occasional services, they (the said individuals) will be justifiable in not strenuously endeavouring to obtain, by lawful measures, a speedy and thorough change in the constitution of the church to which they belong, attaching, as it does, such undue and portentous weight to outward forms, and actually assigning a participation in the unspeakable blessings of salvation, to all the impenitent sinners dying within its pale, with the exception of one, (and that one constituting a comparatively small) body of individuals? And failing to obtain such a change in the constitution of the church, may not the churchmen in question, lawfully make it a matter of serious prayer, and anxious debate, how far they will be justified in continuing to support the Church of England in its present form?

5. Whether the fact that the evangelical members of the Church of England do not themselves attach all the undue weight above specified to the forms in question, affords a sufficient sanction for their strengthening, in its present form, the hands of a church whose non-evangelical members must always, so long as they (the evangelical party) remain churchmen, and the church what it is, have the power of charging them at least with inconsistency, although they who bring the charge are, perhaps, themselves not less inconsistent.

"6. How far are the individuals in question, by continuing to support, in its present form, the Church of England, doing what in them lies, to give increased weight and prevalence to the opinions of those of their brethren in church communion (not in doctrinal views) who plead, and, it is conceived, justly plead, the authority of the church, in support of baptismal regeneration, and other, as the evangelical party must think, unsound doctrines?

7. If there be, (as there probably are), evangelical Ministers in the Church of England, who think the occasional services of that church not merely in some respects objectionable, but directly

contrary to the spirit of the New Testament, how far can the circumstance of their doing all that lies in their power to prevent these services from injuring the minds of their people, furnish them (the Ministers) with a sufficient excuse for not straining every nerve to obtain, by lawful measures, the abrogation of what they think so objectionable; and failing speedily to obtain this abrogation, by such measures, may not the question how far they will be justified in continuing to support the Church of England in its present form, become with them, at least, a lawful subject of earnest prayer, and anxious debate?'

“The author then directs the attention of bis readers to another subject, and proposes the following question:

"8. If there be any Ministers of the established church who disapprove some of its articles-for instance the 11th, the 13th, and the 17th,—or at least refuse to receive them in their plain and grammatical sense, as, in the preamble to the articles, they are directed to be received;-if there be Church Ministers thus situated (and the author conceives that there are many such, viz. all who do not belong to the evangelical party), may not the charge of dissent, and dissent of a vital, decided, and very important kind, be brought, at least as justly against them, as against Independents, and Baptists, who actually receive and embrace, because they heartily approve, in their plain and grammatical sense, the articles in question?'

"The book here takes another turn, and the following inquiry is made:

"9. May it not be said that under the existing system of church government in the Establishment, the character of those who are to be the spiritual guides and pastors of the people, is to be decided, in a great degree, at least, by men whose previous studies have not at all qualified them to form a

competent judgment of the requisite characteristics of a real Minister of Jesus Christ; and who, were they ten times as well qualified as they are, to appoint Christian pastors, yet cannot, in justice to their other avocations, devote to the consideration of the subject, that measure of attention, which, from its vast importance, it demands at their hands? And is it not notorious that favouritism, the influence of family connexions, and so forth, often operate very powerfully, and decisively in regulating the appointments they make ?

10. If, although all such connexion between Church and State, as shall give to the latter the power of interfering in, or in any degree influencing the appointment of all or any of the ministers authorized to officiate in the former, be, plainly without direct sanction in the New Testament,* it should yet

Surely to bring forward, from the Old Testament, the promise (see Is. xlix. 23.) that Kings and Queens shall sometime be nursing fathers and mothers to the church of Christ;

to bring forward, we say, this promise to prove that the appointment of the highest order of clergy ought to be vested in the hands of earthly sovereigns, or their agents, must be a most extraordinary misapplication of scripture.

And can it be much fairer to infer the same fact from the connexion formerly subsisting between church and state under the Jewish dispensation? What can all this have to do with the constitution of a Christian church? How far, in short, can it be justifiable to quote the customs, or canons, of an abrogated dispensation in support of the supposed propriety of this, or that practice in a second, and very disimilar dispensation, given to supersede the former ?

And as to drawing an inference in favour of the connexion between church and state from the injunction of the Saviour to the Jews to yield obedience to the Scribes and Pharisees, because they sat in Moses' seat (Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.), unless it be shewn at the same time where Moses' seat now is, we see not what is gained to the cause in question, by an argument such as this. If Christians, under a system of liberty,' are to let the civil power regulate the internal constitution of their church, their forms of worship, and so on, because the Jews did something of this kind, under a system which

be contended that this interference is authorized by the Spirit of that sacred book, it is respectfully requested that they who hold this opinion will have the kindness to bring forward some plain scripture passages, to prove that the New Testament, constructively at least, empowers the civil government of any christian country, be that government good or bad, wise or foolish, moral or immoral (for this, human nature being what it is, and changes so frequent, must always be a matter of mere contingency); — empowers, we say, the civil government of any christian country, to select the individuals who are to fill the highest stations in the Church, and thereby virtually to influence, to a great extent at least, the appointment of the inferior clergy.

11. Is not the circumstance of bishops sitting in a civil legislative assembly, and actually taking part in the business of civil legislation, thoroughly anti-christian in its character, that is, directly opposed to the spirit of the New Testament? Can any sanction be brought forward from that holy volume to authorize the practice in question? And can any thing in Church government, be binding on the consciences of Christians which stands directly opposed to the spirit of the New Testament?

cr

12. In any other department of mental or physical labour, what would be the probable results, if the election of the acting body were left at the mercy of individuals incompetent to judge of the qualifications necessary to ensure an efficient discharge of the duties connected with the office to be filled (for instance, if a large house being to be built, shoemakers

neither they nor their fathers were able to bear,† and with the sanction of a direct Divine command to this effect, then may not the same authority also be pleaded for the restoration of the morning and evening sacrifice, and all the ceremonial observances of the Jewish law?

† Acts xy. 10.

were applied to, to select the most proper masons, or tailors to decide on the most skilful carpenters); and, especially, what would be the probable results of such a mode of proceeding, if these incompetent judges had often private ends of their own to answer in the appointments they made?

"And if, in any other conceivable case, effects the most unfavourable to the prosperity of the cause to be advanced, would spring from such a mode of proceeding, have we any right to expect happier consequences in a case where error must be attended with the most fatal results possible, since all that is done, bears on the destinies of eternity?

"13. In a case in which the interests—the highest interests of the public, are so manifestly concerned, and where not clear spiritual discernment (rarely perhaps to be met with), but merely the recognition of the general principles of sound policy, and common justice, is the thing required to ensure a competent examination of the subject;-should not that public, in general, take up the cause, and with a degree of interest far exceeding any they have ever felt about subjects of a passing, and temporary nature (such as Parliamentary Reform, &c.), require to have the question settled on a scriptural, and therefore, permanent, and equitable basis, quite irrespectively of the tyranny of custom; the force of habitual, and childish predilection for what is established, merely because it is such; and servile veneration for what is ancient, merely on the ground of its antiquity?

"14. If it be contended (and the author does not take upon him either to affirm or deny the fact), that the Church of England (even in its present form) has been a great blessing to the country in which it exists, yet if a more enlightened age have furnished better, because more scriptural views of the proper constitution, and government of a christian Church, &c., does the fact above alluded to, render expedient,