whom it is not occasional, but constant and habitual: and who sacrifice to it as largely of their money and their temper, as of their time. And let me add, that in proportion as your indifference to this amusement, and your infrequency in partaking of it, diminish your personal danger, they increase your criminality, in upholding, on so slight a temptation, an amusement so fraught with danger, indeed so often, and awfully, injurious to others.

Where, it is asked by others (who highly disapprove of cards, because they will not tolerate a rival,)—where, it is asked, can be the great mischief of an "innocent and occasional dance," which I uniformly break off before there has been any transgression of the bounds of temperance and moderation? I do not now urge upon you that the mind which could enjoy it is, plainly, not the mind of Christ; but I would urge upon you that you are participating in this amusement (which I must again observe, in order to be in any degree safe to you, you must be able to give up without any sacrifice,) and that you are assisting to support it, with many young persons of yet unformed and unfurnished minds, and in whom your "innocent, occasional dance" has expanded into the great business and enjoyment of life whom its absorbing levity has thoroughly unfitted for every serious meditation and pursuit: whose minds it often fevers with expectation, and again depresses and sours with disappointment. You join in it in a region whose very atmosphere is levity and dissipation : shunned by those whom you acknowledge to be decided and advanced Christians and where, you will yourself admit, the introduction of religious conversation would be ill-timed and unsuitable. You join in it amid a society, some of whose males are tainted in moral feeling -perhaps, notoriously, in moral character: whose every sentiment is infectious: whose very presence and admission are a sanction of vice, and a prostration of the law of holiness: some of whose females, whom the mind would gladly associate with all that is pure, and lovely, and honest, and of good report, dissipate this pleasing picture, by transgressing, to say no more, in the one article of dress, the strict bounds of economy, of propriety, of modesty!

It is asked by others. What can be the great harm of an occasional hunt? or of seeing a few race-horses run? I will not speak of the excitement which, to be enjoyed, this boisterous or momentary gratification must produce in the mind, and which is irreconcilably opposed to the calm spirit of Christianity: nor of the inevitable tendency of such amusements to sink man's higher in his lower nature; and to give a debasing and unholy predominance to all that is animal in his frame. I will not speak of the cruelty of one at least of these amusements; which derives its pleasure from the protracted agonies of a scared and panting victim. I will not ask, Where have fled men's softer feelings, while they make this trembling victim's life their sport; and, with sounds and forms of terror, pursue him, as he flies affrighted, while fear can lend its unnatural speed and vigour to his sinking frame; and when at length he drops, exhausted by weariness and despair, tear asunder his quivering limbs amid yells of exultation? I will not speak of the curse which pre-eminently appears to mark the other of those amusements: the temporal ruin which it has almost uniformly drawn upon its prime agents: but I would ask you to consider only the gambling, the swearing, to which it gives rise the idleness and drunkenness which it produces among our

:

starving peasantry and artizans: the unfavourable point of view in which it presents to them their superiors; from whose dignified and Christian example the benign influences of religion and inorality should descend upon them, as the irrigating rivers from the lofty hills, or as the gentle dews from heaven, refresh and fertilize the earth. I would ask you but to think of the dissipation which it produces in all ranks of society: the vice, and drunkenness, and riot, with which it wakes the peaceful night; and, by unholy vigils, often converts our hotels and streets, on the early morning of God's sacred day, into an image of hell.

I might then answer to that often repeated question, “Where is the great harm in worldly amusements?" that as the pastimes of childhood, however innocent, but ill become the dignity of maturer life, so the passing follies of a day but ill consort with the pursuits of eternity: the pleasures of the world are but little congenial to the tests and affections of him whose "citizenship is in heaven." But as this is not the line of argument which I have adopted, my answer must be, that these amusements contain, in their own nature, or in their necessary consequences, much more of evil than you have extracted from them: that your sanction mainly upholds them: and that, therefore, you are guilty of all the sin of their most malignant nature, and remotest consequences. And remember, that even though you could succeed in proving that to you they are but contemptible follies, to others they are, unadeniably damning sins.

But does religion, while it protests against the vices and follies of man's world, rob God's world of its charms, and man of his happiness? Oh no! This is the delusion with which the father of lies ensnares and detains his victims. The Apostle's call," Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world," demands from you no sacrifice. It seeks to rob you of no object, either of intrinsic excellence, or congenial to the sanctified affections of a new and regenerated nature. "The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life," are indeed imperatively forbidden, because they are "not of the Father, but of the world: and the world passeth away, and the lust thereof." But the eye may still stray, delighted, amid the varied beauties of this visible world. Every sense may wake to catch its congenial gratifications. You may yet "richly enjoy" the music or the stillness, the fragrance or the beauty, the breathing animation or the soothing repose, of external nature. Man too, in all his several relations, whether Christian or heathen; converted or unconverted; Jew or Greek; bond or free; whether linked to you by the ties of natural or providential relation; or separated from you by the other suns, and starry skies, of half a world, will still present a legitimate, and most interesting object for the exercise of your sanctified affections. Nor will all these enjoyments which God's world, moral or material, presents, be less exquisite, or less esteemed, because God's licence "richly to enjoy "gives peace to conscience; or because eternity opens an interminable field for the exercise of those affections, and the enjoyment of their congenial objects.

To love not man's world is not a privation but a privilege. It is no small part of the curse of this apostate world, that, throughout all its departments, both moral and physical, it is far easier to excite than to allay a pang: to inflict a wound than to heal it. Misery, that fearful and two edged sword, is wielded by every arm; and seems, as

it were, abandoned by providence, into the hands of malice, of passion, of inconsideration, of ignorance, of prejudices and infirmities, of coarse manners and unfeeling minds, even of well meaning but illjudging affection: while the sovereign and only effectual balm is kept securely in the treasure-house of heaven, and can be administered by the spirit of God alone: The poison flourishes every where in rank luxuriance; while earth's accursed soil and altered climate can grow no antidote. An infant's touch upon the trigger can lacerate a heart; and the whole faculty of medicine cannot heal it. Love not then that world which promises but to deceive: which embraces but to stab you and which cannot heal again the wounds that it promiscuously deals out among its votaries. Nor fear lest the heart be less delicately, or less profoundly, susceptible, because thus shielded : because the vanities which disappoint, the anxieties which fever, the vices which corrupt, have been separated from the charities which feed it because the affections of nature have been sublimated and refined, and transmuted into the affections of grace. No! we should be no losers, either in the capability and intensity of loving, or in the number and value of the objects of our love, even though the affections were to soar, on the buoyant wings of an indwelling Spirit, from things on earth, to things in heaven: though the dim lights of this night of time faded before the dawning glories of eternity: though Christ, "the bright and morning star "of Bethlehem, rose above the dark waters of the troubled sea of life, and because the guiding star of the heart's affections: though, in the sanctuary of his chosen temple, the human heart, the love of this deceiving, idol world, bowed before the love of God.

J. M. H.

SECUNDUS THOROGOOD ON THE PAYMENT OF CHURCHRATES AND OFFERINGS.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

EMBOLDENED by the example of my never-enough-to-be-admiredand-honoured brother, Mr. Primus Thorogood, I wish to suggest the duty of carrying out the anti-church and anti-tithe principle to a nobler extent; for if I refuse to pay one tax because I object to its appropriation, why should I not refuse all taxes, if portions of the produce of them, and my contribution among the rest, are appropriated in a manner which I do not approve?

It may be objected that since, in the tens of thousands of items of public expenditure, there are some which different individuals may believe to be morally wrong; if the above principle were let loose, there would be an end to all taxation, all legislation, and all government. Be it so; and the sooner perhaps the better. May I not as rightly refuse to pay the Queen's taxes because a fragment of them goes to support army chaplains, as church rates which go to support parochial worship? Morrison the pill-man declaims against medical practitioners; ought he not in duty to refuse to pay his taxes, since a portion of them is appropriated to encouraging army surgeons and the Queen's physicians? Can any man who considers hunting to be wanton cruelty, conscientiously pay taxes so long as one farthing is spent on the royal stag-hounds and their master and

attendants? A friend of mine considers gold-laced liveries sinful; can he in duty pay taxes which directly purchase many, and indirectly more? Ought any Quaker to pay taxes so long as there is a single charge for guns, swords, pistols, soldiers, sailors, army necessaries, or ships of war? Ought not those who object to theatres, to refuse paying taxes this year, as a charge will be made in the public accounts for the gratuitous opening of them on the day of the Queen's marriage: every tax payer defraying his share of his playgoing neighbour's admission.

My lukewarm friends say, that though every man ought to do all that he lawfully can to prevent any appropriation of public money to objects which he considers wrong; yet that an individual outvoted by the community is not responsible, and has no right to withhold custom and tribute from those to whom they are due, because he disapproves of the application of portions of them. But I am more consistent; and I therefore propose carrying out the matter to its due extent. My Quaker landlord very properly refuses to pay a certain annual sum with which his property is encumbered, because it goes to maintain a gentleman in black with a shovel-hat, though he purchased the property subject to that incumbrance, and therefore for less than he would have given if free from it; and he says that he would not object to the payment of the money, if it were not for its appropriation. I having as great an antipathy to drab and broad brims as he to black and shovels, intend to decline paying him any further rent, as my money would be appropriated to buying those and other obnoxious articles. It is true I gave less for my lease in consequence of having to pay rent; but my landlord also gave less for the property having to pay tithe; and why should not my conscience be as particular as his ? I intend also to recommend my worthy brother, Mr. Tertius Thorogood, to decline paying rent for that Lady Hewley farm which he holds. It used to go to aid Arians and Socinians; and it is now, I am told, appropriated to evangelical dissent; but as my brother ought to disapprove of money being forcibly claimed in any way for religious objects, he is not justified in paying his rent, unless the parties will burn the lease, and leave him to pay or not, and as much or as little as he likes, upon the sound voluntary principle. I am not quite sure that upon this noble principle, rightly carried out, I ought to pay my tailor or my wife's milliner. It is a difficult question which I have not seen fully investigated.

I forgot to mention that our parish collector, an odd sort of a man, happens to be a trustee for some property, the annual proceeds of which were bequeathed by an ancestor of his to the "Baptist interest" in our town; and that upon his applying to the minister of the said "interest" for his rates, and being remonstrated with for extorting money from unwilling parties to support the Established Church, he replied that he should take the hint, and not extort from unwilling parties to support the meeting-house; for some of the tenants as much disliked to pay rent as the meetingers to pay Church rates, and he had no better reason to give them than the one which he had given the Baptist minister, that the property was legally saddled with the incumbrance; to which they replied, that they considered his ancestor had made a bad will, as the Baptist minister said that the na

tion's ancestors had made a bad law; and there the matter rests for the present.

I very much admired Mr. Duncombe's parliamentary motion last month for exempting from the payment of Church rates any holder of property who should affirm that he is a Dissenter. I thought of proposing to get a clause added, that no person shall pay towards the police force who shall affirm that he does not want it, or approve of it.

SECUNDUS THOROGOOD.

THE BISHOP OF EXETER ON EPISCOPACY.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

IN the Bishop of Exeter's late Charge, page 60–64, I find a statement of what is in his opinion the doctrine of the Church of England formularies; and a declaration that therefore no clergyman can deny, "without the most shameful disingenuousness," and baseness "which no words of man can exaggerate," that lawful authority to ordain " resides in Bishops and in none but Bishops," and that it is by Divine institution that the Bishops hold this power.

In the Appendix to the same Charge, page 116, I find the Bishop refers "to all the soundest and ablest divines of the Reformed Church of England who have written on the nature of the visible Church, viz.: Bishops Jewell-Bilson-Hall-Bramhall-Stillingfleet -Jeremy Taylor-Beveridge-Hooker-Field, and Hammond."

On turning to these several authorities, I find that in the Preface to the second part of Froude's Remains, by the Oxford editors are given copious extracts from Jewell for the express purpose of shewing that he, the last reviser of the Thirty-nine Articles, not only did not hold, but actually scoffed at, the doctrine of the necessity of Episcopal succession. I find also that Hall (Practical and Devotional Works, ii. 54, 56,) considered that "all we Protestants" were "agreed in professing the form of Episcopacy not to be essential to the being of a church :" that Bramhall declared, on the question of Presbyterians' orders, that "he neither affirmed nor denied their validity, much less condemned all the orders of foreign churches," (Life prefixed to his works); and that "he could not assent to the proposition that either all, or any considerable part, of the Episcopal divines in England unchurch either all or the most part of the Protestant churches" (Works, p. 613): that Stillingfleet's Irenicum is employed throughout in proving that the "form of Church government is mutable," and in chap. viii., in proving that this was also the judgment of English divines, referring in page 413 to Bilson, as coinciding with him on this very point: that Hooker (besides the well known argument of the Third book of the Ecclesiastical Polity) declares that "the whole Church visible being the true original subject of all power, it hath not ordinarily allowed any but Bishops to ordain, but sometimes there is very just and sufficient reason to allow ordinations made without a Bishop," (Epistle vii. 14, 11,): and that Field (iii. c. 39), says, "Who then dare condemn those worthy ministers of God that were ordained by Presbyters in sundry churches of the world at such times as Bishops, in their parts where they lived, opposed themselves against the truth of God, and persecuted such as professed it."