render back to his gracious Maker and Redeemer, some part of that which He had so kindly and plentifully bestowed upon him. I say, where the heart was right this must necessarily have been the feeling: where it was wrong,—as frequently was the case among the Jews -there could exist no real ground of objection. God only asked, and the state, fearing and honouring God, only decreed-that what would otherwise go to support luxury, and perhaps impiety in the great,-certainly to those who already had enough-should be bestowed on the church for the public honour of God, and for the general good of the people.28

In the next place, every care ought to be taken that religion be taught and maintained in a manner conformable to the dictates of holy scripture. For this purpose great care should be taken in ascertaining what the scriptures themselves have said on this subject: what the true church of Christ has considered as their declarations and intentions: and also, what history informs us as to the several cases in which controversies have arisen about it. When this has been done, inasmuch as some forms of doctrine must necessarily be drawn up, in order that it may be known what the church is and professes, and in what respects it differs from other institutions known, and generally allowed, to be heterodox; such forms comprehending little more than the leading doctrines of religion fully stated, should be proposed such too ought those to be which relate

28 I say for the general good of the people; for where this is duly applied-and I argue not for abuses-they are the principal gainers: take it away, and they will be the principal losers, either by getting no real Christian instruction at all, as is the case in innumerable instances in America, or, by getting that which is not good, and being forced (voluntarily of course!) to pay for it, after the tithes shall have been rendered in full tale to the landlord.

to church-government; leaving the minor and less important considerations, in either case, to be inculcated by ministers in their public instructions, and to be received or not by individuals, as each might think proper. As to the dues arising out of endowments made in any way to the Church,-as it is the case in charities and every other similar instance of bequest, donation, or the like-these ought to be paid, if it were only for the purpose of preserving a strong sense of moral right; and if not duly paid, then to be enforced; yet no civil penalties or pains ought to be inflicted on any persons because of difference of opinion in matters of religion nor ought persons excommunicated, or expelled from any body or community, to be delivered over to the secular power, so as to incur outlawry, fines, imprisonment, or any temporal or bodily pains or penalties whatsoever: Because, first, the scripture warrants no such proceeding: and, secondly, the orthodox and true church in its best times, never inflicted any such sufferings on account of religious difference in opinions.29

In the next place, instruction ought to be provided for those who are to be public teachers of religion, if not at the expense of the state, which may not be necessary, yet certainly under its inspection, as it is the case with regard to law and physic: otherwise every care at first taken to provide that revealed religion should be truly taught, might be wholly frustrated; and such difference of opinion on essentials, and thence confusion,

29 See Bingham's Eccl. Antiquities, book xvi. ch. ii. § 3, &c. To say, however, as Dissenters do, that the exaction of strictly legal dues constitutes a compulsory system of religion, is certainly one of the most monstrously absurd, injurious, and false things, that any men can possibly say. It is much the same thing, as to persevere in declaring that, right or wrong, they are determined to hoot down what they do not happen to like.

be created, as would make the church any thing but a member of that catholic institution of Christ, the distinguishing character of which is unity.

And lastly, this provision for religious instruction ought also to be protected by the state, of which the king of the country would necessarily be the head :3o

30 I must, to avoid prolixity, refer the reader here to Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, book viii. where this subject is discussed at length, and placed in its proper and just light. I would now only notice a few remarks of my excellent opponent. In p. 58, of the "Rejoinder," it is said, "I do not admit that I disingenuously quoted Barrow," &c. My answer is, I never said he did : what I said was, “All Barrow meant in this place evidently was, to affirm that the spiritual jurisdiction of the pope, was derogatory to the honour of Christ, to whom it solely belonged" (p. 24, of my last): and again (p. 26), on your first article of comparison between the Established Church and the Churches of Dissenters generally, "Had it come from any one of whose piety and honour I had not the greatest reason to think highly, I should have said it was far from ingenuous." Now, is this the same thing as saying that he quoted Barrow disingenuously?—Nor have I said that Barrow did not intend his position to be "universal." I believe that he so intended it: but this I say, he proposed it in a sense altogether different from that represented by him. He intended it to apply against the assumption of spiritual power, which had presumed to force the consciences of men, and which had set itself up as supreme arbitrator in every such case: not against the legitimate and scriptural temporal rule of the supreme magistrate: in which sense you, dear Sir, have applied it,—not wilfully, I will allow, but inadvertently. One word only on your "Rejoinder," respecting the case of Dr. Warren and others (p. 47). You say these “are strictly civil questions, referring to rights of property," &c. True; and to such only does the authority of the king reach with us. Still, there are occasions, in each case, in which theology must also be called in. Call to mind the Vice-Chancellor's judgment on Lady Hewley's Charity. The king, with us, can in his own single capacity enforce nothing. In the eye of the law, in any case, he constitutes but one part of the legislative power: and, in the church in particular, he can do no more than any other individual of high consideration, just as it is the case among Dissenters. It is in his capacity only of chief magistrate, that he can enforce laws previously enacted by the whole legislative body. Both as an individual, and as a public officer, he has no personal concern with Dissent; while

the clergy, either personally, or in their representatives, his principal counsellors as to its spiritual concerns; and the great council of the nation, representing the whole body of the people, as to these, in addition to others which would respect temporal appointments and provisions, conjointly. This, I maintain, is what scripture and the analogy of scripture, in conjunction with experience and the dictates of common sense, clearly point out, and will abundantly justify. And this is what the Established Church of England in fact is. Its doctrines and appointments, as I have already proved, are strictly scriptural, as far as scripture is to be had. In other cases,-after allowing every reasonable latitude for variety of opinion-it insists on nothing but what is absolutely necessary to the salvation of the soul generally, to good government and to the avoidance of scandal in its members severally.

When Dissenters, therefore, affirm that a state ought not so to interfere; that religion ought not to be publicly and nationally established; that a ministry ought not to be publicly instructed and provided for; that a king ought not to be considered the temporal head of the Church; that such Church will necessarily exercise a spiritual domination; that such a system is compulsory, is Egyptian bondage, iron-bound, and so on; it is incumbent on them to give good and substantial proof of all this, not a first, second, third, &c. statement of their own unsupported and unscriptural opinions. No; they ought, and they are bound, to shew us, either from the positive and plain declarations of scripture; or, by

as a ruler he defends the rights of Dissenters. In both these senses, he is connected with the Established Church. And, notwithstanding all you have said to the contrary, I can see no possible reason, why he should not be so, except, as before remarked, that the religious anomaly Dissent should have free course and be glorified.

good and sound argumentative deductions made from scriptures less direct, that these their charges are good and true. But it appears that no such scriptures, either direct, or indirect, are to be found. I am told that it is unreasonable to ask for them. My respected opponent also gives me a very imperfect-not to say erroneousaccount of the Mosaïc dispensation: he urges moreover from Bp. Warburton, that the connection between the church and state is merely political (p. 7, "Rejoinder"), notwithstanding my former admonition, that this is one of the most inaccurate writers in the English language. He then declaims with the most commendable earnestness possible against the abuses which exist among us, -in which last article I most cordially join him-and then he takes for granted that he has satisfactorily made out his point! All of which may possibly be right, and all I have said wrong; I only insist now upon the fact, that nothing to his purpose has yet been proved.

If, then, what has now been stated may be relied on, What are we to think of Dissent, at least, from Dr. Smith's representations of it? Can it lay claim to any authority higher than human? It manifestly is not scriptural. Where then, except in the desperately deceitful heart of man, am I to look for its origin or its authority? You tell me, truly enough (p. 7, "Rejoinder"), "that the only instance presented in the scriptures of an establishment of religion framed by a human authority, is that of 'Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin,'" &c. And, can any one doubt, I answer, that this was a system of Dissent from the established religion of Israel? Was not the ground-work of this human expediency; the object mere convenience? The end to please man rather than God? Was not its priesthood altogether uncalled, unauthorized? And did not the whole grow at the very first out of poli