pondent; and as we have no reason to suppose that Dr. Smith and the "Watchman" allude to the same individual (whoever he was, of which we know nothing) we would hope that the practice, though not perhaps this odd phrase, was more general than Dr. Smith is aware of. We had not the least notion, when we inserted the Watchman's paper, that we should receive several letters as we have done-indignantly denying the charge. We took for granted that many Evangelical Dissenters pray for the Church of England; thinking it lawful and Christian to do so, though they, for what appear to them weighty reasons, secede from it. On the day on which we are writing (November 5) we pray for ourselves as follows: "Let truth and justice, brotherly kindness and charity, devotion and piety, concord and unity, with all other virtues, so flourish among us, that they may be the stability of our times, and make this Church [allusion had been made to the Anglican church in its national establishment] a praise in the earth." We had hoped that an Evangelical Dissenter might have said Amen to such a prayer; but we learn from one of our reprovers, "A lineal descendant from one of the Puritans," that to do so would be "not only absurd, but sinful." Our reprover must be a very degenerate descendant from the Puritans, unless he confounds Puritans with Brownists; for Puritanism did not involve the modern doctrine of dissent from a national church establishment. The Puritans found fault with some things in the Anglican doctrines and discipline; and they wished to establish their own; but so far from objecting to national churches, they for the most part inveighed against toleration as a heinous sin. Many modern Dissenters have blamed them for their advocacy of National churches; as for instance, Mr. Hanbury in his Introduction to Hooker's Polity, where he says, "The Puritans would have no reason to triumph, being themselves advocates of a religious establishment, and requiring likewise the secular arm to enforce and inflict its denouncements." Even Cartwright himself, Hooker's adver sary, says: "Those who would withdraw themselves, should be by ecclesiastical discipline at all times, and now also under a godly prince by civil punishment,brought to communicate with their brethren." "The magistrate ought to compel them to hear the word of God." This is not our doctrine, but it was that of the Puritans; who, if they would not pray for the Church of England, must have refrained, not because it resembled the church of Geneva in being established, but because it did not resemble it in all other matters.

Dr. Smith's brief letter relates to persuasions and to facts.

It is the persuasion, he says, of Dissenters, that the connexion which exists between every established church and the civil government, is inconsistent with the principles of Christianity, degrades and enslaves the church, and tends to delude and ruin "the greater part of the souls of those who are called the members of the National Church." As this is only a passing remark,abstracted from argument, we only remark in reply, that our firm and assured belief is just the contrary; the grounds of which we have so often and largely detailed, that we will not now diverge to re-state them. Our correspondent seems also to be of opinion that Dr. Wardlaw's "Lectures on Church Establishments" are very weighty and convincing; whereas ours is, that they do not so much as graze the buttresses of our national Zion. They are specious, and the Dissenting arguments are forcibly stated; but as levelled against the broad doctrine that a nation is bound to establish the public worship of God, they are but tow in the flame.

With regard to Dr. Smith's fucts; the first, namely, that modern Dissenters

66

do not pray for the Established Church of England, we are bound to admit upon his statement. The second, that their godly non-conformist ancestors did not do so, we more than doubt; indeed "dissent upon principle," as it is called, is a plant of but recent growth; and there was no reason why, as respects the Anglican church being established, the old non-conformists should not pray for it. But Dr. Smith alleges as another fact, that "Dissenters do not wish to raze our national altar;' but by peaceable and equitable adjustments, and by no other means, to remove stumbling-blocks and occasions to fall, which they are solemnly convinced involve aggravated sin against God, and are attended with awful peril to the souls of men." Our correspondent is himself so pious and amiable a man, and so zealous an advocate for equity and candour, that we give him the fullest credit for expressing his own conscientious feelings; but to allow that he rightly appreciates those of a large portion of what are called "political Dissenters," would be to contradict the loudest voice of facts. There is nothing peaceable" in such language as that of Mr. Burnett, "Agitate, agitate, agitate;" and nothing equitable" in the conduct of those church-rate abolitionists, who knowingly rent or purchase property subject to certain legal dues, and therefore at less than its intrinsic value, but decline to pay them, as the Eclectic Review, the chief organ of the Evangelical Political Dissenters, exhorted all non-conformists to do, as they preferred Christ to the "Juggernaut" of the Church of England. Does Dr. Smith never read the Eclectic, the Patriot, or the Congregational, which abound in invectives against our national communion? We will not ask whether he reads the Morning Chronicle, and numerous other secular publications, daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly, which may be justly styled, as to the matter in hand,Dissenting oracles, for they all profess to oppose the Established Church upon religious grounds, and how is the public to distinguish between one sect of Dissenters and another? or why, when we speak of the conduct of Dissenters, are a few evangelical ministers to stand forward, as though they were the sole body entitled to that name, and are therefore peculiarly aggrieved by the charge? When we speak of Dissenters we mean the whole body of persons who oppose the Church of England, professing that they have “ religious objections to it," be those objections Infidel, Popish, Quakerist, Congregational, or of any other cast; and we protest against the arrogant assumption, that one or more sects, or their leaders, are entitled to call themselves emphatically "THE Dissenters." If it were asserted that "certain congregational evangelical Dissenters" said or did so and so, then any person of this class might justly feel himself aggrieved if the charge were false; but not so if the general word "Dissenters" were employed, and it was true of certain opposers of the Church of England, who are to all intents and purposes Dissenters, though they may not call themselves Baptists, Independents, or the like. We do not indeed confound-very far from itall the regiments in the grand army of dissent; but various as are their colours, they all march side by side in the common attack upon the Church of England. Dr. Smith may fairly speak for himself, and in some measure for the special class to which he belongs; but unless he can say that no wish has been any where expressed to "raze our national altar," or that any thing beyond what is "peaceable and equitable" has been put forth in speeches, pamphlets, or newspapers, he must not make the disclaimer in the general name of "Dissenters." If he reply that he means Dissenters of his own

class, we ask by what right one of, or all the " Three Denominations," or any other specific body or bodies, call themselves exclusively "The Dissenters?" So much in strict argument; but we have no intention of availing ourselves of this latitude, for even in the speeches, writings, and doings, of the particular class to which our correspondent himself belongs, we could point out much, alas! that is neither "peaceable" nor " equitable;" for, as the Eclectic Review oracularly said, in an oft-quoted passage, “Pure attachment to dissenting principles requires to be kept up in minds of a certain class [say nineteen twentieths of the lay-members, and many of the ministers] by a keen hatred, and now and then a little round abuse, of the Church." Hatred is not peaceable," or "abuse" equitable.

Then as to our correspondent's statement that "Dissenters do not wish 'to raze our national altar,' some of his own more belligerent brethren will perhaps reply, that if under the indefinite phrase of "stumbling-blocks and occasions to fall," Dr. Smith means, as we suppose he does, that he is "solemnly convinced" that the national ecclesiastical establishments of England and Scotland "involve sin against God, and are attended with awful peril to the souls of men," he ought to wish to "raze" them; and that it is not a matter for " adjustment " but of extermination.

And, in truth, has not Dr. Smith himself found, by painful experience, that his own plans of "peaceable and equitable adjustment" have involved him in much obloquy with many of his less considerate friends? Several years ago, when there was violent "agitation" about throwing open the endowments of Oxford and Cambridge to dissentients from the Church of England, Dr. Smith, pleased with the magnificent idea of one large plan of academical education, freely expressed his sentiments to that effect. But when upon fuller inquiry, and having also himself examined the bearings and workings of the system during a visit to Oxford, he became convinced that the proposed scheme would be neither "peaceable" nor "equitable," and that the legislature had no more right to "throw open" the endowments of the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, than those of Homerton or Hoxton, he honestly published his conviction; and thereby incurred much reproach, and was neither peaceably nor equitably dealt with. We remember also that he at first united himself with his brethren in the "Ecclesiastical Knowledge Society," hoping that their measures for uprooting established churches would be "peaceable and equitable;" but when he found that the proceedings did not justify this pleasing expectation, he quitted them, charging them with "violations of equity;" in their sweeping plans for "razing our altars;" whereupon Dr. Bennett addressed him in no "peaceable" words, in a letter, accusing him of inconsistency and something like treachery," to which Dr. Smith replied, saying: "I was pained and distressed with the general style of both sentiment and expressions in some of the speakers, and with the boisterous acclamations of the hearers; indications of mind and demonstrations of feeling which I thought lamentably at variance with the idea of a religious society assembled in a place of worship for the purpose of promoting a professed superiority of regard to the authority of our blessed Redeemer." Yet our reverend correspondent, forgetting these things, says that Dissenters have not violated peace or equity in their agitations against established churches;—not even Dr. Bennett, we suppose, nor even Mr. Beverley himself.

66

With regard to what Dr. Smith calls "adjustment," if by that he means the subversion of established churches by a compromise with churchmen, we

frankly affirm that Dissenters must not expect it. So far from the question of the duty of setting up the national worship of God losing strength in the land, it acquires it the more the subject is canvassed. Till of late years the great majority of the people took for granted that a national church was lawful and scriptural, without having much considered the question; and very few even of its well-affected members had done so, nothing special having fixed their attention upon the subject. Under these circumstances a few popular objections, a few plausible arguments, puzzled them; and the Dissenter had the vantage-ground in arguing the question. But not so now. Vast numbers of churchmen, who were so, and conscientiously, though in part by prepossession, are now so by enlightened conviction. Dr. Wardlaw's weapons fall powerless against minds thus fortified. The main objections to national churches are on the surface; they are specious but not solid; and these being rebutted, minor difficulties vanish; and the duty stands out in its broad scriptural obligation. Robert Hall said, long before the promulgation of the above quoted dictum of the Eclectic Review, that the abstract principle of "dissent upon principle" was not likely to make many converts, where there were not positive abuses to place in the fore-ground. A man usually becomes a practical dissenter first, and learns to fortify himself with dissent upon principle afterwards. The same remark, we admit, applies to churchmanship; and, in consequence, the actual Churchman was not always a match for the theoretical Dissenter. But now that the members of the church have had occasion to look at the principle as well as the usage, they are less likely than before to listen to any "adjustment" which has for its object, immediate or remote, the abolition of the National church. In proof of this we refer to facts. Dissent has not been idle; it has effected its utmost; but have any of our churches been pulled down? has the ratio between the erection of episcopal and dissenting places of worship increased in favour of the latter? On the contrary, have not new churches sprung up on every side beyond all precedent? Has not the voluntaryism of the Church of England shewn that its union with the State has not blunted its energies? Are not church-schools multiplying throughout the land, and has not the recent successful contest with the promoters of education apart from religion, shewn that the people are determined that the training of youth shall be connected with the ministrations of the Established Church? Are not clergymen demanded far beyond the existing limits of supply; so that Church-aid and Pastoral-aid Societies are making grants to parishes in need of additional spiritual assistance, which are lying dormant because the people are asking for more pastors than can at the moment be procured, respect being had to due qualifications? Has not the national feeling risen so strongly in favour of the Church, that in parochial vestries, in the town councils, at the registries, and on the hustings, the clamorous hopes expressed a few years since by those factious Dissenters from whom Dr. Smith so honourably secedes, have dwindled to a whisper? Tithes have been commuted, not spunged out, as Dr. Bennett and other "peaceable" and "equitable" agitators proposed; and even church-rates remain untouched. Surely these are proofs that the stirring of the argument between the Established Church and "Dissent upon principle" has not tended to the injury of the former, or the national extension of the latter; and small fear have we for the result, if all Dr. Smith's brethren will come into his plan of seeking only by equitable and peaceable means to effect church demolition; and smaller still, if they neglect his good advice, and seek to "raze our national altar" by unholy violence.

CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 36.

5 A

We are very far from imputing it to Dr. Smith, or to any other non-conformist, as a matter of blame, that he wishes by argument and fair influence to suppress an institution which he "is solemnly convinced involves aggravated sin against God, and is attended with awful peril to the souls of men.” We indeed marvel that he should entertain a conviction which appears to us so opposed both to Scripture and experience; but holding it, we admit that he ought to listen to no 'adjustment" which wars with what he considers sound principle. It is therefore somewhat surprising to us that Dissenters have proved so over-sensitive when we have pushed their theory to its consequences. We do most firmly believe that what is called "dissent upon principle"-not dissent from false doctrine or bad discipline, from corruptions and abuses, but from every national ecclesiastical establishment as such-leads to practical atheism, so far as concerns legislation and all public institutions; and that in acting out this principle, we ought to begin by abolishing all recognition of a Divine Being, all reference to religious sanctions, in every law and national usage; that we ought not to make any public distinction between the Lord's-day and any other day; that all appeals to the Omniscient in courts of justice or otherwise ought to be abolished; that the Bible ought not to be allowed in any school which is aided by the State; in short, that we ought to be what the French were in 1793. Dissenters say that we caricature and libel them in pressing their principle to these conclusions; and yet we can honestly affirm that we see no half-way station. A Mr. Swaine (we believe a Baptist congregationalist) is exceedingly angry at what we have said on this subject, and has published a reply in a book entitled "The Shield of Dissent, or Dissent in its bearings on Legislation, especially on the Lord's-day, National Education, Public Documents, and Religious Taxation, with Strictures on Dr. Browne's work on Tribute." But so far from refuting us, he confirms our remarks, except where he is inconsistent with himself, and opposed to many of his brethren.

On the first of his topics, "The Lord's Day," he says:

"The government is wrong if it legislate in reference to the Lord's day upon the ground that it is the Lord's day,' just as, if the government were Jewish, it would be wrong to legislate in reference to it upon the ground that it was not the Lord's day.' Any enforcement to observe the Lord's day as such, appears to me to be as obviously wrong, as the enforcement in Turkey to observe Friday as a holy day."

"Passing the consideration of what would have been, and, taking things as we find them, only observing the principle, the public offices should certainly be open or shut up, whether on the Christian Sunday,' or 'Jew's Saturday,' or 'People's Decade,' if the people at large, throughout the land, prefer to mind their secular business on the given day, or vice versa, and cannot otherwise enjoy the liberty required."

"If the people at large should prefer or think that all the rest should be hindered from minding their secular business on a Sunday, most certainly their mere preference or opinion would not be a sufficient reason why the minority should be so hindered, although, in disregard of right, power might carry the proscription. To make the enforcement right, it should appear that, without such enforcement, some would be more restricted by law than others would be, but that, with the enforcement, all would be treated equally."

66 SUMMARY.

"I. Legislators mistake their duty when they restrain on the Lord's day,' as such, more than on other days.

"II. It was only through legislative error, in the first instance, the Lord's day' became anywhere a public holiday, and abused as it now is.

III. Popular profanity, of whatever kind, can be lessened only by laws promoting public liberty, and not enforcing Divine commands as such.