sr- '^•1 . -.

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

POSTSCRIPT

PRINCIPLES OF CHURCH REFORM.

THOMAS ARNOLD, D.D.
HEAD MASTER OF RUGBY SCHOOL,
AND LATE FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD.

LONDON

PRINTED FOR

B. FELLOWES, LUDGATE STREET.

1^ 65-

M DCCC XXXIII.

R. t'LAV, PRINTER, EREAD-STREET-HILL, "

POSTSCRIPT.

Since the first publication of this pamphlet I have
heard and read a great many objections against
its principles and details. But a very recent work
on Church Reform, by the Rev. C. Dickinson,
Domestic Chaplain to the Archbishop of Dublin,
has particularly determined me to add some
explanation and defence of what I have written ;
for Mr. Dickinson's objections are levelled
against that part of my pamphlet which rests
on principles most commonly misunderstood;
and the tone of his remarks is at the same time
so friendly, that it is impossible for any acrimo
nious feelings to mingle with my re-statement
of my argument.
The substance of what I endeavoured to shew
was this, — that a Church Establishment is one
of the greatest national blessings ; that its
benefits have been lessened and are now in
danger of being forfeited altogether, by its being

based on too narrow a foundation, and being
not so much the Church of England, as of a
certain part only of the people of England;
and that in order at once to secure it from
destruction and to increase its efficiency as an
instrument of national good, it should be made
more comprehensive in its doctrines, its consti
tution, and its ritual.
The first proposition, namely, that a Church
Establishment is a great national blessing, is
disputed sufficiently in many quarters, but not
in those from which most of the objections to
my pamphlet have proceeded. Nor have I met
with any attempt to disprove the most important
part of my second proposition, — that is, the
actual jeopardy in which the Establishment as
at present constituted is placed, from the
strength of the several parties who are working
together to effect its overthrow. And yet this
is the main ground on which I urge the neces
sity of so extensive a reform : for although it
might be an improvement upon our present]
system under any circumstances, yet if the
Church, as it now is, were in no danger, I am
quite ready to allow that it would be unwise to
risk, supposing the proposed change to be a
risk, the great benefits which the country even
now derives from it, merely in the hope of
making them greater.

But against my third proposition, that the
Establishment should be made more compre
hensive, a surprising outcry has been raised.
Some, as I expected, have ridiculed it as im
practicable, while others have protested against
it as latitudinarian* and contrary to the truth
of Christ's Gospel; and the whole argument
connected with it has been assailed on various
grounds, and with various degrees of under
standing, of good feeling, and of knowledge.
" The proposed comprehension is impractica
ble." It may possibly be so, and it is not only
possible but very likely that I may have spoken
too sanguinely of its immediate practicability in
its full extent. I have supposed it impossible
to include at present the Roman Catholics, the
Quakers, and the Unitarians : it may be, that
other bodies of Dissenters whom we might be
willing to admit, would themselves object to the
union, and would prefer their present indepen
dence, especially if they can succeed in obtaining

* "A considerable cause of our divisions hath been the
broaching- scandalous names, and employing them to blast
the reputation of worthy men ; bespattering and aspersing
them with insinuations, &c. ; — engines devised by spiteful, and
applied by simple people ; — latitudinarians, rationalists, and I
know not what other names, intended for reproach, although
importing better signification than those dull detractors can,
it seems, discern." — From an unpublished and unfinished
Treatise, " relating to the Dissenters," by Dr. Isaac Barrow.
b2

6
relief from what they consider the burdens of
their actual condition. Undoubtedly if they do
obtain this relief, they will have so much less
inducement to become members of the Esta-
bhshment; yet if the Establishment make no
efforts to unite them to itself, how can this
relief be refused them ? But if the Estabhsh-
ment were to set its doors widely open, do we
doubt that within fifty years the great mass of
the dissenting population would gladly enter
them ? Supposing that habit made the majority
of the existing generation of dissenting ministers
prefer their own chapels and their own separate
society; yet how many of the rising genera
tions, who will now be Dissenters, would eagerly
enhst as ministers of the Establishment, if
an opening were made for their services by
our employing ministers of different stations
in society, and exacting from them a less rigid
conformity ?
I would have no renewal of the Savoy or
Hampton Court Conferences; some of the
leading Dissenters might be privately consulted,
but the alterations to be made in the Liturgy
and Articles should be marked out by a Com
mission,* appointed by the king in the first
* And above all, I must repeat what I have said before,
that this Commission should not consist solely, nor even prin
cipally, of Clergymen. The failure of the Commission in 1689

instance, and then submitted to Parliament ;
and the alterations in the administration of the
Church should be decided by an act of the
legislature, drawn up under the direction of the
Government. That the improvements thus
effected would at once reconcile many of the
Dissenters, and convert many merely nominal
Churchmen into hearty friends of the Establish
ment, appears to me little less than certain.
That within fifty years they would nearly extin
guish all dissent throughout the kingdom, or
reduce it so greatly as to destroy its importa.nce
as a national evil, I hold to be in the highest
degree probable.
is a warning on this point, as well as against the notion of
submitting any plan of Church Reform to the judgment of a
Convocation. Previously to this unsuccessfiil attempt, it had
been moved in the House of Lords, " that a number of persons,
both of the clergy and laity, should be empowered to prepare
such a reformation of things relating to the Church as might
be offered to King and Parliament, in order to the healing our
divisions," (I am quoting Burnet's words,) " and the correcting
what might be amiss or defective in our constitution.'' Burnet,
giving the clergy credit for a sincere desire to promote such a
design, wished to leave the matter whoUy in their hands, and
therefore warmly opposed the motion, which was accordingly
rejected. " But I was convinced soon after," he says, " that
I had taken wrong measures, and that the method proposed
was the only one like to prove effectual." — History of His
Own Times, Vol. III. p. 11. 8vo edit. London, 1818. Unless
we profit, as Burnet did, by his experience, we are likely to
meet with a repetition of the same disappointment now.

" The proposed comprehension is unchris
tian." Surely not, as far as the mass of the
Protestant Dissenters are concerned, or how
could three attempts have been made, in the
course of the seventeenth century, to effect it ?
It matters not whether the ruhng party was
sincere in its professions ; the mere fact of the
Hampton Court and Savoy Conferences, to say
nothing of the abortive Commission of 1689, is
an admission on the part of the Church that
a comprehension with those who are called the
orthodox Dissenters cannot be in itself unlawful.
I would go farther, and include all who will
agree in to, avayKaiorara, — in those points, a
denial of which absolutely excludes a man from
the Church of Christ. And I hold with Bacon,
that the bonds of Christian communion are laid
down to be, " One faith,* one baptism," not
" one ceremonial, one opinion." And further,,
* " Vincula enim communionis Christianas ponimtur, Una
fides, unum baptisma, &c. non unus ritus, una opinio." — " His
itaque perpensis, magni_videatur res et momenti et usus esse, ut
definiatur, qualia sint iUa et quantae latitudinis, quae ab ecclesise
corpore homines penitus divellant, et a communione fidelium
eliminent. Q,uod si quis putet, hoc jam pridem factum esse,
videat Ule etiam atque etiam, quam sincere et moderate. Illud
interim verisimile est, eum qui pacis mentionem fecerit, repor-
taturum responsum illud Jehu ad nuntium, ' Numquid pax est,
Jehu ? Quid tibi et paci ? Transi et sequere me.' Cum non
pax sed partes plerisque cordi sint " — Bacon, De Augmeniii
Scientiarum, IX. 1 . § 2.

9

I think that what Bacon found wanting in his
time is wanting still ; namely, " a declaration of
the nature and magnitude of those points which
utterly divide men from the Church, and expel
them from the communion of the faithful." "And
if any man think that this has been done long
since," either in the decrees of the four first
councils, or in any creeds or articles of any
existing Church, " let him observe again and
again," as Bacon most justly adds, " how much
truth and how much moderation have been
shewn in the doing of it." For instance, a false
criterion of " fundamental errors" has been set
up, in measuring the importance of the error to
us by the excellence of the object to which it
relates. This has caused men to lay so much
stress on all opinions that relate to God. And,
indeed, opinions of his moral attributes are of
the last importance, because such as we suppose
him to be morally, such we strive to become our
selves ; but opinions as to his nature metaphysi
cally may be wholly unimportant, because they
are often of such a kind as to be wholly inoperative
upon our spiritual state: they neither advance us
in goodness, nor obstruct our progress in it.
On the other hand, that is to us a funda
mental error which directly interferes with our
own edification. That is to say, we cannot
worship with a man who insists upon our omit-

10
ting some religious exercise which we feel to
be important to our own improvement. I laid
the stress therefore on the worship of Christ,
not on the admission of his proper divinity.
If a man will not let me pray to and praise my
Saviour, he destroys the exercise of my faith alto
gether ; — but I am,no way injured by his praying
to him as a glorified man, while I pray to him
as God. The conclusion to be drawn from the
known fallibility of human judgments, is, not
that we should be sceptical ourselves, or com
promise our own practice, but that we should
bear with our neighbour's thinking as he judges
right, so long as he will bear with our acting as
we judge right. Conformity to our Liturgy
therefore is a much better test to require than
subscription to our Articles. In other words,
if the pubhc prayers of a Church be enough
to satisfy a Christian's devotion, and to be an
effectual means of grace to him, and if the
sacraments be duly administered, we have every
thing that is essential to our own improvement;
and what has been imagined to afford a greater
security to our faith, has, in fact, rather tended
to weaken and perplex it.
Of course I am aware that Articles are rer
garded as a security against erroneous preach
ing. Now, certainly it would belong to the
common discipline of the Church that a minister

11
should not preach against the Liturgy, — he
should not contradict the prayers in which he
had just before joined. And gross ignorance,
and violence, or any indecency of language or
manner, might and ought to be noticed by the
Church authorities, whose superintendence, if
the Church were reformed, would be much
more complete and efficient, we might hope,
than it is at present. But as to differences of
opinion, they exist actually, in spite of the
Articles, and all the inconveniences which would
arise on that score may be thoroughly appre
ciated already. We have at this moment the
extremes of Calvinism and Arminianism united
within the pale of the Estabhshment ; — it is
difficult to conceive how any greater differences
of opinion could exist, so long as the Liturgy
was a Christian Liturgy, and no man was
allowed to preach against it.
With respect to Church government, the
principal points which I urged were, first, the
admission of the laity to a larger share in it ; —
secondly, that its constitution should be rendered
more popular; and, thirdly, that the power of
the bishops should be rendered more efficient
by the institution of such checks as might allow
of its exercise without danger.
I am not aware that on these points Mr. Dick
inson's views would differ from mine. He speaks

12
of " the bishop of the diocese, aided by his
proper council," as if he had no idea that such
a hmitation of a bishop's power were either
unlawful or inexpedient. He is probably not
ignorant that in the primitive Church * " the
bishop did nothing of importance without the
advice of his presbyters and deacons," and that
" frequently he took the opinion of the whole
people." He remembers, that one of the cir
cumstances in the administration of bishops
in England, with which Bacon never could
be satisfied, was, " the sole exercise of their
authority ; " that " the bishop giveth orders
alone, excommunicateth alone, judgeth alone ;"
— " a thing," he adds, " almost without example
in good government." f Nor is Mr. Dickinson,
so far as appears, one of those extraordinary
* " En chaque egUse 1' Eveque ne faisoit rien d'important,
sans le conseil des pretres, des diacres, et des principaux de
son clerge. Souvent m^me il consultoit tout le peuple quand
il avoit interet a 1' affaire, comme aux ordinations." — Fleury,
Discours sur l' Histoire des Six Premiers Siecles de I'Eglise,
prefixed to the eighth volume of his Ecclesiastical History.
This and the other discourses of the same writer, scattered
through the volumes of his history, can hardly be recom
mended too strongly. I know of nothing that at all approaches
to them in excellence on the subjects to which they relate.
Sir J. Mackintosh has done justice to their merit, in a note in
the first volume of his History of England, p. 146.
+ " Of the Pacification of the Church." — Bacon's Works,
Vol. IV. p. 436. Folio edit. 17S0.

13
persons who gravely maintain that primitive
Episcopacy, and Episcopacy as it now exists in
England, are essentially the same. I was well
aware that many persons did maintain this, and
I spoke purposely in my pamphlet of the great
difference between the two institutions, in order
to draw their attention to the grounds on which
their belief rested. But as it seems that they are
not apt to think out the question for themselves,
they are requested to consider the following
points. An office may be said to be essentially the
same so long as it is calculated to fulfil equally
well the object for which it was originally in
stituted. Thus, if the object be to perpetuate
the dignity and authority of one particular
family or race, the office may be called the
same, so long as it is hereditary in this family
or race, even though its powers in the course
of years may undergo considerable alteration.
Thus in an hereditary priesthood, as long as
the blood was preserved pure, the office would
retain its most essential character of identity,
although at one period the priests' power were
independent of the civil magistrate, and at
another completely subservient to him.
Again, if the object were to secure the con
tinued efficiency of some highly valuable gift,
which the possessor for the time being could

14
communicate to any one whom he might fix
upon, then the office would be substantially the
same so long as the possession of this gift re
mained annexed to it, although in other matters
its powers might be increased or diminished.
But, if the object be simply to provide for
the general ends of good government, then the
office loses its essential identity so soon as it is
altered in those points which affect its opera
tion upon the commonwealth. For instance,
the powers of the office may remain the same,
but its operation for good or for evil may be
wholly different according to the different hands
in whom the appointment is vested. No man
would call the House of Commons essentially
the same, if its members were to be nominated
by the crown instead of elected by the people.
And, on the other hand, the mode of appoint
ment may remain unchanged, but the character
of the office may be essentially changed, by
extending its powers or abridging them. The
tribunes were still chosen by the tribes as
formerly, but the people felt that it was no
longer the same office when Sylla deprived
it of the right of originating any measure, and
made it a disquahfication for attaining to all
the higher honours in the commonwealth.
Now Episcopacy was clearly not instituted
for the sake of maintaining the ascendency of

15
any one family or race; and therefore it has
never been hereditary. It is the second case
which has given rise to the prevailing confusion
on the subject. For the Apostles were pos
sessed of certain most valuable gifts, and could
communicate them to others ; — and had these
gifts been capable of perpetual transmission,
the office with which they were transmitted
would have remained essentially the same, how
ever much its ordinary powers might have been
changed from what they were originally. Now
if any gift be thus transmitted in the case of
Episcopacy, what is it, and where is the proof
of its existence ? When men say that the power
of ordaining ministers is thus transmitted, there
is a confusion in the use of the word power.
Bishops confer a legal qualification for the
ministry, not a real one, whether natural or
supernatural. They can give neither piety, nor
wisdom, nor learning, nor eloquence ; — nothing,
in short, but what the laws or constitutions of
the Church empower them to give, — that is to
say, a commission to preach and to administer
the sacraments in the Church of God, according
to the measure of the gifts which the person
ordained has received, or may receive hereafter,
not from them, or through their medium, but
from God, and the blessing of the Holy Spirit
on his own prayers and exertions.

16
Episcopacy then was instituted for the general
ends of good government ; and like ordinary
civil offices, its identity depends on its continu
ing to exercise an equal influence on the welfare
of the body connected with it. If then its
mode of appointment be wholly changed, and
its relation to the Church greatly circum
scribed; still more, if the whole society to
which it belongs has assumed a different aspect,
it is hard to conceive how it can be said to
continue essentially the same. Now the primi
tive bishops were appointed by the members of
their own order, with the approbation of the
people of the diocese : — bishops in England
are appointed solely by the crown. The pri
mitive bishops could legislate for the Church,
laity as well as clergy : — the bishops in
England can legislate for no one without the
consent of the crown, — and if they are allowed
to meet in synod they can legislate only for the
clergy, — over the laity their canons have no
authority whatever*. The primitive bishops
fixed the doctrine of their Churches, and
ordered their ceremonies : — no single bishop,
nor all the bishops in England united, can
order a single prayer to be added to or taken
from the Church service, nor can they so much
* See Blaekstone's Commentaries, Vol. I. p. 83. Edit.
Coleridge. 1825.

17
as alter a single expression in its language.
No bishop can ordain any man unless he will
take certain oaths imposed by Act of Parlia
ment, and subscribe to the Articles of Religion
as required by Act of Parliament. No bishop
can refuse to institute any man regularly
ordained to any cure of souls in his diocese, to
which he may be appointed by the patrons ; nor
can he, except as patron, and not as bishop,
confer the cure of souls on any one. Finally,
in the primitive times the bishops were
judges in civil matters amongst their peo
ple, and thus possessed a temporal infiuence
and authority as well as a spiritual : — whereas
in England they are accounted solely the go
vernors of the clergy, and the bulk of the
people are hardly aware of their possessing any
authority at all.
It will not be supposed that I am dwelling on
these differences for the purpose of depreciating
our present Episcopacy. Whatever be the faults
of our system, it is no reproach to it that it dif
fers from that of the primitive Church. With
every thing changed around us, it would be
most extraordinary if the same forms of govern
ment could continue to suit our altered condi
tion : and to imagine that any one form was
intended by the Apostles to be binding upon all
Christians, in all times and in all countries.

18
seems to me to betray equal ignorance of the
spirit of Christianity, and of the nature and
ends of government.
But the change which has taken place in the
relations of the Church with the civil power
since the first beginning of Christianity, has
been a fruitful subject of dispute. The preten
sions of the popes, and of the Roman Catholic
clergy in general, — the fanaticism of the Puri
tans, — and, in later times, some practical incon
veniences in our actual system in England,
have all helped to embarrass the question.
I have charged others with using the word
" Church" in a vague or improper sense; and
Mr. Dickinson brings the same charge against
me. He complains that I have identified the
Church in this country with the nation. I
plead guilty to the charge, for I do believe them
to be properly identical.
The Church, using the word now as synony
mous with " Christian society," was instituted
for the promotion of man's highest possible
perfection and happiness. It did not neglect
even his physical wants and sufferings, — but its
main object was to improve him morally and
spiritually; — to bring him to such a state of
goodness and wisdom that his highest happiness
would be no longer an unattainable dream.
Now this is precisely the object of civil

19
society also : that is, of the State. Our phy
sical wants may have * led to its actual origin,
but its proper object is of a higher nature ; — it
is the intellectual and moral improvement of
mankind, in order to their reaching their
greatest perfection, and enjoying their highest
happiness. This is the object of civil society,
or " the State" in the abstract ; and the object
of any particular civil society or state is still
the same, but limited to certain local bounda
ries which mark the particular subdivisions of
the society of mankind.
Civil society aims at the highest happiness of
man according to the measure of its knowledge.
Religious society aims at it truly and really,
because it has obtained a complete knowledge
of it. Impart then to civil society the know
ledge of religious society, and the objects of
both will be not only in intention but in fact
the same. In other words, religious society is
only civil society fully enlightened : the State in
its highest perfection becomes the Church.
When then the individuals of any nation have
been converted to Christianity, they see that
they had in many instances entertained false
and imperfect notions of their highest perfec
tion and happiness. Their mistakes are now

* IloXtc — yivofiivT] fiev tov i^v 'eveKev, oZaa Se tov iv iyt^-
Aristotle, Politics, 1, 2.

20
corrected ; what they thought was the summit
of the mountain, they now find to be a point of
inferior height : but their object is still the
same as it was before, — to reach the top of the
mountain. Institutions may be modified, laws
amended, wars may become less frequent and
less bloody, the practice of the nation may be
substantially changed, but still it is pursuing
the same object as before ; only with the
advantage of discerning it more clearly, and
following it more steadily.
But the case has been perplexed, by its being
supposed that civil and religious society have
necessarily two distinct governments ; that the
magistrate is at the head of the one, and the
priest of the other ; and that these two offices
have a different tenure ; the one deriving its
authority from human law, from custom, from
mutual agreement, or from superior force, while
the other was derived from the express com
mand of God, and handed down in an unbroken
succession from those whom God first invested
with it.
Of two powers with such pretensions neither
could be expected to yield to the other. And
the alleged distinctness of their titles hindered
them from coalescing ; the State not choosing
to take its rulers from those who boasted to
possess already a higher title to authority than
the state could give them, while the Church

21
regarded it as a profanation to place rulers made
by man on a level with those appointed by God.
Offices so distinct naturally kept up the belief
that the societies to which they respectively be
longed were essentially distinct also.
But the error consisted in ascribing to Chris
tianity an office which it does not recognize on
earth, — that of the priesthood. Grant that there
is a priesthood, that is, an order of men deriving
their authority from God only, through the
medium of one another, and you introduce at
once into the relations of civil and religious
society an element of perpetual disunion. It
vvdll for ever be a question whether the State is
to rule the Church, or the Church the State, or
if they are supposed to meet as aUies with one
another, yet one or the other party will be for
ever complaining that the terms of the alliance
are not strictly kept to.
The New Testament, amongst a thousand
other proofs of that divine wisdom in which
Christianity originated, offers this most remark
able one, — that alone of all the religions of
civilized man it disclaims any earthly priest
hood. The Christian society had its ministers
of various ranks and various offices; but nothing
was definitely and universally commanded with
regard to their number, jurisdiction, or mode of
appointment. As far as related to its external
constitution, it was left from age to age in full

S2

possession of the right of regulating its own
government. Now, whilst the civil society was distinct from
the religious one, it is manifest that the civil
offices belonging to the latter must have held a
very subordinate place, because those of the
highest dignity and importance were exclusively
in the hands of the former. The highest earthly
ministers of God's moral government, that is to
say, those persons who were invested with the
supreme executive and legislative power, could
not be ministers of his spiritual government also,
because they were not yet acquainted with it.
Yet as their jurisdiction, and the benefits of
their functions, extended to the members of
the religious society, the exercise of similar
functions by these last was at once unnecessary
and impossible. The great work of civil society
was already done for them by others ; not per
fectly indeed, because it proceeded from men
who had not the benefit of their wisdom, but
yet so as to preclude them from attempting to
do it for themselves.
But no sooner had civil society become en
lightened, and learnt aright what was the
destiny of man, what his greatest perfection,
and what his highest happiness, than it became
at once a religious society, but armed with
powers, and grown to a fulness of stature,
which religious society till now had never

23
known. The civil offices which it now had to
discharge were no longer subordinate and mu
nicipal, but sovereign and national ; nor did they
lose their inherent supremacy, because they
were administered on higher principles. The
King had been the head of the State, he was
equally the head of the perfected State, that
is, of the Church; with him rested the duty of
disposing and superintending all the details of
the society's government, so as to make them
most effective towards the attainment of its
great object, the highest perfection and happi
ness of the community. And the " King," in
this statement, is merely another name for the
supreme power in society ; so that what is true
of the individual sovereign in a pure monarchy,
is true equally of the bodies of men, be they more
or less numerous, by whom the sovereignty is
exercised in an aristocracy or a democracy.
When this sovereign power then directs and
controls its inferior ministers, the clergy, and
legislates for the great objects of the society,
by providing for the highest instruction of its
members, and taking care that it be at once
pure and effective ; it is not that the State is
governing the Church, but that the Church,
through the medium of its supreme government,
is ruling itself. The confusion has arisen from
the notion, that the highest ministers of the
Church must always be bishops or presbyters.

24
because they were so in the days of its existence
as a subordinate and municipal society. Even
had the Christian ministers of religion been a
priesthood, yet the example of the Israelites
might teach us that Moses is greater than
Aaron, — that he who rules God's people to direct
them in the ways of judgment, mercy, and truth,
is greater than he who ministers at the altar.
Much more are Christian rulers greater than
the Christian clergy, inasmuch as the functions
of the latter not being definitely fixed by any
divine law are far more subject to the control
of the supreme government of the Church than
were the offices of the Jewish priesthood.
What I have here stated are the true prin
ciples of the Church of England, upon which she
asserted, in opposition to the Roman Catholics
and to the Presbyterians, — that the King is the
supreme head of the Church on earth. " It was
certainly designed at one time," says Mr. Dickin
son, " that the Church and the nation should be
co-extensive." I should rather say that the
founders of the Protestant Church of England
considered them as identical: — the Christian
nation of England was the Church of England; —
the head of that nation was for that very reason
the head of the Church ; — the pubhc officers of
the nation, whether civil or ecclesiastical, were
officers therefore of the Church; — and every
Englishman was supposed to be properly a

25
member of it, — baptized into it almost as
soon as he was born, — taught its lessons in his
early childhood, — required to partake of its
most solemn pledge of communion,* — married
under its sanction and blessing, — and laid in
the grave within its peculiar precincts, amidst
its prayers and most affectionate consolations.
And is it indifference or latitudinarianism to
wish most devoutly that this noble, this divine
theory, may be fully and for ever realized ?f
* " And note that every parishioner shall communicate at
the least three times in the year." — Rubrick at the end of the
Communion Service. — See also the Prayer for the Church mili
tant, and the second Collect for Good Friday, as beautifiil
instances of the extensive sense in which our reformers used
the word " Church." In the former, the King's Council, the
Judges, &c. are prayed for as officers in the Church, before
even the Bishops and Curates. — See also Romans xii. 6 — 8.
• + It is objected to this doctrine, that it implies the exclu
sion of those who are not members of the Church from the
civil rights of citizens. I think it does imply such an exclu
sion in the case of those who are not members of the Church
of Christ : nor should I consider a Christian nation justified in
forming a legislative union with a nation of Jews, or Maho
metans, or Heathens. If the citizens of the same nation are
in nearly equal proportion Christians and Heathens, the State
in that country is not yet sufficiently enlightened to become a
Church ; — and it is here that' our Lord's words apply, that
" his kingdom is not of this world :" — Christians have no
right, as such, to press the establishment of their religion to
the prejudice of the civil rights of others. Yet if the two
religions happened to be for the most part locally divided, it
would be a reason why such a nation should separate itself
into two, and the Christian and Heathen portions of it form

26
It is owing to the existence of religious dissent
that not only is it not realized in practice, but
its very truth and excellence are disputed. And
that dissent has arisen out of faults and errors on
both sides, on the part of the Dissenters no less
than on that of the Church, is a fact which no
impartial man can doubt. It may be too late now
to remedy the mischief entirely ; but surely if it
be remedied even in part it will be no light bene
fit, — and it is absurd to suppose that it can be
remedied at all without an alteration, or rather
an enlargement, of our present ecclesiastical
constitution and ritual. Therefore I earnestly
desire such an enlargement, and I look to the
supreme government of the Church, — the
government of this still Christian nation, — as
each a state distinct fi-om the other. But when the decided
majority of a country become Christians, so that the State
may justly become a Church, then the Heathen part of the
population ought to be excluded from the legislature, and
encouraged, if it be possible, to emigrate to other countries, if
they complain of not participating in the full rights of citizen
ship. At present, in England, I should earnestly deprecate
the admission of the Jews to a share in the national legislature.
It is a principle little warranted by authority or by reason,
that the sole qualification for enjoying the rights of citizenship
should consist in being locally an inhabitant of any country.
But all professing Christians, of whatever sect, as being mem
bers of the Church of Christ, must be supposed to have much
more in common with each other, as far as the great ends of
society are concerned, than they have points of difference.
Their peculiar tenets, therefore, need form no ground for their
exclusion.

27

the only power by which it can or ought to be
effected. Let it be supposed chimerical to ex
pect any extensive comprehension of the Di.-*-
senters ; even then, the relaxing the uniformity
of the Liturgy, the reduction of the size of the
dioceses,, and the increase of their number, the
ai'oointment of additional orders of ministers,
which might include members of the poorer
classes, and, above all, the conferring on the
lay members of the Church a greater share in
its ordinary administration, would be productive
of the greatest benefit, inasmuch as it would
interest many in the welfare of the Church,
who now, without being Dissenters, feel that
they have little to do with it, and habitually
look upon it as the concern of the clergy, and
not their own. Such a reform, too, might make
the Church effective, where its exertions are
most needed, and where they are at present
necessarily most inefficient ; I mean, amongst
the masses of our manufacturing population.
Indeed, when we consider the utter inadequacy
of the Establishment, as it now stands, to meet
the wants of the great manufacturing towns and
districts, it may be said that in those portions
of the kingdom our business is not so much to
reform the Church, as to create one.
Undoubtedly if that large part of our popula
tion, who are at present neither Churchmen nor
Dissenters, could be really attached to the Esta-
D

28
blished Church, the danger aj-ising from the exist
ence of avowed dissent would be greatly lessened-i
We might then hope to save the Establishment ;
which rjiust alway$:be a great blessing, however
much its usefulness and excellence may be im
paired by its exclusiveness. But as things now
are, in any attempts to attach the people to the
Church, we find that the Dissenters actually
oppose us; and this, it is to be feared, will
always be the case, unless a more compre
hensive system be adopted. If this fear be
ill-founded ; if the Church, without any altera^
tion of its Articles, or Liturgy, or government,
can succeed in working its way amidst the
manufaictiiring population ; can improve them
physically and morally, and make them sensible
of the benefits which they receive from it ;
there is not a man alive to whom this proof of
its inherent vitality will be more grateful than
to me. Were it even more exclusive than it
is, itS'iipreservation would still be earnestly to
be desired, as one of the greatest national
blessings. Most heartily dp I wish to see it
reformed, at once for the sake of its safety and
of its greater perfection ; but, reformed or not,
may God, in his mercy, save us from the
calamity of seeing it destroyed.

B. CLAY, PKINTEB, EBEAD-STREET-UI^L.

3 9002 00535 8396