both become and ceased to be an estate in parliament 300 or 400 years before.

The church soon began to feel the alarming position in which she had allowed herself to be placed. In 1675, and then 1677, addresses from the lords were presented to the throne, praying for the frequent meetings of the convocation, which (as Mr. Hallam justly observes) probably proceeded from the bishops, and shews their dissatisfaction with the existing state of things. They were not allowed, however, to feel or express their regrets for many years. The revolution which soon followed, "glorious" as it has ever been considered in its political effects, was fatal to the remaining liberties of the church. William completed what Henry had begun. Nine of her bishops were sentenced to deposition by a prince who had just ceased to be a presbyterian, and its convocation shortly after expired, except as a matter of form, while endeavouring to raise its voice against the doctrines of Hoadley.

(To be continued.)

DISSENT.

SIR, Some among your readers may agree with my views respecting subjects connected with dissent, and might even feel disposed to make experiment of them, but are deterred by a fear of consequences. Will you, therefore, in conclusion, give admission to this letter, which shall touch upon some of the probable favourable results of such a system pursued by the clergy, and answer a few objections which lie in the way of making trial of it? These probable results shall be taken first and considered.

1. As to how they might be supposed to operate on any clergyman who should adopt these hints upon conviction of the truth and soundness of the grounds on which they are rested. It is said upon conviction of the truth and soundness of the grounds, because these remarks will not apply equally to other grounds of conviction. The subject has been pressed as a matter of duty; if, therefore, a person be only a convert to their expediency, I am not addressing myself to him. We start from different positions and proceed upon different principles. 2. As to the way in which these results are likely to affect church people.

3. As to what will probably be the conduct and feelings of dissenters.

... I. First, then, as regards the clergy.

1. The habit of considering questions of church government, For discipline, and subjects* connected with separation doctrinally would be likely to clear our ideas as to the way in which dissent, as such, ought to be viewed. There are many persons, who have the character of sound churchmen, who look surprised, and draw back as if you were

The sort of subjects with reference to which I speak throughout are exemplified in the list with which my former communication was closed; and it would make all the following remarks clearer, if, in reading them, the contents of that list were kept in mind.

A

going too far, or speaking with an unjustifiable party warmth and prejudice, if you talk of the leading features of dissent as involving matters of doctrine, e. g. as to form of church government, sacraments, duty of unity, of submission to ecclesiastical authority, as to the sin of schism, not theoretically, but as a present fact. The word doctrine has seemingly come to be considered as appropriate to those truths of Christianity which may be called "speculative," in contradistinction to those which may be termed "historical," or "relating to facts." Now, since this seems to be the case, it would be better, and would be likely to bring us back to more accurate views, if all that the church holds to be truths of Christianity were classed as facts, and then investigated and treated of as such. For, after all, the value of a doctrine, as to its necessary reception, depends upon the power of establishing it as a fact, i.e. as something which can be traced upwards through the different ages of the church to the apostolic times, and be shewn to have been then received and taught; or as something which may, at once, be drawn out from the writings of the New Testament. The subsequent reception of these facts in different ages of the church is like a commentary on them, and an evidence of the manner in which they were interpreted by those who, to say the least, had far greater likelihood and opportunities of knowing the exact sense in which they were first received than we are in the present day, after the lapse of so many centuries, and the consequent loss of so many well-authenticated traditions. These several facts, which, handled and investigated in another way, and with another view, may be termed doctrines, may, of course, be of different importance, but still are all of a like nature, and to be regarded in the same light. And if this was really done, as it ought to be, there would be no difficulty or backwardness in speaking of the general question of dissent with much greater clearness and precision than is done at present. The fallacy of its being a mere matter of opinion would at once be swept away. The only question would be, Do we, or do we not, receive such and such statements, and such and such general interpretation of them by the church in all ages, as facts? If we do, they are no longer matters of indifference, open to be received or rejected by each individual simply as other ordinary matters of opinion.

2. This manner of viewing these subjects would be likely to make the clergy think more on the nature of their office in its highest relations, and draw their thoughts off from dwelling too much on its social, secular, and civil duties alone. The considerations that they speak as ambassadors of God-that they have a responsible charge over their flocks that they have, on being commissioned to that charge, received not only authority, but the pledge and promise of Divine aid for the exercise of it-that this sacred gift has been conveyed to them through means instituted by the apostles, and faithfully adhered to by the * universal church-and that it was conferred on them by the laying on of the hands of those who are the successors of the apostles, and that the greatness of these claims only increases their weight of duty-are such as to fill them with humbleness and fear at their own (at best) unworthy discharge of these high duties, the need of constant and un

ceasing attention to them, and to impress more deeply on their minds the necessity of vigilance and circumspection as to their own conduct even in points which, in other persons, are immaterial. And here I must leave much unsaid, so glancing only at my meaning as perhaps to fix the thoughts and attention of some on the topics to which I have only just opened the way. Neither the subject nor the tone of a letter like the present make it a fit place to enlarge upon these points.

II. Consequence among churchmen of such an occasional system of preaching.

1. They become familiarized with the view which the church takes, whereas, at present, it is to be feared that, in many regular and attentive congregations, it would sound strange and new-strange and new, not only as to time and place, but as to matter and contents, How this present state of opinion has been brought about, it would be presumptuous in me to offer any definite opinion. Thus much, however, may be said, that if the practice of publicly upholding such views had not been abandoned as the general practice of the clergy in the course of their preaching, there would never have been such indeterminate notions on these subjects, and such ignorance of what there is to be said on them as there is. These common loose notions may be thus instanced:-Suppose you were suddenly to ask a churchman what were the characteristic differences between the church and dissenting establishments,* might he not be expected to answer, one was by law, the other not? or, to speak of particular differences of form and matters of internal arrangement not essential to dissent, as such, but belonging to some particular body with which he happens to be acquainted, or of differences in their secular polity, e. g. voluntary system, tithes, mixture with state, &c. &c., instead of at once coming to essentials, such as: dissenters deny the necessity of episcopal ordination the blessings and gifts conveyed through the apostolic succession-the existence of a visible church, or so qualify their meaning of it as to convey no definite idea by the terms used, so that they may admit a visible church, but assign no sufficient marks for recognising it they practically deny the sin of schism, or confound it with heresy they assert the unrestricted right of private judgment in matters of faith. How few churchmen would think of stating these grounds of difference if the question was put to them, and yet if these points were, from time to time, doctrinally set forth from the pulpit, would it not be natural to expect at least a statement of some of them?.

It is true, that there would probably be found in most congregations some who would think such views overstrained, and savouring of superstition or priestcraft; but still the humble and well disposed would be strengthened in their faith, and confirmed in their obedience to their regularly-appointed pastors. And even in its tendency to help to mark a distinction between these two classes of hearers, it would be of service. At present the church and the world are too much mixed,

Is not this term, strictly speaking, more applicable to them than to us?

1

།

up together. "Many are amongst us that are not of us." For religious observances (such, at least, as are now-a-days considered sufficient for the members of the church to practise) are so general and lax, that all, who have any regard for outward order and decency, would observe them even on political grounds and from motives of expediency. Here, therefore, would be an indirect advantage resulting from an occasional statement from the pulpit of these truths, which the mere philosophizing Christian cannot bring himself to receive. gnifospra

2. A farther desirable tendency would be to check the growing habit, among churchmen of the middle and lower classes, of attending dissenting places of worship, not from curiosity, but as places of public worship, equally to be regarded,* and equally adapted for the discharge of that duty as their own church. Now if the claims of the church upon their attendance there, above all other places, be set forth as a doctrine sufficiently supported upon scripture grounds, and ever maintained by the primitive church, then churchmen might be made to see that, in going elsewhere, where they are placing them selves under a defective system (to say nothing of other dissuasives here), which only gives a partial view of the truth, keeping them back, and excluding them from, something, a right understanding and a due reception of which is of great importance.

III. As to dissenters. If a clergyman goes on doing his duty in his parish steadily and unwaveringly, asserting what he believes to be the truth on these subjects without concealment, yet without ostentatious publicity, simply, and without asperity, it is likely that, in the long run, he will be regarded and spoken of by all conscientious and welldisposed dissenters as an honest and zealous man, though maintaining some bigoted and untenable views. He will be looked upon perhaps with that sort of indulgence and allowance with which a person is who is labouring under some strong delusion; but, in spite of the condescending sense of superiority which is implied in such an opinion, his Christian qualities and his active labours in his calling must be respected, and must, in a great measure, disarm the irritation which his undisguisedly expressed opinions would otherwise create. He would probably meet with no more opposition from them than any

Most parish priests must have heard poor people talk of all places of worship being alike, since the same God and the same Saviour are served in them. Hence neighbourhood, better accommodation, or other convenience, are often the first reasons for their frequenting them.

It would be well, in my opinion, if this would tell both ways, and keep chance visitors out of the church. But this I do not think would be the case, because / dissenters, generally speaking, seem to regard the difference between themselves and the church, not as if they had cleared themselves of some deadly error, but as if they had given a more spiritual tone to religion by stripping it, and proclaiming its independence, of those external differences of polity, worship, and other forms, some of which the church holds as doctrines, along with the general truths of Christianity, which they also profess. They consider we hold as essential things which are matters of choice. So that they do not object to frequenting or taking part in our worship, though possibly they may esteem some of our forms and services approaching to superstitious.

other clergyman, because his life would be proof that his opinions were no party matter, but the expression of a practical and deep-rooted conviction. Besides, intelligent dissenters might know that he is not going beyond the views of the church to which he belongs.

2

And here I cannot help adding, though many may think my anticipations over sanguine, that such an assertion of church doctrine, illustrated and enforced by a life consistent with it, would have a farther silent influence upon dissenters in awakening some to the serious consideration of the subject of separation generally, and of the position in which many of them stand, scarcely differing in doctrine from the church, and yet not in communion with it. And, indeed, that this is the position of many of them may be broadly and literally asserted, for it is a charge which has before now been made against the conduct of the clergy by some of the most respectable of their body that, while they preach the doctrines of the church of England, they are condemned as schismatics by her clergy because they cannot find episcopacy in the New Testament. Thus they at once justify their dissent, and lay a charge against the clergy upon the very grounds which ought to convince them of their error in making a division where there exists, in their eyes, no fundamental differences. For the church views of episcopacy, ordination, and government, they do not condemn, so much as contend to be non-essential.

We shall next endeavour to remove some of the objections to which such a course as has been advocated is liable.

R. F.

ON THE DEFICIENCY IN CANDOUR MANIFESTED BY

DISSENTERS.

SIRI should be sorry to indulge in vague and sweeping charges or censure on dissenters. I wish to put the case fairly then between dissenters and the church, with reference to a few leading points.

Take the question of education. We affirm that in proportion to her means the church has done and is doing her duty; that with no unworthy show-with no traces of specious attraction-she provides scriptural education for the children of the poor; that its benefits are to be obtained without price by those whose parents need not send them on compulsion; and that thus, by a system as pregnant with quiet excellence as it is devoid of that unhealthy excitement which must convert education into a mere passing mental fever, she carries over the whole kingdom a gradually-increasing but deeply-founded fabric of spiritual and moral good. Let me suppose, however, that in any particular place or places her efforts are not yet visible, and that some other body of religious professors, possessed perhaps of local means, apply themselves to supply the defect. What would candour do? Would not candour tell honestly that all this has been done by the national church, and say plainly, that their sole object is the supply of the defect? Would candour blind the ignorant by noisy assertions, or rouse their passions by unfounded aspersions ? In other words, in true religious candour, would there ever be detected the