vote of subsidies) they should proceed to act synodically in ecclesiastical matters, they promised henceforth only to act according to his directions,-in other words, not to attempt or make any canons or constitutions provincial without the royal license to make and promulge the same. This latter provision of the Act is the point of debate between Wake and Atterbury; in what follows I have sided with Wake, as having the general judgment of the 17th century in his favour.

The negotiations were of the following kind :-First of all, the Commons complained to the king "that they (the clergy) made sanctions and laws of temporal things, not having nor requiring the king's royal assent to the same laws so by them made." The clergy answered, that "they had this power of God, and could not submit it to his authority; that their authority of making laws was grounded upon the scripture of God, and determination of the holy church; and, as concerning the requiring of the king's assent to the authorizing of such laws as had been made by their predecessors, or should be made by themselves, they doubted not but that the king knew that to depend not upon their will and liberty who might not submit the execution of their charges and duty, certainly prescribed by God, to his assent." They added, however, some vague promise of being guided by the king's wish in their decisions. This answer not satisfying (as may be supposed) King and Commons, new forms were drawn up, and fresh debates held, how to compound the matter with the king, yet give up as little as might be.

First, they gave up the power of publishing canons without the king's license, reserving to themselves the power of making them. But here they made several important limitations; first, the canons spoken of must relate to the laity; next, they must not concern faith or good manners, and the reformation and correction of sin; next, they went so far as to offer, that they would not enact, promulge, or execute any constitutions in future, unless with his license; but this promise was limited, in the Lower House, to the king's life.

These admissions did not satisfy Henry, and he drew up a form himself for them, in which the clergy were to bind themselves, first, never hereafter to meet in synod without the king's writ; next, being assembled by it, never to proceed by virtue of authority of their own, or to make, promulge, and execute canons, without the royal license previously obtained. This promise, after some discussion and alteration, was passed, by convocation, in the following form:"We, your most humble subjects, daily orators and beadsmen of your clergy of England, having our special trust and confidence in your most excellent wisdom, your princely goodness, and fervent zeal to the promotion of God's honour and Christian religion, and also in your learning, far exceeding, in our judgment, the learning of all other kings and princes that we have read of, and doubting nothing but that the same shall still continue and daily increase in your majesty, first, do offer and promise, in verbo sacerdotii, here unto your highness, submitting ourselves most humbly to the same, that we will never from henceforth enact, put in ure, promulge, or execute

any new canons, or constitution provincial, or any new ordinance provincial or synodal in our convocation or synod in time coming, (which convocation is always, hath been, and must be assembled only by your high commandment or writ,) unless your highness, by your royal assent, shall license us to assemble our convocation, and to make, promulge, and execute such constitutions and ordinances as shall be made in the same, and thereto give your royal assent and authority," &c.

It will be observed, that this submission of the clergy, ample as it is, does not go the length of binding the successors of the clergy. making it, and it seems to limit itself to the very monarch to whom it was made; moreover, it was recalled in convocation, in Mary's time, and never renewed. However, it became the subject of an Act of Parliament in Henry's, and afterwards Elizabeth's reign, and, with a stronger wording, by that Act (with the penalty of præmunire to enforce it) are the clergy at present bound.

Thus stood the relations between church and state till 1664, the church being willing to remain in a subjection which the king never abused to her spiritual detriment. On the Restoration, a change was silently made by Sheldon and Clarendon, which was scarcely favourable to her interests. It will be observed, that the sole remaining safeguard which she possessed against the tyranny of the state, was the power of granting subsidies, which gave her a hold of some sort over the earthly masters she had taken to her "when the Lord was her king." This power gave the convocation importance, and effectually prevented any attempt at suppressing it. At the era in question, the clergy, impoverished by the late troubles, felt severely the weight of the subsidies required of them, and perceived (as was really the case) that they paid for their privilege by contributing to the state in a larger proportion than other subjects. An arrangement was agreed upon, in spite of a protest from Heylin against it, between the bishops and the Commons, by which two subsidies, which the clergy had just voted, were remitted to them, while, on the other hand, they were sub silentio, and without formal statute, comprehended in the wording of the money-bills passed in parliament. The first public Act on this subject was a Tax Act of 1665 (16-17 Car. II. cap. 1), which includes the clergy, discharging them from subsidies, with a saving clause as to their right of taxing themselves, which has never since been exercised. The clergy, on the other hand, soon acknowledged the arrangement by exercising the right of voting in the elections of the Commons, which before was forbidden them, as now it is forbidden peers of parliament. Burnet speaks of this right, as generally admitted, in a pamphlet, published as early as 1700, and it is assumed in two subsequent Acts of Parliament, 10 Anne, cap. 23; 18 George II., cap. 18. "Gibson, Bishop of London," observes Speaker Onslow (in a note contained in the last Oxford edition of Burnet's History), "told me that this (the taxing out of convocation) was the greatest alteration in the constitution ever made without an express law." It is remarkable that (according to Warburton) the clergy had as silently VOL. VII.-Feb. 1835.

X

both become and ceased to be an estate in parliament 300 or 400

years

before.

The church soon began to feel the alarming position in which she had allowed herself to be placed. In 1675, and then 1677, addresses from the lords were presented to the throne, praying for the frequent meetings of the convocation, which (as Mr. Hallam justly observes) probably proceeded from the bishops, and shews their dissatisfaction with the existing state of things. They were not allowed, however, to feel or express their regrets for many years. The revolution which soon followed, "glorious" as it has ever been considered in its political effects, was fatal to the remaining liberties of the church. William completed what Henry had begun. Nine of her bishops were sentenced to deposition by a prince who had just ceased to be a presbyterian, and its convocation shortly after expired, except as a matter of form, while endeavouring to raise its voice against the doctrines of Hoadley.

(To be continued.)

DISSEN T.

SIR,-Some among your readers may agree with my views respecting subjects connected with dissent, and might even feel disposed to make experiment of them, but are deterred by a fear of consequences. Will you, therefore, in conclusion, give admission to this letter, which shall touch upon some of the probable favourable results of such a system pursued by the clergy, and answer a few objections which lie in the way of making trial of it? These probable results shall be taken first and considered.

1. As to how they might be supposed to operate on any clergyman who should adopt these hints upon conviction of the truth and soundness of the grounds on which they are rested. It is said upon conviction of the truth and soundness of the grounds, because these remarks will not apply equally to other grounds of conviction. The subject has been pressed as a matter of duty; if, therefore, a person be only a convert to their expediency, I am not addressing myself to him. We start from different positions and proceed upon different principles.

2. As to the way in which these results are likely to affect church people.

3. As to what will probably be the conduct and feelings of dis

senters.

1. First, then, as regards the clergy.

1. The habit of considering questions of church government, or discipline, and subjects* connected with separation doctrinally would be likely to clear our ideas as to the way in which dissent, as such, ought to be viewed. There are many persons, who have the character of sound churchmen, who look surprised, and draw back as if you were

The sort of subjects with reference to which I speak throughout are exemplified in the list with which my former communication was closed; and it would make all the following remarks clearer, if, in reading them, the contents of that list were kept in mind.

going too far, or speaking with an unjustifiable party warmth and prejudice, if you talk of the leading features of dissent as involving matters of doctrine, e. g. as to form of church government, sacraments, duty of unity, of submission to ecclesiastical authority, as to the sin of schism, not theoretically, but as a present fact. The word doctrine has seemingly come to be considered as appropriate to those truths of Christianity which may be called "speculative," in contradistinction to those which may be termed "historical," or "relating to facts." Now, since this seems to be the case, it would be better, and would be likely to bring us back to more accurate views, if all that the church holds to be truths of Christianity were classed as facts, and then investigated and treated of as such. For, after all, the value of a doctrine, as to its necessary reception, depends upon the power of establishing it as a fact, i.e. as something which can be traced upwards through the different ages of the church to the apostolic times, and be shewn to have been then received and taught; or as something which may, at once, be drawn out from the writings of the New Testament. The subsequent reception of these facts in different ages of the church is like a commentary on them, and an evidence of the manner in which they were interpreted by those who, to say the least, had far greater likelihood and opportunities of knowing the exact sense in which they were first received than we are in the present day, after the lapse of so many centuries, and the consequent loss of so many well-authenticated traditions. These several facts, which, handled and investigated in another way, and with another view, may be termed doctrines, may, of course, be of different importance, but still are all of a like nature, and to be regarded in the same light. And if this was really done, as it ought to be, there would be no difficulty or backwardness in speaking of the general question of dissent with much greater clearness and precision than is done at present. The fallacy of its being a mere matter of opinion would at once be swept away. The only question would be, Do we, or do we not, receive such and such statements, and such and such general interpretation of them by the church in all ages, as facts? If we do, they are no longer matters of indifference, open to be received or rejected by each individual simply as other ordinary matters of opinion.

2. This manner of viewing these subjects would be likely to make the clergy think more on the nature of their office in its highest relations, and draw their thoughts off from dwelling too much on its social, secular, and civil duties alone. The considerations that they speak as ambassadors of God-that they have a responsible charge over their flocks that they have, on being commissioned to that charge, received not only authority, but the pledge and promise of Divine aid for the exercise of it-that this sacred gift has been conveyed to them through means instituted by the apostles, and faithfully adhered to by the universal church-and that it was conferred on them by the laying on of the hands of those who are the successors of the apostles, and that the greatness of these claims only increases their weight of duty-are such as to fill them with humbleness and fear at their own (at best) unworthy discharge of these high duties, the need of constant and un

ceasing attention to them, and to impress more deeply on their minds the necessity of vigilance and circumspection as to their own conduct even in points which, in other persons, are immaterial. And here I must

leave much unsaid, so glancing only at my meaning as perhaps to fix the thoughts and attention of some on the topics to which I have only just opened the way. Neither the subject nor the tone of a letter like the present make it a fit place to enlarge upon these points.

II. Consequence among churchmen of such an occasional system of preaching.

1. They become familiarized with the view which the church takes, whereas, at present, it is to be feared that, in many regular and attentive congregations, it would sound strange and new-strange and new, not only as to time and place, but as to matter and contents. How this present state of opinion has been brought about, it would be presumptuous in me to offer any definite opinion. Thus much, however, may be said, that if the practice of publicly upholding such views had not been abandoned as the general practice of the clergy in the course of their preaching, there would never have been such indeterminate notions on these subjects, and such ignorance of what there is to be said on them as there is. These common loose notions may be thus instanced:-Suppose you were suddenly to ask a churchman what were the characteristic differences between the church and dissenting establishments,* might he not be expected to answer, one was by law, the other not? or, to speak of particular differences of form and matters of internal arrangement not essential to dissent, as such, but belonging to some particular body with which he happens to be acquainted, or of differences in their secular polity, e. g. voluntary system, tithes, mixture with state, &c. &c., instead of at once coming to essentials, such as: dissenters deny the necessity of episcopal ordination-the blessings and gifts conveyed through the apostolic succession-the existence of a visible church, or so qualify their meaning of it as to convey no definite idea by the terms used, so that they may admit a visible church, but assign no sufficient marks for recognising it-they practically deny the sin of schism, or confound it with heresy they assert the unrestricted right of private judgment in matters of faith. How few churchmen would think of stating these grounds of difference if the question was put to them, and yet if these points were, from time to time, doctrinally set forth from the pulpit, would it not be natural to expect at least a statement of some of them?

It is true, that there would probably be found in most congregations some who would think such views overstrained, and savouring of superstition or priestcraft; but still the humble and well disposed would be strengthened in their faith, and confirmed in their obedience to their regularly-appointed pastors. And even in its tendency to help to mark a distinction between these two classes of hearers, it would be of service. At present the church and the world are too much mixed

Is not this term, strictly speaking, more applicable to them than to us?