testant; certainly not as she is Episcopal. They were Dissenters from the Popish established church, and the churches they formed before the protestant establishment were necessarily congregational, or at most presbyterian. That there was a congregation at Oxford in 1526, and one in Bowlane, Cheapside, in the reigns of Edward VI. and Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth, may be seen in Fox's Martyrology. These Christians, who were known by the name of "the congregations," could not at any period of what is called the Reformation in the Church of England, have united themselves with it, without a violation of the principles by which they were distinguished.

It is to those Christians, then, who before the Reformation suffered such violent persecutions, because of their having dissented from the popish church-establishment in England, that the genuine Protestant Dissenters trace their origin: from these anti-popish Christians they are the lineal descendants. They were called by way of reproach, before the time of Tyndal, Lollards; and after his time, Gospellers, and Anabaptists! They were the nucleus around which gradually gathered all persons who were dissatisfied either with the constitution, or discipline, or doctrines of the established church, and to which they adhered. It follows, therefore, that Protestant Dissenters are unjustly called Separatisls! How could they separate from a church of which they were never members? It is improper, then, to reproach them, as though they were exclusively sectarians. The church of England is herself sectarian, as well as they, she having separated from the church of Rome.

It was not till the commencement of the 17th century, that the class of English Christians which have been described formed themselves into the distinct and separate denominations of Independents and Baptists. Great numbers of churches of both these denominations existed at the time when Presbyterianism was the established religion.

At the Restoration in 1660, many ministers and others united themselves to the dissenters, who had been compelled to leave the national and parish churches. The Act of Uniformity in 1662, drove upwards of 2000 more ministers to unite with them: these were most excellent and conscientious men, but they were not, properly speaking, Dissenters; they had no objection to a national establishment,

nor to a prescribed liturgy, nor to parish congregations, nor to the tithes as the means of their support.

Nor are the great body of Methodists, whether Calvinistic or Arminian, Dissenters. Most of them, indeed, especially the latter, affect to be members of the established church. Genuine Protestant Dissenters adopt for their motto, No IMPOSITION. They dare not submit to any thing as binding upon their consciences, which is not plainly stated, or fairly to be deduced from the New Testament; and for these opinions their forefathers suffered persecution in every dreadful form, from each national endowed sect, whether popish, episcopalian, or presbyterian; until the glorious Revolution in 1688, when the liberties of Protestant Dissenters were secured by law. And for the unrestricted exercise of their religious liberty, they are chiefly indebted to the protection afforded them by the princes of the royal house of Brunswick. Each of the four monarchs of that illustrious line has declared, on his accession to the throne, "I WILL PRESERVE THE TOLERATION ACT INVIOLABLE:" nor has either of these patriotic kings acted inconsis. tently with that solemn pledge.

There were several attempts made a few years since to deprive Protestant Dissenters of their privileges, by some country magistrates putting new constructions on the act of toleration. In 1811, a bill was brought into the House of Lords by Lord Sidmouth, the provisions of which were to prevent ministers from preaching any where but in the congregations to which they respectively belonged, and to require from young ministers, before they were brought under the protection of law, that they should obtain a license from a justice of the peace, at the quarter sessions for the county. These regulations, whether so intended or not, would have most grievously harassed them, and most effectually prevented their increase. The vast number of petitions presented to the Peers against this detested and persecuting measure proved successful. His Majesty's prime minister, Lord Liverpool, refused to sanction it, and even the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Sutton, opposed the bill, and spoke in the most respectful manner of the Dissenters.

Soon after the total failure of this measure, the Judges, to whom the Dissenters had appealed, gave their decision in favour of the construction of the magistrates. This high

legal decision made it necessary that they should appeal to the Legislature, for some enactment which should explain and amend the act of toleration, which had been found sufficient for their protection for more than a century. His Majesty's ministers undertook to prepare a bill for those purposes, which having passed into a law, the Dissenters were perfectly satisfied. This new toleration act protected them from the caprice of some magistrates, and the malice of others, and also repealed those persecuting statutes, the Corporation and Five-mile acts, and altered the Conventicle act in their favour. An unjust penal statute, the Test Act, still remains, which deprives them of their equal rights in the state, and is also a most awful profanation of the divine ordinance of the Lord's supper. It is not probable that this act, however unjust, will be repcaled whilst there is an established sect, the principle of which must be necessarily exclusive, the members securing all the good things to themselves. At present there is no apparent hostility against Dissenters, either from the government or the bench of bishops. They most scrupulously "refrain from these men, and let them alone;" and excepting occasionally a volley of abuse from some high churchman, when on his road to Canterbury, they seem to have come to an agreement to "say nothing at all about them."

The principles on which the necessity of dissenting from the establishment is founded, are, I am of opinion, more imperfectly understood than at any former period of the dissenting history: certainly the high tone of rigid separation is greatly lowered. It is now no uncommon thing for educated dissenting youths to be allured into the precincts of an university, and from thence into the pulpit of the church of England. In some of those instances, it is feared, they have received encouragement and support from their parents. In one case, where the son of a dissenting minister has become a dignitary of the national hierarchy, a dissenting periodical has spoken of the circumstance, if not with approbation yet certainly not with reprobation. Many reasons could be adduced, were it necessary, to account for this latitudinarian state of feeling. But, however some dissenters may have changed their sentiments, the principles on which dissent is founded remain unaltered and unalterable; being all resolvable into this one divine direction

"Call no man master on earth: one is your master, even Christ."

The spirit which prevails among Protestant Dissenters is less acrimonious than at some former periods. Their controversies are conducted (with some few exceptions) with more courteousness and respect: the time may perhaps arrive, if it has not already arrived, when it will be said,

"And e'en the dipt and sprinkled live in peace."

Happy will it be for the cause of dissent when this disposition shall universally prevail. Surely orthodox evangelical dissenters should cautiously avoid every thing which would divide their energies or check their zeal in promoting their common Christianity; and if a difference of sentiment on some practical points, as in reference to foreign missions, make it necessary they should fight against the enemy in different detachments, they may yet, as being under the same Commander, make one united effort in spreading the victories, and celebrating the triumphs of the Prince of Peace.

When the secession from the Establishment, in 1662, took place, it was confidently predicted that the dissenting interest would not survive the lives of those ministers. More than 160 years have passed since, and the Dissenters are much more numerous than ever. And judging from the large annual sums contributed in support of their ministers and their numerous institutions (in addition to their paying, in common with others, to support the established church,) it is fair to conclude, notwithstanding there are but few very rich persons among them, yet that their aggregate wealth is not diminished. Considering, too, the large number of zealous and evangelical ministers constantly employed in propagating and diffusing the liberal sentiments of dissent, and the numerous accessions which have been, and doubtless will be made, from the tens of thousands of their Sundayschool scholars, I feel a confident persuasion that the cause of dissent is built upon an immoveable rock. Knowing, too, how beneficial the influence of these liberal sentiments has been upon our national industry and commerce, so that even Hume has been compelled to acknowledge that they were. the germ from whence the English tree of liberty has grown ; and believing they have subserved the cause of godliness and serious piety most essentially in the nation, I adopt,

with most impassioned ardour, the devout wish of Father Paul for his country, and say of the dissenting interest in Britain, Esto perpetua.

loTA.

VIII. Claims of the Church of Rome examined: By the Rev. James Townley, D. D. From The Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, for July,

IS27.

The claims of the Church of Rome to Apostolicity in doctrine must, of necessity, be examined by an appeal to the writings of the Apostles themselves; but as it would require a lengthened discussion to enter into every opinion. maintained by that Church, and try it by the test of the Inspired Scriptures, I shall only advert to a few of the more leading doctrines of Romanism, and show either their contrariety to the word of God, or their destitution of support from it. The subjects to which I shall limit the present inquiry, will be those of Restrictions in reading the Holy Scriptures,-Tradition,--Invocation of Saints,-Service in an unknown tongue,-Transubstantiation, The Celibacy of the Clergy, and the Sacrifice of the Mass.

1. Restrictions in reading the Holy Scriptures.-The Council of Trent, in 1546, decreed, "That no one, confiding in his own judgment, shall dare to bend the Scriptures to his own sense of them, contrary to that which is given, or has been given, by the holy mother church, whose right it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; or contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, though such interpretations should never be published. Those who oppose shall be denounced by the ordinaries, and subjected to the punishment of the law."* And in the "Rules" of the Index of Prohibited Books, which received the Papal sanction by a bull, dated March 24th, 1564, and are constantly prefixed to the Indexes themselves, (one of which, printed at Rome 1787, now lies before me,) the fourth rule is thus expressed; "Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience, that if the Holy

* Labbei S. S. Concilia. T. xiv. pp. 746-748.

T