them? It is very natural, we say, to inquire into the conduct of the bishops, as directed to what is of real importance to the interests of religion, and the good of mankind, who owe small obligation to rites and ceremonies for their prosperity. And whether the result of such an inquiry will not support the assertion, that the clergy of an establishment are much more alarmed at the omission of a rite, than at the violation of a moral precept; at the neglect of a ceremony, than at the want of devotion; at the preaching of a puritan, or a methodist, than at the ignorance, and worldliness, and wickedness, of hundreds of their own body; are questions which we leave to the sober judgement of the readers of ecclesiastical history, and to impartial Christian observers.

In the year 1572, a pamphlet was published in defence of the famous Admonition to Parliament, intitled, An Exhortation to the Bishops; in which their Lordships were reminded, how hard it was to punish the favourers and abettors of the admoni'tion, because they did but disclose the disorders of the Church 'of England, and only required a reformation of the same, according to the rule of God's word. Whereas many lewd and 'light books and ballads flew abroad, printed not only without reprehension, but cum privilegio.' To which Whitgift, who answered the book, replies, "It was a fault to suffer lewd books ' and ballads, touching manners, but it was a greater fault to 'suffer books and libels, disturbing the peace of the Church, and 'defacing true religion. Which,' the author of the Confessional remarks, was to say, 1. That lewd books and ballads, 'printed with privilege, neither disturbed the peace of the Church, 'nor defaced true religion. 2. That provided the Church might quietly enjoy and practise her forms, rites, and ceremonies, titles, and emoluments, it was the less material what were the 'manners of her members. 3. That true religion consisted in 'those forms, rites, ceremonies, titles, and powers, which the 'Puritans were for defacing.'*

At the time that these spiritual lords were hunting the Puritans as partridges on the mountains, fining, imprisoning, expatriating, and ruining, virtuous men who laboured with all earnestness for the instruction of the people, the nation was in the most deplorable state. Many of the people,' says Bishop Sandys, especially in the northern parts, perished for want of saving food, many there are that hear not a C sermon in seven years, I might safely say, in seventeen. Their blood will be required at somebody's hands.' In 1578, the inhabitants of Cornwall presented a petition to Parliament, in which they say, 'We are above the number of fourscore and ten thousand souls, which, for want of the word of God, ' are in extreme misery, and ready to perish, and this for want,

*The Confessional, Second Edition. Pp. 369. 370.

'neither of maintenance nor place, for besides the impropriations in our shire, we allow yearly above nine thousand two hundred pounds, and have about one hundred and sixty churches, the greatest part of which are supplied by men who are guilty of the grossest sins. We have many nonresidents who preach but once a quarter, &c.' How many of the clergy, we should like to know, were in those times called to an account, and punished for their dereliction of duty, and for immoral conduct? Thousands were punished for Nonconformity:-how many hundreds-how many tens, were punished for vice?

Come to Church,' said one of the High Commissioners to Smyth, and obey the queen's laws, and be a dissembler, a hypocrite, or a devil, if thou wilt.' Vol. II. p. 195.

The complaint of Humphreys to Secretary Cecil, is not less just than it is forcible and affecting.

The gospel requireth Christ to be openly preached, professed, and glorified; but, alas! a man qualified with inward gifts, for want of outward shews in matters of ceremony, is punished: and a man only outwardly conformable, and inwardly unfurnished, is exalted. The preacher for his labour, is beaten; the unpreaching prelate offending, goes free. The learned man without his cap is afflicted: the man with his cap is not touched. Is not this a a direct breach of God's laws? Is not this the way of the Pharisees? Is not this to wash the outside of the cup, and leave the inside uncleansed? Is not this to prefer mint and annis, to faith and judgement and mercy? Is not this preferring man's traditions before the ordinance of God?' Vol. I. 370.

What clamorous voices do we sometimes hear, raising and repeating the cry of The Church is in danger!' What is it that endangers the Church? Is it the ignorance of the people? No. We never heard of the dangers of the Church when the education of the lower orders was generally neglected, and when knowledge was rare among the common people. They may be as ignorant as the natives of Patagonia, without endangering the Church. Is it vice? No. Profaneness and vice may stalk through the land, and be the inmates of the peasant and of the noble, without endangering the Church. In times of great degeneracy, a few of her best children may sigh for the abominations done in the land; but the cry of the Church is in danger,' never resounds through the country because men are wicked. When we hear this cry echoed and re-echoed through the land, we may very confidently assure ourselves that something is going on in the world in favour of the general good; that liberty is advancing; that knowledge is increasing;

that Puritans are asserting the rights of conscience; or that Methodists, by their preaching, are changing the wilderness into a fruitful field, and are making the desert to rejoice and blossom as the rose. To concede the scruples of men of good and tender conscience, would be to endanger the Church :--but to persecute and destroy them, was not in the least perilous to the Church! The Church was endangered by the writings and preaching of the Nonconformists:but she was quiet and secure amid all the profligacy and vice which attended the Restoration! When the benefits of education began to be diffused through the community by benevolent individuals, and when Bibles only' were put into general circulation, The Church was in danger:'-but there was nothing alarming to her in all the ignorance, and vice, and misery, which had surrounded her for centuries! Whatever might have excited the fears of the first ministers of the Church, they were never alarmed by the attempts of others to instruct mankind, though the motives which stimu"Some lated their exertions might be of the worst order. "preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add "affliction to my bonds-whether in pretence or in truth, Christ "is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice." PAUL

In perusing these volumes, the reader will find frequent occasion to pause, and to reflect on the mischiefs which have resulted from the union of religion with civil government; things perfectly distinct from each other. Had the Parkers, the Whitgifts, the Aylmers, the Bancrofts, and the Lauds, whose severities are here detailed, been the ministers of a religious community which stood in no relation to the powers of the world, how great soever the religious differences between them might have been, they could not have armed themselves with those weapons by which they wounded the consciences, and destroyed the persons of men.

As the wish that these and other ecclesiastics had been destitute of power, will, in spite of prejudice and of system, arise in the mind of the humane reader, it may be worth inquiring, in this place, whether there be any necessary connexion between the civil constitution of a state, and religion; whether religious opinions and practice come under the cognizance of the civil magistrate, and are to be received on his authority. This is a question of great interest, and of real moment, in forming our judgement of the Puritans, and other Dissentients from national establishments; for if it be admitted that religion has a necessary connexion with civil authority, and if it belongs to civil magistrates to provide religious instruction for the governed, then it will be impossible to justify the Puritans;

their entertaining and avowing opinions opposed to the will of the civil magistrate, was presumptuous and criminal. If it belongs of right to the magistrate, to provide for my instruction in religion, I can have no right to provide it for myself. The one right is clearly at variance with the other, and destroys it. If it be the duty of the civil governors of a state to provide religious instruction for the people; to dictate to them what they shall believe; it must, of course, belong to them also to determine what they shall not believe. The governor of each particular state is thus constituted the sole judge of truth and error; and the understanding and the consciences of men, in this case, are allowed no other operation than simply to adopt the opinions of the magistrate.

If we look at the practical state of the assumption, what absurdities shall we have to contemplate! If it be the right of the civil governor of one state, to provide for the religious instruction of its subjects, it is equally the right of every governor to provide religious instruction for his subjects. If this be questioned, let the opponent shew why this right belongs to the governor of Spain, but not to the governor of England; to the head of a particular state in the fourteenth century, but not to the head of the same state in the nineteenth century. Till the reasons and exceptions are given, all sophistry apart, we must take the assumption as we have stated it; and hence it follows, that the man who is prohibited from believing in the doctrines of the Romish Church in England, is enjoined to receive them in Spain; and the same authority which compels him to be a Presbyterian in the North, compels him to be an Episcopalian in the South. To believe in Christianity is right in one country, and wrong in another. On this ground, Mary had the same right to appoint Popery to be the religion of her subjects, that Elizabeth had to prescribe Protestantism; and if it was right for Elizabeth to imprison Puritans, and to hang Brownists, it was equally right for Mary to burn beretics. Under the latter princess, the Reformers should have been Catholics, and under the former, the Catholics ought to have conformed to Protestantism as professed in the Church of England. According to this system, the intrinsic character of truth is lost; opinions are to be received, not on conviction of their truth, but from dictation; and the plastic hand of a bigoted, or a sensual prince, of a Charles the Ninth in France, or a Charles the Second in England, is to mould and fashion the minds of thousands and of millions of men to the pattern which he pleases! Why then are thought and reflection given to mankind? Why are they told of their responsibility to God? Why does natural religion furnish them with proofs of a Deity, the disorders of the

world suggest a day of future retribution, or Revelation demand the examination of its evidence, and the appreciation of its discoveries? Why are they commanded, by an authority to which the highest princes must themselves give account, to try the spirits, to prove all things, to hold fast that which is good? It is impossible to separate future responsibility to God, from the exercise of the mind in judging, in comparing, and in adopting tenets of faith; and rules of practice, from its own enlightened conviction of their truth: and this single argument amounts to a moral demonstration, that civil governors cannot possess the right of providing religious instruction. They are invested with no authority over the minds of their subjects in religion, nor do they possess any advantages for the discovery of truth above the most common persons. It is every man's care and business to provide it for himself. The prince has no more right than the peasant to dictate, and to control, in religious matters.

Is it maintained that it is the duty of Christian governors to provide religious instruction for the people? Then, according to this modification of the proposition, it is not the native right of rulers to provide religious instruction; it does not belong to them as rulers, but is founded on something adventitious to civil government. A Mohammedan prince does not possess the right, while he adheres to the Koran. Does he then acquire it on becoming a convert to Christianity? How is the knowledge of this new right conveyed to him? Does he, on his conversion, receive a special intimation from heaven, that, in future, he is to rule the consciences of his subjects? He cannot learn from the New Testament that they are committed to his direction,

Who are Christian governors? To be of this character, are the cordial belief of the truths of Christianity, and obedience to its laws, necessary? If so, Charles the Seond, who, in his care to provide religious instruction, passed the Act of Uniformity, as the means of preserving his subjects from error, and whom few have equalled in vice, could not be a Christian governor. If true religion be the criterion and the ground of right, it is, in many cases, a principle of exclusion. If it be said, that they are Christian governors, who preside over kingdoms where Christianity is generally professed, we wish to be informed, by what investiture they have received the right of dictation in religion. Is it from heaven, or of men? Is it by special commission from heaven, or do the Christian Scriptures contain specific directions for princes to interpret and enforce its doctrines? Or have their subjects committed by compact or delegation, the power over religion to their rulers? In England,