Mhk54

M"v4

This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in
cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You
may not reproduce this digitized copy of the book for
any purpose other than for scholarship, research,
educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You
may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy
(or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes.

THE

CASE
BETWEEN
IMPARTIALLY AND PRACTICALLY
CONSIDERED :
BV THE
REV. FRANCIS MEREWETHER, M.A.
* • *
HECTOR 0]f COLE ORTON, VICAR OF WHITWICK,
AND CHAPLAIN TO THE MOST NOBLE THE MARQUIS OF LANSDOWNE.

Jt is a weighty consideration, that the keeping up ofthe different Parties tempteth all the
people of the land to continual censuring, uncharitableness, and contending, and un
avoidably destroyeth love and concord ; and so keepeth men in constant sin.— Baxter's
Life, by himself, (Sylvester's Edition,) Part III. p. 101.
tip XPe*'a C*lTe"' Kai ~\oyofj.axstv J Trteneveiv crvfitftepet, Kal cr&fietv, Kal irpouKvveTv <rta>irij,
Athanasii Opera (Ed. Colonise, 1686.) vol. i. p. 6G6. See also p. 147—149 ofthis Treatise.

DEDICATED, BY PERMISSION, TO THE LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN.

LONDON :
PRINTED FOR C. & J. RIVINGTON,
st. Paul's church-yard,
and waterloo-place, pall-mall.
1827.

LONDON :
PRINTED BY K. GILBERT,
ST. JOHN'S SQUARE.

TO THE RIGHT REVEKEN'D
JOHN,
LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN,
REGIUS FROFESSOR 07 DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, MASTER Or
CHRIST'S COLLEGE, to. Sta
MY LORD, In addition to the general benefit
afforded to the following Treatise by the
sanction of your Lordship's name, I contem
plate from it a specific advantage to the
subject itself. Your Lordship is well known
to be eminently versed in those ancient re
cords of Primitive Christianity, which are
assuredly fit testimonies to be appealed to,
in the great question here agitated.
As far as this question is capable of being
decided by reference to early authority, I
know no one of our day, under whose cogni
zance the present discussion can be brought
a 2

IV

with greater advantage, than that of your
Lordship. I cannot, therefore, but consider myself
fortunate, in being permitted to address
myself to one, so fully competent to pro
nounce on the value of the arguments here
adduced. I am also particularly gratified
by being enabled to offer to your Lordship
my public tribute of unfeigned respect.
If in the following pages I shall have con
tributed in any degree to vindicate, I will
not say the Church of England only, but,
through that venerable Establishment, the sa
cred interests of Christian Order, Unity, and
Peace ; it will be matter of the highest satis
faction to me, to have offered to your Lord
ship's favourable regard the fruit of research
and reflection, which have occupied a very
considerable portion of such leisure as I
have been able to obtain from the active
duties of my professional life.

With every good wish, and fervent prayers
for the success of your Lordship's exertions
and superintendance over this extensive
Diocese, I have the honour to be, with great re
spect, My Lord,
Your Lordship's obedient,
humble Servant,
FRANCIS MEREWETHER.
COLE OUTON RECTORY,
June I, 1827.

CONTENTS.

PAGE
PRELIMINARY REMARKS  1
DIVISION OF SUBJECT  2
EVILS OF DISSENT ENUMERATED ib.
1. ANARCHICAL  3—7
Presbyterians  3 — -6
Caledonian Chapel  5
St. Giles's Church  ib.
Independents  G
Baptists  ib.
Methodists  ib.
2. ANTI-SOCIAL  7—12
Liberty of Conscience, how to be rightly
understood and qualified  8—10
S. UN-PEACEABLE  < . . 12—13
i. UN-PATRIOTIC  14—32
Quotation from Wolfe's Remains  15
Bishop Newton referred to .... . .(note) ib.
Edinburgh Review  (note) 16
Establishment  17
Toleration  ib.
National Education  19
Dr. Bell  20

vm CONTENTS. PAGE
Mr. Lancaster  20
Lancasterian Schools  21
National Society  22
Infant Schools  (note) 24
Accommodation for Religious Worship . . 25 — 29
Church building, how met by Dissen
ters ?  26—29
In Vestries  26
By influence in Parliament  28, 29
Dissenting resolutions on the Catholic
Question  29, 30
5. UN-ECONOMICAL  32-55
Missionary objects  33, 34
Religious Edifices  34
6. UN-SEEMLY  35-37
7. UN-LEARNED  37—42
Need of learning denied  38 — 40
Degree of learning amongst Dissenters 40 — 4-2
8. UN-SCRIPTURAL  42—44
Texts quoted  43, 44
Objection taken by the Dissenter.  44
Who to be blamed for Dissent ?  44 — 45
OBJECTIONS TO COMMUNION
CONSIDERED  45—101
I. WORSHIP  46—56
Baxter  46, 47
Parts objected to  47 — 54
Marriage Service  48
Burial Service  48, 49
Form of Absolution in Order for Visiting
the Sick  49 — 54,
Sunday Collects  54
Wisdom of a settled Liturgy considered 54
Archbishop Seeker  55
Hymn Book a Form  55

CONTENTS. IX
PAGE
2. DISCIPLINE AND GOVERNMENT . . 56—62
Mr. Baxter's notions on this subject .... 56 — 58
Answered  58 — 60
Bishops of Calcutta  60, 61
Ignatius  61
Recent revival of Icon Basilike ques
tion  ( note) 62
3. CHARACTER OF THE CLERGY. . . . 62—65
Alleged lack of Piety  63, 64
 Professional Usefulness 64, 65
Non-Residence  65
4. CEREMONIES 
General Remark 
Sign and Use of the Cross 
Use, of the Surplice 
Godfathers and Godmothers 
Ecclesiastical Sketch on " Baptism," by
W. Wordsworth, inserted before
published  (note) . .
Kneeling at the Communion 
Fourteenth and fifteenth chapters of St.
Paul's Epistle to the Romans exa
mined  78—87
5. SUBSCRIPTION TO ARTICLES. . . . 87—89
6. DOCTRINES, INCLUDING CREEDS
AND CATECHISMS  89—101
Creeds  91,92
Pearson on the Creed  91, 92
Catechism  93, 94
Mr. Hall (of Bristol's pamphlet on Party
Communion remarked on  95 — 101
The Argument on the Dissenters'
. side summed, up  102, 103
Statement of Arguments yet to
follow  103, 104

65-

-87

66-

-68

68-

-71

71

71-

-77

74,

75

77,

78

£ . CONTENTS.
rAOK
Evil tendencies either of Estab
lished Religions generally, or
our own particularly  104, 105
General ones  104
PARTICULAR ONES  105—131
1. COMPARATIVE WANT OF LEARN
ING IN RELIGIOUS TEACH
ERS, WHEN COMPARED
WITH ADVANTAGES POS
SESSED  105—115
If this exists as respects early years,
where does blame lie ?  107 — 109
Examination for Orders  109, 1 10
Where blame afterwards, if such exists 110 — 114
Parochial Libraries  Ill
Permanent Clerical, ditto  ib.
Last stage of Clerical Education  114
Divinity Professorships  115
2. WANT OF DISCIPLINE  115-120
Objection considered, as from Dis
senters  117—119
Ditto from the Nation at large  119, 120
3. UN-DELIBERATIVE AND UN-SO
CIAL CHARACTER  120—124
In-efficiency of Convocation  120 — 122
Parochial State on this Head  122, 123
Converse of the Objection stated  123, 124
Religious, Charitable, and Voluntary
Societies  a ,  ib.
4. UNPOPULARITY  124—131
Edinburgh Review  125—131
Second Recapitulation  131,132
Advantages of Established Reli
gions, and of our own  132 — 145
Author's Pastoral Address referred to. . 132

CONTENTS. XI

PAGE

l.UNION  133—135
2. ENLARGED EXPOSITION OF DI
VINE TRUTH  135, 136
3. POSSESSION OF A REGULAR PA
ROCHIAL CLERGY  137—139
Edinburgh Review quoted on this Sub
ject  137—139
4. STABILITY  139—141
New Churches  140
Architectural improvements at Cam
bridge  140
5. SETTLED FORM OF WORSHIP . . 141—143
6. DIFFERENT RANKS OF SOCIETY
BLENDED IN WORSHIP .... 143—145
The King  143, 144
Those of Rank and Station  144
Third Recapitulation  145 — 147
PRACTICAL INFERENCES .... 145, 146
Opening quotation from St. Athanasius 147, 148
Ditto translated  148, 149
Appeal to three descriptions of
Persons  149
1. TO THE DISSENTERS THEM
SELVES  149
Dissenting Teachers  149, 150
Circumstances favourable to revision of
grounds of difference.  150
Degree of differences as compared with
these circumstances  ¦  151
On Church Government  ib.
Ditto on Baptism  *&•
Ditto on Piety in the Church  ib.
Remedies suggested and submitted .... 151 — 154
To Methodists especially  -.  152, 153
To Dissenters generally  lo3

XII contents. PAOE
2. TO THE LEGISLATURE, AND
THOSE OF RANK AND AF
FLUENCE IN ENGLAND .... 154—162
TheKing  154,155
Two Houses of Parliament  155, 156
Those of Rank and Affluence  156
Moduses  157—159
Lay Impropriations  159 — 162
3. MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF
ENGLAND  162
Governors of the Church  ib.
Inferior Clergy  *  163
Laity  164
Conclusion  165

THE CASE,
tj'e. fye.

In instituting the present enquiry, the fairest way
of stating the question seems to be the following.
The Established National Church must be ad
mitted to be the rule : the Dissenting Communities
the exception. It will be the most logical, there
fore, as well as the most orderly and impartial
proceeding, to examine the circumstances of the
exception, before the value of the rule, as a rule,
is enquired into. With regard to the latter, I will
fairly let my reader here so far into the sequel, that,
in what I have to express, I am confident there will
be some things to find fault with in the Establish
ment, and to express a wish for amendment in :
as well as occasion to point out other evils, which
in the circumstances of human nature are almost
necessarily incident to any Established Religion.
But the question, on summing up, will be, on
which side of this great argument (and who will
deny it to be such ?) the balance of public benefit
turns ? Benefit, I mean, both temporal and spiri
tual. To arrive at the decision of this question,

after what has been thus shortly advanced, the
following will be the course of enquiry adopted.
First, to enumerate the evils incident to Dis
sent, and compare the supposed advantages, or
necessity, alleged in extenuation, or vindication,
of these.
Secondly, to state abstractedly the evils inci
dent to a religious establishment, and practically
the real imperfections, or, in some cases, perhaps
more than imperfections, which do actually attend
our's ; and then to weigh the opposite advantages.
First, then, we must begin with enumerating
the evils of Dissent. These I hold to be consi
derable : although upon my enumeration of them
I may have to encounter considerable differeijce
of opinion in the outset. Neither do I so far at
present prejudge the argument, as to say which
side in this question is answerable for these evils ?
From whatever quarter arising, they appear to me
to be the following : —
Dissent from the Established Church is, in my
estimation, 1st. Anarchical.
2d. Anti-social.
3d. Un-peaceable.
4th. Un-patriotic.
5th. Un-economical.
6th. Un-seemly.
7th. Unlearned.

8th. Un-Scriptural.
Each of these allegations must be distinctly
unfolded. 1st. By Anarchical, I mean disorderly, and
conducive to misrule. To prove this assertion,
it is obvious to remark, at once, that the great
mass of the Dissenters is made up of very he->
terogeneous materials, constantly at variance
with each other: having continual collisions in
doctrine, discipline, worship, &c. but yet, I fear,
too ready to unite against the Established Church.
Independently, however, of this general character5
each sect within itself appears clearly demon
strable to be subject to the imputation here urged*
I will except none whatever. The highest indeed
in the scale of regular government are the least
censurable in this respect, but all more or less so.
To begin with the Presbyterian, whom indeed in
Scotland, where he is established, we ought to
except from this allegation, I do not know that a
more striking instance of anarchical character can
present itself, than a state of things produced in
our own days and memories, by a much followed
Preacher of that Communion. What was that
state ? The chapel at which he officiated, in Com
munion with the Kirk of Scotland, was crowded
to excess : and by whom ? chiefly by Episcopa
lians. And how did these Episcopalians obtain
admission ? By the direct consent, if I may not
B 2

say invitation ; and obviously to the exclusion, of
Presbyterians. I am not here looking into the
vagary of multitudes of Episcopalians leaving
their own worship in this way : although the Dis
senter must certainly claim it, if he pleases, as an
admission not to be gainsaid, that we also have
sometimes anarchy amongst ourselves. But this
is wide of my present object. What I now infer
from the circumstance here stated, is this. The
Presbyterian congregation in a disorderly and
anarchical manner gave up their own worship
for the amusement, shall I say, or excitement, or
what ? of others having no religious communion
or connection with them. Surely this was dis
orderly. Let us now contrast this (for it does
so happen, there was in the Church of England
a parallel, and almost cotemporaneous instance)
let ns now contrast this with the spirit of the
National Church under similar circumstances.
A preacher of our own Communion excited in
our metropolis not long after, a similar, and
hardly perhaps an inferior, impression : I mean,
in extent. Multitudes of strangers also flocked
to his Church: though with less success as to
admission than to the former place. And how
did they obtain admission ? Not only, I repeat,
with much less success ; but I will venture to
say in very few instances to the interruption of
the regular worshippers previously accustomed

to assemble there : at least not to the suspension
of their public worship on the Lord's-Day. The
poor, indeed, I fear, were partially excluded : but
these probably had been so before, in this large
and populous Parish. I consider it to be foreign
from the habits of a Church of England congre
gation, for any members of it to give up seats
they are accustomed themselves to occupy, to
strangers. Here then a comparison is fairly in
stituted, wherein the spirit of the Church of
England appears to have the advantage. At the
Caledonian Chapel it was a notorious fact, that
admission took place by tickets : at St. Giles's
Church it was, I doubt not, entirely otherwise.
In fact, I question whether in the latter case it
could have been legally done, to any degree of
frequency. That the conscientious Presbyterian
may have had his reasons, his religious reasons,
and those possibly satisfactory to his own mind,
for the course taken by him in this case, I am
very far indeed from denying : on the contrary,
it is, perhaps, almost necessary to my argument
to say, that such motives grow naturally out of
his system : and therefore, I contend, come pro
perly under this head of observation. But the
Church of England has no such system or no
such spirit. Nothing but the temptation of this
very characteristic case could have moved me so
early to bring the two systems into competition

6
in this way. Neither must I be understood here
to give any opinion whatever on the view which
the individuals themselves took, whose talents
and exertions produced the effects here adverted
to, I have been detained perhaps too long on this
first instance. It will be less necessary to dwell
on the remaining cases, although they must not,
in justice to our argument, be passed over. The
Independents are the next in the scale of Dissent
to be adverted to. So entirely, may I not say
pre-eminently 1 does this sect appear subject to
the charge under consideration, that I much ques
tion whether' any single body of them in the
kingdom can say there are not frequent cabals, if
not intrigues, amongst them *. This, however*
I impute not to the men, but to the system : and
I hold it unnecessary to dwell a moment longer
on their case in this particidar.
The Baptists are not only disordered as to
their unity by the prevailing distinction amongst
them of Universal and Particular ; but I suspect
very few of their sect agree precisely within
themselves : their scruple being of a nature to
" minister questions." The great body of the
Methodists again are not only divided into Cal
vinistic and Arminian, and launch into the wide
* See in particular the Coggeshall case, (of a few years ago,
without date) and of Saffron Walden in 1822.

deep of ' inviting all of every Communion to mix
with them;' but it is well known, have very
lately in one or two conspicuous instances, been
split into parties on questions vitally affecting
their discipline*, notwithstanding that discipline,
as it came out from the hands of Wesley, may be
pronounced the most perfect for its purpose of
that of any body of Dissenters whatever. To
enumerate the minor sects which ; may be very
fairly said to have grown out of the spirit intro
duced by Methodism ; and for which, be they for
good or evil, Methodism and its Founders are
mainly responsible ; would be to sink the Dissent
ing interest to a level I do not wish in my present
undertaking to bring it to, and to offend many
whom I would fain conciliate. Without going
any farther therefore, I cannot but persuade my
self I have said enough to shew (whatever may
be the real or supposed counter-balancing advan
tages, and whatever the alleged necessity which
gave it birth) that the principle of Dissent is*
both in its nature and tendencies; Anarchical.
Secondly, I must believe it, and expect to
prove it, to be Anti-social : founded, that is, on a
basis unfavourable to the full comprehension of
any large community. It seems to be an admitted
maxim amongst Protestants* both in the Church
* See Christian Remembrancer for January, 1826, Vol. viii.
No. 1. p. 13—34.

and out of it, that every Christian endued with
reason is entitled to ' liberty of conscience ' on
matters of religion. Indeed this expression rings
throughout the land perhaps more generally, than
any one that can be named. As this mode of
speech is grown so current amongst us, seeing
that words ought to express things, and that
correctly; I wish two words, or others to their
effect, could slip into the popular phrase ; and
that the saying were : " Liberty of duly in
formed Conscience." These two words assur
edly convey a _ great deal. They signify neither
more nor less than this : viz. that as in the first
determination, so in every other matter belonging
to the essentials, of his religious persuasion,
every man should bring to his decision the very
best judgment he is capable of; whether as
granted him originally by nature, or to be im
proved subsequently by diligence. The phrase
would then, I apprehend, be utterly unexception
able : and no man would deserve the name of
Protestant, who should object to the proper
operation of the thing so described. In the case
of the Laity, ministerial aid, when needful, may
be considered as sufficiently implied in the pro
posed addition. After having said this, I am
prepared at once to advance to the allegation
here made.
The claim of liberty of conscience with the

proposed adjunct being thus freely conceded;
if in its effect it leads to the multiplying of di
visions and separations from the Established
Church, although this to us Protestants affords
no just ground for withholding it; yet such
divisions and separations are not on that account
the less free from an anti-social tendency. And
such a tendency I maintain they have ; for these
plain reasons. The alleged liberty of conscience,
though in itself, and especially with the epithet
I have annexed to it, involving a perfectly rea
sonable demand, may yet be carried too far,
shall I say? or will the more proper mode of
expression be, misapplied? that is, introduced
into particulars which do not so clearly belong
to it. I hold no one point of consistency to be
clearer, than that no man whatever ought to
profess his belief in, or in any way assent to, any
religious affirmation, which after the best internal
reflection he is capable of, and calling in such
external aids as the case may seem to require, he
holds to be directly or indirectly false : and in
essentials particularly, he must not at the hazard
of his soul accept of any thing that appears to
him to be of that character. If, for example, a
man on the best judgment he can form, and
having called in all proper aids, cannot bring him
self to believe that Jesus Christ is plainly re-

10
vealed to him from Heaven as both God and man ;
and that to call him such is to make a second
God, and to raise up an idol of man's invention,
such a person, I say, (whatever we may think
either of the reasoning or the state of mind that
has brought him to such an opinion) ought not to
subscribe to the Creeds of our Church. The
second Commandment, with his present view,
forbids him. He dare not do it, nor can he with
a safe conscience : he ought to be free. But then
there is a wide difference between this extreme
case and that of one who thinks himself bound,
by what he calls liberty of conscience, to worship
habitually with no community whatsoever, in
whose opinions, habits and usages he is not in
every single particular consenting. This, I hold>
is either misapplying liberty of conscience or
carrying it too far : it is expecting more than is
practicable : and such a procedure, if urged to its
utmost extent, must end in no two" persons being
able to worship together. Public wisdom must
be listened to in minor points, or a community
must be split into as many parties as there are
individuals. Here then it is, that I think the Dissenting in
terest is anti-social. No community can subsist
properly without some kind of Government : Re
ligion too should form a part of that Government,

11
if a vitally important object be, to give the
strongest possible cement to it * : and the firmer
and more approved such government be, the
better will the purposes of civil society be an
swered. Consequently, whenever a number of
persons see reason for separating from the Re
ligion of the State, be that reason good or bad, in
proportion as Religion is the key-stone of society,
and alienation from the publicly established view
of it gives a shock to this foundation ; in that pro
portion is a community injured, and contains
within itself seeds of decay at least, if not of total
destruction. Instead of the many prescribing
for the few, the minority form into a separate
party. Instead of the exception, (as I think we
have been fairly warranted in calling the Dissent
ing body at our opening) being swallowed up in
the rule, it obtrudes itself, as something like a rule .
in itself. In truth, the body of Dissenters is as it
were a collection of minorities. Provided at least
rank, intellect and wealth rather than numbers
merely, constitute the substantial majority of a
Kingdom, they are both a minority and a collec-
* The cautipn with which I have placed my position here in
an hypothetical shape, wilj, doubtless, not escape notice. The
truth is, in the very threshold of my argument at least, I do not
chuse to encounter the question of an Establishment in Church
and State, as I am convinced it is not necessary to what I am
now upon, that I should do so.

12
tion of minorities. Each of these minorities^
going on through endless ramifications, divides,
divides, divides, sub-divides, sub-divides, sub-di
vides, till in Religion" what ought to be a compact
body, ceases almost to possess the semblance of a
community. This anti- communicative principle
too extends, if I mistake not, beyond Religion it
self, into the regions of morality and civil policy.
All this, I think, is produced by the Dissenting
principle. If so, the allegation is made out. That
principle is manifestly Anti-social.
3. Dissent, I have said, is Un-peaceable. Neces
sarily, perhaps the Dissenters will reply, but
not of our fault : that, I answer, is not now the
question : the fact only is asserted. And is it
questioned ? I believe not. Amongst the evils
of Dissent then, to whomsoever owing, this is to
be reckoned. Yet, though I consider it to be
unquestionably evident, the assertion ought not
to be made without a few words of remark or
proof. The nature of Dissent is, that it sets up a
mode of worship, and upholds a series of religious
opinions, different from those established, recog
nized, and prescribed by law. In taking this step
therefore, the Dissenting party is naturally called
upon to defend himself. He feels himself (and I
know of no sect whatever of any size, in which
this is not done) called upon to declare to the
world the grounds on which he thus acts. This

13
introduces defending and proving ; often too on
points really in no way worth the trouble. What
ever advantages the individual so separating may
propose to himself; or however strong the ex
pediency, if not necessity, of the act may appear
to him, the act leads at once to discussion and
contrariety of sentiment. That it is just possible
to conduct this peaceably, I allow : but that in
effect it is ever or at most often so conducted, I
deny : and appeal to any one if he can affirm it ?
The individual is so nearly mixed up with his
cause ; private passion is so readily intermingled
with public principle ; that I believe few if any
ever existed, so raised above their subject in this
particular, as to escape the alloy of contention
mixed with it. Hence comes strife and every
evil work. St. Paul himself speaks of religious
division not only as in principle " carnal" but in
tendency and in fruits, " contentious *." The
world would assuredly be more peaceable than it
is, if there were no separations in religion. Con
sequently, dissent is an enemy to peace. I repeat,
I. am not saying at present where the blame of
this hurtful spirit lies; I am only saying that
where Dissent is, it exists. And this, I again say,
none will deny. Dissent therefore is Unpeace-
able. * 1 Corinthians i. 11. — ii. 16.

14
4. The fourth imputation I have felt constrain
ed to fasten on Dissent, and which I fear the se
quel will too clearly prove, is, that it is Unpatrio
tic. Of a mere secular nature, if I may not
assign to it a higher character ; I hardly know
any heavier charge than this. Whatever is un
patriotic (except the circumstances are very
strong and special indeed) I must pronounce to
be wrong. The Love of Country is so nearly en
grafted in our nature ; so intermingled with our
best, highest, and purest affections ; so associa
ted with every thing that is good and great
within and without us ; and the absence of it so
commonly belonging to what is mean and gro
velling ; that I own few moral deficiencies ap
pear to me greater than the want of this feeling.
Indeed it was one that even the Heathens placed
at a very high point in their scale of virtue. It
seemed in many of their most exalted patterns to
supply, in a considerable degree, the want of
that " wisdom which is from above *." It served
as something like a substitute for better things
that were withheld. And to us who are under
the light of Revelation, it appears as if it were
considered to be in no need of super-moral ex
citement. For in the Scriptures it is no where
that I remember enjoined by precept ; though it
is, doubtless, recommended by very high, cogent,
* James iii. 15.

15
and frequent example*. Obedience to Gover
nors and to Laws is enjoined as matter of duty 2
but I know of no passage, where Love of the
Country that gave us birth is either imposed on
our consciences, or addressed to our affections,
otherwise than by history and example. So much
does it seem taken for granted even in our fallen
nature ; and so little does the want of it appear
to be a consequence of our original taint. If
this be the case, it forms almost a solitary excep
tion of a high duty not enjoined ; simply (as it
should seem) because it belongs to us naturally.
Whatever adventitious or artificial state of
things, therefore, disturbs or weakens this in
stinctive principle must, in proportion as it does
so, have something very wrong in it. Much
more, when mixed up with, and almost claiming
to be sanctioned by, Religion ; I should shrink
from it with dismay, almost amounting to unbe
lief: and say within myself, ' Can this be ?' If I
have been at all correct in stating the interesting
* For when the Deity conversed with men,
He was himself a Patriot —
» * * *
—  His warmest love, his tenderest care,

His life, his heart, his blessings, and his mourning,
His smiles, his tears, he gave to thee, Jerusalem —
To thee his country !
Remains of the Rev. C. Wolf, p. 64. See also note to these
lines, cited from Bishop Newton.

16
hold our country has on our affections ; and the
difficulty of readily supposing, that Religion can
require any thing in the nature of sacrifice or
surrender of this generous feeling ; then must any
system professing to be founded on Religion,
that has a tendency to disturb this feeling, be one
as far as this tendency goes, in itself much to be
lamented and deprecated. And such I do not
scruple to declare the Dissenting system is *.
Most reluctantly, indeed, do I make this declara
tion, and should be glad to be convinced of its
not being true : but I fear it will be too clearly
established. Whether, indeed, this lamentable per
version of feeling is infused culpably by the
erroneous demands or expectations of others, is
a question fairly to be canvassed : but it is a
fearful balance, in my judgment, which the dis
turber has to turn.
If, therefore, ye, through separation from the
* As far as the influence of the Edinburgh Review extends,
which I believe to be considerable amongst one of the two par
ties whose merits I am weighing against each other ; the pre
sent head of my argument is already admitted. In No. 88, p.
492, it is said : — " The assistance of the Civil Power to uphold
the Gospel is politically injurious, by necessarily creating disaf
fection to the State in all those who dissent from the Establish
ed Church." — If this were the undoubted language of those
whose feelings it describes, I might spare any farther pains :
but as I am not entirely persuaded of this, I continue my argu
ment.

17
National Religion, are by consequence led into an
un-patriotic (for I will not say an anti-patriotic)
frame of mind, assuredly it is one not to be
envied. Whether this be your state, it will be the
purpose of the following remarks to endeavour
to ascertain.
In matters of Religion, the part of the British
dominions nearest home (for beyond these I
do not wish to travel, my enquiry being insti
tuted for domestic purposes only) is divided,
as to its population, into two main portions: the
members of the Church of England, and the Dis
senters from it. Of these two parties, the Church
enjoys the honours, stations and emolument dis-
' posable by the State, and by patronage connected
with it : the other cannot reasonably expect more
than the safe exercise of their religion *, which
undoubtedly it is amongst the legitimate func
tions of law to secure to them. Toleration, how
ever, being less attended with secular advantages
than Establishment ; and involving, according to
the construction of some, something like a spirit
of suspicion and distrust ; nothwithstanding that,
without a single exception, it is, I believe, dealt
out more liberally amongst us, than in any king
dom in the known world where an Establishment
exists : Toleration, I say, being looked on as
* I do not enter into any detailed arguments on this assertion ;
which has been one so repeatedly discussed.
C

18
bare protection, without encouragement ; on the
contrary, wearing something like a front of jea
lousy, we are perhaps hardly to wonder, that the
country which makes this distinction (mitigated
though it be in our own beyond any other) is in
this particular respect viewed unfavourably by
that portion of its people, which comes under
the disadvantage of the distinction. This, I say,
is what might reasonably be expected : yet, does
not the probability at once support my assump
tion of the un-patriotic feeling ? It gives great
strength to it, to say the least. The fact of dis
content we cannot altogether wonder at, if it
does exist. Let the reader remember, we are not
now upon the question, whether this discontent
grows out of reasonable cause of blame in those
who create the distinction. This is not now
before us. We are now upon the question, ' Is
the Dissenting Interest un-patriotic or not V It
seems as if it must be admitted to be highly pro
bably so : that the circumstances are calculated
to render it such. We now go on to assert the
fact. We say it is so. Our proof follows.
On the wide sea of enquiry we are launched
into (and the subject would warrant a very copi
ous range of investigation) we will draw in our
sails, and direct our course to two points : —
1st. National Religious Education.
2dly. National accommodation for Religious
Worship.

19
Ii? each of these, I think it can be proved, that
the Dissenting body is un-patriotic in its aims,
tendencies, and fruits. We begin with the
first. (1.) On the subject of Religious Education, it
can hardly have escaped the knowledge of any,
that two modern Institutions have sprung up
within these few years, for the religious instruc
tion of the poor : — the National Society and the
Lancasterian Institution. Although, with regard
to the former of these, a very active and con
spicuous member of the Wesleyan Methodist
connection in my own Parish once told me and
the Churchwardens, in answer to a Parochial
application in consequence of the King's Letter,
that he had never before heard of the existence
Of such a society : notwithstanding there was a
school established in the very Parish by aid of
its funds, and bearing its name. Before we go
a step farther in this argument, it is extremely
important to observe, that up to the date of the
origin of these two establishments, all that had
been done to any extent for the education of the
poor, had been done by the Church of England,
and by that only. But to proceed: — I hardly
know any thing which will more strongly mark
the subject I am now upon, than the facts con
nected with these two Institutions. By those
acquainted with their history, it will be remem-
c 2

20
bered, that the Lancasterian Institution, as it was
called from the name of its founder, was the
one which took the lead in public notoriety :
although there is a very material circumstance to
be stated, connected with its commencement, not
very honourable to those concerned in it. It is a
well known fact, now established beyond the pos
sibility of dispute, that the zealous and indefa
tigable Dr. Bell, to whom assuredly this nation is
highly indebted, was the first to introduce into
the British dominions an original and powerful
engine of popular education, in the shape of his
newly discovered principle of self-tuition : of
tuition, that is, by the scholars themselves : first
practised under his direction in India, and then
brought over by him to England. At the same
time that a school was actually established in the
metropolis on Dr. Bell's newly discovered system,
the person who opened what has since from him
been termed the Lancasterian school, and taught
there on this identical principle, scrupled not to
denominate himself the inventor of it*: and
more than this, undertook to visit some of the
principal places in the kingdom, with a view to
establishing and propagating this system, called
by his name. The claim of invention between
these two individuals, now completely set at rest,
* See on the whole of this subject the Quarterly Review,
No. II. Vol. 6. p. 264—304, for October, 1811.

21
is of too personal and private a nature, to detain
us a moment longer : although it appeared to de
serve mention here, as a specimen of a sectarian
pretender endeavouring to strip a Churchman
and a Clergyman of the merit of a discovery,
which has been justly denominated "as more
pregnant with consequences to the mortal and
immortal interests of mankind, than any discovery,
perhaps, since that of printing # ": and for which,
I doubt not, generations yet unborn will bless the
inventor's memory.
By help of the metropolitan establishment, and
the itinerant measures already mentioned, the
Lancasterian system assumed a bold front, and,
acting on the favourite principle, still more ex
tensively adopted at that time by a larger and
newly erected, but increasing Society f; it offered
Religious Education to the poor, without prescrib
ing the formularies, or in any way interfering with
the particular Creed, of any religious denomina
tion. Notwithstanding some schools had been
established during this interval on Dr. Bell's plan,
in close connection with the Established Church,
and the same were in course of farther extension ;
yet the new invention, to any extent, was no
longer ostensibly in the hands of the individual
* Charge of the Archdeacon of Stow, (Dr. Bayley) 1826»
Printed, bat, I am sorry to say, not published.
f The British and Foreign Bible Society.

22
to whom it justly belonged ; nor was it applied
to purposes to which he might be considered
friendly : but was united only to the liberal sys
tem just stated. At length, some individuals
wisely seeing what an engine this of ' liberal
education' might prove, in the hands not only of
enemies to the Established Church, but of per
sons adverse to every thing like settled religious
faith ; after considerable labour and deliberation,
obtained sufficient sanction for instituting that
noble and admirable Society, called " The Na
tional Society for the Education of the Poor in
the Principles of the Established Church." For
this splendid effort of National Religious Benefi
cence, God's holy Name be for ever blessed and
praised ! ! ! But the purpose of introducing these
two Institutions into the present work, was to
' shew the un-patriotic competition with this In
stitution, occasioned by the " Schools for all,"
as they were afterwards most invidiously desig
nated. To this conflict on the part of the ' libe
ral,' I scruple not to give the epithet above
written. The contention on their part was un
patriotic, to all intents and purposes. The
Church Society was entitled to the name it bore
and still bears of " National," in every sense of
the word : and any or every system either set up
or continued, whether in opposition to, or com
petition with it, was as justly entitled to the ap-

23
pellation of a faction. The National Society
was sure to command the wealth, power, and
influence of the Country; in truth, as tQ it§
specific object, substantially to represent the,
Country itself: and accordingly it has, in point
of fact, entirely overwhelmed the pretensions
of its more aspiring, but less really effective
competitor. If the Dissenting interest would in
this particular have exempted themselves from
the charge I feel now compelled to fasten on
them ; they should, as it appears to me, have
reasoned and acted as follows : — ' The Society just
' instituted claims to be a National one. It is sup-
' ported by the King and Royal Family ; the Mi-
1 nisters of State ; the Heads ofthe Law, the Army,
' and the Navy ; and by the Bishops, Dignitaries*
' Clergy, and Laity of the National Church. Be
'¦ it so. Let the Nation educate the Nation's youth.
' Or, even if we see reason to scruple at our chil-
* dren's receiving the education there offered ; let
fus no longer continue to extend what must
' henceforth, if we do so continue it, be to all in-
' tents and purposes a rival Institution : still less
' let us continue it in a shape which sets all con-
' sistency at defiance, by herding together in Reli-
' gious Instruction persons of the most opposite
' religious sentiments ; with the avowed object of
' giving offence to none, but with the real effect
* of disappointment and insufficiency to all.' Such

21
language and conduct, if it could not be ealled
strictly National, would at least have been gene
rous and cpnsistent ; and would at any rate have
steered clear of the charge of being Anti-Na
tional. As it was, the course pursued could only
be fitly described by this epithet. I could be far
more copious on this subject, and it would well war
rant enlargement : but I think I have said enough
to justify the introduction of this case, as an illus
tration of the present branch of my argument *.
* I must not quite pass over here the Infant Schools. Of
these I certainly have formed a present opinion ; although I do
not feel called on to avow it here. But I will mention what I
once witnessed myself, connected with this subject. It was at
the first Anniversary of the Infant Schools, held in London.
Just at that moment an Infant School was on the eve of being
established in the parish of Bishopsgate, under the sanction of
the Lord Bishop of the Diocese, and the Rector of the Parish,
himself a Prelate also. A celebrated legal orator adverted to
this circumstance at the Meeting in terms of the following im
port : " I hear (said he) that there is an Infant School about
to be established in the Parish of Bishopsgate, under the imme
diate sanction of two Bishops of the Church. I rejoice to
hear it. I shall send on Monday to have my name put down as
a Subscriber. So it was with the National Society. We took
the lead : the Church followed. So it is now with the Infant
Schools." I am prepared to state confidently, that these senti
ments were uttered in a tone and manner of scoff and sarcasm ;
and were received by the Meeting with a general, but significant
simper. I will merely ask, were the tone and temper of the
Speaker, and of the Meeting in this instance, unpatriotic or not ?

25
Having dismissed as quickly as I could the
case of the conflicting claims between the Na
tional and Lancasterian Schools ; I come now to
consider, if possible, a still more important, cer
tainly a more extensively influential branch of the
present charge ; viz. as it regards
(2.) National accommodation for Religious wor
ship. If any object can be called National in a
higher sense than another, Surely this must be so.
The point being now settled amongst us (not
very likely to be vitally disturbed) that there is
to be an established Religion ; and the form of
that Religion being, in its leading particulars, all
but unchangeably *, marked out ; it is at least a
consistent object of the Nation's care, that ample
provision should be made for the mass of the
population's being able to worship according to
that form. The Establishment being, as I have
said, the rule, and any thing apart from it the
exception ; a very large proportion of the people
should be provided by the Nation's care with
means of conforming to this rule. On this prin
ciple, if I remember rightly, the Earl of Liverpool
in proposing the Commission and Funds for build
ing New Churches, after a statesman-like manner,
as it presents itself to me, took no account in his
* I desire to invite particular attention to the trvo small words
in italics that precede this epithet. They make ihe whole differ
ence between us and the Papists.

26
computation of the circumstance of Dissent. It
was what might be to-day, might not be to-morrow.
Whereas the Church Establishment may very
reasonably be calculated on as not obnoxious tp
such prospect of change. Consequently, to es
timate the population, exclusively of any per
manent defalcation of worshippers, appears . to
have been an enlarged, genuine, and becoming
principle of legislation.
Under these circumstances, what has been the
course pursued by what is commonly called " the
Dissenting Interest ?" Sorry, very sorry am I to
say it, but I fear it is neither more nor less than
the fact ; the Dissenters have in Vestry almost
uniformly opposed the application of Parochial
funds to Church Building. Nothing will delight
me more than information that shall afford grounds
for calling on me to retract this assertion ; and
retract it I will publicly and immediately, if such
grounds can be produced. But if the fact be as
I state it, and one in which I fear I cannot be
contradicted, surely here is the most convincing
proof possible of the Dissenting body's being un
patriotic. I reason thus : The Country, it is
evident, is legally represented by the Legislature.
The Country moreover cherishes and uniformly
upholds a National Religion. A lack of accom
modation for Religious Worship presents itself
too flagrantly to be questioned for a single . mo-
8

27
ment by any one who thinks Public Worship
should be carried on. In the Metropolis and
populous districts, even the Dissenting chapels,
to whatever extent they may be met with, can in
no degree present, I am satisfied, any thing like
pretension to supply the need. What then seems
to be the line pointed out to the Christian patriot,
whether in or out of the Church, if the govern
ment, and at its instance, the Legislature shew
a disposition towards supplying the need? As
suredly, to meet it readily. To go hand in hand
with this effort of a Christian nation. The
Dissenters, if they wished it, could not supply
room for the un-accommodated Population : their
wealth, their influence, their concentration is not
sufficient for it. On the other hand, the three
branches of the Legislature, supported by any
thing like the general voice of the country, are
adequate at least to a great share ofthe work.
Moreover I maintain, though certainly not with
out some fear of contradiction, that, if I know
any thing of the just limits of consciences, the
Dissenter is not bound to proselytize. He is
bound indeed, strictly bound, to separate from a
Church, whose worship he thinks, on the best
judgment he can form, has any thing in it that
he cannot tell how to reconcile with reason or
Scripture ; but he is not bound, that I can see,
by any principle whatsoever, to invite or urge his

28
neighbour to do the same. Rather, I should say,
, he is solemnly bound, for the sake of unity and
peace, to abstain from influencing his neighbour
in any way to withdraw from the Nation's
worship, as long as he thinks he can keep with
it safely. And if the objector be not called upon
to infuse his own notions of Dissent into others, I
should further say, that when facilities are offered
to the National Worship, not within reach of any
other Communion, duty calls on him, at the least,
not to frustrate such advantages : while, at the
same time, Charity would seem to impel him,
when surrounded with such National efforts, to
wish them good luch in the name qf the Lord*.
If this be sound reasoning, it is necessary,
though I fear in the issue it will turn out painful,
to compare the abstract reasoning with the fact :
what might, and perhaps what should be, with
what is. The contrast, I apprehend, will be pain
ful. Instead of the ready hand lent by Dissenters
to the Nation's work, what do we witness in and
out of Parliament ? In Parliament indeed the
majority is gained : but, whilst enemies are alert
in their objections, friends timid and slack in
their support, the names of those who are consi
dered the voice of the Dissenting body in Parlia
ment, few though they may be, are commonly, if
not uniformly, found upon divisions, in the minority
* Psalm cxxix. 8.

29
list Out qf Parliament, we have already remark
ed what kind of feeling it is that prevails in Ves
tries from the same quarter. Now with these
two facts before us, (which who will question ?)
what can be said, but that in this particular the
Dissenters, as a body, are Un-patriotic ? The
Legislature, and in them the Country, say one
thing ; the separatists from the Establishment say
another. Long as I have been detained on this branch of
my subject, (and, in truth, no other view of my
whole case is half so important, with the single
exception of the Scriptural one) I must introduce
a very few words on another striking exemplifi
cation of this feature, not very long ago manifest
ed ; although relating to a subject that, for many
reasons, I do not chuse to mix up with the pre
sent enquiry. The following proceedings were
announced in a provincial newspaper*, during
the month of May, 1825.
* The Bath Chronicle.
The Committee of " The Protestant Society for the Protec
tion of Religious Liberty," at a Meeting on Monday, entered
> into Resolutions, expressing —
" First, That they perceive with regret, that the presentation
of about twenty-five petitions, from persons calling themselves
Protestant Dissenters, had involved the thousands of congrega
tions of Protestant Dissenters in England and Wales in the im
putation of indifference or religious hostility to those great
principles of religious freedom for which «their forefathers con
tended, and to which they continue ever attached.

30
A few words upon these resolutions. Of the
dissenting body then, it appears, some were
indifferent or hostile " to what are called the
great principles of religious freedom :" others find
occasion to " regret " and protest against this
indifference and hostility. — Of these two classes
I own my decided opinion is, that the former are
at once the best patriots, and the most consistent
Dissenters : if, at least, as I infer from the above
minute, they were petitioners against a body, who
have never possessed religious ascendancy in our
dominions since the Reformation, without bring
ing the peace and tranquillity of the Country, as
well as freedom of religious worship and opinion,
into jeopardy. But enough of this. My main
" Secondly, That the Society have repeatedly declared their
belief that the right to religious liberty is an universal, para
mount, inalienable right — that religious opinions should not
alone qualify, or disqualify, for public offices — that all restraints
on their expression, by penalties or exclusions, are acts of op
pression and of wrong — that the connexion of privileges and
emoluments with particular opinions may create hypocrites or
martyrs — but that the unrestricted allowance of all religious
opinions and diversities of worship is essential to the rights of
conscience, favourable to the promotion of piety, and propitious
to the harmony and improvement of mankind.
" And, Thirdly, That being convinced that the concessions
proposed to be made by the depending Bill will not give to the
Roman Catholics, in England or Ireland, any particular advan
tages over Protestant Dissenters in those countries, they will not,
as Protestant Dissenters, interfere in a manner that may pre
judice or prejudge the Bill, but will leave the measure to the
wisdom and justice of Parliament."

31
object in introducing the above extract here, is to
call attention to the fact of the three resolutions.
Here the resolve of non-interference is taken.
And why ? Because the Committee are " con
vinced that the concessions proposed to be made
by the depending bill will not give to the Roman
Catholics in England or Ireland any particular
advantages over Protestant Dissenters in those
Countries ! ! "
Had the Society before us (whose merits or de
merits I have strong reasons for declining to
enter on in this publication) — had this Society
said nothing on the question they refer to, I
should not have blamed, I should have applauded
them. But they have said far worse than no
thing. On a question, and at a moment, at
which if persons of any weight or numbers spoke
at aH, I will venture to say they commonly, if not
universally, brought their words to the doors of
Parliament ; the committee will not attempt to
"prejudice or prejudge the bill, but will leave the
measure to the wisdom and justice of Parliament."
Why? Because, forsooth, they themselves, the
Protestant Dissenters, are not likely to have any
" particular advantages" gained over them ! I
will not trust myself to comment on this lan
guage. I will simply ask : Is it patriotic ?
Nothing but the extreme importance of the
head now under consideration could have war-

32
ranted the length to which these remarks have
been drawn out. But so weighty is this branch,
that, unless Scripture shall be found on the side of
Dissent, no other ground whatever can outweigh
the consideration we have now brought to a
close. 5. I have to offer against the Dissenting sys
tem the objection of being Un-economical. By
this I mean, that in the Propagation of religious
Truth throughout these dominions, or by the in
strumentality of their Inhabitants ; owing to the
irregular operations of Dissenting bodies, more
money is expended with less good effected, than
might, but for these operations, be the case. Of
this it appears to me there cannot be a reason
able doubt. When it is considered how much
money is annually expended throughout England
and Wales either in the erection and support of
Dissenting places of worship, or in the promotion
and maintenance of Dissenting Religious Socie
ties ; it is a very fair question to put — whether a
great deal more might not be made of this money,
could the whole be brought into one common
purse with the Church funds for similar objects ;
and one united system of religious beneficence
aimed at ? This question, if put, must be an
swered in the affirmative. Not to mention that
I fear there is too much reason for apprehending
no inconsiderable portion of Dissenting Funds is

33
contributed toward the support of what is called
' the Dissenting interest :' (although any sums less
economically applied to the genuine purposes of
" pure and undefiled religion *," I cannot readily
conceive :) not to mention this, and supposing
every shilling to be contributed with a strict view
to purposes of piety only; the increased machi
nery in every way leads to a most lavish expen
diture. Meeting-houses, Ministers, Treasurers,
Secretaries, &c. (these two last offices out of the
Church are, I believe, seldom, if ever, undertaken
gratuitously) all these swell the total of eleemo
synary aid for religious purposes, to a degree of
non-necessity much to be lamented. And surely
in these days of religious alms-giving, this is a
consideration of no mean importance. In Foreign
and Missionary objects from Great Britain, this
want of economy, arising out of the circumstance
of Dissent, appears to me singularly lamentable.
Could the energies of the British Nation in the
diffusion of Religious Truth throughout the world,
and especially over our own Dominions, could these
be consistently concentrated, the result, I firmly
believe, would, under Providence, be ten-fold.
Not only would the removal of that rock of
offence, division, present our faith to Christian
converts in a less confused and perplexing shape,
* James i. 37,
D

34
(though with this, I allow, our present subject
has nothing to do); but time, talents, and alms,
would be so economized, as to make the exertions
at least, if not their success, far greater. Within
the pale of the Church of England, I am proud
and thankful to say, my belief is, that Missionary
exertions are far more extensively encouraged
and upheld than they have been : and should I
live to the age of man, I look forward with no
small hope and confidence to witnessing her pure
and holy faith far extended abroad, and largely
encouraged, as to this extension, at home. Would
I could say, that I looked forward with any
thing like equal confidence to surviving the wreck
of disunion amongst us at home, as to foreign at
least, if not to domestic objects. And yet if I
did not see some gleam of hope as to both, I
think no one will believe I could have sat down
to so forbidding an attempt as the present, withr
out some such faint hope, at least, would be.
But to return.
If in Foreign and Missionary objects this un
economical character of Dissent appears evident,
there is one very striking instance of the same
character at home, which I must not pass over,
before I bring the present head to a conclusion.
It is this. In very many places where Dissenting
Meeting-houses are built, (though in a vast num
ber also I allow it is far otherwise,) the Parish

Church affords ample room for all resident in the
parish that can or will attend Divine Worship
on the Lord's Day. As far as mere room is con
sidered, therefore, the money laid out in Meeting
houses is in these Cases very bad economy. I
quite know how I shall be at once met in this
argument: but let it be remembered, the reasons
which seem to impose Dissent are not now before
us. Independently, therefore, of these reasons,
and dismissing them for the moment, where
Parish Churches can hold the number of Pa
rishioners who worship publicly on the Lord's^
I>ay, it is manifest, that the erection of addi
tional buildings being unnecessary, the expence
incurred by them is uneconomical. I only claim
assent to this proposition, subject to the validity
or invalidity of the more important grounds of
Dissent. With this qualification, I think I have
established my present position *.
6. That in a religion, and amidst professors
such as the Christian, whose badge is ' unity and
* During the times in which I write, the argument above ap
pears singularly cogent. The manufacturing districts have been
distressed. Royal and general beneficence has fled to thek
relief. Yet it is in these districts more especially, that a great
deal of money (the accumulated amount, I believe, would ap
pear incredible) has been spent on religious objects, and that
by the poor especially, unnecessarily. Surely, " these things
ought not so to be." James iii. 10.
D 2

36
peace," dissent is unseemly, surely requires no
proof. Argument, however, shall shortly be of
fered. In the touching appeal of David, " Behold,
how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to
dwell together in unity*!" vie may see at once
of how sweet savour religious union is both to
God and man. The converse of the exclamation,
we may be amply assured, would equally have
expressed the feelings of the good man's heart.
Behold ! (alas ! it is our lot to have to behold)
how evil and painful it is for brethren to dwell
together in disunion ! — The point of unseemliness
may be briefly illustrated in this way : and the
illustration, I apprehend, is in countries partly
Christianized by ourselves, neither more nor less
than fact. If a Heathen were invited amongst
us to embrace Christianity, would not one of the
very first questions forced upon him be, ' Which
do you call Christianity ?' Every party, I sup
pose, would be ready to say, ' ours.' The re
joinder, it may be presumed, would be ready.
' What ! ye, in whose rule of life I read that ye
should be of one mind-\, am I to walk with you, or
with whom of you am I to walk, when I find you
all differing with each other, and continually
raising strifes amongst yourselves, and disputing
* Psal. cxxxiii. 1 .
t ~ Cor. xiii. 11. and elsewhere.

37
about your faith and worship, in the very teeth
of your own Scriptures? No: I dare not join
you. If, whilst you call your religion a religion
of peace, your practice shews it to be so much
otherwise, I must refuse the shade of refuge held
out to me, until the tree is better known by its
fruits.' Again, I firmly believe there is no one
circumstance whatever, from which, if not
throughout Christendom, at least in our own
country, Popery gains so much substantial
strength, as from the divisions of Protestants
amongst themselves. The boasted ' centre of
union ' does, indeed, in contrast with these evils,
seem to present some advantages ; and if it were
hot, that no axiom can be a more unquestionable
one than the following, — Truth is superior
to Peace, — the ranks of Popery would probably
be swelled froin the effects of this contrast. At
any rate, I believe from my heart, that Dissent
prevents many, many converts to Protestantism.
Under these circumstances, therefore, if my ar
gument be admitted ; to the Heathen and to the
Papist ; to those in the Church, and to those out
qf it, Dissent must present itself as " unseemly."
7. In affixing the epithet of " unlearned"1 to
the same body, two objections will, I doubt not,
be taken by two descriptions amongst those
whom it is meant to affect. Of these, the first
will say, ' Well, what of that ? What is learning

38
without piety ? or, rather, what has learning to do
with piety V — The other description will, perhaps,
at once deny the charge.
To the^r^, I anticipate no difficulty in reply
ing. Against the second, I despair not of main
taining my affirmative, where it is necessary.
To the first I answer unhesitatingly : learning
has a great deal to do, if not always with the
personal possession, at least with the effectual pro
pagation, of piety. First, but for learning how
would you, and the rest of the unlearned, have
possessed the Bible in your own " tongue wherein
ye were born*," as you now. do ? This gift is not
from above, in the way of supernatural aid only,
but cometh from below also, namely, through the
exertions of human learning, the fruits of human
diligence. Again, but for learning, how would
the Bible have been kept pure ? The fountain of
life would be muddied by heresy and unbelief;
and no cleansing power, as far as we can judge,
would be at hand. But yet farther : who of you
is there so bold as to deny, that, but for learniug
somewhere within the Christian Church, error and
heresy, not only would creep in, as it does now,
but also overwhelm truth ? Lastly, in the Bible
we read, " are things hard to be understood, which
they that are unlearned and unstable wrest unto
* Acts ii. 8.

39
their own destruction *." If this be the case, and
if we are thus taught by inspiration, how can the
unlearned be kept safe and upheld, without the
prop of learning ? And in whom is this learning
to be found, but first and foremost in their reli
gious teachers ? The boasted illapses of the
Spirit, pleaded in lieu and at the expence of
learning, however boldly they may be set up,
and however such pretensions may be actually
strengthened in the eye of the vulgar by mani
festations of real piety, what warrant have they ?
Are they sealed and ratified by what the Apostle
terms " demonstration qf the Spirit, and qf
power f ?" Do we behold the dead raised, the
blind restored to sight, the lame made to walk,
the lepers cleansed ? Are the pretensions brought
in contempt of learning upheld by any evidences
such as these ? They are not. We know they
are not. They are mere pretences therefore.
The result of self-deceit and enthusiasm at least,
if not of a wilful and wicked desire to deceive
others. They must at once be set aside. And in
lack of miraculous aid, how but by learning is
the full light to be drawn out of Revelation,
whilst with our highest efforts we are permitted
only to "see through a glass darkly %?" To
the Soberminded the question answers itself.
* % Peter iii. 16. \l Cor. ii. 4.
% 1 Cor. xiii. 12.

40
The sectarian teacher may glory in his ignorance,
but in so doing he condemns himself and those
who listen to him.
To such, however, viz. our second class, as
may be disposed to deny that learning is defec
tive amongst the Dissenters, at least amongst
their teachers ; I must produce my proof, or drop
my affirmation. My proof is therefore offered.
Amongst the Presbyterian teachers, as far as they
reach, we may reasonably look for, and doubtless
shall find, a considerable share of learning ; be
cause their connection with an established and
endowed Church in an adjoining part of these
Dominions gives them great advantages in this re
spect over their Dissenting brethren. Amongst
the Independents too, and partially amongst the
Baptists, , their academies may keep up a certain
stock of learning, sacred and profane. But how
scanty that stock is comparatively, the extent of
their productions from the press, and the general
character of their labours in the pulpit, are suffi
cient to testify. Amongst the Socinians, or Uni
tarians, (by which ever name they choose to call
themselves) there is, perhaps, some portion of
critical research at least, if not of learning : al
though these are a class of Dissenters I wish, in
the present enquiry, to advert to as little as pos
sible ; and they are, moreover, so very few in num
ber, compared with any other sect of distinction, as

41
scarcely to deserve here special notice. Passing
on to the Methodists in general, and to that spe
cial sub-division which unquestionably grew out
of them, viz. the Primitive Methodists, or Ranters :
— with two or three exceptions, and no more,
Adam Clarke, for example, and one or two be
sides ; these must be thrown into the first of the
two classes under this head : viz. such as find it
convenient to decry human learning (as they call
it) altogether, and to pronounce it wholly unne
cessary to the propagation of true godliness.
Throwing these out, therefore, from the present
class, in what remains of the Dissenting interest,
what is the aggregate of learning, sacred or
profane, presented to us ? Surely, very little.
I am very far indeed from affirming, that learn
ing has always been kept at bay by Dissent ; or
disposed to deny that it has been partially encou
raged. In what we may call its infancy especially,
namely, before and during the Usurpation, and in
the reigns of the first and second Charles ; the
names of Milton, Ainsworth, Baxter, Matthew and
Philip Henry, and Poole, shine as stars in the
firmament of sacred literature. Neither must we
forget in later days the names of Leland, Taylor
(of Norwich), Chandler, Doddridge, and Lardner ;
or fail to offer to their memories in this connec
tion, the tribute of deserved respect. But if we
come' to collect all their worthies together, begin-

,42
ning from the Reformation downwards ; ahd set
them by the side of our Cranmer, Hooker, An
drews, Lightfoot, Brian Walton, Usher, Pearson,
Hammond, Jeremy Taylor, Warburton, Butler,
and Horsley, with a long list of et ceteri ; how do
the former kick the beam ? Indeed, to state the
matter fairly, this is a defect naturally to be
looked for amongst Dissenters : and only with
justice to be objected to them, as it is an evil
incident and essential to their system. For un
der this system, it is unavoidable and unblamea
ble. Whatever may be the real Or supposed
evils of an Established Religion, it has clearly
this benefit at least : of being in tendency subsi
diary in the highest degree to learning. The
wealth, dignities, honours, emoluments, and splen
did endowments connected with the seats of
learning, whether for boyhood, youth, or man
hood, all give advantages, which Dissenters, what
ever might be their wish, must vainly attempt to
vie in. Whatever opinion, therefore, may be
formed of this attribute of Dissent, it cannot at
least be denied to belong to it: viz. that it is
unlearned. Lastly, I come to the very grave and serious
charge (conclusive assuredly, if it can be esta
blished, as to blame somewhere) that Dissent is
Un-scriptural. Highly important as this part
of our allegations against Dissent is in the pre-

43
sent argument ; it will appear strange to say, that
I shall treat it more briefly than any other. Yet
so it will be. And why ? Because the Scripture
cautions on this subject can in their essence be
brought within very short compass, and I wish
to leave them in their naked simplicity to speak
for themselves, without any profane attempt to
add to, or take from them, and their real weight.
What kind of union the passages below appear
to enjoin, and by what means to be obtained ;
what descriptions of division they guard against,
and by what methods to be avoided; whether
Human Laws are to afford any aid to the Divine
Word, or whether moral motives alone are to be
resorted to ; are questions I leave at present un
touched. All I maintain is (for I will in this in
stance state my conclusion before I advance my
proof;) that Dissent,, as Dissent, is Un-scriptural.
The texts follow, without a word of comment.
" Beliold, how good and pleasant a thing it is for
brethren to dwell together in unity ! That they all
may be One, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in
thee, that they also may be one in us. Endeavour
to heep the unity qf the spirit in the bond of
peace. With one mind, and one mouth, glorify
God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Receive ye one another, as Christ also received us
to the glory qf God. Be of one mind, live in

44
jieace *." — "Mark them which cause divisions, and
avoid them. It hath been declared unto me qf
you, my brethren, that there are contentions among
you. Now this I say, that every one qf you saith,
I am qf Paul; and I qf Apollos ; and I qf
Cephas; and I qf Christ. Is Christ divided?
Whereas there is among you envyings, and strife,
and divisions, are ye not carnal and walk as men ?
For while one saith, I am qf Paul; and another, I
am qf Apollos ; are ye not carnal ? Let nothing
be done through strife f."
I wait for my readers' verdict on this con
cluding, but serious count in the indictment.
Guilty, or Not Guilty 1 Guilty, I believe, must
be the answer : and even if the question be put
to the Dissenter himself, out qf his own mouth
will he be judged 'J. "But have a care," he will
add, " I grant that Dissent, as Dissent, is un-
scriptural. Nevertheless, I have not yet granted,
nor do I mean to grant, that it is on my part
sinful. Religious separation is doubtless forbid
den as has been seen : but when we come to the
question of guilt, it is this : ' Who is it occasions
* Psalm cxxxiii. 1. John xvii. 21. Ephes. iv. 3. Rom.
xv. 6, 7. 2 Cor. xiii. 11.
f Romans xvi. 17. 1 Corinthians i. 11 — 13. ib. iii. 3, 4.
Philippians ii. 3.
t St. Luke xix. 22.

45
the separation ? The party compelled to sepa
rate ; or those who thus compel them ? ' This is
in few words the great and real question between
the Church and the Dissenters." Be it so. If
then we are to make good our undertaking, this
is what we have " impartially and practically" to
consider and investigate. Evils, indeed, we have
seen there are in Dissent. But the question seems
to be : Who makes them ? So that after all that
has been already adduced, our argument seems
rather just opened, than closed. We must ad
vance ; we must see what can be done towards
redeeming our pledge.
The question before us appears to be : " At
whose door does the guilt of Dissent lie ? At the
Dissenters', who separate because they cannot
comply with the prescribed terms, or be involved
in the appendant consequences of Communion ?
or at the Church's, who impose these terms, and
give occasion to these consequences ?" The terms
and consequences complained of may, I believe,
be all met with under the following heads : —
1st. Worship.
2d. Discipline (including Government.)
3d. Character of Clergy.
4th. Imposition of Ceremonies.
Sth. Subscription to Articles.
. 6th. Doctrine ; which shall include Catechism
and Creeds.

46
Each of these must be enquired into.
1st. Objections to the established mode of
worship present themselves. In this sea of in
quiry, this ocean of gain-saying; within what
limits shall we confine ourselves 1 Shall we em
bark into the interminable deep ofthe detailed ob
jections, one by one, against the whole contents
of our Liturgy ; keep within the narrower track
of meeting a few of the prominent complaints ; or
lastly, confine ourselves to the still more con
tracted range of inquiry into the scruples against
the Church Liturgy, merely as a prescribed and
pre-composed form ? To the first of these alter
natives. I am very little disposed to resort. The
innumerable cavils which have been started
against our Church Service in detail, present, in
my opinion, so wretched a specimen of meagre,
unsparing, pitiless, criticism ; of captiousness as
opposed to devotion ; of the bondage of scruple
as contrasted with the enlarged and liberal ser
vice of perfect freedom; that I have no heart to
enter on this topic. A few words, however, I will
offer respecting a conspicuous champion on the
non-conforming side ofthis question: Baxter. I
have read the Life of Baxter with a particular
view to the present design. A more painful task
has seldom been imposed on me in the way of
study: but it was one I could not consistently
shrink from, after having resolved on the present

47
argument. In tracing his progress through the
various gradations of his non-conformity, I well
remember the impressions with which I arrived
at the conclusion of his first proposals in 1660,
after the Restoration. I remember most distinctly
before I reached the actual sequel, saying to my
self, 'Well, I know not what the Prelates have
to say to this, but surely this cannot be complied
with.' And as I passed onwards in the Volume,
I felt more and more astonished at a high and
heavenly spirit debased by mean and grovelling
criticism, to a degree that teaches me deep and
solemn lessons. I shall have occasion to refer to
this Memoir more fully in a future stage of this
enquiry. For the present I dismiss it, as well as
any farther remarks on detailed faults alleged
against the Liturgy, with the remark, that if the
(in many respects) heavenly-minded Baxter could
be led into such a frame of mind as it appears he
was by the habit of sifting the imperfections of
the Liturgy, (and who is there says it is per
fect ?) from a taste for such a train of thought,
I say from my inmost soul, " Good Lord, deliver
me!!!" To the second alternative of examining a few
of the most prominent allegations against the con
tents of the Liturgy, I yield more readily. A few
therefore, though but a few, shall be touched
upon : especially as it will be remembered, that
6

48
" Ceremonies" is chalked out as a separate head
of consideration. The objection to our expres
sion in the office of Matrimony, that God hath
" consecrated the state of Matrimony to such an
excellent mystery," &c. must surely at once
vanish, if it is considered that the Holy Spirit of
God has in point of fact drawn an emblem from
Matrimony, of " the spiritual marriage and unity
that is betwixt Christ and his Church :" and
thereby has given a sanctity (or " consecration")
and elevated it to a " mysterious" dignity which
it did not possess before. All this too, it must be
added, without any sacramental import accord
ing to our definition of a Sacrament. The fact
cannot be denied : the inference grows out of the
fact. — In the Burial Service, the expression of
"thankfulness" for the departed being " delivered:
out of the miseries of this sinful world," — of sup
plication "that when we depart this life, we may.
rest in Christ, as our hope is he doth ;" and our
petition implying (if it does imply) the deceased
to have "departed in the true faith of God's Holy
Name :" — all these are not only consistent with
sound piety, but even called for by genuine
charity, if we take our Church as a whole,, and
include the presumption of every baptized per
son's being held in charity to be a member of,
Christ's Church militant, till he is expelled there
from ; whatever may be his hidden condition and

49
destiny as to the Church triumphant. I may grant
indeed, willingly grant to the adversary, and he
will find that it will not pass unnoticed in the
present Treatise, that the arm of Church disci
pline is too feebly exercised amongst us : and
what we pronounce in charity, is from the weak
ness of the Ecclesiastical arm, often capable of
very reasonable doubt as to fact. But on this
point I would rather err on the side of charity,
than expunge the passage: and would prefer
waiting for the fulfilment of the hope elsewhere
expressed in our Liturgy, (as who shall say it
may not hereafter be realized ?) for an amended
state of Church Discipline : a state however, be
it remembered, that the Church alone, in the ab
sence of miracles, is not of itself capable of at
taining or effecting.
With regard to the form of Absolution in the
Order for Visiting the Sick, a very strong ground
of objection in the minds of many ; I speak sin
cerely when I say, that I should really be con
cerned, and I think the Church and private
Christians might have great cause to lament,
were this form to be expunged from its present
place in our Prayer Book. Without meaning to
entangle the present enquiry with a detailed in
vestigation of the Power of the Keys, and the
specific degree to which our Church claims for
its Ministry the office of Absolution ; a very

50
large portion of Christians will, I doubt not;
admit with me, that the offiee of " remitting sins*
does belong in some way to the successors of the
Apostles in the Ministry, whoever those succes
sors may be. Neither, I think, can it be denied,
consistently with the character given to the
Church in Holy Writ, that the power of " remit
ting sins" is not simply one of a mere general
nature, applicable only to assemblies of Chris
tians in mass ; but is also convertible, when need
requires, to the comfort of individual, private
Christians. If this be not so, the glad tidings of
pardon and peace are not so clearly brought
home to every Christian breast, as I at present
imagine them to be. I shall, however, assume
the affirmative of this position. Let the gain-
sayer disprove it, if he can. And if such rer
mission be applicable to the individual penitent,
through the aid of the Ministry, I know not
how under the circumstances it can well be
more modestly and warily exercised, than in the
form now under consideration. It is admitted
too on all hands that this form of Absolution is
the strongest to be found in the ritual of the
English Church. Let us now see the caution
with which it is enjoined : laying aside for a mor
m6nt the manner or degree in which it is actu
ally made use of. The sick person (it appears) is
first to be " examined" by the Minister as to his

51
general "repentance" and " charity:" to be " ex-,
horted" to " giving and asking forgiveness," when
ever any cause of mutual "offence" has been
given or taken: and to the "disposal of his
goods," &c. and where there is " ability" to " li
berality to the Poor." After this " the sick per
son shall be moved to make a special Confession
of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with
any weighty matter." "And then after this Confes
sion," to be thus asked for and obtained ; the Priest
shall " absolve him (if he humbly and heartily de
sire it) after this sort *." Namely, after the form
that follows: which, under the special circum
stances of the case, warranting as they seem to
do every reasonable presumption of the sick man's
sincerity, is absolute : delivered in the name of
the Three Divine Persons, in whose name the
solemn initiatory act of our religion, and the or
dinance of Matrimony, are also performed in our
Church. If the sick person hath "lied unto
God If" in the "humble and hearty desire" he has
expressed, the declaration is manifestly nullified,
but not otherwise. Should any one find fault
with the positiveness of this form, I am not afraid
to answer : if under the circumstances here sup
posed, such a form is unwarranted by Scripture ;
then a declaration of forgiveness of sins belongs
* Rubric in Office/or Visitation of the Sick. + Acts y. 4.
3 2

52
only to the invisible Church. Let this be proved,
before it is asserted *.
Now a few words on the actual use made of
this Form. I very much question whether it has
been applied under the circumstances supposed,
six times in the life of any twenty Clergymen of
our Church now living, by themselves. I state
this with real regret. Without wishing to pro
voke controversy, I scruple not to avow a sincere
wish that the form were more commonly used,
rather, I should say, were more asked for than it
is. Perhaps it will appear extraordinary to say
farther : I wish some of the circumstances it
supposes more commonly existed. Let me not
be thought to wish here, that more consciences
had occasion for being "troubled with any weighty
matter" than there are. No. In a naughty world
there are enough of these already. But the wish
I mean to express is, that where such burden lies
heavy, there the relief offered were more com
monly resorted to f. Then indeed I might join
hands with the Dissenter, as I hope he would in
¦ It is well observed that this " declaration (of the Rulers of
the Church) is not their Sentence, but their Doctrine." Rogers's
Discourse ofthe Visible and Invisible Church of Christ, p. 61.
f In the whole of this argument, the peculiar office, condi
tion, and circumstances of the Clergy, appear to me to be over
looked. A few words, therefore, seem necessary on each of these;
The Clerical office is that of searching the Scriptures, and ex
amining them, for the purpose of enlightening the consciences
of the people on points of faith and practice. The condition of
this body, is that of men previously instructed for being fit ex-

53
such case join hands with me, and say, " Now
may we allowably think, that the ' hope' ex
pressed in the Burial Service may be offered in
truth, as well as in charity. Here at least is an
apparent wish to be forgiven, and symptoms
also, let us trust, of resolution to amend : our
hope, therefore, let us believe, is one that maketh
not ashamed." I have dwelt the longer on this
topic, because, in the handling of a recent con
troversy there has appeared, I think, somewhat of
an unworthy lowering of the Church of England
ground on this subject *. I mean not to offend,
pounders of God's revealed will. Their circumstances are those
of having facilities for daily exercising their acquaintance in reli
gious truth, as applicable to the human heart and will. To
these particulars let Mr. Rogers's qualification be again added.
The Protestant Absolution is not judicial, but doctrinal. — See
alse Scott's Christian Life, part i. pp. 245 — 251 ; especially
pages 249, 250.
• See British Critic, No. I. for October, 1825, pp. 140— 143.
In the admirable Letter of Dr. Philpotts to Mr. Canning, which
I am happy to observe has gone through three editions in a few
weeks, Dr. Philpotts does justice to Absolution, and in it I
doubt not in his intent, to the view his own Church takes of it ;
when he states it to be " a power our Saviour conferred on his
Apostles, and in them on their successors to the end of time,
(when) soberly and soundly understood."— See Philpott's Letter,
&c.p. 101 — Inarecent publication of very considerable interest,
it is stated of this part of our Prayer Book, that our Reformers
deemed it " wise to retain a form which may prove essential to
the comfort of individuals escaped recently and imperfectly from
(the Romish Church's) insidious toils." — Soames's History of
Reformation under Edward VI. — I know of no foundation in
history for this assertion.

54
but I wish to offer my deliberate sentiments
openly, and without reserve.
To close this examination, I will simply add —
that if any one will be at the pains of examining
the Life of Baxter (p. 310. Lib. i. Part 2.) for the
details of his objections to the Sunday Collects
for the year ; he will at once be able to discrimi
nate between the spirit that grasps at shadows of
defect in our Liturgy, and the meekness, gravity,
learning, piety, diligence, and humility, that mark
and belonged to the original composers of it.
For my own part, so satisfied am I with the
Liturgy, as we now have it ; that without claim
ing for it any thing like the credit of a perfect
performance, the prospect of improvement in the
main appears to me so faint, and the hazard of
material deterioration so considerable, that I hope
sincerely, no attempt at alteration may be made!
" Nolumus (I would say for myself and my coun
trymen) Liturgiam Ecclesise Anglicanae mutari."
If a few words are wanted here to meet the
gainsayer of our Liturgy, on the ground of its
being a pre-conceived and settled form*, they
will be very few that will be needed.
The numerous vindications of our form of
prayer against this objection make it both super-
* It is material to observe here, that amongst a large propor
tion of separatists from the Church, (viz. the Methodists), a dis
position to return to Liturgies has extensively manifested itself.

55
fluous and unbecoming for me to dwell on it. I
will simply, therefore, add three short extracts
from the judicious Archbishop Seeker: — "Prayer
is the voice of the people to their heavenly Fa
ther; and should therefore be preserved, with
singular caution, from every thing, which they
ought not to say, or may not immediately
comprehend or approve; else, in such parts of
the service, either they do not pray at all, or
pray amiss." — " What multitudes would there be,
who, through inability, carelessness, want of me3
mory, diffidence, or imprudence, would fall vastly
short of (the public forms), were every Minister
in the Nation to use, every time he officiates, a
new prayer ofhis own devising upon the spot! —
Forms of prayer will be found not so often defec
tive perhaps in the matter of uncommon and ex
traordinary wants or mercies, as extempore
prayers are in, what is far more neeessary, ex
pressing common and ordinary ones *." And I
will farther ask the plain question : Whether is
to be preferred, the careless, often ignorant and
irreverent addresses to the Deity, such as are very
commonly the result of extemporaneous efforts,
and to which the congregation can hardly collect
themselves to give their transient assent, before
they must pass on to another petition : or the
* Seeker's- Works. London edition, 1804. Vol. ii. p. 599.
597. 596.

56
grave, reverent, sober, yet pious, results of skill
and learning appointed by public wisdom; re
ceiving the sanction of public authority ; and this
placed in the hands of the assembly of worship
pers, before they use it, so as to enable them to
know beforehand what they are about to ask ? — I
put out of this question all vain pretence of il-
lapses of the spirit : because these must neither
be advanced nor admitted without the seal of
outward miracle to attest them. Neither is it by
enthusiasm I can allow this question to be an
swered. To the sober and judicious I submit
it. " I speak as to, wise men, judge ye what I
say *" It must not be omitted in conclusion, that
the Hymn Book of the Conventicle, of which
plentiful use is made, is to all intents and pur
poses as much a form as the Prayer Book of the
Church. 2. The Government of our Church is pleaded
as affording just ground for separation from it.
What is that government in its leading feature ?
Diocesan Episcopacy. From the memoir of
Baxter by himself, already referred to, it should
seem as if the last of these two words contained
no ground of solid objection to a considerable
portion of those, who in his days eventually
refused to conform |- Episcopacy they did not
* l Cor. x. 15.
t It has been suggested to me here by a very valuable friend

57
object to, or hardly scrupled at. But it was the
Diocesan character of our Episcopacy they pro
fessed to remonstrate against ; and the deputation
of some portion of this government to Laymen :
viz. Lay-Chancellors. With regard to ihe former
of these two points, their wish seemed to be for a
Parochial Episcopacy : for one person, that is, in
each Parish to preside over all other members,
whether Lay or Clerical, in that Parish : and in
Parishes where only one Clerk was needed and
no Curate, that each Incumbent should be a
Bishop. This they held to approach nearest to
the primitive model, and considered our enlarged
extent of Episcopal Government to be a manifest
departure from the original and primitive disci
pline. To those who will be at the pains of ex
amining Baxter's share in this controversy, him
self a very considerable mover of it, it cannot fail
of appearing as an important admission in favour
of our form, that Episcopacy itself is_ admitted to
be at least primitive, if not Apostolical. A great
'deal indeed is added to confound the mind be
tween our mode of exercising it and the early
that I may have gone somewhat too far back in referring to
Baxter here. But the truth is, that although our Episcopacy is
now practically much slighted, I am not aware of any very mo
dern arguments against it. With Non-Conformists, the original
arguments of the times I quote from are, I apprehend, still con
sidered of force.

58
one : but the fact of its ancient existence and
usage is asserted and allowed. This at least is
important. Although it could hardly have been
otherwise, considering how very clear the early
testimony is. The stumbling block, therefore,
appears to be the Diocesan character of our Epis
copacy, In Baxter's own words :
" If you will return to the Scripture Pattern,
every stated congregation that hath one altar,
must have Pastors (not one Pastor) that have the
government of the people ; and if you will return
to the Primitive Episcopacy, eminently so called,
every one of these Churches should have a Bishop
with Fellow (not inferior) Presbyters as his col
leagues, or Deacons at least in smaller Churches."
P. 237. Lib. i. Part. II.
And again : " You know that the depriving qf
all the Parish Pastors qf the keys of government
is the matter of our greatest controversies."-^-
P, 251. Lib. i. Part II.
The looseness and inaccuracy of statement in
the first of these two passages can hardly escape
notice. But upon the alleged difficulty, let three
questions be asked and answered. First, Are not
Timothy and Titus both manifestly individuals
set over others in the Church, and those others of
the Clerical as well as Laick Order ? Secondly,
wherever Episcopal authority prevailed (of which
the early footsteps have in vain been attempted

59
to be trodden out) was not the Bishop over all
the Clergy and Laity within the sphere of his
authority, whether that sphere were great or
small ? Lastly, as to the extent of each Bishop's
power, in proportion as the limits of the Chris
tian Church became extended, was not the circle
of Episcopal authority extended also ? Upon this
last enquiry, I beg to confront with Mr. Baxter's
statements just cited, the language of not inferior
authority on a question of fact relating to ages
long past :
" o MapEwrije X<*>pa Ti\g AXt^ovSpEiag eoti, Kai oiiSe7tote
sv tjj %wpa -ys-yovEV En"icrK07roc, ouSe XwpE7rt'trK07roc;" aXXa
tw rfje AAfi^avopEtae JLirHTKoiru) al EK/cAi)<n'ai Traffic Trig
yuipag v-noKUvrai SKaarog Se twv Trpio-^vTspiov e^ei rag
iBlag Kufiag." — Athanasii Opera, Ed. Coloniae,
1686. V. i. P. 802.
" Mareotis is a country of Alexandria, and in
this country there has never been a Bishop or
Deputy- Bishop (Arch-deacon) ; but the countries
of all that region are subject to the Bishop of
Alexandria ; and each of the Presbyters has his
own villages *. All the questions here proposed
• It will not fail to be remarked in this treatise that
Athanasius is the only Christian Father I have quoted. I will
give the reason. It so happened, that following the stream of
the Fathers downwards, I had reached Athanasius whilst I was
engaged in the present work. To him, therefore, I have applied
for what authority I needed, as it came warm from my memory,

60
I answer in the affirmative. I wait to see
who will produce authentic history, warranting
him to answer them in the negative. If my affir
mative is unimpeached, it is manifest that Dio
cesan Episcopacy has the sanction of ancient and
pure usage.
With regard to the alleged incompetency of
this appointment to its end, I deny the allegation.
Two splendid instances of the efficiency of this
Office in an immense sphere of action may be at
once adduced, from our own times and country
too: I mean those of the two (late) admirable
and lamented Bishops of Calcutta. Of these
deplored individuals I will ask, Was there any
corner of their vast Diocese to which their influ
ence, directly or indirectly, more or less, did not
reach ? To themselves personally, indeed, and
thus to the interests of the Christian Church
secondarily, the extent was severely burdensome,
and as respected physical capability, fatal ; and
I trust no similar sacrifice will again be required
by our Governors : — but the efficiency was mani
fested. And if in this vast Circuit Episcopacy
could be found effective, where else shall we rea-
and ready to my pen. I did not seek to multiply references to
support my argument, on points wherein it is well known they
are so abundant, till I was asked for them. When called for, I
feel no doubt of being able to produce them. The facts, however,
on which I have built my arguments are so supported by history
and learning, that I do not expect to be called on for them. 8

61
sonably doubt its capability ? I have confined my
self here to the two remote appointments from
home just mentioned ; not because I could not
readily point to many and distinguished instances
near at hand, and under our own eyes, of the
efficient influence of Episcopacy ; but because it
was of most weight to my present argument, to
produce my examples from those of the largest
grasp and extent. Neither, under the present
topic, should the subsidiary office of Arch-deacons
be forgotten. As a ground of schism, therefore,
our Diocesan Episcopacy I think is untenable.
Upon the question between the Episcopalian and
the Presbyterian, whether two or three orders are
to be found in the Christian Church; and of
these enumerations, which is the most Apos
tolical ; the single undoubted fact of three orders
being found so early as the days of Ignatius*
(only seventy years after the death of Christ, and
not ten after the death of the last Apostle, St.
John) is a clue to the interpretation of Scripture
facts, and Scripture language not to be gainsaid.
The question, I conceive, can descend no lower in
the scale of Dissent than we have now gone. The
degrees below this of Independent *, Methodist,
* See Hoadly's brief Defence of Episcopal Ordination, p. 360.
and Potter on Church Government, p. 154 — 161.
* Of the congregations called by this name, sorry am I to

62
&c cannot stand against precedent and antiquity «•
Upon the remaining point of Lay- Chancellors,
I will so far anticipate what I shall hereafter ad
vance on this head, as to say here, that upon the
best judgment I can at present form, though I
admit with imperfect knowledge on the subject,
I do think them an abuse: but not such as to
justify separation*.
3. The third objection I have supposed the
Dissenters to allege against the Established
Church, as now constituted, is that of the cha-
express my belief, but so I do believe, that the only individual
not Independent is the Minister.
* After I have said all my present plan urges me to say in de
fence both -of our Liturgy and our Church Government against
the objections of the Non-Conformists, I will not depriveboth these
subjects ofthe advantage of referring to a very lively and touching,
as well as cogent and powerful defence of them, to be found in the
work entitled, " EiKwy Bao-iXk-j/." Whether that book really
had its origin from King Charles the First's own hand, is a ques
tion that can never fail of being interesting to the English
Nation, and has lately been revived under circumstances of 'con
siderable interest. The manner in which this enquiry has been
conducted by Dr. Wordsworth on the King's side, and the
counter-statements with which his observations have been met by
others, as far as I am aware of them, leave on my mind at present
no doubt of the work's being really the King's. The enquiry is,
however, so truly interesting, that I wish it may be yet farther
investigated, if necessary ; since there appear to be very copious
circumstantial and other materials, for arriving, as near as may
be, at the truth.

ti3
racter of its Clergy. I rather think that this!
head of objection seems to belong mainly to the
Methodistic separatist, and the multifarious off-.
spring generated from him. The Presbyterian
and Independent are rather disposed to be con
tent with objecting to the origin and source of our
designation and appointment, without extending
their complaint to our unfitness for the office :
though with the latter sect I will by no means
affirm this to be universally the case. On the
score of learning, none, I believe, will venture
into the field against us in the way of competi
tion : although I shall feel prepared to admit pre
sently, that we are not so learned a body as the
great advantages we possess in this particular
might perhaps somewhat reasonably induce the
community to expect. But when our ministerial
character is impugned, it is generally on the
ground of lack of personal piety, or public pro
fessional usefulness. I scruple not to lay a great
deal of arrogance at the door of those who urge
the former of these two objections. First, I verily
believe it has never been publicly alleged, with
out being over- stated. Next, want of personal
piety is a charge very difficult to be brought
home to any public body of men, much more to
such a body as the Clergy : and is almost always
one uncharitable tp urge. In the present instance*
however, I firmly believe it to be in mass un-

64
founded: though doubtless there are, and ever
will be, some cases to support the allegation.,' In
so sweeping a censure, the fair question is : ' Is
the majority, or any thing like the majority, of
this description ? ' Rather, are not those who de
serve the stigma, a minority not less contemptible
in numbers, than in character? If so, the objector
is manifesting an unbecoming wish to vilify a
whole body for the sake of a few unworthy mem
bers. With regard to the second charge, I appeal
confidently to the Methodistic separatist, with
whom, perhaps, more than with any, this allega
tion lies, and ask : Does he perceive the Parochial
Clergyman in general less willing to obey the calls
of regularly prescribed duty, than the Circuit
Preacher, Lay Preacher, or others in his connec
tion are, in their several offices, not so clearly and
surely authorized ? I boldly challenge him to
produce any circuit, or neighbourhood, in which
one in four of the Clergy can be shewn to suffer
by this comparison. I will grant indeed, readily
grant, that the Methodist Preacher may find more
to follow him than the Church Clergyman : but
the question is, Can he produce proof in greater
proportion than I have mentioned, of the Paro
chial Clergyman's being outdone by the Methodist
Teacher in punctual and dutiful attendance on
the Public Offices of Religion, according to their
respective rules : in Visiting the Sick, when they

65
are sent for, (or often, perhaps more commonly,
when they are not sent for,) or in instructing the
young ? If he can, let him produce them. The
Church will be benefited by knowing them. It
shrinks not from enquiry into, or exposure of, its
unworthy Ministers. But if the evil of diminished
respect to the Established Clergy's ministrations,
(whether public or private) arise out of an eager
thirst for novelty, or itching ears for enthusiastic
appeals to the passions, rather than a taste for
addresses to all the internal faculties of man, in
cluding his judgment as well as his affections;
then is the blame not to be laid at the door of the
regular Pastor, but of the flock who chuse on
this score to desert him. With respect to Non-
Residence, I feel persuaded, in the present day,
this will not be charged on the National Clergy.
There never perhaps was a time when it prevailed
less. And if Pastors are Resident, and not negli
gent of their duties, as far as the temper of the
times they live in will allow, where is the phan
tom of carelessness and neglect? It vanishes from
the sight. Except, indeed, as it may only be
raised up by the contempt and secession of the
objector himself.
4. The next allegation to be met, on which unr
questionably as a great deal has been, so still
more might. yet, be said ; is the imposition of Ce
remonies. If the tomes that have been written

66
on this subject in our own and other Reformed
Countries, whether for or against, could be
brought together; or even a full list, omitting
none, be produced ; I am confident the reader's
astonishment would be excited : and, whichever
side of the question were taken, he would be
ready to say, * What an expenditure of time and
talent has there been on this, after all, compara
tively very subordinate point' Considering the
number of treatises that have been written on this
subject, and how much real learning and talent
have been brought to it ; it might almost seem
proper, as well as reasonable, to abstain from de
taining the reader of this essay upon it. And
yet, on the other hand, seeing that in point of
fact one early, and in some respects consi
derable, (though, I suspect, declining) body of
Dissenters, the Independents, build their dissent
very much upon this foundation ; it will hardly
be paying a proper respect either to them, or the
great question I haye undertaken, to abstain from
all consideration of it. I shall, therefore, treat
this head of objection much as I have done a
former on the alleged faults of the Liturgy : viz.
take a few of the Ceremonies principally com
plained of, and rest the whole weight both of
objection and reply on these.
But first I will introduce these particulars with
one general remark. I know not whether I am

67
speaking any Clergyman's or any Churchman's
sentiment, besides my own ; although I am in
clined to think very many in the Church of Eng
land, both Clergy and Laity, would not object to
adopt the declaration I am about to make. It
is this. Provided the great body of Dissenters
throughout the land would come forward col
lectively in a manner properly accredited, and
say to the Church of England : " We are for a
general union in religion: give up your Cere
monies and we will come over to you :" I for
one would be for giving them up. I repeat my
belief, that others, perhaps many others, would
join me in this language. Indeed I am not at all
sure that it is far from the spirit of the Church
of England itself on this point. But if our pro
posal to give up all our Ceremonies for the sake
of Union should be followed or rather mixed up
(as we know it has been) with one, two, three,
ten, twenty, thirty objections to the phraseology
and other contents of our Liturgy; when our
readiness for Union on this particular ground is
met and repelled by a hundred cavils on other
grounds of objection ; then it is at least not fair
to state Ceremonies as the ground of Dissent.
It is at most only a cause. And when we disco
ver after a concession on this point, that we are
no nearer Union than before ; but rather that the
advance seems to have opened to farther and
f2

68
much more extensive expectations ; then we have
assuredly a fair right to retreat to our old ground
again, and seeing that we cannot gain the point
desired, maintain the original footing on which
our ceremonies first, stood. This being some
thing like the state in which the question of
" ceremonies" is between us and the Dissenters ;
I now proceed to defend the retention of some of
the chief of them, on the admission of such re
tention's not being the only bar to Union.
The first I will advert to is the use of the Cross
in Baptism. Strange! that such an action or
ceremony, or whatever else it may be called,
should afford a handle for debate ! So strange
is it, that it is only to be accounted for by
getting to the artificial state of mind out of which
this cavil arose : for artificial it assuredly deserves
to be called. The Papists, it seems, have been
accustomed to a superstitious adoration of the
cross : to pay their genuflections to it ; and to
address to it a homage, difficult for the observer
at least (whatever may be the intent of the de
votee) to distinguish from that worship which is
due to God alone. Therefore, say some on their
Reformation from Popery, we will give up all use
of the Cross for fear of offence. But surely this
is unnecessary and far-fetched. If we avoid
every thing that savours of worship to a piece of
wood, the adoption of the cross as an emblem on

60
our Churches, or more particularly the use of it in
our solemn ordinance of Baptism, is discreet and
safe. As a lively remembrancer to us of the in
strument of a Divine Redeemer's death, it surely
can do us no harm : rather it may do us good.
We pay no service to it. We look on it ; we re
flect ; we ponder on our Lord's sufferings upon
the tree. Can there be harm in this ? rather as
far as it goes, is there not great good ? Nay, says
the objector, it is Popish : or if not Popish, it
recalls people's minds to Popery, which all ought
to strive to forget as far as they can. Gracious
Heaven ! to what extent may not this position be
driven ? Where is the line of demarcation to be
drawn ? The Papists own seven sacraments ;
they are too many : therefore we will hold
none. The Papists have Bishops, Priests, and
Deacons ; but they have other Holy Orders also ;
therefore we must not retain these. The Papists
worship in Churches ; but they carry on in them
what we hold to be idolatry: therefore let us
have no Churches. I mean no extravagant re
presentation here : but if the objections I have
stated to our use of the Cross are not to be ad
mitted as valid reasons for its being withdrawn,
I do not see how the other matters can, with
propriety, fail of being lopped off also.
It is with pain I have to notice in this place
another passage in Mr. Baxter's life, already re-

70
ferred to. Upon the subject now before us, no
thing I think can well be more disingenuous,
than his language against the Church of England.
He says : " On the receiver's part, it (the sign of
the cross) wants nothing of a Sacrament." And
again in the same page ; " here is an entire third
Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace*." — But
surely after our very explicit declaration of what
we mean by a Sacrament; introduced, it will be
remembered, into our most general vehicle of
popular instruction, the Catechism; this state
ment can hardly be exempt from the eharge of
wilful misrepresentation : at any rate, of a repre
sentation contrary to our declared sense and
meaning. In our " sign ofthe cross," in Baptism
What is there, whereby a charge of Sacramental
use can be fastened on us? "An outward and
visible sign" it is : but of what ? Certainly of
no inward spiritual grace: for the grace, we
hold> has been conferred before the sign of
the Cross is used. The sign or token is of
a duty to be performed by, and (under God)
within the power of, ourselves ; viz. that we
" be not ashamed to confess the faith of Christ
erucified, &c. f " a striking and seasonable lesson
at that time. Neither do we look for any
* Life, Part iii. p. 122.
" t Baptismal Service.

71
thing " given unto us," through the use of
this ceremony, or the ceremony as one "or
dained by Christ himself." Not as by "a
means" do we expect any thing to be received
through it ; nor do we hail it as " a pledge tp
assure us" of any gift out qf ourselves, but as a
token only to remind us of, and excite us to, a
duty within ourselves. In brief, the sign has
nothing sacramental in it, according to our sense
of the word : it is gross perversion of our re
corded meaning to say it has. It is simply a
lively token to remind us of a high duty growing
out of a Divine privilege : it serves only as an
emblem : it is used only as such : and as long as it
has the praise of striking significancy on the one
hand, and is free from just censure of superstition
on the other, I hope we shall retain it.
The use of the surplice, as a " rag of Popery,"
is a subject on which I am confident that part of
the1 present generation who know what has been
said in past ages upon it, will so readily admit
that a great deal of valuable time and talent was
wasted on both sides, at a crisis when each gift
might have been far more profitably employed,
that any reader so circumstanced will, feel obliged
to me for passing it over altogether. I proceed,
therefore, to the next case that readily presents
itself to me.
This is the regulation of our Church respect-
8

72
ing Godfathers and Godmothers : these being re
quired to be persons other than the parents. I
will not deny, that a great deal has been and may
be plausibly urged against us in this respect.
Indeed, if it were not for the unostentatious
character of "pure and undefiled religion" and
that those, as I firmly believe, are most truly
religious, who make the least parade and appear
ance with the piety they do possess ; I should be
tempted to throw this point up at once, and sur
render it into the hands of the enemy. As it is,
indeed, I will allow, that this regulation (though
I will not allow the Church generally, so much
as individual professors within it, to be to blame
for this) is too commonly made a matter of mere
form : and if so, unquestionably of great profane
ness. After admitting all this, however, I cannot
concede to the scruple, or wish the requisition
abandoned. — First, I must plead what I have
already stated, that the retired character of true
religion induces me to believe a much larger
number of Sponsors actually fulfil some impor
tant duties towards their God-children, than are
thought to do so : a remark I wish to give the
benefit of to God-children also, as to their re
ciprocal duty, and their sense of it. A feeling,
indeed, that cannot be censured, of delicacy to the
natural parents may often keep Sponsors silent,
and in very many cases properly so : viz. when

73
the parents do not neglect their duties. But I
imagine it to be very far indeed from uncommon
(though chiefly perhaps in the upper ranks) for
acts of mutual intercourse to pass between
Sponsors and their God-children, of a nature dis
tinctly recognizing the mutual tie ; and the duties
reciprocally growing out of it. If delicacy did
not forbid, I could enumerate instances of the
kind, not few in number, that have passed under
my own positive observation, either privately, or
in the walk of public duty. But even should the
prescribed obligation be generally neglected, and
descend into a mere matter of form, a great deal
must be proved that I am persuaded cannot be
proved, before the blame of this mere formal, and
as it is urged, unreal assumption of duty, can be
fastened on the Church as a body. Rather it
belongs to the individuals who are guilty of it.
I conceive it to arise chiefly from the slight re
gard that is paid to the spirit and meaning of the
ordinances of our Church, even by its own mem
bers ; from the mean and low standard of piety
by which too many within our own body are
disposed to measure them ; and the consequent
reluctance of the many to rise up to the higher
scale attained by the few: notwithstanding that
even the few (if it be so) do not, I am sure, fully
arrive at the high designs, first and now actually
contemplated by our Church in this provision.

74
It is a little hard, therefore, to find the Church
as a whole, or rather, I should say, in its soundest
and healthiest part, viz. its Governors, taxed with
the evils of this arrangement ; because some por
tion of its own members chuse to create them,
by an unworthy admeasurement of their high
obligations. No one, I believe, can safely deny
that the appointment of Sponsors was a very
early one in the Christian Church. Neither will
it be disputed, I presume, by a vast majority of
the Dissenters, that vows should pass in some
way or other on the baptized * ; Infant (accord
ing to the Paedo Baptists) ; Adult (according to
* I was permitted to enrich this volume with the following
touching " sketch," (which has now reached the public, since
this permission was granted me,) from the hand of a living Poet,
whose highly-gifted genius is devoted to the interests of religion,
patriotism, and morality ; and whose " Ecclesiastical Sketches"
will, I persuade myself, live as long as the Church, which is the
subject of them, is permitted to subsist. Quse esto perpetua !
BAPTISM.
Blest be the Church — that, watching o'er the needs
Of infancy, provides a timely shower
Whose virtue changes to a Christian flower
The sinful product of a bed of weeds !
Fitliest beneath the sacred roof proceeds
The ministration ; while parental Love
Looks on, and Grace descendeth from above
As the high service pledges now, now pleads.

75

the Anti-Paedo Baptists). In either case, it seems
decent, and in one indispensible, for Sponsors to
be provided : as sureties for the former, witnesses
for the latter. I do not think I am called on
here to enter upon the question of Infant or
Adult Baptism ; as it is undeniable that a large
portion of Dissenters, as well as all Churchmen,
espouse the former: and, therefore, I shall as
sume Infant Baptism as the basis of my present
argument : it being the prevailing practice in
our own Church. And out of this practice a
necessity for Sponsors obviously arises : seeing it
has been shewn vows must pass on the baptized,
and if these are not in their present state capa
ble of undertaking such themselves, they must
have it done for them by proxy. The only
remaining question, therefore, is, Whether the
natural parents should be the sole persons looked
There, should vain thoughts outspread their wings and fly
To meet the coming hours of festal mirth,
The tombs that hear and answer that brief cry,
The Infant's notice ofhis second birth,
Recal the thankful soul to sympathy,
With what Man hopes from Heaven, yet fears from earth.
If I might frame such a wish for any benefit . that may be
vouchsafed to this treatise, it would be, that it might share in that
immortality which I predict awaits this " sketch" and its compa
nions. See Wordsworth's Poetical Works, just published in five
volumes, vol. iii. p. 424. See also two Sonnets, hardly if at all
less pathetic and beautiful, on " Confirmation," that follow this.

76
to for this purpose, or whether the Church should
go in quest of others ? If the natural parents are
left to be the sole proxies, it is manifest that the
character they assume at the Baptism of their
children is simply that of covenanting explicitly,
and with special regard to admission into Chris
tianity, that which the law of nature, and in some
sense the law of Christ, had before implicitly
bound them to. No new engagement is in reality
obtained : the Church, if I may so say, gains no
fresh security for the Christian training of the
baptized child. On the other hand, if fresh
parties are introduced, it is manifest that new and
before unheard of obligations and guarantees are
created. If, indeed, these newly contracting par
ties think fit to make light of their engagements,
this blame cannot at least lie at the door of the
Church, provided it appears, that the Church has
no desire but that of securing all the helps it can
towards perpetuating the benefits designed by
Baptism. To sum up the present case therefore;
upon all these grounds I feel no hesitation _ in
clinging to the appointment of spiritual, other
than natural, parents. If indeed the whole body
of Dissenters were to say with one voice ; " give
up this requisition and we will conform ," then I
would say at once for the sake of union, " let it
go :" notwithstanding I might at the same time
believe nothing better or so good would come in

77
the stead of it. But if this proposed abandon
ment were only one out of many sacrifices to
Union called for and required ; then as my hopes
for the wished for consummation would be ma
terially curtailed, I would not under these re
duced expectations relinquish a regulation, that I
fully believe has no cause of regret or censure
belonging to it, but that of its high intentions not
being effectually fulfilled or improved upon by
those whom it seeks to secure and bind.
The last objected ceremony of our Church that
I shall advert to, and that but briefly, is that of
kneeling at the Communion. A few words I
persuade myself will shew this to be an empty
cavil. First of all, upon an alarming interpreta
tion of its proposed design being broached, that
it partook of the appearance of adoration as to
transubstantiated elements ; the Church at once
interposed a Rubric disclaiming any such inten
tion, and stating explicitly the precise view with
which the posture is enjoined *. Next, there
fore, the only remaining question is : is kneeling
a becoming posture for Divine Worship ? For if
it be, it is assuredly most becoming in the highest
act of Christian worship, the Holy Communion.
And that kneeling is not forbidden in Scripture ;
rather that there are high precedents in favour
* Rubric at the end of the Communion Service.

78
of it ; cannot need proving to those acquainted
with the Sacred Volume : so that the references
below will be sufficient for this purpose *. The
adversary, therefore, has yet to prove, what
there is in the nature of communicating at the
Lord's Supper as an act of worship, which
should make that unlawful in this part of Divine
Service which is not unlawful in any other.
Thus, therefore, I shut up this point. Kneeling
in worship is not sinful, rather is sanctioned
in Scripture : therefore, kneeling at the Commu
nion cannot be sinful either.
As, however, this objection in particular, and
indeed the whole question of" Ceremonies" comes
directly home to the point, whether or not it is
lawful for authority to impose as terms of Re
ligious Communion regulations, which are neither
commanded nor forbidden by Scripture ; the pre
sent seems the fittest place for introducing what
is to be said on that portion of Holy Writ, which
is the rallying point of Non Conformity : viz. the
14th and 15th chapters of St. Paul's Epistle -to
the Romans. It is not unimportant, in connec
tion with the present argument, to observe, that
these two chapters follow one expressly on sub
jection to the " higher powers." It is assuredly
* Psalm xcv. 6. ; 2 Chronicles vi. 13. ; Daniel vi. 10. ;
St. Luke xxii. 41. ; Acts vii. 60. ; &c. &«.

79
therefore, not an unfair assumption to start with,
that whatever is said in the two chapters now to
be noticed, must not be interpreted in a manner
inconsistent with the sense of the one immedi
ately preceding it. This, indeed, we should say
of any part of Scripture, that no one passage can
be truly interpreted so as to contradict in its
sense any one other: but if any thing can
strengthen this general assertion, juxta-position
must give all the encreased weight the maxim is
capable of. Seeing, therefore, that the 13th of
the Romans is in support of subjection to " higher
powers," the question naturally arises in this ar
gument : Are there any " higher powers" in the
Church ? St. Paul affirms that there are. There
are " differences qf administrations" he tell us,
" parts more honourable" than others, and there
are some amongst Christians who are to " obey,"
others who " have the rule over" those of whom
this obedience is claimed. If then there be
" higher powers" in the Church, it is clear from
St. Paul that subjection is required of "every
soul" to them : even though the particular appli
cation of his general doctrine in this 13th chapter
is to the civil power only. Had there, indeed,
been no express direction of this sort in the New
Testament, yet on the other hand no prohibition
opposed to it ; the civil authority having after
the abrogation of Judaism been detached from

so
the spiritual, it should seem that both alike would
require government, in order to their properly
going on : since there appears nothing in the
character of a religious Society distinct in this
respect from a civil one, to make what is needful
in the latter, otherwise than needful in the former.
But the express language of the Apostle termi
nates all conjecture and speculation on the sub
ject. Taking this conclusion, therefore, along with
us, and remembering that any position inconsis
tent with this, cannot be maintained ; let us pro
ceed to a brief examination ofthe 14th and 15th
of the Romans, and of the inferences the Non-
Conformists would draw from them.
St. Paul is obviously examining some questions
and doubts which agitated, as they were likely to
do, the early Christian Church. Under the go
vernment of Divine Providence and Love, a new
state of things had been created. The partial
dispensation of the Jews was at an end ; the
whole of mankind were now invited into the
Church of God. A very natural question there
fore was likely to arise : On what terms is this
enlarged scheme introduced, and to be con
ducted ? Are the newly invited people to be
brought under the conditions and regulations of
the old ? It is a very remarkable fact, never to
be forgotten in the very controversy we are now
handling, that what we call Divine Wisdom in

81
the highest sense of the word, viz. as embodied
in the person of our Incarnate Lord, had pro
nounced nothing definite on this subject : and the
only formal decision contained in the Inspired
Records respecting it, is the result of the joint
counsels of a body of men, moved, doubtless by
the special influence of the Holy Ghost (for so it
is expressly stated) yet acting at the same time
on those principles of consultation and concert,
that influence all deliberative assemblies now. The
assembly, indeed, partook in every external of
the character of what has since been called a
" council*." This circumstance is strongly in
dicative of a design in the counsels of the Most
High to leave such matters to the collective
wisdom of the Church. But I pass on.
The Church at Jerusalem having made a de
cision on this leading point, difficulties and
doubts still remained in the application. The
Apostle, therefore, interposes, (after a series of
cases stated,) in language strongly marked with
the injunction of two leading characteristics, run
ning through the whole : viz. private sincerity in
each, and mutual forbearance in both. On one
hand, he forbids any to do, or encourage another
in doing, what appears to himself to be sinful ;
* See Macknight's Preface to the Epistle to the Galatians,
Sect. iv. No. 5, at the end. G

82
on the other, he enjoins peace between him who
scruples at a practice as sinful, and him who
feels himself at liberty to the performance of it.
Without going into minute details, no one, I
think, will deny these to be the broad lines of
the Apostle's argument. Now let us compare this
general reasoning with the particular inferences
the Non-Conformists have been accustomed to
draw from it.
The Jews are no longer a peculiar people : the
Gentiles are come in. The Jew maintains by
precept and example the necessity of his con
forming to the law of Moses : the Gentile pleads
exemption from it both for himself and others.
Each persists in his opinion ; nor, it will be re
membered, are either effectually helped out in
their doubt, as respects the case of the Jews, by
the decision of the council already referred to.
Now what says St. Paul between these two
parties « ? He exhorts each to do nothing they
think wrong ; but he exhorts each also to be
tender towards the practice of the other. Now let
this statement of things, and the remarks growing
out of it be compared with the circumstances of
* The distinction of Whitby is well worth attending to here.
He says of the cases in the fourteenth of Romans and elsewhere,
" The weak person (here) is not the man of a doubting conscience,
about a thing indifferent, but of an erroneous conscience about a
thing unlawful." Whitby on Romans xiv. 2.

83
the Non-Conformists and their inferences- The
Pope and his religion were for several centuries
in possession of the western part of Christendom.
At length, a large part of Europe, and England
amongst the rest, were emancipated from the
thraldom both of the Pope and his superstitions.
As in the succession of Christianity to Judaism,
so in that of Protestantism to Popery, a religion
of profession and external pomp gave way to a
purer and more spiritual worship. But let us
pause here, before we go any farther. Let us ask,
Excepting in this broad feature of comparison, is
there any other strong mark of similarity between
the two cases ? Rather, are there not clear lines
of distinction and contrast ? The erection of
Christianity on the ruins of Judaism was effected
by God's own mighty hand; the foundation of
the new fabric was moistened by that one sacri
fice, pre-ordained, and but once to be offered up ;
and " the keys of heaven " were given by Him who
only could, either by Himself, or by those de*
puted by Him, " shut and open *." The esta
blishment of Protestantism in lieu of Popery,
splendidly achieved as it undoubtedly was, yet
disclaims all immediate superintendance of heaven ;
rested on secondary causes only ; had no Divine
* Matt. xvi. 19. Isaiah xxii. %%. Rev. iii. 7.
G 2

84
libation to sanctify it ; neither was the transfer
of power effected by other than human hands.
Even supposing, therefore, that the Apostle's
reasoning and exhortations ought, in every par
ticular, to apply to another case, which, though
distinct, was yet strictly parallel ; it remains to
be shewn, that the two cases here were strictly pa
rallel. But can this be done ? Rather, is it not
already proved, that they were in essential fea
tures very distinct? With these few remarks,
I will take up the alleged comparison where I
left it : viz. at the change from an inferior to
a higher kind of Divine service. Now, what
says the Non-Conformist ?— The 14th and 15th
Chapters of the Romans give us no power to re
main any longer with the Church of England. It is
at our everlasting peril that we do so. The Church
of England still retains vestiges of the ' unclean
thing:' the idolatrous and unmeaning service.
Farther than this, it will not give us liberty to
abstain from following in these tracks, where we
think them hazardous : it imposes the obnoxious
remnants on us, if we conform. We must there
fore separate. It is at the peril of our souls to
continue. Moreover, we hold it criminal to ac
knowledge the authority by which this is' done.
The very acknowledgment is improper. The con
straint is sinful. We claim " the liberty where-

85
with Christ hath made us free *." We shake off
all bondage to such beggarly elements; There
fore we withdraw, but not in schism ; for the
schism is with those who expel us.
Let me appeal to the Non-Conformist, to him, I
mean, who inherits his sentiments from the trou
bles ofthe first Charles, and the vainly projected
efforts towards re-union, on the restoration of
the second. Have I not fairly stated his argu
ment, as drawn from the Scripture before us ? I
believe I have. I certainly have not intentionally
misrepresented it, and shall be glad to have it
shewn if I have done so. If, on the other hand,
it be correctly stated, what semblance, let me
ask, of a similitude can be discerned between the
maxims of St. Paul and their's? The Apostle
tells the relaxing Jew, and the free Gentile, not
to offend the prejudices of the stricter brother of
the elder family of God. He exhorts the strict
convert not to censure the conscientious liberty
of the less restrained disciple. In these two cases,
urged as his precedent, what is there to over
whelm the conscience of our Non-Conformist ? At
worst, the blame is not with him for these (to
him) rigid requisitions. The rulers ofthe Church,
on their responsibility, (and rulers, it appears,
there must be : the same being " ordained of
God") fix on certain regulations for Public Wor-
* Galatians v. 1.

86
ship. No religious Society whatever can be with
out such ; none is without such. Temporal law,
under a state of Christianity, disclaiming all mi
raculous aid, gives the benefit of its sanctions to
these rules. The nation looks for, and claims
assent. Can the Non-Conformist lay his hand on
his breast, and say the regulations are in them
selves sinful? If they are thought to be too near
associates of an idolatrous worship now re
nounced., can he prove that every thing once used
in that worship is therefore sinful ? Will not absur
dity upon absurdity follow him in every step,
while he advances in this line of argument?
Where does the Apostle say: Because private
opinion is against certain unforbidden regula
tions, therefore the governing power must abstain
from such regulations; and, if it ordain them,
compliance is Criminal? If this be said any
where, let the passage be produced. If it be not,
of what weight or bearing are the two chapters
before us, or any other part of Scripture, as to the
scruple here adverted to ? By this string of in
terrogatories, I mean not to give offence. Far
from it. I mean only to say, that I Consider the
two chapters here adduced, to be completely wide
of theNon-Conforming question. And I entertain
a strong persuasion, grounded as I conceive on
his own arguments, that if the great Apostle ofthe
Gentiles were to appear on earth now, to settle

87

the dispute between the two parties, he would
not be found on the side ofthe Non-Conformists.
It was material to dwell on the point of " Ce
remonies," because unhappily it has been, and
still is, one so fertile of Dissent. Let me now only
add, .if there be not in every religious society
some power vested somewhere, for preserving
order and decency in worship, and regulating the
necessary provisions for it, how can either be
expected to prevail? And, let me ask, If any
member in a Dissenting congregation were to, take
it into their heads suddenly, and unexpectedly, to
introduce a new and disorderly practice into their
worship; say — jumping, shouting, oranyunlook-
ed for interruption ; would there not be in some
portion of the assembly constitutional and in
vested power to prevent the nuisance, and expel
the innovating members ? With this question I
dismiss the present topic.
5. " Subscription to Articles" is the next rock
of offence the Dissenters say they stumble on.
This occasion of offence is mainly to be consider
ed as it regards our appointed teachers of reli
gion. With regard to them, the question seems
simply to be: whether "avoiding of the diver
sities of opinions," and " the establishing of con
sent touching true religion *," are, or are not
•Title of XXXIX Articles.

88

consummations to be wished ? If this question be
answered in the affirmative, then I will proceed
to ask farther : Does any better mode of obtain
ing this object present itself, than that of propos
ing to the Nation at large, and especially to its le
gally authorized Religious Teachers, a common
standard for religious faith and doctrine? Into what
points, indeed, and to what lengths, this standard
should be introduced, is an affair to be settled and
adopted, from time to time, by the public wisdom
of the Church. That the Dissenters should ob
ject to the contents of our Articles, as they now
stand, is not to be wondered at : because they
touch on some ofthe chief points at issue between
them and us. But we are now on the subject of
"subscription to any Articles." Without some
thing amounting to this, I do not see how any
thing like a consistent body of religious instruc
tion can be maintained in any Christian commu
nity. Indeed, I believe very few of the chief
sects of Dissenters themselves fail of requiring,
from their Candidates for Ordination, at that time,
a declaration of their faith, to a greater or less ex
tent. This being the case, the only difference
between them and us appears to be, that they
leave the form of vow to be expressed in the
words of him who makes it, whilst we offer a
form already made, and call for the votary's as-

89
sent to it. Of these two modes, I do not hesitate
(calling in all the impartiality I can,) to give
the preference to our's : and for this preference
I will assign my reasons. The prescribed form
being a general one, has not only the advantage
of being framed by collective wisdom, and com
petent authority ; but it has, from the same cir
cumstance of generality, the farther benefit of
being the uniform conjunction of all in the same
declaration : thus presenting a clear, unequivocal
and intelligible test to ourselves and others ; and,
above all, to those whom We are to teach. The
chances are, too, that a form so drawn up will be
more full and home to its point ; than any single
individual's own production. This subject has
been so fully handled, and there are so many trea
tises on both sides to which I might refer my.
reader, that I shall content myself with this short
defence of " Subscription to Articles," as required
of those appointed to be religious teachers.
6. The last Article of objection that I am
aware of, as coming from the great body of the
Dissenters, or any part of them, against the
Church, is that of her " doctrines ;" in which I
must be understood to include, her " Creeds and
Catechisms." For both these have their objec
tors amongst the Dissenters. With regard to
the doctrines generally, as I have placed this
head of objection last, so I am disposed to

90
hope and believe it is likewise the least. In
truth I hardly know where to fix my standard of
defence on this point : so ignorant am I where
the attack is directed. That part of our articles
which respects Government, Ceremonies, &c. has
already come under consideration. The par
ticular sect which divides from us on grounds
mainly connected with the second and third
Persons of the Trinity, especially the former, I
have abstained as yet from distinctly dwelling
on, and shall do so : if I can, to the end. With
this exception, therefore, and after the considera
tions that have already been gone through, I
really know not what in the way of objection is
to detain us here : so little variance is there, as
I hope, between us and the Dissenters in essen
tial doctrine. Some few points, however, there
are. Yet on these, I had rather refer to a tract
already printed and published by myself ; chiefly,
indeed, for local . purposes, but containing my
advised sentiments on all that belongs to this
head *. Calvinism, I will just observe here be
fore I pass on, hardly seems to deserve the name
of a sect amongst us : for there is no division of
Christians set up on this ground only. — With so
* Thoughts on the Erection of a Chapel of Ease in the
Parish of Whitwick, addressed to the Inhabitants of that Parish.
Rivingtons, London, and Combe, Leicester.

91
little difference between the two great parties in
our kingdom on one score of doctrine, it can
hardly fail of being a matter for mutual regret,
that where on so vital a point as this there is so
much union, there should be grounds raised for
disunion on questions of (undoubtedly) inferior
import. With this important remark, therefore,
which I wish to sink deep into the mind of my
reader, whoever he may be, I pass on from " doc
trine" in general, to the expositions of it con
tained in our " Creeds" in particular.
These ancient formularies appear to me in no
Other light, as between the Churchman and the
Dissenter, than as a theme of mutual and joint
Congratulation. With the single exception of
that, 1 am convinced, slender minority, who de
part from the Catholic Faith touching the second
and third Persons in the Trinity, I believe our
Creeds may be treated, in the main, as the joint
property of Churchmen and Dissenters : owned
equally by both, professed by both, and gladly
recognized by both, as imperishable records of
that faith, without which we are yet in our sins.
I have not thought fit to disturb this theme of
general congratulation, by throwing in the in
terrupting scruple against a damnatory clause in
one of our Creeds, because this affects rather the
spirit with which we assert our doctrines, than
the doctrines themselves. Had I thought fit to say

92
much on this scruple, it should have been consi
dered amongst the objected parts of our Liturgy :
yet, although I must not be understood as dis
approving of this clause, or deeming it unchari
table, (No ! far otherwise !) yet I had much
rather drop the subject. Rather let me hail the
general union that prevails on the subject more
immediately before us. L,et me go farther. Let
me entreat "the Dissenter to acknowledge the
obligations he is under to an Established Church,
for the traditional possession of these ancient
bulwarks and preservatives of our faith. I verily
believe the intelligent and discerning Dissenter
is aware of his obligations to a National Church
in this particular. Let him- be prevailed on
frankly to own them. I must, of course, be un
derstood to make the painful exception already
adverted to ; but with this exception, I hardly
despair of my request being generously complied
with *.
* I will just introduce one observation here. A very large
body of dividers from the Church are continually inveighing
against the Established Clergy that they do not preach " Faith."
I certainly do not believe the charge to be founded, and have
stated as much elsewhere. This, however, I will say, in addition,
to the gainsayer : Let him point out any single sect of separatists
from the Church, whose teachers are so well instructed in
' what is really the Christian Faith' as the Church of England
Clergy. Let him point out any book, but the Bible, so compe
tent to.this object, as Bishop Pearson's admirable Exposition on

93
Proceed we to the contents of our Catechism.
Here, it appears, is occasion of objection. Partly
doctrinal, but chiefly as to the plan of it ; some
contending that it does not involve enough for
its professed purpose. The doctrinal objection
arises, I apprehend, out of the view taken of the
Sacraments. Asserting new birth as belonging
to the one, and "the Body and Blood of Christ"
to be " verily and indeed taken" in the other.
Upon the regeneration point, I must refer to the
tract already mentioned *, where I have treated
it somewhat largely. On our doctrine of the
other Sacrament, I must say a few, though it
shall be very few, words. After the strong ex
pression of our Lprd, we cannot do otherwise
than assert the body and blood of Christ,, to be
" verily and indeed taken :" and in a work for
popular instruction, such as the Catechism, farther
distinction would have been both unwise and
unsafe : whilst in the more accurate definitions of
our doctrine on this head, it is well known to be
clearly stated, that the manner ofthis " taking and
receiving" is purely spiritual: and that we disclaim
all approaches to the doctrine of transubstantia
te Creed : and let him then say, what body of Religious Teachers
in England are so well versed in the contents of this book, as the
Established Clergy ?
* See P. 90, note.

94
tion, as well to its more mitigated, indeed, but
not less unscriptual associate, consubstantiation.
With regard to the limited plan of our Ca
techism, I confess my objection if any, would be
of a nature directly contrary. For the popular
purposes of this summary, a declaration of the
Christian vow, of the leading articles of the Chrisr
tian Faith, of the law of Mount Sinai, and its en
larged Christian interpretation ; together with
the Divine model of our devotions, and a brief
developement of its touching contents ; these
appear to me to be all that is mainly wanted : and
were I to question any thing, it would be the
adjunct touching the Sacraments. At the same
time, as we hold (and, as I believe, truly hold) the
two Sacraments to be "generally necessary to
salvation," it may perhaps be fit for the memory
of the young to be trained to the repetition of an
explanation of them, in order that the mind may
hereafter more readily comprehend them : al^
though, of twenty that learn this part of the Ca
techism, it may be questioned whether nineteen
arrive at a proper understanding of it before, if
they do at, Confirmation. The aids of National
Education may in our days overcome this ob
jection, as far as it exists : otherwise I should
entertain a very strong opinion, the reverse of the
one here taken up from the Dissenter.

95
* I had reached this part of my manuscript,
when a pamphlet fell into my hands, too apposite
to the present branch of our argument to be over
looked : and which I am the more disposed to
advert to, because it will give me an oppor
tunity of saying a little more than I have elsewhere
done, on a sect of Dissenters, who have always
appeared to me the most entitled of any to a
charitable construction of their dissent, at least
the theological part of it : I mean the Baptists.
Why I give this preference to them above all
others, is, because there is more in the letter of
Scripture, (by which the unwary and unreflecting,
at least, are most naturally influenced) to warrant
their view taken of Baptism, than there is of any
other sect I know of, as to the avowed ground of
secession. The pamphlet I refer to is entitled :
" Reasons for Christian, in opposition to Party
Communion. By Robert Hall, M.A." now of
Bristol, late of Leicester. The immediate sub
ject of the tract itself is an internal question
amongst the Baptists themselves, as to the ad
mission or rejection of Paedo - Baptists to or
* As the observations from hence to P. 101, are of a somewhat
less general nature than is usual in this treatise, the reader may
pass them over, if he thinks proper : excepting that he will meet
with some curious facts connected with the question in general,
and likewise some remarks on the question of " Infant or Adult
Baptism ?" 8

96
from their Communion. Mr. Hall favours the
former practice. As he has stated the original
question that separates these two parties, I
should certainly take the opposite side. Upon
this, however, I will not dwell. In other par
ticulars, considering the quarter from whence it
comes, the tract is a curious one. — First, because
throughout not less than four pages (from p. 25
to 29.) it contains arguments, which with hardly
a word of alteration, might be employed, for
cibly employed, to heal the divisions of Non-
Conformists from the Church to recommend con
formity in preference to Dissent. In particular,
this very strong passage occurs, (p. 28, 29.)
" The advocates of strict communion plead for
a visible disunion; nor will it avail them to reply
that they cultivate a fraternal affection towards
Christians of other denominations, while they
insist on such a visible separation, as must make
it apparent to the world that they are not one." —
Next, there is a curiously expresssed, though
perhaps as to the main sentiment, from the pen of
a Baptist, natural assertion : " we are compelled
to look upon the great mass of our Fellow-Chris
tians as unbaptized." Excepting in the mouth of
a Quaker, it is new language to me to hear of
" unbaptized Christians." But let this pass.
What I wish to ask of Mr. Hall, or any of his
brotherhood, (be they for what is called mixed, or

97
for -strict communion,) why must they deem Paedo-
Baptists unbaptized? I ask this question, be
cause if it does not involve the whole ground of
difference between us (which I rather think it
does) a solution of it may at least tend to a con
sideration of the essentiality or non-essentiality of
the point in dispute. How then, I again ask, does
it appear that a person brought under the rules
of his own Church, having been sprinkled with
water, in the name of the Holy Trinity, and there
fore considering himself to have been baptized in
infancy, is said by Baptists to be in reality unbap
tized ? Where is this to be found ? Does Scripture
say it? I read there, indeed, that either repentance
or faith, or both of them, (conditions of which in
fants themselves are manifestly incapable) are com
monly named as pre-requisites of Baptism : but
then are not exhortations to these two prelimina
ries uniformly addressed to adults ? Were not
adults then the chief, — but because the chief,
therefore, were they necessarily, the only recipients
of Baptism ? Whatever might have been the case
as to the objects of Baptism, is it not almost an
unavoidable inference, that exhortations to re
pentance and faith would be addressed to adults
only ? But does this prove necessarily, that the rite
is never to be performed, and in the Scriptural or
primitive days never was performed, excepting on
such as can or did engage for these conditions, in
H

98
their own persons? Can Baptism be denied by any
one to partake of the express nature of a cove
nant ; of a covenant between two parties^ God
1 and man ? God condescending to engage him
self to certain promises, provided the other party
in the covenant, man, agree to, and fulfil, certain
conditions ? In this particular does not Christian
Baptism accord precisely with Jewish circumci
sion ? Was not that latter ordinance under the
old covenant, what the former one is under the
new? a stipulation on God's part to accept a
chosen people into his favour, they avouching
themselves to be the Lord's, and called upon to
act as became His people ? Were not Infants
plainly brought under the one, and may they not
by parity of reasoning be brought under the
other ? Did not Christ plainly say, that " qf such
(was) the kingdom of God ;" and did he not say also,
that they only who would " become (in spirit) as
little children," were capable of being really his
disciples ? I will not lay any great stress here on
the argument of children's forming part of " all
nations " whom the Apostle's commission directed
to be " baptized ;" though it is to me more con
vincing than it may be to many : and before I part
with this text, I will ask, whether the interpre
tation, brought in bar of this argument, of the
word we translate "teach" can be fully sus
tained ; considering that one legitimate, if not

99
main sense of the original Greek word (uaflijrsietv)
is, to " make a disciple" or " follower" of any
one * ? After this long string of questions,
I will yet farther ask Mr. Hall or any one else :
Is it safe, can it be charitable, to pronounce
sprinkling in the name of the Trinity, when ap
plied to infants, to be no Baptism ? and infants so
sprinkled to be " unbaptized?" Some may per
haps think Adult Baptism the safe practice: I
quarrel not with that opinion, (though certainly
one not without its difficulties also,) on the con
trary, I sincerely think it entitled to some share
of respect : as having seeming support from the
letter, though by no means from the spirit of
Scripture testimony. But there they should stop.
Let them not be forward to say, no Baptism but
of Adults is Baptism : because there they go be
yond Scripture, and can produce from thence no
Warrant for what they say. Early, perhaps very
early, practice is in the teeth of this assumption :
but independently of this, assuredly Scripture does
not warrant them in making it. If Mr. Hall
would say, " let there be (what he calls) mixed
Communion at the Lord's Supper, because
though we may think Adult Baptism is the safest,
we have no proof that Infant Baptism is sinful;"
and I will join hands with him at once in his
* Parkhurst's Greek Lexicon, Sense 2.
H 2

100
principle of mixed Communion. Let the age and
mode of administration be left as non-essential to
the validity of the Sacrament. But if they will
assert of every Infant sprinkled "with water,"
" in the name qf the Father, and qf the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost *," that it is " unbaptized ;"
then I do say their assertion is both unfounded
and uncharitable. For myself, from the bottom
of my heart, I assent to the language of our
Church Article : " The Baptism of young chil
dren is in any wise to be retained in the Church,
as most agreeable with the institution of Christ f."
I verily believe it to be so, on the score of the
' general necessity ' of Water Baptism asserted
in John iii. 5 J ; of the declared suitableness of
the Infant state for the kingdom ofthe Messiah § ;
of the strong parallelism between Baptism and.
Circumcision ; and lastly, of Baptism being the
universal form of admission into Christ's Church :
for which admission there is no incapacity in in
fants, which did not apply equally to a prior in
stitution, to which we know they were admitted.
But still I do not wish to condemn Adult Bap
tism. I should not strongly blame, however I
• Matthew xxviii. 19.
f Twenty-seventh Article.
J Here again contentions " arise because of the word." But
for what I have to say on this text, I must refer to the Pastoral
Address (p. 19 — SI.) so often adverted to.
§ Mark x. 14.

101
might labour to convince, any who chose on prin
ciple to defer their own Baptism (if they had the
opportunity), or that of their children, till the
adult stage of being. But to pronounce an Infant
sprinkled with water in the name ofthe Trinity un
baptized, is going to an extreme most unwarranted
and unwarrantable. Mr. Hall denies there is any
" connection" between the two Sacraments, either
" natural," or " from divine appointment *." But
what stronger connection can there be than the fol
lowing? Is not Baptism the door into Christianity?
Is there any other safe, regular, prescribed mode of
admission ? Is any one admissible to the Lord's
Supper, but a Christian ? I leave these questions
to answer themselves. And then I come back
to the question from which they arose, and ask,
What stronger connection can there be between
the two Sacraments, than that arising out of the
self-provided answer to these queries ?
I have been detained long by this pamphlet of
Mr. Hall's. I have given my reader, however,
the power of passing it over ; and if he has con
sented to be detained by it, I hope he will
consider what I have said not irrelevant to the
general argument.

We have now completed a stage in our en-
* Page 21.

102
quiry. The case of the Dissenting body is closed.
It remains that we sum up what has been said.
If the preceding arguments are admitted,
whatever advantages the Dissenting interest may
appear to or really possess, seem to be purchased
at the cost, or to the detriment of the following
valuable objects of attainment : Order, Commu
nion, Peace, Patriotism, Economy, Seemliness,
Learning, and, lastly, with the alarming sacrifice
of Scripture itself. With regard' to this last
charge against Dissent, in particular, so heavy
and so weighty is it, that each party in this great
question throws the burden on the other. Both
parties cannot do otherwise than admit, that re
ligious division is forbidden in Scripture ; there
fore, the blame of such divisions is thrown from
one to the other. The Non-Conformists say, Ye
force us to Dissent, by requiring of us sinful
terms, or else involving us in sinful consequences
of communion. The Conforming party say, Ye
falsely allege the sinfulness of these terms and
consequences; and there is no real pretext for
your division, which is consequently schism, and
sinful. To meet this question between the two
contending parties, the two points to be ex
amined are, What are the terms and consequences
complained of? Are they, or are they not, real
occasions of sin, and, therefore, insurmountable
barriers against union ? In answer to the first, they

103
have been named and enumerated ; to the second,
they have been defended and vindicated. Worship,
Discipline, Clerical Character, Ceremonies, Sub
scription to Articles, Doctrines, with Catechisms
and Creeds, have been examined, and no solid
objection to them appears to exist. Either,
therefore, my premises must be refuted, or my
conclusions must stand unshaken. Dissent is
full of evils. The Church is not the occasion of
Dissent. The blame of Dissent, therefore, and of
its attendant evils, lies at the door of the Dis
senters. If this last conclusion be fairly obtained, it
should seem as if it might close our enquiry.
For if Dissent be fraught with evils, and the
blame of these is with the Dissenters, enough
seems to have been proved, to establish Confor
mity, and to throw the balance at once on the
side of the Church. But, as I have introduced
into my Title-page the terms " impartial and
practical," I will not so far hazard my claim to
the first of these, or deprive myself and my argu
ment of every benefit to be gained from the last,
as to abstain from enquiring, what probable
evil tendencies may be looked for in an Esta
blished Religion; or what actual evils, if any,
are found in our's. After which, I shall unfold
what, certainly, I cannot be expected to pass
over, the advantages belonging to Established

104
Religion in general, and to our own in particular.
Finally, I shall then proceed at once to the im
portant practical inferences to be drawn from
the whole.
Amongst the probable evil tendencies which
may be looked for in an Established Religion, the
following appear obvious : formal and external
professions, as opposed to spirituality ; secularity,
as contrasted with heavenly-mindedness ; indo
lence and laxity, arising out of real or supposed
security ; and a proneness to forget the end, from
the ensnaring effect of being surrounded and in
fluenced by a more direct possession of the means.
If it were desirable^ or necessary, to enlarge upon
each, or all of these, (which it is not ; for their
nature is abundantly collected from the bare
mention of them,) yet against these it might not
be unfair to set off certain abstract evils, which
belong quite as probably to Dissent : viz. spiri
tual pride ; a false, and in reality mean, (even if it
be not altogether an assumed) contempt for any
worldly advantages or honours annexed to reli
gious profession ; a profane disregard for external
decencies and solemnities ; and the like. The ba
lance would then have to be fairly struck between
these two different assortments of mischief: and
I hardly know in that case, on which side the
scale would be likely to turn. Probably, still

105
against Dissent. But all these arguments are so
completely theoretical, that I think it far better
to dismiss them, and treat the Church side of the
question in the same practical way that the Dis
senting side has already been taken. I will, there
fore, advance at once to the enquiry : — What evils
are actually found, either generally, in Establish
ed Religion, or particularly in our own ? Some, I
am prepared to admit, there are. I will proceed
to enumerate and enlarge on them as fairly and
impartially as I can.
First, as I have hinted before, I will again avow
my opinion, that the Teachers of Religion in our
Establishment do not come so well instructed or
prepared to their office, as the great advantages
they possess may reasonably induce an expecta
tion of their being. Look at the Public and En
dowed Schools throughout the Kingdom ; look
at the splendid provisions for useful knowledge of
all sorts in the Universities, and then say ; whether
our Established Clergy go forth to their respec
tive charges as learned and well qualified for
their trust, as they might and should be ? I own,
I, for one, must answer this question in the nega
tive. Still, however, a great deal must be said,
before it can be determined whether this defici
ency, if there be such, has any, and if any, what
weight in the scale as between the Church and
Dissent? First, to give it weight against the

106
Church, it must be shewn, that whatever defi
ciency there is, is chargeable on the Church as a
body : or rather, I should say, on its governing
part. I will at once meet any insinuation of this
kind with a flat negative. It is due to the va
luable and highly influential persons here referred
to, that I should do so. Look to the great Public
and other Endowed Schools ; look to the Univer
sities, and the Colleges in them, and say, What is
the character of the heads of these bodies ? What
is to be said of their learning, discipline, moral and
practical wisdom, and, though last, not least, of
their sense of religion and its interests? Assuredly
a great deal, a very great deal. It ill becomes
one such as me to speak on this subject : if my
theme did not urge me on, I should rather ad
mire in silence, than speak where I ought to look
on and listen. But, with the argument before
me, I must speak ; and with this apology, I gladly
speak. Our Endowed Schools and Universities,
then, I will say, shine as lights, as burning lights,
in our firmament. Who is there will say they do
not ? " These are our cities set upon the hill :
they cannot be hid." They are our " lights, put
not under a bushel, but upon a candlestick : to give
light unto all that are in the house: (yes, unto) ALL
that are in the house *." What say they ? for a
* Matt. v. 14, 15.

107
voice they have : and, if I mistake not, " their
sound is gone forth unto the ends qf the world*."
What voice is it ? It is in some sense a still, in
other sense a great, a mighty voice. What saith
it ? It speaks words of sound, useful learning ;
of liberal, peaceable religion ; of science, arts,
and even haply, should need be, of arms. Now
it is heard -in the secret regions of consci
ence : now before a witnessing and admiring
world. Can any of this be denied ? Can the
adversary gainsay it ? Can any rival Institution
whatsoever within these realms be brought to
compete with those I have mentioned in the par
ticulars I have stated ? If not, the want of learn
ing (as far as want there is) amongst our Clergy,
is not to be fastened on the instructors of their
youth. Where then, if the evil does exist, as I
for one have admitted it does, is the cause to be
found ? Shall we say rather in the objects, than
in the channels of the Education thus offered ?
Perhaps we are getting something nearer to the
mark. If so, it behoves me to say a few words
on this. In the public schools of this kingdom,
I might be disposed perhaps partially to ad
mit the charge of something of a defective dis
cipline : and in those, where rank and affluence
are most introduced, my strain of remonstrance
* Rom. x. IS.

108
would not possibly be the faintest. But the ex
tent of it I do not conscientiously consider to
be serious, when compared with the nature, and
almost unavoidable character, of such Institutions*
But when I mount a step higher, and reach the
Universities, as an attached Churchman, I take a
bolder tone. There I stand firmly. Whatever
those seats of learning may have been in days
that are past, (and during these assuredly history
impowers us to say much in their high praise)
for a very large portion of the time I have been
enabled to witness them, they have been in a
state, more or less, of progressive improvement.
If I may descend still lower, for the last few
years, their advancement has been to me most
striking. I consider them, what indeed it is to
be wished they always should be, one of the
highest glories of our land. But after all this
proud boast of their high scale of excellence, I do
not claim for them the praise, if praise it be, of
complete physical discipline, if I may so speak.
I very much question whether their possession
of such discipline would be a matter of just praise
to them. No. At the age to which University
Education applies, moral discipline is the best, if
not the only discipline, to be looked for. In a
youth previously trained as we could wish ours
to be ; eye-service and nothing else ; constraint,
mere constraint, would afford but slender promise

109
of the character that we should hope ultimately
to come forth. Freedom of character I would
rather look for than a vain phantom of complete
perfection. If under the circumstances of this
moral discipline, the object of it is not always so
much impelled, as with the generous feelings of
youth on his side he ought to be, to aims of high
emulation, and habits of honourable diligence;
the effect is one I may not be disposed to deny,
but it must lie at his own door. To his Tutors
and Governors I cannot lay it. I can too readily
imagine the toilsome days, the anxious, perhaps,
watchful nights spent for the good of these young
men, to allow this. If the Candidate for Holy
Orders in our Church, therefore, be not so well
armed for his holy calling with the weapons of
learning, as he might and should be (one single
exception first made, of the unprofessional and
unexclusive character of a University Education,
upon which I shall say a few words presently)
the blame I must lay on the pupil, and not on the
teacher. Hitherto we have traced the novitiate through
the University. We will now follow him to the
Bishop's Chaplain. There, I feel persuaded, he is
required, under the peril of rejection, to make at
least a respectable, if not a shining, appearance.
The present scale of Examination for Orders, of
which I have heard not a little through different

110
parts of the kingdom, I believe to be of the most
dignified and important kind, and in no way un
worthy of our venerable Apostolical Church :
which is assuredly saying a great deal for it. If
this ordeal therefore be passed, the ordained
Clergyman comes before his flock, in the cha
racter of a well-informed at least, if not a learned,
man : of " a scribe instructed unto the kingdom of
Heaven, which is like unto a man that is an house
holder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure
things new and old* A
But does he retain this character? Perhaps
here lies the chief gist of this charge. In the
present state of things, I believe very few newly-
ordained Clergymen go to their respective
spheres of duty without, at least, a respectable
portion of those qualifications which befit them
and their office, as far as learning is concerned.
But whether they keep up and improve this de
gree of professional competency, is perhaps not
quite so clear. Even, however, if the charge of
"unlearned" could be fastened on the Clergy in
this more advanced stage of their course (compa
ratively I mean with their special advantages, for
considered abstractedly from these, in compa
rison with other teachers, I am sure the charge
cannot stand) there will yet be many particulars
* Matthew xiii. 52.

Ill
to be taken into the account before we can pass
judgment on this score against the Clergy them
selves. First, in populous Parishes, and those
most commonly the slenderest Benefices*, the
supply of ministerial aid is so disproportionate to
the need, that very many Clergy could not per
haps (let their inclination be what it may) spend
two hours a day upon an average in the acquisi
tion of fresh knowledge : independently of the
time occupied in pouring forth from their stores
already acquired. Next, the offices of a Paro
chial Clergyman are oftentimes so various, that
in a choice of duties it is perhaps not more
blameable than it is natural, for individual taste
and inclination to prevail : and the cases are not
few, in which active, rather than studious useful
ness, may be at once needful, and highly benefi
cial. Thirdly, the incomes of very many Clergy
men are so contracted, and in villages any literary
aid so little to be looked for ; that without the
help of Parochial Libraries, which are very rare ;
or Permanent Clerical Libraries f, which are still
* This is one of the anomalies in our Church grievous to be
named. The value of Livings is most commonly in an in
verted ratio, to the amount of Population. The reader's atten
tion is particularly invited to the concluding sentiments on this
subject, contained in p. 160. of this treatise.
\ I have the happiness of being connected with one at
Ashby de la Zouch, Leicestershire, which promises to be w.ell

112
more so, numbers must be content with the
small addition to their Bibles, Common Prayer.
Books, and Greek Testaments that they have
brought with them from the University. But,
lastly, I request the particular attention of my
reader to the following palliation, I must only
call it, of want of learning amongst the Clergy,
where such want there is : and if my reader be a
layman, I must invite his attention still more
strongly. It is a remark too that I could wish to
be dispersed over every line of this treatise,
wherever the character of the Clergy is adverted
to, as connected with its influence on public reli
gion, morals, and opinions.
My observation is this : that in an age which
has assuredly been very strongly marked by a
contempt for the special office and character, and
professional endeavours of the National Clergy ;
it is an] effect hardly to be wondered at, should
this contempt have re-acted on the body so made
light of : and that they really may have become,
what the community have appeared desirous to
make them either appear, or really be. I say this
guardedly and reflectingly. I could extend this
important observation over the several branches of

supported, and if so, I need not add, useful. — I have lately
heard too of the establishment of a " Theological Library," at
Leicester, supported by "Members of the Established Church.''
5

113
Clerical responsibility I have just enumerated,
but I will confine what I have to say here, to
learning only. Upon this point then, my argu
ment takes the following direction. If the great
mass of the community have been forward to
run off to religious teachers of very mean pre
tensions in learning ; if even those who have been
content with the Ministers of the Established
Church, have yet shewn an anxiety " to sit
under," as it is called, teachers who have evinced
more of the popular characteristics of mere
pulpit oratory, than the solid fruits of genuine
learning, and of knowledge meet for enlightened,
substantial edifying ; can it be a matter of
surprise, or be considered as other than a natural
effect, if the Clergy have somewhat yielded .to
these discouragements of real learning, and have
in a degree surrendered themselves to the
temptation of contenting themselves with the
shadow rather than the substance ? I am con
fident the community in general have a larger
share of responsibility on this fpoint, than
without reflection they will be disposed to
admit. Let them, however, reflect. Let them
ask themselves, whether, as to any encourage
ment of learning afforded by those whom they
are appointed to teach, the Parochial Clergy
have had a fair chance ? Whether, for the last
twenty years, upstart fluency of speech has not

114
pushed real, well-founded talent off its seat?
If so, again I say, Let the community reflect.
Let them once again give the Clergy a fair
chance. Let real attainments have their just
preference over unreal and shadowy pretensions.
Then, if after a few years experiment, the Paro -
chial Clergy do not keep their fit place in the
scale of religious learning ; let them sink to the
level they deserve. Let them lose the influence,
which a suitable degree of learning, as well as
piety, can alone secure them.
In the midst of all these considerations, but at
the same time with all these palliatives, I will now
advance to my admission, that the Parochial
Clergy are not, for the most part, so fully imbued
with learning as they should and might be. Let
them, however, become better estimated : let
their habits of mutual intercourse increase : let
Parochial and Permanent Libraries be established
(however partially) in Parishes and neighbour
hoods : and, I am confident, there is already so
much seed in the ground, that it will yet spring
up, and bring forth fruit abundantly.
One word I will say before I close, on a subject
I have already slightly adverted to. I will not dis
semble my wish, though I would express it mo
destly, and only as far as I am competent to judge ;
above all, with full deference to those in autho
rity, that the last stage of education for Holy
1

115
Orders could be a little more professional. An
individual of considerable public spirit*, it is well
known, brought forward a plan for remedying
this supposed defect, as it presented itself to him:
the plan received high sanction, and appeared to
be judicious in theory : of its actual application
I have had no means of judging f. Might I add
here a respectful suggestion, whether more
might not be made for practical purposes of the
Divinity Professorships in the two Universities ?
With this respectful inquiry I conclude this
topic. 2. A second point, in which I conceive the
gain-sayer may successfully make his advance
against us, is our practical want of discipline.
Indeed, it seems difficult for a Churchman to
avoid making this admission, when for so long a
lapse of time the Church itself has declared of
the restoration of one very leading branch of dis
cipline, that it " is much to be wished X »'" whilst,
in fact, that restoration has not yet taken place.
* The Rev. Dr. Burrow. See Christian Remembrancer for
1823, vol. v. p. 401.
¦j" It is important to observe here, that if the evil now adverted
to does exist, and needs a remedy, such remedy as the one just
named appears difficult of attainment to any extent. The emo
luments of our Church, in some of its inferior departments, do
not afford adequate encouragement to any expence in prepara
tion for it, beyond that incurred at the University.
J Opening of Commination Service.
i 2

116
Beyond this, however, the admission will very
well bear, and iii common candour seems to call
for, a still farther extension. The Church of
England assuredly does not exercise godly disci
pline, or excite " godly sorroiv *," in her offending
members, as Scriptural Christianity seems to re
quire. It is true, that in the question between
Church and Dissent, it might perhaps not be un
fair to interpose the question : Can any body of
Dissenters lay just claim to a sufficient and effi
cient frame of discipline ? Yet, without waiting
for an answer to this question, I will at once
observe ; that, however readily this defect may
be admitted, the Church is really not to be
blamed for it. I mean the Church in the strictly
religious sense of the word. It must be re
membered, that as long as it has pleased Di
vine Providence to place within reach of the
Church the high and practical benefits of union
with the State, the former has commonly found
itself benefitted in the main by this union. Even
amidst the present diffused influence of Dissent
among us, I very much question whether the mass
of the people would be found to give their voice
for the surrender of this important subsidy to
Religion : notwithstanding that in practice, we
have witnessed in modern times infractions re-
* 2 Cor. vii. 10.

117
peatedly made on the connection between Church
and State *. At any rate, I am thoroughly con
vinced, that amongst the reflecting, well-informed,
and most dispassionate portion of the commu
nity, who upon matters of judgment and opinion,
are surely those mainly to be attended to ; a vast
majority perceive too many benefits, both political
and religious, in the union betwixt Church and
State, to be inclined for their separation : and
the union between the two, now so happily sub
sisting, is one of the last features in our Consti
tution that the bulk, or if not the bulk, the in
fluential part of Englishmen would be ready to
part with. With an inconsistency, however, that
marks portions of the public, entirely [dissonant
from what is substantially the wish of the whole :
a large number of our population scruple not to
weaken, if I may not say, undermine the fabric,
which the very same persons would be sorry to see
demolished or overturned. Very many, I sincerely
believe, are fond ot carping at our Church; who
would be sorry from their hearts to see it upset.
Amongst these, I will at once include a large
proportion of the Dissenters, and already I am
prepared to turn round on them, and say : Though
I accept your charge of want of discipline amongst
us, and am willing at once to admit the defect ;
* See Cases pointed out in a Letter to the Marquis of Lans
downe on Unitarian-Marriage Bill. 1823.

118
yet I am sincerely of opinion, that ye yourselves
contribute very materially to the existence of it.
Let me explain myself.
You cannot be ignorant, that a large number of
you carp at Church Power : claim freedom from
such Power : and more than this, which should
perhaps be sufficient to satisfy your own consci
ences, ye yet go farther, and encourage others in
doing the same. We on the other hand, and many
of us after no inconsiderable study and reflection,
are strongly and conscientiously of opinion that
such power is ordained to exist somewhere : that
those to whom we assign this power, are such as
Scripture, antiquity, and constitutional usage
have given it to : and that one very considerable
branch of this power consists in the exercise of
that very discipline, the want of which you find
fault with. After all, however, we are thoroughly
persuaded, that this power is of a nature only
obligatory on those who have no reason to
doubt they ought to be bound by it : that
conscience is the great, if not the only prin
ciple, under which it acts : and that as to any
penal or statutable provisions connected with it,
these are to be borrowed from the State only, and
given or withheld by them at their pleasure. If
then, ye Dissenters, or any part of you, are forward
in your attempts to weaken the Ecclesiastical
arm ; if ye even aim to enlighten, as ye would

119
call it, the consciences of those otherwise dis
posed to yield to what we consider its legitimate
power ; if, lastly, ye are accustomed to labour in
persuading the State to add to this power as little,
but to abridge it as much, as possible ; ye who
thus act ought of all men to be the last to com
plain of that want of discipline, which ye your
selves make it your endeavour to create. But I
will pass from you to the whole Nation at large.
I will throw this head of complaint as open as
possible. The National Church is defective in
discipline, it is said. Who says so ? The Nation.
Who is to remedy this defect ? The Nation itself.
How? In various ways. First, let Convocation
be encouraged to assemble and deliberate, if need
be. Secondly, let the Canon Law be more sup
ported and strengthened than it now is, by the
Common. Thirdly, let Parliament be as willing to
strengthen, as it too often appears to weaken, the
influence of the National Church. Lastly, let pri
vate members of the Church submit duteously to
such • godly discipline' as the Church enjoins ; and
let those out of the Church forbear from weakening
Church discipline with one hand, whilst they de
nounce against the defects of it with the other.
These are all obvious, and not difficult sources
of remedy, if they are but willingly and cheer
fully resorted to. At any rate, till they are, let
what blame there is fall in the right place.

120
There is want of discipline in our Church, I
admit. But the Church is not to blame for it.
Parliament, private Churchmen, Dissenters may
conduce to it ; but the Church and its Governors
are guiltless.
3. I think a very great defect in our Church,
and dne very conducive to its declension and
decay, if not sometimes in the hour of danger
threatening its destruction, is its un-deliberative
and unsocial character. I will couple these to
gether. I have already spoken of Dissent as
Anti-social; I now speak of the Church as Un
social. It is also un-deliberative, much to . its
injury. I say, I will put these together ; for they
will be considered best in conjunction. When I
say of the Church, that it is un-social and uri-
deliberative, I refer, in the first instance, to the
circumstance of Convocation's having become, for
all practical purposes, a non-entity. This is the
accredited organ of our Church : if this be mute,
it is obvious that Church-efficiency is considera
bly abated. I do not know that I am quite pre
pared to find fault with the feeling of jealousy
that has produced this torpid state : history may
have given some grounds, though, probably, not
full and sufficient ones, to warrant it. Neither
will I so far presume to step, even for a moment,
into the chair of authority, as to say, that our
Church Governors would do wisely in making

121
any active effort towards soliciting from the
crown for this engine of internal regulation, and
wholesome controul (for ivitltout sanction from
the Crown, it is manifest none such could be
obtained), its original, and unquestionably legiti
mate, efficiency. Disputation, as well as vigour,
might follow upon its revival; and the evils of
the former might possibly outweigh the benefits
of the latter. I do not go the length, therefore,^
of expressing an unqualified wish, that the full
faculties of Convocation were restored. But I
feel no scruple in saying, that, until it is so re
stored, the Church has within itself no systema
tic remedial powers for meeting evils that grow
up, or creep in. The transfer of this office to
Parliament is no theme of gratulation to those
who love, with one and the same love, religion
and peace. In Parliament, I scruple not to say,
modern times have exhibited a very feeble degree
of attachment to the National Church : excepting
as far as adopting certain measures proposed by
Government, after no inconsiderable share . of
minute, if not jealous inquiry ; and whatever
remedial processes have taken place there, have
too often been accompanied with such captious-
ness in the discussion, and . inconsiderateness
as to their future bearings and. ultimate fruits,
as to render applications to that quarter very
far from encouraging. : If the Church is to be

122
legislatively regulated,suchlegislative power, I be
lieve firmly, is not either beneficially, or even fairly,
either to the Church, or to Religion as connected
with it, placed in the hands of Parliament. At
the same time, upon the wisdom of restoring Con
vocation to its active functions, I beg to be silent.
If we descend in the scale to lower and more
limited particulars, the spirit and temper of the
times, as to the Parochial character of our National
Religion, have the same lineaments marked upon
them. As far as the Church of England is con
cerned, every Parish is more or less un-social and
un-deliberative. The moral influence of the
Church is not adequately felt. The spiritual
head of the Parish, with his assistant council (if
I may so call it), viz. the Churchwardens (Sides
men, if any), with the more temporal, but yet,
both in a religious and moral, as well as economi
cal, point of view, very important officers, the
Overseers, form not now, as they once did, to
gether with the principal inhabitants, a delibera
tive and social band, an efficient, connected bar
rier against the inroads of disorder, dishonesty,
misrule, and discontent in a Parish. There is far
too little community of feeling, or taste for joint
deliberation amongst these persons: aud those,
who have views opposed to theirs, commonly ob
tain a sway, which both from their measures
and persons, they would otherwise be little able

123
to acquire. On the other hand, if Parish Vestries
had in them more of a spirit of union and con
cord, and a due regard to Parochial Subordina
tion of ranks ; (their actual constitution cannot
be mended :) much of harmony, much of valuable
counsel would arise. In this particular, happily
nothing is wanted in the way of remedy, but a
good and general disposition to make proper use
of materials already existing, and in our hands.
To turn to a brighter view of our subject, how
ever, upon this part of our argument I have now
stated the worst. All is not bad in this respect.
Some concert, some counsel there is to be found
in our Church. And what is an extremely inte
resting circumstance in this particular is, that
although on points of Government and Discipline
the consistency and deliberation of the Church
may appear defective ; it is on the other hand in
the beautiful walk of Charity that her social and
deliberative form presents itself. There, indeed,
she appears both social and deliberative : there she
puts on a most engaging front. If every person
who may chance to take up this tract could witness
the various deliberative bodies in the Church as
sembled on this behalf ; be they General Boards
or Committees in London, or District Committees
in the Country; (not to mention Local Com
mittees for Parochial Schools, &c.) I am confi
dent they would be struck with the wisdom,

124
piety, charity, union, and enlargement of design
that would be found to prevail. Here, indeed,
we shine. I firmly believe the British realms
cannot produce any thing, with the single excep
tion of the great council of the nation assembled
in Parliament, to surpass what I am speaking of.
And no wonder. When the Church is once
brought together, to meet and deliberate ; they
assuredly are a body so constituted, as to give
much ground for hope. Learning, piety, discre
tion, zeal, order, patriotism, comprehensiveness qf
plan, are to be found amongst them. Although,
therefore, I may be willing to admit the charge
here urged in a formal, and upon some essential
points, ostensible shape ; yet, in the grand, com
prehensive design of "doing good," no want of
association or fit deliberation is visible. How
ever the temporal rulers may think it fit, and
whatever substantial reasons there may actually
be, for contracting the constitutional deliberations
ofthe Church; the Church is in reality and sub
stance " not weary in well-doing." It " does good,
and faints not*."
4. . The only remaining objection that occurs to
me of any importance, as lying at the door of our
Established Church ; I should, had I followed my
own design only, have expressed in such words as
the following : " the hostility produced against it
* Galatians vi. 0. &c.

125
by its union with the state." As, however, since
this treatise was first begun, I have seen an Ar
ticle in a Periodical work of considerable circu
lation bearing on the point now before me (an
Article I have already referred to *) : I had rather
express what I am going to say by adopting one
of the heads of that Article : viz. that wherein it
it is said, that "the Church of England is un
popular f." All the grounds of unpopularity sug
gested by that Review are more or less resolvable
into the mode of expression above : but I adopt
their epithet in preference to my own expression,
as conveying my meaning, after a certain sense,
in a shorter compass. The Church of England,
then, I admit with the Reviewer, is unpopular :
provided that is, it be admitted, that I use
the word as descriptive of numbers merely, not
in regard to the real value of their judgment
which constitutes this attribute. In other words,
there are a large number of persons within
the British dominions whose feelings and
attachments are alien from, if not arrayed
against, the'Church. At the same time, I think
I can shew that this train of popular feeling is,
after all, of a very unsettled and vacillating kind.
The best proof I can give of this, is simply
stating what I believe may be assumed as a fact :
* See p. 16. t No. lxxxviii. p. 502.

126
viz. that in the midst of all this seeming disaffec
tion, the very last thing wished for by the great
bulk of the Nation, is the overthrow of our
National Church. Some, indeed, object to the
Church as an Establishment, and very many, as I
have said before, are ready to carp at real or sup
posed blemishes in it : but a vast majority of
England (I will not introduce Ireland here) may
be safely viewed as decidedly in favour of its
continuance. If the Dissenter doubts this, let
him point out the materials from whence he
thinks a majority of an opposite description
would be composed. If, on the other hand, he
asks my reasons for my assertion, I will give
them. First, I look upon the great bulk of the
Nation to be fully convinced that the Established
Religion is an Institution very conducive to
public peace : that without such an Institution,
civil order would be endangered, and faction and
debate encouraged : and that toleration to the
objectors is a better and safer state, than the
possible hazard of rivalry, competition, and dis
cord amongst all. Still, however, I return to
join the Reviewer in his admission, though with
qualification. The Church is with those who are
apt to form hasty and forward opinions, unpopu
lar. Yet I will add the very important question :
— Is it deservedly so or not ? Is it willing, or un
willing, as far as it has power, to fulfil the high
purposes of its designation and appointment ? —

127
Let us examine briefly the grounds on which the
Reviewer accounts for, if he does not mean to
vindicate, this unpopularity. "It is connected
with the Crown and the Aristocracy *." What is
there to blame in this ? Is it wrong to be placed
in connexion with " the powers that be $" Is there
any blame in receiving the smiles of those who
are entrusted with worldly goods, doubtless for
high and heavenly purposes ? Again : " The
system of Church Patronage f>" if it makes the
Clergy " independent of public favour," cuts off
at the same time certain temptations to a derelic
tion of duty : and if " independence" be desirable
for Religious Instructors, so admirable are the
provisions of our Church in this respect, that the
Clergyman is "independent" even of him who
assigns to him his post : and subject only to the
control of his Ecclesiastical Ordinary. I once
congratulated my flock from the pulpit on having
an independent Teacher. I now repeat the same
congratulation to every member of the Church
of England. The Ministers of Christ's Gospel
are men that ought to " lift up their voice, and be
not afraid %." — Yet, again : if " the great incomes
and the pluralities §" are objected to ; I would
ask : whether it is in nature to expect, whether it
ought to be expected, that the Clerical profession
* No. lxxxviii. P. 502. f Ibid.
t Isaiah, xl. 9. § V. 503.

128
should be stript of those secular inducements
to excel, which are freely and ungrudgingly
granted to other professions ? If at the Bar, in
the Senate, in the Army and Navy, and other
liberal professions, the post of honour or emolu
ment, or both, were not to be met with ; where
would the men be found, who now adorn their
Country in all these particulars ? No where, I
will venture to say. And if in these professions
such motives are allowed to operate ; what is
there in the Clerical profession to make the
same motives criminal, unless indeed (in which
case I would pronounce them to be so) they
are not properly subordinate to higher im
pulses ? Abstractedly I cannot, I will not con
demn them. Without the slightest defalcation
of these purest and best motives, I will hazard
any obloquy that may await me from assert
ing ; that without gradations of honour, dig
nity, and (I will even add) emolument in the
Church, learning as an handmaid to piety will
never be found to remain permanently or ex
tensively there. I should be ashamed of my
self, and should well deserve the contempt of
all in my calling, if by this I meant to convey
that higher influences did not move the Clergy
to their duty. I believe as much otherwise as
I could very readily express in words. But I
will not give way to the very unreasonable cen-
6

129
sure against professional advancement, that i»
dealt out more freely to members of the Clerical
profession, than to those of any other profession
whatsoever. It is, indeed, unworthy of those
who make it. What is thought honourable in
other professions, is held base and servile in
theirs *. This is unfair. Upon Pluralities, the
nature of this design forbids my dwelling longer
than the Edinburgh Reviewer himself does : but
this I will fearlessly state to be amongst the indirect
advantages of them, that they bring into action
an order of young practitioners for the Ministry,
providing them with a sphere, wherein to ex
ercise themselves at the commencement of their
office in its humbler functions : an advantage
I do not hold cheap. Total Non-residence,
without a very sufficient cause, I will never
defend in any one. To draw to a close of the
Reviewer's list: of " the difficulty of procur-
" ing places of worship, and ministers of the
" Established Church to meet the encreased po-
" pulation," I have already spoken somewhat :
* I have not- gone farther than to treat in the text of what I
consider the source of this objection, because the things them
selves I do not consider just grounds of complaint: until it is
proved, that such wealth as our Church, possesses is not, for the
most part, rendered subservient to purposes of religion ; or
that, in many cases, deputed, may not answer (for all practical
ends) the full purpose of original, responsibility.
K

130
but the blame, whatever it may be, I unhesi
tatingly transfer from the Governors ofthe Church
to Parliament and Parish Vestries : to be appor
tioned between these as the reflecting and obser
vant reader may think fit. The various Church
regulations, whereby the Reviewer states the
influence of the Church to be weakened, are such
as he says he does " not now discuss the pro
priety or impropriety of;" he laments only the
effect, as I do. But as it would be inconsistent
with my design to preserve the same silence as
the Reviewer does, I will speak out, and ask, —
Whether the joint purposes of Devotion and Re
ligious Instruction would be so well answered by
separating the Liturgy and Sermons from each
other ; whether the pious soul would be better nou
rished and sustained in its devotions by other and
various food besides the Common Prayer ; whether
the " unfettered and flexible activity of Dis
senters * " would contribute at once to solidity
of instruction, and solemnity of worship ? Nursed
in the bosom, and fed with the milk of the English
Church, I must answer these questions, from the
bottom of my heart, in the negative. The Dis
senter, however, must, doubtless, be free to put
in his answer also. Yet, to sum up this head of
consideration, after having examined attentively
the Reviewer's charges, weighed them with the
•'¦"'Ed. Rev. as before, p. 503.

131
best and utmost reflection I am capable of, and
called in all the impartiality I can, with my best
industry, command ; I am unable to withhold my
full conviction, which I offer in the sight of God as
the effusion of my mind and conscience, that if the
Church of England be unpopular, as in a certain
sense I fear it is, the blame is not in the thing
complained of, but in those who institute and
give wings to the complaint.

Another stage of our enquiry is completed.
Let us again look back. We have enumerated
certain evils incident to Dissent. With regard to
the chief of them, the un-scriptural character,
we have examined the pleas on which the Church
is loaded with this burden, and found them
wanting. The abstract evils of all Established
Religions have been briefly stated ; yet in com
pany with certain evils on the other side, ab->
stractedly belonging to Dissent also. The al
leged, or existing evils of our own Church
Establishment have been examined : an attempt
has been made to find out at whose door these
should be laid, so as to be laid there : and such
remedies have been suggested as they appear to
be capable of. Still, however, I persuade my
self the impartial reader will admit, that after
the worst has been said against the Church, the
k 2

132
balance preponderates greatly in its favour. Be
fore finally summing up the argument, however,
it remains to enumerate what I cannot be expect
ed to pass over : the advantages belonging to
Established Religions generally, and to our own
specially : for such assuredly there are. To these,
therefore, I proceed.
Before going into details, I must claim for the
Church such benefits, as are the converse of the
evils already fixed on Dissent *. .Namely, Order,
Communion, Peace, Patriotism, Seemliness, Learn
ing, Correspondence with Scripture. In these
particulars I look upon the Church and Dissent
as contradictories. So that what is not in one of
these two, is in the other. I pass, however, to
other advantages, distinct from these.
In a note to my Parochial Address, already often
mentioned, (p. 40.) I have adverted to four dis
tinct particulars, in which I have said, and, upon
still farther reflection, believe I have every rea
son to repeat, " I think the Dissenters cannot
" deny their obligations to our Established
" Church. 1st. Our authorized translation of the
" Scriptures. 2d. The possession of ancient and
" authorized Creeds. 3d. Some of the ablest De-
" fences (perhaps in the world) both qf Chris-
" tianity and Protestantism; and, lastly, the
" diffusion of a Settled Ministry over the land"
* See Page 2.

133
I have somewhat disturbed my order in inserting
these here, but I thought it best to dispose of
them at once. I proceed.
>. First, Established Religions in general, and
our own in particular, are calculated not only to
invite, but even produce UNION. I cannot be
driven from this assertion in the very outset, by
the fact that, amongst ourselves, though there is
an Establishment, yet disunion prevails to an in
finite degree. There is something of perverse-
ness, I fear, in this particular, and impatience of
control. I will, therefore, for the present at
least, cling to my point. How are Protestant
Establishments commonly framed, (for of these
only I will speak) and our own amongst the rest ?
Under the sanction of the temporal power, sum
moning beneath the shade of its encouragement
the sound learning, piety, and integrity of the
Country. Can any thing more hopeful as to its
fruits be looked to, than a deliberative body so
qualified, and so protected and encouraged ? In
point of fact, are not the ingredients I have
stated mostly introduced into the first formation
and subsequent maintenance of Protestant Na
tional Churches ? In our own, are not these fea
tures distinctly to be recognized? If union,
therefore, be not obtained out of these provisions,
none better or more effectual for this purpose can
be looked for, or found. This is enough for my
8

134
present argument. Even though in a Country
where unrestricted freedom of religious opinion
is allowed, and perhaps even excited, divisions
will, as Scripture has also foretold, they " must
come A it still remains to be proved that an Es
tablished Religion has no tendency greatly to
diminish these divisions, or to hold out strong in
ducements to general union. I will put a plain
question. If our Religious Establishment were
withdrawn to-morrow, is there any one who
doubts that religious divisions would instantly
become still more prevalent than they are now ?
I will put another question. Is there any one
who doubts that very many persons are kept
within the pale of the Established Church by the
circumstance of its union with the State ? I hope
the Dissenter is not ready with a scoffing answer
to this question. The question does not warrant
it. Though it be answered in the affirmative, I
will not allow that it involves necessarily any
unworthy imputations on the majority, nor will
I myself suppose on any of those whom the ques
tion concerns. No. If 1 were a Dissenter, and
the Dissenters the National Church, I hope I
should be ashamed j)f fastening any such in
sinuation upon them ; and I do not here say,
for a moment, that Dissenters wish to fasten such
on us. But no more of this. I believe, in my
conscience, that very many persons willingly
abide in communion with the National Church,

135
not only from hereditary predilections, but from
the converse of those impressions which I have
stated to be associated with the third mischief of
Dissent *. Very many love the way of civil and
religious peace. I know no spirit more to be en
vied, than that which covets and seeks after this
way. It is heavenly fruit from a heavenly tree.
Faith the root, charity the trunk : concord and
love the branches. I do not hastily condemn the
Dissenter, if he states, that much as he might
aspire after this spirit, other circumstances out of
his control forbid his sharing in it. But I Will
say, that, in my judgment, those who can walk
with a safe conscience under the fostering shade of
a Religious Establishment, are the happiest : and
/ think also, (if I may borrow the Apostle's words
in a derivative, and therefore I hope sufficiently
reverential sense,) I think also I have (with me)
ihe Spirit of God.
Secondly. A Religious Establishment is of great
advantage to those who can consistently conform
to it ; (and of these, the more the better, in every
point of view ;) because the circumstances of
such an Establishment give greater promise than
any other of a full, enlarged exposition of Divine
truth. Surely this is no mean advantage. Let
me unfold it. I mean no undue disparagement
* P. 14— '32.

136
to the Dissenter, when I say, that his circum
stances cannot place him under equal advantages
in this respect. Piety, possibly superior piety,
he may claim : perhaps possess. But equal op
portunity with the Churchman for an enlarged,
full, accurate, and " rightly divided" survey of
Christian truth, I am confident he cannot with
safety pretend to. We have discussed this point
a good deal already. We have considered the
comparative learning of the Dissenting teachers.
We have also, though in the midst of some cen
sure to our own body, challenged the adversary
to produce his proofs of superiority in learning
over us, if he can. And is it a light matter to
have within the Established Church " scribes thus
instructed for the kingdom of God?" Is it no ad
vantage to have the teacher elevated in his attain
ments of real, substantial, theological knowledge,
above the learner ? Surely it is one of high and
proud congratulation : congratulation, in which
the Dissenter himself should not scorn to take his
share. It is glorious to see any Nation thus encou
raging sound religious learning. Where does the
glory chiefly shine ? Within the Establishment. Yet
do those out of the Establishment walk much by
its light. I scorn the language of triumph over
the Dissenter on this point. But, I ask him,
whether this is not the fact ? and, if it be, whether
without an Establishment it would remain such ?

137
- Thirdly, I will state the next advantage, in
words borrowed from a quarter where I gladly
see them; but where such words are not very
common, the Edinburgh Review. The following
are the Reviewer's words : —
" It is no ordinary national benefit, to have a
" number of well educated men dispersed over
" every part of the kingdom, whose especial busi-
" ness it is to keep up and enforce the knowledge
" of those most exalted truths which relate to the
" duties of man, and to his ultimate destiny ; —
" and who, besides, have a sort of general com-
" mission to promote the good of those among
" whom they are settled, in every possible man-
" ner : to relieve sickness and poverty, to com-
" fort affliction, to counsel ignorance, to compose
" quarrels, to soften all violent and uncharitable
" feelings, and to reprove and discountenance
" vice. This, we say, is the theory of the busi-
" ness of a parochial Clergy. That the practice
" should always come up to it, it would be utterly
" folly to assert, or to expect : but such is the
" innate excellence of Christianity, that even
" now, amidst all the imperfections of the exist-
" ing Establishment, its salutary effects are clearly
" felt ; and in those numerous parishes, in differ-
" ent parts of England, in which there is no
" gentleman resident, the benefits of securing
" the residence of a well-educated man, with no

138
" other trade but that of doing good to the
" minds and bodies of his neighbours, are almost
" incalculable. It should be remembered, too,
" that it is one natural, but most unfortunate
" effect of the English Poor-laws, to generate
" harsh and unkindly feelings between the la-
" bouring classes and the farmers, by whom, in
" agricultural parishes, the greatest portion of
" the Poor-rates is paid. In many places, there-
" fore, the clergyman stands, as it were, as a
" mediator between the poor and their richer
" neighbours, inclined to protect and relieve the
" one, from the beneficent spirit of his profession,
" yet enough connected with the other, by his
" own rank in society and habits of life, as to be
" unapt to encourage an idle and profligate pau-
" perism. " There are other points, too, which might be
" mentioned, and which are not unworthy of the
" notice of an enlightened statesman. In retired
" parishes, the family of the clergyman is often a
" little centre of civilization, from which gleams of
" refinement of manners, of neatness, of taste, as well
" as of science and general literature, are diffused
" through districts into which they would other-
" wise never penetrate. And be it observed,
" that these are the very parts of the country
" which nothing but an endowed parochial clergy
** could regularly and permanently influence.

139
" Such districts would, at the best, receive only
" occasional visitations from some itinerant in-
" structor, who certainly could ill confer all those
" benefits, temporal and spiritual, which might be
" derived from a resident minister of only equal
" zeal and capacity *."
But for having met with these observations,
where I little expected to find them, I should
have been more copious on this head, as it well
deserves enlargement : and should likewise have
expressed my thoughts somewhat differently.
But, as I am persuaded the words of those I
quote will meet with attention from many whom
I wish to prepossess, I shall leave this case to the
Reviewer's words, and to them only.
4. Another benefit belonging to all Established
Churches, and eminently to our own, is that of
stability -\. This is no mean advantage. If we
connect it particularly with means of onward growth
and improvement, we shall see the fulness of it very
plentifully. With bodies of men, whether great
or small, who are in their constitution and inte
rests vacillating, changeable, and unsteady, no
regular consistency of design, no continuous
course of execution, can prevail. There are two
* Edinburgh Review, No.lxxxviii. p. 500 — 502.
f However important this feature, it would have escaped my
notice, but for a public testimony I have heard recently borne to
it in favour of our own Church, by one who had been, and for
aught I know, still is, a Dissenter.

140
splendid instances of the value of this quality
that I can at once bring forward from our own
times and country : viz. the accession (as far as
it has gone) of New Churches, and the striking
architectural improvements* in one of our Univer
sities, — Cambridge. But for the character in our
Ecclesiastical fabric which I am now upon, it is
manifest, that neither of these improvements
could have taken place. Had it not been for
the settled manner in which our Church and its
concerns are mingled with the Institutions ofthe
country ; had there not been the effects of past
bounty to work upon, and the ulterior results of
provident legislation to look forward to ; all this,
I will venture to say, would either never have
been done at all, or, if at all, with very consi
derably diminished dignity and effect. How
much both these measures are calculated to ad
vance the very source here adverted to, from
whence, under Providence, they spring ; viz.
the permanence and stability of our Religious
Institutions, I need not point out. I could ad
duce many other similar benefits arrising out of
this feature in Religious Establishments ; but I
will confine myself to these two, as very striking
ones. And ofthis important head of consideration,
* I might have inserted the words " encreased accommoda
tion" also. How much this must conduce to the religious and
moral purposes of the University needs not be pointed out.

141
I will say farther, only very briefly, that the bare
mention of it is all that is needed, to fill the re
flecting mind of the Christian Patriot with abun
dant grounds for admiration and thankful acknow
ledgment. 5. The next advantage, as far as it is one, I
cannot claim for all Religious Establishments;
but for our own in England I can : it is that of
having in its possession a pre-composed, settled
form of worship. The converse of this propo
sition, viz. the alleged superiority of extemporary
prayer, has already been considered ; and there
also I had occasion to cite high authority in
favour of a form of Public Prayer. But having
thus already met the objector, I will now treat
of a prescribed form, in the shape of an advan
tage. If it has no intrinsic evil belonging to it
as a form, I will now endeavour to prove that in
that character it has much good. ' And the
good I aim to establish is the following : —
First, I look upon it as a very great help to
the individual worshipper, to know, if I may
use a homely phrase, what he is going about
before he begins with his brethren his act of
joint- worship. In private devotion this may not
be necessary : and in many cases there is nothing
to forbid the devout spirit being left in the closet
to itself. But when I worship " in the great con
gregation," I feel reluctant to have my solemn
service interrupted by being obliged to follow

142
and weigh, before I can assent to them, words of
supplication I then hear for the first time. I
should dread this interruption much as a prac
tice, and its effect : and even once or twice in my
life, when I have been subject to it, I have not
been insensible to its inconveniences. This in
convenience, as far as it is one, is obviously re
moved by a set form, and a comfortable state of
composed preparation for devotion is substituted.
— Secondly, an interchange of worship between
the Minister and the congregation (as is our
practice) seems conducive to devotion. This ad
vantage, as far as it is one, is only to be obtained
through a prepared form : and all the share which
the Dissenters have in this advantage, they derive
from that part of their service which is a form :
viz. their Hymn book. How beautifully and
touchingly this intermixture of devotion takes
place in our Liturgy, I need not stop to point
out. — But, lastly, I do above all value highly the
advantage obtained through a form, of a whole
Nation being impowered to offer up the same
service, and for the most part at the same time.
I cannot to my own mind sufficiently appreciate
this benefit. Those I conceive to be some of the
best Christians amongst us, who can best ap
preciate it. With all humility, I will put in claim
to a share, such as it may be, in the comfort
flowing from a perception of this benefit. I think
I can say with truth, I never enter the House of

143
Prayer to join in our Public Service, without
being more or less sensible of this. Without
feeling my mind and heart knit to those near in
spirit, but distant in body, whom I believe to be
joining in the same words at the same time with
me. Such thoughts will be more vivid, on cer
tain occasions, either of joy or sorrow during our
earthly sojourn, than on others : but at all times
they will arise more or less. I am not sure that
there are not many pious and good Dissenters,
who sometimes bear in mind what the settled
Churches are offering up in supplication through
out the land. I will not go the length of offer
ing any opinion as to the degree in which the
Dissenting method is capable of attaining the
same object : but this I will say, that as long as
the Church is ' militant here in earth,' so long
he who worships in it without a form, is more
estranged than he who worships with one, from
that beautiful article in our Creed : " The Com
munion of Saints."
Lastly, it is a benefit not to be overlooked, that
in a National Religion above any other, the dif
ferent ranks in society are blended together in a
degree not to be met with elsewhere. I repeat, I
hold this no slight advantage. To begin with the
highest rank, the Monarch upon the throne :—
Although I doubt not the wearer of the British
Crown is, through the spirit of our Constitution,

144
attachment to his people, and the character
of our laws ; both personally and through his
Ministers, disposed from his heart to give safe
protection to every species of Christian profes
sion ; yet he would be differently constituted
from every subject who owns his Dominion, if
his affections did not cling most to those who
" walk in tlie house of God *" with him, and wor
ship after the same manner. The same remark
applies equally to those of distinguished rank
and station throughout the country. I hope the
Dissenter will not be ready here with any insi
nuation, wherewith to account for the rank and
affluence of the country being found on the side
ofthe Established Church: if he is, he must at
least allow, that I have not set him the example.
I am not conscious of the passage in this Tract,
wherein it can' be shewn' that I have assigned
any unworthy motive to the Dissenter for his
Dissent. I take him as Ifind him, and as I be
lieve he wishes himself to be taken : and every
argument I have adduced, has been built on the
grounds, upon which, as far as I know, he builds
his Religious Creed. I hope, therefore, I shall
hear of no reply, refusing this same construction
to the Churchman. He, I hope, will be allowed
as much for intentions, as I allow to his adversary
* Psalm lv. 14.

145
in this question. If so, then I do say, that it is
no slight advantage in the Establishment to wit
ness the blending of all ranks in society, in the
Public Offices of Religion. To a certain degree, in
deed, this mixture is visible amongst the Dissenters
also: but by comparison,not extensively. So strongly
do I feel this superiority of the Establishment*
that I might perhaps have felt justified to myself,
had I affixed to my enumeration of evils attached
to Dissent, this circumstance of their religious
intercourse being too generally " amongst the
lowest qf the people " exclusively. I say, exclu
sively, and beg the word may not be overlooked.
This is an evil, I think. I consider it a misfortune
to Dissenting Teachers. I am far, very far
indeed, from setting one tittle less value on the
conscientious devotion of the poor man than of
the rich. Indeed, there are circumstances in the
Christian Religion perhaps more favourable to
the former. But I still think that a Union of all
ranks, and a close sympathy between all classes in
Religious Worship, is beautiful and seemly. I
have not alleged elsewhere the want of this ad
vantage as an argument against Dissent ; but I
speak of it here as a powerful recommendation
in favour of the Church.

Thus I close.— For the Church I have surely
advanced a great deal- The evils of Dissent have

146
been enumerated ; — many and considerable. The
Divine Witness has been called in to arbitrate : no
word appears for, but rather many against, the
divider. If he whom we call Dissenter disclaims
the name, and throws it from himself to his ad
versary in this great question ; here also we have
given him the meeting : and the alleged scruples,
by help of which he would discharge himself of
the burden, and cast it upon his opponent, appear,
to say the best of them, unequal to the office ex
pected of them. Evils, however, it is admitted
established Religions are, and will be, liable to :
our own, it is granted, is not free. These we
have traced : have endeavoured to assign them
to the right quarter: and we have discovered
that after all, very many of them cannot with
justice be laid at the door of the Church itself.
Lastly, common fairness seemed to suggest, that
the general advantages of Religious Establish
ments, and the particular benefits of our own,
should not be overlooked. These have been
investigated, and they appear numerous and im
portant. The balance remains to be struck. Can
candour hesitate to pronounce on which side the
scale turns ? The Church of England, as whilst
she is such, that is National, she ought to do,
preponderates: the Dissenting cause kicks the
beam. Would that I could persuade myself this result

147
of my enquiry might be admitted ! Alas ! I do
not fully expect it. Causes there are, which make
Dissent too readily taken up, and too reluctantly
put down. Still I will not conceal my hope of
some partial success awaiting this attempt. In
deed, I should be very regardless of the value of
time and thoughtin this short life, if through this
attempt I were not buoyed up by some share, at
least, of this hope. For twelve or fourteen years
of my life, have I spent no inconsiderable share
both of study and reflection on this great sub
ject. Great, assuredly, it is. Whether in
Religion, we shall be an united, or a di
vided, Nation ? Peradventure, ten should be
turned by this attempt from Division to Unity,
something will have been effected ; should it be
so, in the great day of account I hope my labour
will appear to have been " not in vain in the
" Lord *."
The practical inferences yet remain to be
drawn. They shall be introduced with the so
lemnity they deserve ; by the words of an intre
pid Defender of the Christian Faith, a Father of
the Christian Church.
" iriog r*v /3tXriov Kara, fdpog Kal Snuotipevtug tov Xaov
fllT sttikivSvvov ovvoyj)Q, T) OVTOC V^l TOTTOV tov SwafiLvov
* I Corinthians xv. 58.
L 2

148
§t£,aoQai iravrag kv avTO) avvsXdsiv Kai fiiav Kai ttjv ctvrTjv
/usra ovft(f)(!t)viag twv Xawv ysvkaOai ti?v <ptovriv ; tovto
/3IXtiov vv, tovto -yap /cai ttjv opoipvyiav eosikvvs tov
ir\ri6ovg. ovrw Kai Taykwg o Qsog k-jraKsovi. u yap KaTa tijv
avrov tov 2wri}poe £7rayyEXiav, eav cvo avfi^wvrjaauv irepi
iravTog, ov av airrjffwvrai, y£vr)GETai avroig, ti sav toctov-
tusv Xawv oweXOovtwv juia ykvr\Tai (jxovij, Xsyovrwv ru
Gew to a/iTjv ; «'? yovv ovk eSavfiaoe ', Tig ovk EjuaKapiffE as,
(SXiituv tov tooovtov Xaov, kv lvi avvsXOovra tottio 5 Jrwc
ivatpov ot Xaoi pXeVovtec aXXrjXoue to irporspov sv
?>i-rjprip.ivoig avvtpy6p.Evoi Towoig ; Ad Imperatorem
Constantium Apologia. Athanasii Opera, V. i.
p. 683, 684. Ed. Coloniae. 1686. Which I have
thought convenient to render in English as
follows : —
" How could it be deemed better, that the peo-
" pie should assemble in parties and distractedly,
" with a perilous concourse ; than in a place capa-
" ble of containing them all, on the same spot; and
" the voice of the people harmoniously one and the
" same ? Truly, the latter was best, for it mani-
" fested the unanimity ofthe multitude. Thus also
" God quickly heareth them. For if according to
" the promise of the Saviour himself, — if two or
" three agree together respecting what they ask, it
" shall be done to them ; — what shall be the effect,
" when of So great a multitude one voice is heard,
" saying to God the amen ? Who has not been
" struck with wonder at this ? Who has not blessed

149
" thee (O Constantius) seeing such an assemblage
" gathered together in one place ? How did the
" people rejoice, beholding themselves together,
" who had before assembled in detached and sepa-
" rate places ?" — Athanasius's Apology to the Em
peror Constantius,
After we have recovered from the effect of this
scene on our imaginations, let me conduct my
reader through an appeal, respectful, I hope it
will be on all sides, to three descriptions of per
sons. Presuming only, that we do not look for
such an united assemblage in body, as is here re
ferred to. What we seek is the union hi spirit
and regulation. With this we shall be abundantly
satisfied. But to proceed.
First, let me address the Dissenters them
selves : and of them, more especially their Teach
ers. I am about to utter a very solemn thought.
If blame there be in Dissent, a very large share of
- it, indeed, must fall on those who teach it. They
ought to know better. If such blame belong to
them, it is a burden I do not envy them. If Dissent
be an evil, and one for which Dissenters are re
sponsible, I believe, from my inmost soul, that
Dissenting Teachers are the main cause of it. On
them must rest the weight ofthe Dissenting cause.
But for them, Dissent would not, could not, sub
sist, Some few persons, indeed, there might still
6

150
be, who will always be both able and willing to
contrive and raise a faction for the sake of them
selves heading it; and if one set of teachers
were to break off, the unhappy tendency in hu
man nature to innovate and divide is such, that
others perhaps would spring up in their stead.
Still my position remains entire. It is to the
Teachers we must ascribe Dissent, whether it be
for good or evil. Let me entreat then the Dis
senting Teachers to go over yet again the grounds
of their separation : to sift them nicely and im
partially, with all the singleness of heart they can
command. I am not aware that a direct appeal
of this kind has of late years been made to
them : the evil, perhaps, was of too hopeless an
extent to encourage any attempt at remedy : yet,
at the same time, I think there are circumstances
in our age calculated to encourage such a revi
sion. First, I fully believe, that in a theological view,
at least, the Dissenters are conscientiously op
posed to Popery : in fact, they are the opposite
poles, whilst the National Church is perhaps the
equator. Let the Dissenters, then, consider gravely
whether it does not become them to ally them
selves to our Church, and help to form a strong
array, if needful, against the bold front the Pa
pists appear disposed to put on. Let them re
flect deeply on what I am sure they cannot deny.

151
that divisions amongst Protestants are not less
a scandal to Protestantism, than to scriptural
Christianity: and that they really do, in mass,
supply a tower of strength to the concentrated
(or, shall I say, confederated ?) energies of the
Papacy. Next to Scripture can any thing rouse
the Protestant part of our nation to Religious
Union, if this will not ?
Again : let me briefly touch on the points of
Dissent, as contrasted with this high ground for
Union. On points of Church Government, what
is there so demonstrably waft, fundamentally wrong
with us, as to justify now * the parties from us,
created by them ? In the Initiatory Ordinance of
our Religion, what is there in the Church to for
bid close and intimate union ? Both Adult Bap
tism and Immersion may be obtained with us.
Lastly, to the great body of the Methodists, what
is there in the tone of piety of our Chuch and its
Clergy to forbid their coming in ?
I feel bold in my subject, and will proceed. I
am about to offer a proposition, which will pos
sibly excite a smile. It is spoken, however, in
earnest ; and comes frOm a bleeding, rather than
a smiling heart : a heart full of love for England,
* I say now, because the lapse of nearly two centuries, let us
hope, has almost worn out civil and historical grounds for dis
union, if there were ever sufficient warrants for it.

152
and of grief for the loss of England's peace. I
will utter it ; I will speak out. In this work of
Re-union let the Methodists take the lead. They
were the last to break off, let them be the
first to come in. Something has been whispered
on this matter already. Let them now speak out,
and act. They are already in possession of many
edifices for worship. What if, as a body, they
are ready to come in ? Shall their present edifices
be thrown up as useless ? No ; I wish to say :
and here is where I fear I shall excite a smile,
though I speak in the seriousness and sincerity of
my heart. Let me, moreover, beseech the favour
of the Governors of my own Church, whilst I
speak out.
Thus then I speak. Let the existing edifices
be shaped into decent Ecclesiastical Structures :
let them be generously transferred and brought
under the powers, either already adequate, or
capable of being made adequate, of the Church-
building Commission. Let that Commission not
disdain to accept the offer. Should new powers
be needed, let the matter be weighed by those
amply competent to do so, and let fresh facilities
be asked for : if asked for, I doubt not they will
be obtained. Let a portion, at least, of the funds
connected with these edifices, and the bodies be
longing to them, be employed in presenting at
our Universities young men (who have received

153
some previous suitable training) to be fitted for
the work of the Ministry. In the case of this sect,
there is no article I am aware of, that, after
farther reflection and reconsideration, would be
likely to stand in the way of their Admission or
Degree. Let the future patronage and emoluments
connected with pew-rents annexed to these edi
fices, be handed over to a limited number (it
ought to be limited) of representatives of the
whole body in each place. Let this experiment
be tried only in ten cases. Let all new legislative
measures sleep, till it be so tried : there being
already provision sufficient for the purpose thus
far. Let there be so many found to offer, ahd let
those to whom acceptance belongs be ready also:
I am deceived, if this limited experiment would
not encourage farther extension of it. I am de
ceived also, if, after so laudable an effort towards
Re-union from the Methodists, the other remain
ing sects, who separate from us respecting Bap
tism and Church- Government, might not turn
their thoughts towards allaying these differences ;
so that some mutual experiment might be made
for their being brought in also.
Must I submit to the name of a visionary en
thusiast for all this 1 Be it so. I am, at least,
an enthusiast in the cause of Unity and Peace.
My dreams are, at the worst, those of love and

154
amity. I might err in a worse cause : I cannot
well suffer in a better.
2. Let me say a word, a respectful word, to
the three branches of the Legislature, and,
together with them, to those op rank and af
fluence through the United Kingdoms ; at least,
in England. To begin with the highest branch of
the Legislature, let me congratulate every lover
of the English Church on the following expres
sions from the fountain of all honour, strength,
and protection, in these realms, stated to have
been replied to the address of Convocation at
their assembling in December last *: —
" I receive with great satisfaction this loyal
" and dutiful address. The renewed assurances
" of your affectionate attachment to my person
" and government are most acceptable to me.
" I rely, with the utmost confidence, upon your
" zealous exertions to promote true piety and
" virtue ; to reclaim those who are in error by
" the force of divine truth ; and to uphold and
" extend among my people the preference which
" is so justly due to the pure doctrine and service
" of our Established Church. That Church has
" every claim to my constant support and pro-
" tection. I will watch over its interests with
* See Bath Chronicle of that date.

155
" unwearied solicitude ; and confidently trust,
" that I shall be enabled, by the blessing of Divine
" Providence, to maintain it in the full possession
" of every legitimate privilege." — God grant that
these words of encouragement may be ripened
into full effect ! His Majesty, I doubt not, will
find from the Established Clergy of England and
Ireland a continuance of those " exertions," on
which he so graciously and " confidently relies."
For the adequate success of these endeavours,
however, the fulfilment of his Majesty's gracious
assurances, seconded by a religious and loyal
parliament, will, I am equally confident, be need
ful. The measures of his Majesty's government
have, in many particulars, given earnest for future
hope ; though the movements of late years have
not furnished grounds for similar confidence in
the two houses of parliament. Let them be en
treated, respectfully entreated, to give this matter
a fit portion of their regard. Too much reason,
I fear, has been afforded for the following severe,
but, alas ! needful observations : —
" In addition to a strenuous advocacy of their
" own cause, the Clergy should also call loudly
" upon ministers and parliament to do their duty
" to the Established Church. The legislative en-
" croachments of Dissent should be systematically
" withstood. We trust, that in every succeeding
" session of parliament, the evils that are hatch-

156
" ing will be more completely exposed, and more
" effectually counteracted ; that government will
" be roused from its apathy upon these subjects,
" and required by those who may command a
" hearing, to pay some little attention to the
" dearest interests of the community. If this is
" not done, every other effort will be fruitless ;
" and the Church will be compelled to rue the
" day when she was united to the State, and de-
" prived of the power of enacting her own laws,
" controlling her own children, making her own
" appointments, and managing her own affairs*."
These are strong words ; but not more strong
than certain anomalous circumstances I could
point out would justify. Let such language be
no longer provoked or called for. Let the
Church, as well as the State, be the object of
legislative care. Otherwise, to use a homely
phrase, hardly suitable, indeed, to the dignity
and importance of the subject, between two
stools the Church may fall to the ground : and in
its ruin will the State be safe ?
One word is yet offered to those of rank and
affluence, to the Nobility and Gentry in England.
Their aid is greatly needed, if the consummation
pleaded for in these pages be a worthy object of
the Nation's care. What I am about to say will
* British Critic for November, 1824, p.. 494, 495.

perhaps appear strange : but let the Nobility and
Gentry be entreated to cast off all unreasonable
jealousies against, and to put on all reasonable
prepossessions for the Church. Something of
both these is needed. There are feelings to be
put off, there are feelings to be put on, before my
object can be at least fully effected. Perhaps
the addition and substraction are even essential
to the object : whilst the words " unreasonable"
and "reasonable," interspersed in their proper
places, will, I hope, appear sufficient qualifica
tions. Let me now explain myself. Amongst the im
portant, and I am thoroughly persuaded influen
tial class I now speak of, there is, I fear, more
jealousy towards the Church than there ought to
be ; jealousy, I mean, towards its just rights. It
will be acknowledged, that such rights are sacred,
and held sacred by the laws of the land. I am
not without my fears, and perhaps I have some
little reason for them, that those of rank and
affluence in the land are not disposed to give fit
facilities to a fair enquiry into, and just defence
and vindication of them.
Upon this subject I will confine myself to one
feature : though it would perhaps bear extension.
The subject I choose is that olModuses. These,
in the present day, are almost invariably to the
disadvantage of the Church. If these were in

158
point of fact, the result of a formal distinct agree
ment, by which the legitimate Representatives
and Guardians of the Church (the Bishop, Patron,
and Incumbent for the time being) had actually,
under the sanction of law, commuted the rights of
posterity for what they, in the exercise of their
best judgment, deemed a fit compensation, there
could be no just cause of complaint, or no remedy
reasonably to be sought. In truth there would
be no grievance. The quid pro quo was given
according to law at the time, however unforeseen
circumstances might render the bargain in effect,
one ultimately injurious. But I believe I may
assert without fear, that the supposed agreement
between Bishop, Patron, and Incumbent, whereon
Moduses in courts of law are technically as
sumed to rest, is in point of fact a mere legal
assumption, made as the only hypothesis that
presents itself for getting over a difficulty arising
out of long, uninterrupted payment : and that this
is a mere assumption, I believe no lawyer in West
minster-Hall will dispute. Where the property
that derives advantage from this supposed agree
ment at the expence of the Church, has changed
hands ; there perhaps no remedy for the grievance
the Church labours under, can reasonably be
sought from the free will of the new purchaser,
who has bought this advantage with the Estate.
But where the properties have not changed hands,

159
which I rather suspect to be a common case;
there I sincerely think the owner would be
doing not more than an honourable, if even
more than a just, thing, were he to give free
scope and encouragement to legitimate inquiry
into the legal validity of these payments : nay,
if he were himself voluntarily to forward the
inquiry, and endeavour to satisfy and inform him
self, whether the Church has had an undue ad
vantage taken of it, or not ? I will not push this
matter any farther, I will not go into details.
But I submit it to those whom it concerns,
(whether in justice or honour,) in the way of
appeal to the original principles of piety and
charity, from which the primary grant proceeded.
Having said all I wish to say respecting the
jealousy against the Church, I could wish the
great and wealthy amongst us would put off; I
will noW add a few words on prepossession for
the Church, which I could wish to see the same
persons put ow.— Here also I will confine myself
to one case. The most moderately informed
Churchman can hardly be ignorant of the fact ;
that in the reign of our Eighth Henry, a great
spoliation (for by what other name can it be
called ?) took place of the property of the Church.
Some of this property, seized by the Crown, still
remained in Royal hands : other parts of it, being
scattered amongst Court favourites, have in con-
1

160
sequence got into, the hands of many of the
English Nobility and Gentry. This property con
sists partly of Abbey lands, but chiefly of the
Great Tythes in Parishes. Whatever may have
been the original purposes for which these pos
sessions were first given ; and, however, from a
very extraordinary change of circumstances, a
diversion of them from their original channel
may have been almost, if not quite, justified ; yet
to strip religion entirely of the weight and in
fluence to be derived from them was in no way
warrantable or defensible. By this transfer of
property, the Church has been left very naked, in
points where above all it needed covering. — In
what are now the most populous Parishes, this
evil has commonly prevailed the most. I have
already slightly glanced at this *. It is now what
I wish to invite attention to, from those who are
in possession of this property. — Surely, if it is
considered that these goods were originally given
for public and religious purposes ; that in the
hands of their present owners, neither of these
purposes are fully answered ; it should seem as if
a call were made on justice in some cases, on
liberality in others. In cases, where the property
has remained in the hands that seized it; and
perhaps also to some degree, in those where no
* See P. 111.

161
hereditary disturbance frOm the royal grant has
occurred ; in both these, but especially in the
former, justice seems to sue for a partial applica
tion at least, to objects kindred with the original
ones. Where the ownership has been changed
by sale ; no appeal but to liberality can assuredly
be urged. Whether to justice or favour, however,
let these few words be addressed. If the owners
of this species of property should be moved by
either or both these considerations to make ever
so partial a transfer, not indeed to the precise
ancient purposes, but to others kindred with
them, would it be a very great sacrifice, if in
populous parishes (say) one-fifth of the income
for three years, or one-tenth for six, were brought
within the beneficial operations of the Governors
of Queen Anne's Bounty ? The terms are well
known on which that admirable institution (an
institution that, with the assistance it has received
from Parliament, has done more for Religion and
the Church in this kingdom, within the last twenty
years, than any that can be named) the terms, I
say, are well known, on which that admirable
institution meets donations of this kind *. As I
* The extent I have proposed for this source of amelioration,
might, if fully adopted, lead to demands on the Bounty beyond
their powers of meeting them. It will be time enough, however,
to lower this scale, when the day presents itself: which, alas ! I
do not anticipate. M

162
said under the former head, so I say under this,
if in ten, if in six cases only, this splendid exam
ple were set, it is one that not improbably would
spread ; and together with it, I doubt not, in
creasing influence and attachment to the Church.
After a lapse of years, successors might still farther
emulate and revive the spirit and deeds of their
forefathers, and should similar or equal need pre
sent itself, occasionally make a fresh increase.
We may then hope that the Church may gradually
grow into full and fair repute, where its influence
is most needed; and that those parts of the
British dominions shall not (as they are now) be
the least affected to the Church, which are the
most thickly inhabited.
Lastly, I have to address, in terms at once the
most respectful, and most earnest and most affec
tionate I can possibly supply, the members of my
own Church : of the Church I belong to : the
Church I am a Minister of : the Church estab
lished in these Dominions.— My desire is to address
every member, be he Lay or Clerical ; be he of the
higher or lower orders of the Ministry. — To those
in whose hands is the Government ofthe Church ;
may I add a few words ? I have received per
mission to address one of this body at the opening
of this volume ; may I venture on addressing the
whole of the same body, at the close of it ? First,
I trust, the fervent prayer of one subject to their

163
Government may be acceptable, and accepted, for
"prosperity" to them, and their high trust. Next,
may I express a hope, that in the due exercise of
their sacred power they may meet with increased
means of strength and confidence ; add daily to the
energies of the Church : and under the favour of a
gracious Providence, preserve it by their super
intending care and watchfulness, in a full state of
health and vigour ? May I entreat farther of the
Disposer of all events " who alone can order the
unruly wills and affections of sinful men * ;" that
he may so guide and move the hearts of the
people of this land, as to give willing obedience
to the justly limited, indeed, yet high and sacred
authority of their Ecclesiastical Rulers ? — Next,
let me say a few words to my brethren of the
same rank with myself in the Ministry ; and of
the Sacred Order inferior to it- Let all strifes, all
contentions be driven from amongst us. Let us
" be kind one to another." Let us " be qf one
mind." Let us " live in peace f." Let us do all
we can in our respective spheres of action and
trust, to give strength and solidity to our spiritual
Zion; to unite it by "the bond qf peace %" and
* Collect for fourth Sunday after Easter.
+ Ephesians iv. 32. 2 Corinthians xiii. 11.
% Ephesians iv. 3.

164
brotherhood ; so as at once to attract those that
are without, and maintain and uphold those that
are within. Let the minor points of difference
between us (for are they not such ?) be kept in
the back-ground ; and the essential points of con
cord and union be brought prominently forward.
Let us exhibit to each other, and to our enemies,
if we have any, the goodly spectacle of " brethren
dwelling together in unity ;" of a house " at unity
in," not "divided against, itself* ." Let the
accredited standards of our Church, pushed to no
wayward extremes, be our guides both in faith
and worship ; and if we do not agree in our con
struction of every word in the language of these,
let us be, at least, sober and moderate in our
differences, and avoid pushing private opinion to
the enfeeblement of public judgment. Lastly,
let the voice of our Ecclesiastical Governors be
listened to with becoming deference ; and let us
set to our Lay-brethren in the same Communion
an example of dutiful and orderly submission.
This brings me to say finally, Let the Lay-brother
hood of our Church present to Christendom in
general, and to the separatists from our faith and
worship here in particular, lively features of a
cordial and unfeigned " obedience" to " those who
* Psalm exxxiii. 1.; exxii. 3.1; St. Matthew xii. 25.

165
" have the rule over them ;" who " watch for
their souls, as they that must give account;"
that " when Christ, who is our shepherd, shall
appear, they also may appear with him in glory *."
Let them be urged upon the most solemn grounds
to encourage their Pastors in sacred duty ; and
to uphold, rather than retard, their just rights
and privileges. Let them listen dutifully to the
voice of the Church, whether uttered through
its Formularies, its Governors, or its stationed in
ferior Pastors ; and ." receive with meekness (at
their hands) the engrafted word which is able to
save their souls f."
According to the best and most reflecting
judgment I can form, it is thus, and thus only,
that, in our beloved England, the hearts of all
British subjects can be knit together (in religion)
as the heart of one man. It is by attending to
such considerations as are scattered over these
three heads of reflection, that the English com
munity can alone present itself before the throne
of Divine Grace, fulfilling the Apostolical injunc
tion, to " receive one another, as Christ also re
ceived us %."
Thus I have completed my design. I beseech
* Heb. xiii. 17. 1 Peter v. 4.
f James i. 21. t Romans xv. 7.
N

166
the Divine blessing^ upon it, as fa* is it adds to
the ways of Unity and Peace ! Where it takes
from these, my prayer is, that it may mot, as my
belief is, that it MM not, prosper.

the end.

Printed by R. Gilbert, St. John's-square, London.