their operations. For it is not only discord and animosity which are thus encouraged and brought into action; the liberty and the effect of evangelical preaching, on the showing of an eminent dissenter himself, are both destroyed. The power which is placed in the hands of the people by the constitution of independency, is evidently one which experience proves they are not qualified to exercise aright,— a power which they are not fit to be entrusted with in the existing state of popular ignorance, and the prevalence of natural passions. To show that the best informed dissenters are aware of this evil in their system, an acute and judicious writer in the British Magazine, No. IV., observes that the Eclectic Review admits, that the too frequent recurrence to the much misunderstood and much abused right of suffrage has a tendency to turbulence, whether in secular or in religious societies. (1831, p. 488.) The author of the remarks on the present state of the dissenting interests, &c., confesses that " the genius of independence is hostile to those connecting links which are essential to the preservation of order and good government." (Ibid. p. 420.) The Rev. S. Morell writes thus: " Really during the time of my residence at I saw and felt so much of the evils of a vulgar democracy, that it almost made me disaffected to the system. It is much easier to find fault with others than to construct a good theory for yourself; this I am bound in justice to admit, and every honest and impartial dissenter will unite with me in saying, that our system is not devoid of practical mischief, however beautiful it looks in theory." (Binney's Life of Morell, p. 279.) Another dissent

ing minister also accounts for the disorders of independent churches from the nature of the system itself. "For the affairs of such a society to proceed with success, in perfect consistency with the theory, much more wisdom and virtue are required in the mass of the people, than where the few appoint without any popular appeal, and the many obey without any sentiment but that of simple submission. To this system itself, which requires so much in so many, it is not to be denied, that such evils as those to which the preceding pages refer, are, at times, to be attributed. In a number of persons of various rank, education, and capacity, a great difference of opinion must be expected on some subjects of general discussion; and when that happens to be one on which much interest and feeling are excited, one on which that portion of power which each possesses is to be employed, alas! human nature is too weak not to be in danger of betraying itself, under such circumstances, by some symptoms of imbecility, passion, or impertinence. The theory is beautiful as a speculation, and it would be equally so in fact, if men were equally perfect as the system itself." (Ibid. pp. 288, 289.) It too frequently happens, that the ignorant, the voluble, and the conceited, are the most forward; an opinion once expressed by such, becomes a pledge for invincible pertinacity. It is difficult to say, I am mistaken; and some, rather than say it, will persevere, determined to succeed in any point, by any means.” (p. 299.)

Mr. James also, whose confessions we have, in part, recorded in a preceding page, has further acknowledged "It will be known by all who read

the account which the reviewer has extracted from my book, that the schisms which sometimes exist in our churches may be traced, in great part at least, to the popular mode of electing our ministers." (James, Dissent and the Church, p. 53.)

And the same kind of reflection is cast on the popular election of ministers by other equally intelligent members of the dissenting body.

The Eclectic Review says, "These are sure indications" that the office of the ministry "is divested of its proper dignity and legitimate attraction." (1831, p. 493.) It alludes, with regret, to the notion which reduces the office of pastor or bishop of a christian church, to that of a mere chairman of the society,— to "the degradation of the pastorship, and the usurpation of the whole government of the church "by the laity," the "lord brethren." (Ibid. p. 482.) A writer in the Congregational Magazine deems it necessary to prove, that christian ministers are not strictly and literally servants of their churches! He says, "I fear the office of the minister is very far from being accurately understood, or its claims to respect scripturally admitted; and that the term servant, as it is frequently applied to him, is foreign to its sense in the word of God; and that in respect to the people, it often fosters feelings, and prompts conduct which cannot be observed without sentiments of indignant reprobation." He then proceeds to refute the erroneous notion, and asks, in conclusion,

"Can

churches in which the people and the pastor have so completely changed places from the apostolical, be apostolical?" (1829, pp. 364–368.)

I pity most heartily men of any liberal sentiments

placed under such degrading circumstances; and I hope that I may contribute to supply them, in the course of this work, with such arguments as may disenchant them of the idea of beauty in the theory, and effect their emancipation.

With regard to the political character of dissent in its ambition to sever the connexion of the episcopal church and the state, it must not be concealed nor dissembled, that if the establishment of that church is in accordance with the will of God, and if the kings of England be disposed to maintain that establishment, then the dissenters, in opposition to their monarchs in this respect, are not submitting to their kings as supreme, (1 Pet. ii. 13,) but are dividing a kingdom against itself, by a guilty complication of resisting "the powers that be" (Rom. xiii. 1, 2,) on earth, and the Spirit that be in heaven.

It is impossible to omit, in this place, a few remarks in reply to a Discourse lately published under the auspices of the London Congregational Union, entitled, "Dissent not Schism." The great object of the sermon is to prove, that the separation from the Church of England by nonconformists is justifiable, as it was justifiable in its origin, and as the causes which produced it are still in existence. Its origin is traced to the resignation of their livings by about two thousand ministers in the reign of Charles the

Second. These ministers were called upon to subscribe and declare in favour of the church Prayerbook, under penalty of being deprived in case of refusal. The argument in their defence is, that they were thus forced to separate from the church. There is very much to censure in the discourse besides its conclusion: but its conclusion is all that I am particularly concerned about, and its conclusion I most directly deny. It will consist with the design of this treatise, to point out such arguments as prove that the afore-mentioned two thousand were not forced, and were not justified to separate; that they erred in judgment in so doing; and that if this were the origin of dissent in this country, that separation was neither justifiable at that time, nor has since been at any subsequent period. If there were cause for it then, there is the same cause now; and if it exists now, it existed then, for the Prayer-book has been the same. I will prove that a good and sufficient cause for separation had no existence in the case of the two thousand ejected ministers, and has been equally imaginary with those who have been encouraged by their example.