"The inconsistency is more in the name than the nature of the thing, and is indeed no more than a fallacy. An establishment does not lightly admit of alterations, and this is one of its advantages; but there is nothing in its nature, which necessarily precludes them. A religious establishment no more precludes alterations in the ecclesiastical code of laws, than a civil establishment precludes alterations in the civil code. Accordingly, the Church of England, in the preface to her liturgy, asserts the right of making alterations, by observing, that "the particular forms of divine worship, and the rites and ceremonies appointed to be used therein, being things in their own nature indifferent and alterable, and so acknowledged, it is but reasonable, that, upon weighty and important considerations, according to the various exigency of times and occasions, such changes and alterations should be made therein, as to those, that are in places of autho rity, should, from time to time, seem either necessary or expedient." This right she has also repeatedly exercised; for, since the time of her first establishment, she has undergone various alterations, and received considerable improvements. Whether, in order to promote the cause of religious truth, any alterations in the doctrines held by the Church of England, or in the forms of divine worship prescribed by her, be necessary, I do not here inquire. I only mean to observe generally, that the civil magistrate (under which term, as I have said, I comprehend the legislative part of government, as the source of authority, and the executive part, as its running stream) is always at liberty to consider, whether any alterations in the religious establishment of a country be necessary for this purpose, and that, under the limitations already referred to, he is not only justified in making them, or in promoting the making of them, if he thinks them to be so, but obliged in duty to make or promote them. establishment," to use the words of an acute writer*, "is intended to prevent all other methods of propagating what each party esteems the truth, except the just and proper one of reason and argument." But, as it is not the intention of an establishment to hinder any sect from endeavouring to propagate the truth, or what is believed to be the truth, by this method; so neither can it be imagined, that any member of the establishment is intended to be precluded from the use of this method in propagating what he believes to be the truth, even though it should not make a part of the establishment."

66. An

With regard to the dangers to which the Church of Eng laud is at prefent expofed, Mr. Pearfon is of opinion that they arife,

The Rev. Thomas Ludlam, in his Essay on Social Union. and Appendix.

"Not

*Not so much from the increasing strength of any particular sect, as from the increasing and combined strength of all, or at least of the generality of sects; for, though many of the sects differ as much from each other as they do from the church, they agree in hostility to the church, and are ready, each with the hope of obtaining the ascendency, to co-operate against her. Even if they should not do this, the increase of the strength of each alone, according to the idea I have suggested, must necessarily injure the established religion in its most essential interests. I conceive, however, that the established reli gion, so far as this part of the united kingdom is concerned, has less to fear from Catholics, than from almost any other sect; both because, circumstanced as this country now is, the Catholic doctrines are less likely to gain ground, and because Catholics are less inclined, than persons of any other persuasion, to cooperate with those, who are of other persuasions, against the Church."

In this latter opinion we do not concur with our author; for the hiftory of this country affords abundant proofs of the readiness of the Romanifts to coalefce with the sectaries against the established church. Many inftances of such an union may be found in the history of the reigns of Eliza. beth and the firft Charles; nor do we think that the difpo fition either of the Catholics or the Diffenters in this refpect differs a jot from that of their ancestors.

The following remarks on a pofition advanced in the House of Commons, by that able politician, Lord Howick, are truly excellent.

"In a report of Lord Howick's speech, which is now before me, he is represented as saying, that "the notion of religious and political opinions being identified with each other, is a mis taken one," and that "this identification of religious and politi cal opinions had long since ceased to exist." I understand this to mean, that religion and politics have nothing to do with each other, or, in other words, that the preservation of a religious establishment is no concern of the state; a position, which goes to the overthrow, not only of our particular church, but of every religious establishment whatever. If, however, the opinion, that religion and politics are connected with each other, has at all ceased to exist, I may venture to say, that it has not long ceas ed to do so, In matters of this sort, it cannot be said to be long, though several years have intervened, since Bishop Warburton proved to demonstration, that an alliance necessarily subsists be tween a state, and the religion established in it; and his work is

still held in so high a degree of estimation, that every one, who pretends to any knowledge on this subject, is supposed to have read it. It is not long, since Judge Blackstone, speaking of the Test and Corporation Acts, which are the bonds of union between the church ard the state, calls them "two bulwarks, by which the established church is secured against perils from nonconformists of all denominations, Infidels, Turks, Jews, Heretics, Papists, and Sectaries," and "which secure both our civil and religious liberties *." Lord Howick himself admits, that so recent a writer as Dr. Paley, whose work is, at this hour, the lecture book in morals and politics in one of our universities, asserts the connection between religion and politics, i. e. between the church and state. By religion, of course, I here mean social or public religion, and not that religion which is confined to a man's own mind, or own house, and which passes between God and himself, or between God and himself and his own family only. If Lord Howick referred to such cases as that of the prophet Daniel, who was cast into a den of lions, because he "kneeled down upon his knees three times a day" in his own house, and there worshipped God in the manner in which he had been accustomed to do, or to the cases of many among our. selves, who in the days of papal persecution, were punished for their private religious opinions, or private acts of wor ship, he said what is true, but it was nothing to his pur pose."

The injury arifing to the church from the introduction of Calvinifm into our pulpits, is thus ftated:

"Many clergymen of the Church of England, adopting the pe culiar notions of Calvin, or however of the late Mr. Whitfield, who was a Calvinist, have assumed to themselves the title of Evangelical or Gospel ministers, and have not only asserted these doctrines to be doctrines of the Church of England, but encou raged the belief, that the clergy of the Church of England, being by far the majority of them, who omit to follow their example, neither preach the doctrines of the Church nor the doctrines of the Gospel. In consequence of this, the Church is exposed to that danger, which must necessarily arise from a degradation of the character of her ministers; for, if this allegation were true, it would follow, that the ministers of the Church are false to their most solemn engagements, and preach doctrines contrary to those, which they have subscribed to as true. But this is not all for, misled by such suggestions as these, the people are drawn off from the Church (in which, with a few exceptions, they are thus taught to believe, that the Gospel is not

* Commen. b. iv. ch. 4, and ch, 33.

preached)

preached) not only to the Methodistic societies, which were instituted by Mr. Whitfield, and in which the doctrines acknowledged to be Calvinistic are more particularly insisted on, but also to those Methodistic societies, which were instituted by Mr. Wesley, and which, though denominated Arminian, retain the doctrines of justification by faith exclusively of works, the new birth (or instantaneous and sensible conversion), and assurance of salvation, which are either the concomitants or consequences of Calvinism, and which, to the generality of the people, are probably the greatest inducements to adopt Calvinism. Now, though I entirely absolve the persons, to whom I refer, from the design of being enemies to the Church, I am obliged to contend that their conduct is as injurious to the Church, as that of enemies can be, and in some respects more so. On this subject, the Church has too much reason to adopt the complaint of the Psalmist, and to say, "It was not an open enemy that hath done me this dishonour; for then I could have borne it. Neither was it mine adversary, that did magnify himself against me for then, peradventure, I would have hid myself from him. But it was even thou,' my companion, my guide, and mine own familiar friend." Psalm lv.

Having explained what he means by the dangers of the Church, and ftated the caufes from whence he conceives them to arise, Mr. Pearfon goes on to propose the methods by which he thinks it poffible for them to be averted. And he fets out with expreffing it as his opinion, that nothing fhould be done for the internal regulation or improvement of the Church, without the advice and confent of the convocation. His reafoning on this fubject cannot but carry conviction home to the mind of every man who attends candidly to it, though we have not the flighteft hopes that it will produce any effect upon those who are "fettled upon their lees."

To the Convocation, if it were permitted to fit for real business, Mr. Pearfon would fubmit fome proposals of alterations. These are first a fcripture reading or a fhort fervice to be read daily in churches and chapels, instead of the morning and evening prayer, as now directed; fecondly, an abridgement of the Athanafian creed, and an omiffion of the condemnatory claufes; thirdly, an improvement in our translation of the fcriptures, particularly the reading Pfalms.*

* See Orth. Churchm. Mag. Vol. ix. p. 109, Vol. xii. p.

131.

G G

Vol. XIII. Churchm. Mag. for August 1807.

Having

Having made these propofitions, Mr. Pearfon proceeds to obferve that

"The Convocation, if assembled for the dispatch of business would have it in their power to benefit the church by other me thods besides the recommendation of what is new, and might be no less useful in preventing innovations, than in promoting alterations. On many occasions, a declaration of their opinion would be as effectual a remedy for an existing evil, as the enacting of a law. Not long since, Mr. Overton, a clergyman, ventured to charge the great body of the clergy of the Church of England with being Dissenters from the Church, affirming himself and those ministers and members of the Church, who are usually styled Evangelical or Gospel, to be the only true ministers and members of it: We are the true Churchmen, and, in a very fundamental and important sense of the word, Mr. Daubeny and his associates (under which expression was meant to be included the great body of the clergy) are Dissenters from the Church of England." True Churchmen ascertained, p. 397*. The injus tice, as well as the absurdity, of this accusation might easily be shewn to those, who had inclination and opportunity to attend to the proof; for, though it be admitted, that, in consequence of the royal Declaration prefixed to the Thirty-nine Articles, moderate Calvinists, as they wish to be called, may be considered as legitimate members and ministers of the Church, it necessarily follows, from the same authority, that they ought not to be consi dered as exclusively so; the Declaration, as we aretold, “being issued for the very purpose of silencing the controversy between the Calvinists and Arminians+." Since, however, the generality of men are more influenced by authority, than they are by reasoning, it is greatly to be wished, that this affirmation had been authoritatively reprobated. If the Convocation had solemnly pronounced it to be, what it undoubtedly was, a libel on the great body of the clergy, it would, in all probability, have been reiterated with much less confidence than it has been, and the mischievous effects which it was calculated to produce, would have been more completely counteracted.

"Lastly, the very idea, that the Convocation did, from time to time, deliberate whether the Church, by certain alterations, might not be brought nearer to perfection, would tend to produce

* There is too much reason to fear, from the effect, which Gospel preaching, as it is called, is found to have, in alienating people from their parish ministers, and inducing them to attend the Gospel preachers in their neighbourhood, that affirmations of this kind are not confined to books.

+ Collier's Eccles. Hist. of Great Britain, vol. ii. p. 746.

the