belief that the presence of Mr. Canning in the House might have impeded the transition of any great rival to his own side of this long-disputed question.

These two sides are not now such as they used to be, when securities were expected, and their value so much canvassed. Almost all the great men, whose names are cited as authorities for what is still called Catholic Emancipation, sanctioned it, under the notion that securities would and could be found and now, when the Papists cannot, or will not, find them, Catholic Emancipation is a very different thing. Very recently, one or two have made up their minds, after much hesitation, to grant the Papist all he asks, although he could not, or would not, give securities: this conduct is not accordant with the notions of Mr. Pitt, whether it be more or less wise: and the Papist Church seemed almost expiring and powerless, when Mr. Pitt would have made concessions which he might now deem hazardous, even if the securities he then counted upon were now found practicable, and absolutely provided.

“III. Whether, in point of fact, the preservation of our religion is not always in our own power: and whether it be credible, so long as we are true to it, that any opposite system of faith could publicly supplant it in this empire."

ANSWER.-This Consideration substantially runs thus: Whether, in point of fact, the preservation of the Church of England is not always in the power of all its members, who could not be members without the assumption of its previous preservation? and whether it be credible, so long as all its members are true to it, that all its members will become untrue to it?

REMARKS.

What was intended by "so long as so long as we are true to it," I cannot discover. The words "in our own power" imply to me, not the power of each individual member of the Church of

England, but the power of all the members collectively. The term "our religion" is ambiguous. If the Protestant religion generally is meant by it, it is clearly not in our own power to preserve it; since the professors of it are so disunited among themselves, that there is no common ground which they would combine to maintain. But, if by the term "our religion is meant that particular form of Protestantism professed in the Church of England, it is credible, and probable too, that opposite systems, watching to unite against it, may publicly supplant it in this empire.

IV. Whether the Scriptural doctrines, Apostolical authority, purity of worship, and great reasonableness, of the Church of England, do not form the true bond of the attachment of her members, and the foundation of her public reverence and esteem and whether we ought not, as Protestants, and as Christians, to look to those innate characters of truth and authority, for the welfare and honour of our Church, far more than to the privilege of Law, or the patronage of the State."

ANSWER.-Mr. Davison apparently means to imply, that "the privilege of Law and the patronage of the State" are not to be looked to, because the other characters of truth and authority are.

REMARKS.

The Scriptural doctrines, Apostolical authority, purity of worship, and great reasonableness of the Church of England, do form the true bond of the attachment of her members, and the foundation of her public reverence and esteem; and we ought, as Protestants and as Christians, to look to those innate characters of truth and authority for the welfare of our Church, far more than to the privilege of Law or to the patronage of the State: and this which we ought to do, so far as I can understand Mr. Davison's expressions, is exactly what we do. The Law does not give the Church any important privileges above

any other Protestants. The State does not give the Church any patronage, such as to form any material object for the Church to look to: and if such privileges and patronage were not only possible, but in actual existence, the fact of their existence could hardly be made in itself a proof that they ought not to exist. The Church may, and does, look much more to those innate characters of truth and authority, than to the privilege of law and the patronage of the State: but it cannot therefore be inferred that the law may give privileges and the State may give patronage to those who are in conscience bound to overthrow the Church.

The tendency of the present Bill is such, that in a few years it is most probable it will be followed up by a severance of the Church and State and many who now support the present Bill, acknowledge such a consequence, and therefore become more and more strenuous in their support.

Mr. Chesnutt has dedicated to the Archbishop of Canterbury a Pamphlet, dated Chetwynd Rectory, Shropshire, March 14, 1829, and proposed five Securities against the consequences which he thinks probable, should the present system of excluding Papists be abrogated. The first of them is so extraordinary, that it is here given in his own words, page 20.

"The government of, and right of legislating for, the Church as by law established, and the doctrines, worship, rights, dignities, and revenues thereof, to be exercised solely by the bishops and clergy of the said Church lawfully assembled in Convocation; all power, right, or authority touching the same, to be renounced by Parliament; the Universities, Grammar-schools, and other endowments for purposes of education and piety, to be made by law parts and parcels of the Established Church, and as such to be placed under the sole jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, and the said bishops and clergy in convocation lawfully assembled: the said bishops and clergy, moreover, to have a certain controul over ecclesiastical patronage in certain cases; the several Convocations of the different provinces in

D

England and Ireland to be united in one assembly, to be called the Convocation of the Bishops and Clergy of the United Church of England and Ireland': and such Convocation to be assembled at certain stated periods of time, by the authority of the King's most excellent Majesty."

On page 23 is the following passage:-"The only effectual security therefore for the Established Church is to be found in a measure which may be truly called Protestant Emancipation; that is to say, in emancipating the Protestant reformed Church, as by law established, from the controul and authority of Parliament." On page 26 he has inferred, on grounds which do not seem to me strong enough to sustain the inference, that "the impropriety of leaving the Church in the hands of Parliament does not deserve to be seriously argued." And again, on page 33, he implies his belief that the Church can be made independent of Parliament. The First Number of the London Review has, in like manner, mistaken the controul of Parliament over the Church, and the power of existing laws: see pages 73 and 75. It is idle to say, that "the legislation of the Church has not passed into other hands than those of the two Houses of Convocation, but, being taken from them, has altogether been in abeyance." "If, therefore, in a question of reform, the functions of Convocation are not to be revived, some other purely ecclesiastical branch must be erected; unless, at least, the reform itself be preceded by a change in the first principles of our ecclesiastical polity." The Statute Book provides for the faith and forms of the Church of England; and there is not any thing which can be done to affect its faith or forms, without the authority of Parliament.

There is one page in this Review, which, although somewhat inconsistent with its previous pages, appears to me so excellent, that I cannot but cite it at length, as connected with the changes of our Church establishment probably consequent upon the measures now in progress. "The case of an original institution must be allowed to be different from that of one long

established. It may be the best policy to continue that which it was not the best policy to originate; or, which arose out of circumstances past, and no longer operating. It may be needless and wrong to demolish the work which has been cemented by time and favourable accidents, in order to build again on a more stable principle. But in the present instance there is a necessity, quite independent of all the considerations already urged, and inferior in weight to none of them—a necessity which has aided the operation of all, and which is indeed likely still to operate for ever, in incapacitating the Church of England for flourishing as a separate independent polity, whatever may be urged in favour of the more perfect spirituality of a church so constituted. It is not the loss of its revenues: for, in all fairness, these (as is clearly pointed out in the Rights of the Church of England vindicated') would remain the property of the church, distinguished by the Thirty-nine articles, although no longer patronized as the Church of England; and, were this the necessary result, still it is not an objection which can be urged on Christian principles. It is simply the extent of the church. Is it likely, is it possible, that so large a body as the Church of England should be well governed by any authority but that of the State? The society is far too unwieldy to be managed by any other controul; and even if it were practicable, and in proportion perhaps as it was well organized and governed, its operation would be too powerful for it to be regarded otherwise than with a suspicious and jealous eye by the Government. This is really the main ground of all the union which has ever existed between Christ's Church and the Civil rulers of the world. It is not that simply and absolutely the union of Church and State is expedient, or inexpedient, accordant with, or opposed to, Ecclesiastical or Civil interests; but Churches can manage themselves well and best, whilst they are small, and within the compass of a moderate jurisdiction. When they extend much beyond this, mismanagement ensues; and either by the Church's mischievous broils when disturbed, or by its power and influence