But, instead of making the Dissenting Churches less. popular, why not make the English Church more popular, and raise the English clergy to the privileges of the Dissenters? In any parish of England, any layman, or clergyman, by paying sixpence, can open a place of worship,-provided it be not the worship of the Church of England. If he wishes to attack the doctrines of the bishop or the incumbent, he is not compelled to ask the consent of any person; but if, by any evil chance, he should be persuaded of the truth of those doctrines, and build a chapel or mount a pulpit to support them, he is instantly put in the spiritual court; for the regular incumbent, who has a legal monopoly of this doctrine, does not choose to suffer any interloper; and without his consent, it is illegal to preach the doctrines of the Church within his precincts.* Now this appears to us a great and manifest absurdity, and a disadvantage against the Established Church which very few establishments could bear. The persons who preach and who build chapels, or for whom chapels are built, among the Dissenters, are active clever persons, with considerable

reverse.

* It might be supposed that the general interests of the Church would outweigh the particular interests of the rector; and that any clergyman would be glad to see places of worship opened within his parish for the doctrines of the Established Church. The fact, however, is directly the It is scarcely possible to obtain permission from the established clergymen of the parish to open a chapel there; and, when it is granted, it is granted upon very hard and interested conditions. The parishes of St. George of St. James - of Marylebone and of St. Anne's, in London-may, in the parish churches, chapels of ease, and mercenary chapels, contain, perhaps, one hundredth part of their Episcopalian inhabitants. Let the rectors, lay and clerical, meet together, and give notice that any clergyman of the Church of England, approved by the bishop, may preach there; and we will venture to say, that places of worship capable of containing 20,000 persons would be built within ten years. But, in these cases, the interest of the Rector and of the Establishment are not the same. A chapel belonging to the Swedenborgians, or Methodists of the New Jerusalem, was offered, two or three years since, in London, to a clergyman of the Establishment. The proprietor was tired of his irrational tenants, and wished for better doctrine. The rector (since a dignitary), with every possible compliment to the fitness of the person in question, positively refused the application; and the church remains in the hands of Methodists. No particular blame is intended, by this anecdote, against the individual rector. He acted as many have done before and since; but the incumbent clergyman ought to possess no such power. It is his interest, but not the interest of the Establishment.

talents for that kind of employment. These talents have, with them, their free and unbounded scope; while in the English Church they are wholly extinguished and destroyed. Till this evil is corrected, the Church contends with fearful odds against its opponents. On the one side, any man who can command the attention of a congregation to whom nature has given the animal and intellectual qualifications of a preacher-such a man is the member of every corporation;-all impediments are removed: there is not a single position in Great Britain which he may not take, provided he is hostile to the Established Church. In the other case, if the English Church were to breed up a Massillon or a Bourdaloue, he finds every place occupied; and every where a regular and respectable clergyman ready to put him in the spiritual court, if he attract, within his precincts, any attention to the doctrines and worship of the Established Church.

The necessity of having the bishop's consent would prevent any improper person from preaching. That consent should be withheld, not capriciously, but for good and lawful cause to be assigned.

The profits of an incumbent proceed from fixed or voluntary contributions. The fixed could not be affected; and the voluntary ought to vary according to the exertions of the incumbent and the good-will of the parishioners; but, if this is wrong, pecuniary compensation might be made (at the discretion of the ordinary) from the supernumerary to the regular clergyman.*

Such a plan, it is true, would make the Church of England more popular in its nature; and it ought to be made more popular, or it will not endure for another half century. There are two methods; the Church must be made more popular, or the Dissenters less so. To effect the latter object by force and restriction is unjust and impossible. The only remedy seems to be, to grant to the Church the same privileges which are enjoyed by the Dissenters, and to excite in one party, that compe

*All this has been since placed on a better footing.

tition of talent which is of such palpable advantage to the other.

A remedy suggested by some wellwishers to the Church, is the appointment of men to benefices who have talents for advancing the interests of religion; but, till each particular patron can be persuaded to care more for the general good of the Church than for the particular good of the person whom he patronises, little expectation of improvement can be derived from this quarter.

The competition between the Established Clergy, to which this method would give birth, would throw the incumbent in the back-ground only when he was unfit to stand forward-immoral, negligent, or stupid. His income would still remain; and, if his influence were superseded by a man of better qualities and attainments, the general good of the Establishment would be consulted by the change. The beneficed clergyman would always come to the contest with great advantages; and his deficiencies must be very great indeed, if he lost the esteem of his parishioners. But the contest would rarely or ever take place, where the friends of the Establishment were not numerous enough for all. At present, the selfish incumbent, who cannot accommodate the fiftieth part of his parishioners, is determined that no one else shall do it for him. It is in such situations that the benefit to the Establishment would be greatest, and the injury to the appointed minister none at all.

We beg of men of sense to reflect, that the question is, not whether they wish the English Church to stand as it now is, but whether the English Church can stand as it now is; and whether the moderate activity here recommended is not the minimum of exertion necessary for its preservation. At the same time, we hope nobody will rate our sagacity so very low as to imagine we have much hope that any measure of the kind will ever be adopted. All establishments die of dignity. They are too proud to think themselves ill, and to take a little physic.

To show that we have not mis-stated the obstinacy or the conscience of sectaries, and the spirit with which they will meet the regulations of Lord Sidmouth, we

will lay before our readers the sentiments of Philagatharches a stern subacid Dissenter.

I shall not here enter into a comprehensive discussion of the nature of a call to the ministerial office; but deduce my proposition from a sentiment admitted equally by conformists and nonconformists. It is essential to the nature of a call to preach "that a man be moved by the Holy Ghost to enter upon the work of the ministry;" and, if the Spirit of God operate powerfully upon his heart, to constrain him to appear as a public teacher of religion, who shall command him to desist? We have seen that the sanction of the magistrate can give no authority to preach the gospel; and if he were to forbid our exertions, we must persist in the work: we dare not relinquish a task that God has required us to perform; we cannot keep our consciences in peace, if our lips are closed in silence, while the Holy Ghost is moving our hearts to proclaim the tidings of salvation: "Yea, woe is unto me," saith St. Paul, "if I preach not the gospel." Thus, when the Jewish priests had taken Peter and John into custody, and, after examining them concerning their doctrine, "commanded them not to speak at all, nor to teach in the name of Jesus," these apostolical champions of the cross undauntedly replied, "Whether it be right in the sight of God, to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye: for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." Thus, also, in our day, when the Holy Ghost excites a man to preach the gospel to his fellow-sinners, his message is sanctioned by an authority, which is "far above all principality and power;" and, consequently, neither needs the approbation of subordinate rulers, nor admits of revocation by their countermanding edicts.

3dly, He who receives a license should not expect to derive from it a testimony of qualification to preach.

'It would be grossly absurd to seek a testimony of this description from any single individual, even though he were an experienced veteran in the service of Christ: for all are fallible; and, under some unfavourable prepossession, even the wisest or the best of men might give an erroneous decision upon the case. But this observation will gain additional force, when we suppose the power of judging transferred to the person of the magistrate. We cannot presume that a civil ruler understands as much of theology as a minister of the gospel. His necessary duties prevent him from critically investigating questions upon divinity; and confine his attention to that particular department which society has deputed him to occupy; and, hence, to

expect at his hands a testimony of qualification to preach, would be almost as ludicrous as to require an obscure country curate to fill the office of Lord Chancellor.

'But again—admitting that a magistrate, who is nominated by the sovereign to issue forth licenses to dissenting ministers, is competent to the task of judging of their natural and acquired abilities, it must still remain a doubtful question whether they are moved to preach by the influences of the Holy Ghost; for it is the prerogative of God alone to "search the heart and try the reins" of the children of men. Consequently, after every effort of the ruling powers to assume to themselves the right of judging whether a man be or be not qualified to preach, the most essential property of the call must remain to be determined by the conscience of the individual.

It is further worthy of observation, that the talents of a preacher may be acceptable to many persons, if not to him who issues the license. The taste of a person thus high in office may be too refined to derive gratification from any but the most learned, intelligent, and accomplished preachers. Yet, as the gospel is sent to the poor as well as to the rich, perhaps hundreds of preachers may be highly acceptable, much esteemed, and eminently useful in their respective circles, who would be despised as men of mean attainments by one whose mind is well stored with literature, and cultivated by science. From these remarks I infer, that a man's own judgment must be the criterion, in determining what line of conduct to pursue before he begins to preach; and the opinion of the people to whom he ministers must determine whether it be desirable that he should continue to fill their pulpit.-(168-173.)

The sentiments of Philagatharches are expressed still more strongly in a subsequent passage.

Here a question may arise what line of conduct conscientious ministers ought to pursue, if laws were to be enacted, forbidding either all dissenting ministers to preach, or only lay preachers; or forbidding to preach in an unlicensed place; and, at the same time, refusing to license persons and places, except under such security as the property of the parties would not meet, or under limitations to which their consciences could not accede. What has been advanced ought to outweigh every consideration of temporal interest; and, if the evil genius of persecution were to appear again, I pray God that we might all be faithful to Him who hath called us to preach the gospel. Under such circumstances, let us continue to preach; if fined, let us