for the extinction of this trifling levy, the hardship of calling upon Diseters to support a form of worship

which they conscientiously with, and from which, it is added, "they derive no benefit."

Dr. Dwight may be allowed to aner this objection, which he does in Avery few words:

"I am well aware, that, in spite of his and any other reasoning-in spite of demonstration itself there are men who Bay, and in all probability will say, that, lowever good and useful the public worsp of God may be, they do not wish to avail themselves of its benefits, and owe herefore no contributions to its support. Is these men I reply, that he who has no children, or who does not wish to send his children to school, and he who does not use the roads and bridges of his country, because he is either necessitated or inclined to stay at home, may on exactly the same ground claim an exemption from Supporting schools, roads, and bridges. To such an objector it is a sufficient answer, that these things enter into all the happiness which he enjoys; and that, without them, he and his countrymen would be hermits and savages."

Still, however, it would perhaps be desirable, since the amount required under the head of church-rate is so small, and since its collection excites continual irritation, to change it for a fixed payment, in one sum, to be charged upon the poor-rates, as the cost of the metropolitan police has always been; and thus to avoid all collision with those seceders who object to a separate assessment. Were a small amount thus paid by the overseer to the churchwarden, in consideration of that portion of the church which is appropriated to the poor; and were seat-rents levied upon those of the congregation who could afford to appropriate pews, it would probably be an easy matter to bring this part of the question to a comparatively amicable adjustment.

IV. The "exclusion," as they choose to term it, of Dissenters from the universities, will not require many words. In the first place, it is not true that they are excluded from the universities; since at Cambridge no one is asked, on his admission, whether he be a Churchman or a Dissenter. And at this university, as is well known, many Dissenters have received their education. However, if we even admit that the required attendance at the college cha

VOL. IX. NO. L.

pels, and the necessity of subscription to the articles at the time of taking a degree, present such obstacles and objections to the young Dissenter as to operate, in many cases, as an actual exclusion, still we are not prepared to admit that these ancient regulations ought to be abolished, merely in order to facilitate the entrance of seceders from the Established Church.

The writer before us attempts to confuse and misrepresent the facts on this point also. He calls the universities" our great national institutions," just as he had called the tithes a "stateallowance." The object aimed at is to represent each as something emanating from the nation; that nation comprehending large bodies of Dis-. senters as well as of Churchmen.

But he well knows that every college in either university stands upon single individual donations, bequeathed or given by a long array of private persons. None of them were established or endowed by the nation, nor has the nation any right whatever to interfere in their internal arrangements, excepting to see the intentions of the original founders faithfully observed.

Now the Dissenters have lately given us a sufficient proof that they understand the nature of endowments, and that they can, when it answers their purpose, advocate the strictest and most accurate adherence to the intentions of the donor. We have already adverted to this case, but a few words more may be added. Lady Hewley's charity had been left for the use and benefit of Dissenters, and by and for the benefit of Dissenters was it still bestowed. "But," said some of the Dissenters, "the intention of her ladyship was to give it only to one or two of our three denominations, to the exclusion of the third; and, by some mismanagement, this third party, the Socinian Presbyterians, have got possession of it. We will take the case into chancery." Into chancery it was taken, and upon their representation of what must have been her ladyship's intentions, they gained a decision in their favour.

Now, will these same parties have the assurance to approach the universities, and complain that the endowments of the colleges are kept from them? Why, if through any error or mishap, even a single college had allowed their admission, and had become

L

filled with Dissenters, what more would be necessary than to adduce their own arguments in Lady Hewley's case, and to say, These people have got possession of certain endowments in this college, although it is most clear and indisputable that it never was the intention of the founder to endow a college for seceders? Their ejection must follow, of inevitable necessity.

But some one, perhaps, will say, If you stand on the fact, which no one will deny, that these colleges were raised by Churchmen, and for the use of Churchmen, how will you meet the difficulty that these endowments took place in Popish times, and would therefore seem to belong to the Popish part of the community?

Our reply is very simple, and, we should hope, sufficient. England was not always the slave of Rome, nor was Popery itself the work of a day. The corruptions of Christianity, which unitedly form the system which we call Popery, were the gradual growth of centuries; and they were not admitted into the English Church without many, struggles against each of them.

The colleges of Oxford and Cambridge were founded at various times, and by persons of a great variety of characters. Some of these had very little participation in Popery; others, living at a later period, had more. They all, however, agreed in this, that the colleges endowed by them were intended for the education of scholars of the Established Church; no one of them contemplating either Independents, Baptists, or Presbyterians.

When the corruptions of Popery had reached their height, the spirit of reformation was roused, and those evils which had been the gradual accumulation of centuries were cleared away in a few short years. Does it follow, that because the Church was reformed, that therefore her endowments were forfeited? The change was not from an old faith to a new one, but from a church corrupted by human inventions, to a church cleared of those defilements. When the question was put, "Where was your religion before Luther?" the

rejoinder was apt, "Did you wash your

face this morning? Where was your face before it was washed ?"

And let the Dissenters remember, that they not only demand that that rule shall be relaxed for their advantage, which they have just, in Lady

Hewley's case, been enforcing against a rival sect, but they also require, of the colleges belonging to the Church, a liberality which they dream not of resorting to themselves. They have divers colleges" and "academies," raised and endowed for the education of dissenting ministers, as the universities of Oxford and Cambridge have been for the education of the clergy of the Church. Would they ever dream of admitting a youth into one of these academies, who candidly confessed to them that he was not a Dissenter, but a Churchman, and that his object was, not to be an Independent minister, but a clergyman of the Church of England? Would not his very simplicity excite a smile, that he could ever have imagined that their colleges were to be employed in educating ministers for the Church of England? And yet this, which would be thought the most unreasonable thing in the world, if asked at their hands, is exactly what they are now asking of the colleges belonging to the Church, and the refusal of which figures among their chief "grievances !"

V. There remain only the minor questions, of the want of a general registration of births; of the exclusion of dissenting ministers from officiating in our churchyards; and their demand to have the power of celebrating marriage. Of these in their order.

The first is erroneously called a Dissenter's grievance. It appears to be put forward merely to swell the list. The writer before us himself says, "Our whole system of registration is bad; and it is so in relation to the Church"man as well as to the Dissenter."

To this, then, as it makes no part of the case against the Church, we have little to say. If it be thought advisable to establish a general civil registration of births, apart from baptisms, we have nothing to object. We only ask why this topic was pressed into the service on the present occasion?

The churchyards of our parishchurches are, we believe, the freeholds of the clergy. The service used at funerals is one of the most beautiful in the liturgy one objection only has ever been brought against it, namely, that it is too Christian, in some instances, for the case of the individual over whom it is used. Yet the Dissenters are at perfect liberty, if they think fit, to provide and to use their own burialgrounds. If they fail to do so, in any

Marriage is a solemnity already too little regarded. Will it be rendered more sacred and serious in the eyes of the multitude by reducing it to the formula of repeating two sentences in a magistrate's office? Or if intrusted to Dissenting ministers, as such, where will you draw the line? Is the Rev. Robert Taylor a Dissenting minister, or not? As to the existing practice, we deny most distinctly that it is felt as a grievance by any even of the Dissenters themselves, save only those few who, like the writer before us, have determined in their own minds that the existence of an established church is a grievance, and who of course feel the very sight of one of her ministers to be "an exasperation."

In all these things, however, there is one principle which a wise legislator will ever keep in view. Having settled in his own mind that it is expedient and right to maintain a religious establishment, and having fixed on that body which comprises the larger proportion of the people, it is obviously and undeniably his duty, as well as his policy, to foster and protect the church thus established. Secession weakens it; therefore secession ought to be discountenanced. In this line of conduct, however, nothing more is in⚫cluded than the same sort of preference which an individual expresses for his own communion, without intending or wishing any injury to its rivals.

In acting on this principle, the discreet legislator will say distinctly, "Every man is at liberty to choose his own course, but the ministry accredited and acknowledged by us is that of the Church of England. The only baptism we know, the only marriage we admit, the only ministry we allow in the churches or their precincts, are those of that Church." Such would be his

language; and this simply because he holds an establishment to be an expedient and a necessary thing. The writer before us holds an establishment to be both unnecessary and injurious; and in consistency with this view, he is "exasperated" at the idea of a preference shewn by the government for any one denomination of Christians.

What, then, are the results of our inquiry? They are these: An Established Church is lawful; and it is also expedient and even necessary. Having decided this point, it is obviously more fit that the Episcopal Church, with 4,000,000 of adherents, should be placed in that post of honour, than the Wesleyans, with only 1,000,000, or the Independents, with only 500,000. Maintaining, then, the Established Church in its present position, its endowments, whether ecclesiastical or collegiate, must be carefully respected. The rights of property can never be touched without results of the most frightful kind. Lastly, in relieving the seceders from any practical inconvenience, keep ever in mind that the National Establishment claims, at the hands of the government, an open and avowed respect and reverence. The writer on whom we have been remarking makes it one of his leading arguments,-that the existence of an Establishment involves of necessity a preference, felt and expressed, by the government. And he is right: such a preference ought to be felt, and ought to be expressed. And, above all, in touching the Christian rites and ceremonies to which the common people have so long been accustomed, take care that you do nothing to desecrate them; or to weaken the estimation in which they have heretofore been held. Hear the word of God on this very point:

After this thing Jeroboam returned not from his evil way, but made again of the lowest of the people priests of the high places: WHOSOEVER WOULD, he consecrated him, and he became one of the priests of the high places. And this thing became sin unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from the face of the earth.”