schoolmasters from being present at any Dissenting place of worship. This bill had actually obtained the Royal Assent; but the very day that this absurd and persecuting act was to be in force, Queen Ann died. King George I, who was sensible that the Dissenters had drawn these acts upon themselves by their firm adherence to the Protestant Succession, in his Illustrious House, in opposition to a Jacobite Ministry, that were sloping the way for the pretender, procured the repeal of them in the fifth year of his reign.

It should not escape the attention of those, who affect on all occasions to identify the office and name of Bishops, with arbitrary power and tyranny, that during the first two reigns, subsequent to the Revolution, the Episcopal Bench was filled by wise, moderate, and pious men. These opposed themselves, with great effect, to the violent measures of the Clergy, and long stemmed the impetuous torrent of their passions. The names of Tillotson and Burnet shime with a distinguished lustre in the list of those spotless Patriots, and will ever be embalmed in the memory of those who venerate the Civil and Religious liberties of mankind. Firmly attached to the constitution of the Church of England, and giving a decided preference to its government and rites, they indulged no spirit of acrimony against Dissenters. In them religion was associated with all the softer feelings, and the milk of human nature. They respected the integrity, and venerated the rights of those, whose religious sentiments differed from their own; and in them zeal was always found to be united with charity. Such men constitute the strength and ornament, as intemperate men do the weakness and disgrace, of every political or religious body; though the principles and actions of both,

are seldom reduced to their proper rank, or seen in a just point of view, till the actors themselves have left the stage of human life.

The doctrinal Articles of the Church, it has long been known, are far from possessing the approbation of all her Ministers; though all who minister at her altars are obliged to declare their assent and consent to them. In 1772, a petition subscribed by a considerable number of the Clergy, was presented to the Parliament, requesting to be exempted from the subscription imposed by the laws. But the petition was rejected. Unless the whole frame of the Liturgy had been altered, it does not appear that the relaxation for which they wished, could have given any permanent quiet to the scruples of those who took the lead in that application. They who can subscribe to what they do not believe, may easily reconcile their consciences to forms of prayer, the spirit of which they do not feel, and the language of which they do not approve.

In the year 1800, in consequence of the Union between the Kingdoms of England and Ireland, their respective Churches, which had always been under the same form of Government, and had embraced the same doctrine of faith, and the same mode of worship, became united.. In 1811, by some misrepresentation, it would appear, of the judgment of the Court of King's Bench, an opinion was formed, that the Act of Toleration did not oblige the Magistrates, at the Quarter Sessions, to administer the oaths, and to grant a license to petitioners under that act, who were not the Ministers of congregations. Those who, for some time, made applications to the Quarter Sessions were, in most Counties, refused licenses, and thus a serious alarm, lest the rights of conscience

should be violated, was spread through the nation. A Bill was introduced into Parliament by Lord Sidmouth, for bringing under new regulations the toleration of Dissenting Ministers. It contained provisions with respect to teachers at large, or those not connected with congregations, which were likely to cut off those supplies, by which alone the wants of congregations can be fed. It also pretended to prescribe certain qualifications, in a literary point of view, necessary to entitle the applicant to a license. To support this measure, instances were adduced of men, who thought themselves qualified to act as teachers, who were not only ignorant of the grammar, but also of the orthography of their mother tongue. Nay, some examples were produced of men who had petitioned for a license to preach, who could neither read nor write. The absurdity of such men setting up for teachers was indeed sufficiently evident; and, foolish as mankind generally are, it is to be hoped that they would not easily find a congregation, excepting such (a thing barely possible) as were greater fools than themselves. Should such a thing take place, it is one of those evils against which society cannot, and no wise society will attempt to provide. In every free government, the rights of the most ignorant must be treated with the same respect as those of the most intelligent. The cottage of the illiterate peasant is as sacred in the eye of the law, and as inviolable as the habitation of the philosopher and the sage. That government which does not recognize the right of the former to choose his own religion, and even to propagate his religious opinions, can never give the latter a sure pledge of those blessings. Against the dangerous bill formerly mentioned, many respectable Clergymen were petitioners, and it was very properly thrown out.

Had it received the sanction of the Legislature, many would have been proud enough to disobey the law, and to contend for those rights which no Government can take away. The consequences would have been, the multiplication of imprisonments, and every sufferer would have called forth a host of candidates for the same honour. In a free country, persecution is sure to excite compassion for the sufferers, and to rouse the indignant feelings of men against the persecutors. The established religion bears the load of all the severities inflicted upon Dissenters, till its pillars are shaken to the very centre. A bill of a very different kind was afterwards brought into Parliament, and obtained the sanction of the Legislature. It was introduced by the Ministers of the Crown, and it is to be hoped will long remain a monument of their moderation and patriotism. It gives security to the Church, and liberty of conscience to the Dissenters; and fixes upon all a strong claim for gratitude to the most liberal and generous government in the world. By its provisions, Dissenting Ministers are obliged, only when they are called upon by the Magistrate, to give the test of their allegiance to the government, by taking the oaths. The Bench of Bishops gave, on that occasion, the most unequivocal proof of their attachment to the principles of religious liberty, and shed additional honour on their mitres. This is just as it should be. Kindness disarms the hostility of religious parties, and the union of firmness and moderation gives to an establishment a security, that the laws themselves are inadequate to supply.

By a bill passed in favour of the Socinians, in 1813, the penalties to which they, and other professors of religion who deny the doctrine of the Trinity, had been ex

posed, were repealed, and the enjoyment of toleration may now be said to be complete.

Having finished our Remarks on the History of the United Churches of England and Ireland, we shall next attend to the WORSHIP of the UNITED CHURCH.

The Worship of the United Church is liturgical. It has long been the subject of dispute, whether the public worship of Christian Churches should be performed by extempore prayers, or by liturgical forms. Those who contend for extempore prayers, and against liturgical forms, argue, that though forms may be of use to children, and to such as are extremely ignorant, yet restriction to forms, either in public or in private, seems neither to be scriptural, nor lawful. If we look, say they, to the authority and example of Christ, and of his Apostles, every thing is in favour of extempore prayer. The Lord's Prayer, they observe, was not given to be a set form, exclusive of extemporary prayer. They further argue, that a form cramps. the desires, and inverts the true order of prayer; making our words to regulate our desires, instead of our desires to regulate our words: that it looks as if we were not really convinced of our wants, when we want a form to express them: that it has a tendency to make us formal, and that it cannot be suited to the case of every individual. In answer to the charge brought against those who pray extempore, that they often fall into impious, or extravagant expressions, they observe, that this is neither generally, nor frequently the case, and that unprejudiced attention, to those who pray extempore, will convince us, that if their prayers be not so elegantly composed, as those of a set form, yet they are more