasmuch as it is the cause of the alienation of a part of the community. We will not suppose so strong a case as that this alienation might lead to physical opposition; but supposing the dissatisfaction only to exist, affords no inconsiderable topic of the statesman's enquiry. Happiness is the object of civil government, and this object is frustrated in part in respect of those who think themselves aggrieved by its policy. And when it is considered how numerous the dissenters are, and that they increase in number, the political impropriety and impolicy of keeping them in a state of dissatisfaction becomes increased. The best security of a government is in the satisfaction and affection of the people; which satisfaction is always diminished, and which affection is always endangered, in respect of those who, disapproving a certain church, are compelled to pay to its support. This is a consequence of a "legal provision" that demands much attention from the legislator. Every legislator knows that it is an evil. It is a point that no man disputes, and that every man knows should be prevented, unless its cause effects a counterbalance of advantages. Lastly, Upon the question of the comparative advantages of a legal provision, and a voluntary remuneration in securing the due discharge of the ministerial function, what is the evidence of facts? Are the ministers of established, or of unestablished churches, the more zealous, the more exemplary, the more laborious, the more devoted? Whether of the two are the more beloved by their hearers? Whether of the two lead the more exemplary and religious lives? Whether of the two are the more active in works of philanthropy? It is a question of fact, and facts are before the world. The discussions of the present chapter conduct the mind of the writer to these short conclusions: That of the two grounds upon which the propriety of Religious Establishments is capable of examination, neither affords evidence in their favour: That Religious Establishments derive no countenance from the nature of Christianity, or from the example of the primitive churches; and, That they are not recommended by practical Utility. CHAPTER XV. THE RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS OF ENGLAND AND IRELAND. The English Church the offspring of the Reformation, the Church establishment, of Papacy-Alliance of Church and State-"The Priesthood averse from Reformation"-Noble Ecclesiastics-Purchase of Advowsons-Non-residence-Pluralities-Parliamentary Returns-The Clergy fear to preach the truth-Moral Preaching-Recoil from Works of Philanthropy-Tithes-"The Church is in Danger "-The Church establishment is in danger-Monitory Suggestion. THE ENGLISH ESTABLISHMENT IS OF PAPAL ORIGIN. Ir the conclusions of the last chapter be just, it will now become our business to enquire how far the dis advantages which are incidental to religious estabFishments actually operate in our own, and whether there subsist any additional disadvantages resulting from the peculiar constitution or circumstances of the English church. We have no concern with religious opinions or forms of church government, but with the church as connected with the state. It is not with an episcopalian church, but with an established church, that we are concerned. If there must exist a religious establishment, let it by all means remain in its present hands. The experience which England has had of the elevation of another sect to the supremacy, is not such as to make us wish to see another elevated again. Nor would any sect which takes a just view of its own religious interests desire the supremacy for itself. * The origin of the English establishment is papal. The political alliance of the church is similar now to what it was in the first years of Henry VIII. When Henry countenanced the preachers of the reformed opinions, when he presented some of them with the benefices which had hitherto been possessed by the Romish clergy; and when at length these benefices and the other privileges of the state religion were bestowed upon the "reformed" only-no essential change was effected in the political constitution of the church. In one point indeed the alliance with the state was made more strict, because the supremacy was transferred from the pope to the monarch. So that the same or a kindred political character was put in connexion with other men and new opinions. The church was altered but the establishment remained nearly the same: or the difference that did obtain made the establishment more of a state religion than before. The origin therefore of the English establishment is papal. It was planted by papal policy, and nurtured by pervading superstition: and as to the transfer of the supremacy, but little credit is due to its origin or its motives. No reverence is due to our establishment on account of its parentage. The church is the offspring of the reformation-the church establishment is not. It is not a daughter of protestantism but of the papacy-brought into unnatural alliance with a better faith. Unhappily, but little anxiety was shown by some of the reformers to purify the political character of the church when its privileges came into their own hands. They declaimed against the corruptions of the former church, but were more than sufficiently willing to retain its profits and its power. The alliance with the state of which we have spoken, as the inseparable attendant of religious establishments, is in this country peculiarly close. "Church and State" is a phrase that is continually employed, and indicates the intimacy of the connexion between them. The question then arises, The religious sect who are now commonly called Puritans, "prohibited the use of the Common Prayer, not merely in churches, chapels, and places of public worship, but in any private place or family as well, under a penalty of five pounds for the first offence, ten pounds for the second, and for the third a year's imprisonment." These men did not understand, or did not practise the fundamental duties of toleration. For religious liberty they had still less regard. "They passed an ordinance by which eight heresies were made punishable with death upon the first offence, unless the offender abjured his errors, and irremissibly if he relapsed. Sixteen other opinions were to be punished with imprisonment, till the offender should find sureties that he would maintain them no more." Į And they quite abolished the Episcopal rank and order, as if each church might not decide for itself by what form its discipline should be conducted ! To have separated the civil privileges from the episcopal order was within the province of the Legislature, and to have abolished those privileges would, we think, have been wise. + Southey's Book of the Church. whether those disadvantages which result generally from the alliance, result in this country, and whether the peculiar intimacy is attended with peculiar evils Bishops are virtually appointed by the prince: and it is manifest that in the present principles of political affairs, regard will be had, in their selection, to the interests of the state. The question will not always be, when a bishoprick becomes vacant, Who is the fittest man to take the oversight of the church? but sometimes-What appointment will most effectually strengthen the administration of the day?— Bishops are temporal peers, and as such they have an efficient ability to promote the views of the government by their votes in parliament. Bishops in their turn are patrons; and it becomes also manifest that these appointments will sometimes be regulated by kindred views. He who was selected by the cabinet because he would promote their measures, and who cannot hope for advancement if he opposes those measures, is not likely to select clergymen who oppose them. Many ecclesiastical appointments, again, are in the hands of the individual officers of government-of the prime minister, for example, or the lord chancellor. That these officers will frequently regard political purposes, or purposes foreign to the worth of men, in making these appointments, is plain. Now, when we reflect that the highest dignities of the church are in the patronage of the king, and that the influence of their dignitaries upon the inferior clergy is necessarily great, it becomes obvious, that there will be diffused through the general whole of the hierarchy a systematic alliance with the ruling power. Nor is it assuming any thing unreasonable to add, that whilst the ordinary principles that actuate mankind operate, the hierarchy will sometimes postpone the interests of religion to their own. Upon the practical authority of cabinets over the church, Bishop Warburton makes himself somewhat mirthful: The rabbins make the giant Gog or Magog contemporary with Noah, and convinced by his preaching. So that he was disposed to take the benefit of the ark. But here lay the distress-it by no means suited his dimensions. Therefore, as he could not enter in, he contented himself to ride upon it astride. Image now to yourself this illustrious cavalier, mounted on his hackney, and see if he does not bring before you the church, bestrid by some lumpish minister of state, who turns and winds it at his pleasure. The only difference is, that Gog believed the preacher of righteousness and religion." If, then, to convert a religious establishment into a means of strengthening or diffusing influence, serves only to debase it, and to introduce into it numerous corruptions and abuses," these debasements, corruptions, and abuses must necessarily subsist in the establishment of England. And first as to the church itself. It is not too much to believe that the honourable earnestness of many of the reformers to purify religion from the corruptions of the papacy, was cooled, and eventually almost destroyed by the acquisition of temporal immunities. When they had acquired them, the unhappy reasoning began to operate-Let us let well alone: if we encourage further changes our advantages will perhaps pass into other hands. We are safe as we are; and we will not endanger the loss of present benefits by further reformation.-What has been the result? That the church has never been fully reformed to the present hour. If any reader is disposed to deny this, I place the proposition not upon my feeble authority, but upon that of the members of the church and of the reformers themselves. The rea der will be pleased to notice that there are few quotations in the present chapter except from members of the church of England. "If any person will seriously consider the low and superstitious state of the minds of men in general in the time of James I., much more in the reigns of his predecessors, he will not be surprised to find that there are various matters in our ecclesiastical constitution which require some alteration. Our forefathers did great things, and we cannot be sufficiently thankful for their labours, but much more remains to be done." Hartley says of the ecclesiastical powers of the Christian world-" They have all left the true, pure, simple religion, and teach for doctrines the commandments of men. They are all merchants of the earth, and have set up a kingdom of this world, abounding in riches, temporal power, and external pomp."† Dr Henry More (he was zealous for the honour of the church) says of the reformed churches, they have separated from the great Babylon to build those that are lesser and more tolerable, but yet not to be tolerated for ever." ‡ 66 "It pleased God in his unsearchable wisdom to suffer the progress of this great work, the reformation, to be stopped in the midway, and the effects of it to be greatly weakened by many unhappy divisions among the reformed."§ "The innovations introduced into our religious establishment at the reformation, were great and glorious for those times: but some further innovations are yet wanting (would to God they may be quietly made!) to bring it to perfection." || "I have always had a true zeal for the church of England; yet I must say there are many things in it that have been very uneasy to me." P "Cranmer, Bucer, Jewel, and others, never considered the reformation which took place in their own times as complete." ** Long after Cranmer's days, some of the brightest ornaments of the church still thought a reformation was needed. Tillotson, Patrick, Tennison, Kidder, Stillingfleet, Burnet, and others,†† endeavoured a further reformation, though in vain. "We have been contented to suffer our religious constitution, our doctrines, and ceremonies, and forms of public worship, to remain nearly in the same unpurged, adulterated, and superstitious state in which the original reformers left them." ‡‡ I attribute this want of reformation primarily to the political alliance of the church. Why should those who have the power to effect it refuse, unless it was that they feared some ill result? And what ill result could arise from religious reformation if it were not the endangering of temporal advantages? "I would only ask," said Lord Bacon, two hundred years ago, "why the civil state should be purged and restored by good and wholesome laws, made every third or fourth year in parliament assembled, devising remedies as fast as time breedeth mischief; and contrariwise, the ecclesiastical state should still continue upon the dregs of time, and receive no alteration now for these five-and-forty years and more. If St John were to indite an epistle to the church of England, as he did to them of Asia, it would sure have the clause habeo adversus te • Simpson's Plea, p. 137. Essay on Man, 1749, v. 2, p. 370. Myst. of Iniquity: p. 553. This poor man found that his language laboured under the imputation of being unclerical, unguarded, and impolitic; and he afterwards showed solicitude to retract it. See p. 476, &c. of same work. Dr Louth, afterwards Bishop of London: Visitation Sermon. 1758. Dr Watson, Bishop of Landaff: Misc. Tracts, v. 2, p. 17, | pauca." What would Lord Bacon have said if he had lived to our day, when two hundred years more have passed, and the establishment still continues upon the dregs of time !"-But Lord Bacon's question should be answered; and though no reason can be given for refusing to reform, a cause can be assigned. "Whatever truth there may be in the proposition which asserts that the multitude is fond of innovation, I think that the proposition which asserts that the priesthood is averse from reformation, is far more generally true." This is the cause. They who have the power of reforming, are afraid to touch the fabric. They are afraid to remove one stone however decayed, lest another and another should be loosened, until the fabric, as a political institution, should fall. Let us hear again episcopal evidence. Bishop Porteous informs us, that himself with some other clergymen, (amongst whom were Dr Percy and Dr York, both subsequently bishops,) attempted to induce the bishops to alter some things "which all reasonable persons agreed stood in need of amendment." The answer given by Archbishop Cornwallis was exactly to the purpose-" I have consulted, severally, my brethren the bishops; and it is the opinion of the bench in general, that nothing can in prudence be done in the matter." Here is no attempt to deny the existence of the evils -no attempt to show that they ought not to be amended, but only that it would not " be prudent" to amend them. What were these considerations of prudence? Did they respect religion? Is it imprudent to purify religious offices? Or did they respect the temporal privileges of the church? No man surely can doubt, that if the church had been a religious institution only, its heads would have thought it both prudent and right to amend it. The matters to which Bishop Porteous called the attention of the bench were, "the liturgy, but especially the articles." These Articles afford an extraordinary illustration of that tendency to resist improvement of which we speak. "The requiring subscription to the thirty-nine articles is a great imposition."S "Do the articles of the church of England want a revisal? —Undoubtedly."-In 1772, a clerical petition was presented to the House of Commons for relief upon the subject of subscription: and what were the sentiments of the house respecting the articles? One member said, "I am persuaded they are not warranted by Scripture, and I am sure they cannot be reconciled to common sense."P Another "They are contradicted, absurd, several of them damnable, not only in a religious and speculative light, but also in a moral aud practical view."** Another" The articles, I am sure, want a revisal; because several of them are heterodox and absurd, warranted neither by reason nor by Scripture. Many of them seem calculated for keeping out of the church all but those who will subscribe any thing, and sacrifice every consideration to the mammon of unrighteousness."†† And a fourth said "Some of them are, in my opinion, unfounded in, some of them inconsistent with, reason and Scripture; and some of them subversive of the very genius and design of the gospel." The articles found, it appears, in the House of Commons one, and one only defender; and that one was Sir Roger Newdigate, the member for Oxford. §§-And •Works: Edit. 1803, v. 2, p. 527. Bishop Watson: Misc. Tracts, v. 2. Bishop Burnet: Hist. Own Times, v. 2, p. 634. Lord George Germain. + Lord John Cavendish. Sir William Meredith. # Sir George Sackville. §§ Parl. Hist. v. 17. The petition, after all this, was rejected by two hundred and seventeen votes against seventy-one. Can |