to be altogether untenable, for prescription implies a certain period during which the rights of property had been exercised; but in the case before us they never were exercised, because they never could be supposed to exist. It must be proved that these possessions were of the nature of property, before it can follow that they are protected by prescription, and to plead it is to take for granted the question in dispute. If they never were property, no length of time can change their nature.*

V. When the British Islands, the Dutch Republic, the German and Scandinavian States reformed their ecclesiastical establishments, the howl of sacrilege was the only armour by which the church attempted to protect its pretended property. The age was too tumultuous and unlettered for discussions of abstract jurisprudence. The clamour of sacrilege seems, however, to have fallen into early contempt. The treaty of Westphalia secularized many of the most opulent benefices of Germany, under the mediation and guarantee of the first Catholic powers of Europe. In our own island, on the abolition of episcopacy in Scotland at the Revolution, the revenues of the church peaceably devolved on the sovereign, and he devoted a portion of them to the support of the new establishment. When, at a still later period, the Jesuits were suppressed in most Catholic monarchies, the wealth of that formidable and opulent body was every where seized by the sovereign. In all these memorable examples, no traces are to be discovered of the pretended property of the church. The salaries of a class of public servants are, in all these cases, resumed by the State, when it ceases to deem their service or the mode of it useful. It is in none of them recognized as property. That claim now so forcibly urged by M. Calonne was probably little respected by him, when he lent his agency to the destruction of the Jesuits with such peculiar activity and rancour. The sacredness of their property could not strongly impress him, when he was instrumental in degrading the members of that accom

There are persons who may not relish the mode of reasoning here adopted. They contend that property being the creature of civil society, may be resumed by that public will which created it, and on this principle they justify the National Assembly of France. But such a justification is adverse to the principles of that Assembly; for they have consecrated it as one of the first maxims of their Declaration of Rights, that the State cannot violate property, except in cases of urgent necessity, and on condition of previous indemnification. This defence too will not justify their selection of church property, in preference of all others, for resumption. It certainly ought in this view to have fallen equally on all citizens. The principle is besides false in the extreme to which it is assumed. Property is indeed, in some senses, created by an act of the public will; but it is by one of those fundamental acts which constitute society. Theory proves it to be essential to the social state. Experience proves that it has, in some degree, existed in every age and nation of the world. But these public acts, which form and endow corporations, are subsequent and subordinate. They are only ordinary expressions of legislation. The property of individuals is established on a general principle, which seems coeval with civil society itself. But bodies are instruments fabricated by the legislature for a specific purpose, which ought to be preserved while they are beneficial, amended when they are impaired, and rejected when they become useless or injurious.

plished Society, the glory of Catholic Europe, from their superb endowments to scanty and beggarly pensions. In all these contests the inviolability of church possessions was a principle that never made its appearance. A murmur of sacrilege might, indeed, be heard among the fanatical or interested few: but the religious horror in which the priesthood had enveloped its robberies had long been dispelled, and it was reserved for Mr. Burke to renew that cry of sacrilege, which in the darkness of the sixteenth century had resounded in vain. No man can be expected to oppose arguments to epithets. When a definition of sacrilege is given, consistent with good logic and plain English, it will be time enough to discuss it. Till that definition (with the Greek Calends) comes, I should as soon dispute about the meaning of sacrilege as about that of heresy or witchcraft.

VI. The whole subject is indeed so evident, that little diversity of opinion could have arisen, if the question of church property had not been confounded with that of the present incumbents. The distinction, though neither stated by Mr. Burke nor M. Calonne, is extremely simple. The State is the proprietor of the church revenues, but its faith, it may be said, is pledged to those who have entered into the church, for the continuance of those incomes, for which they abandoned all other pursuits. The right of the State to arrange at its pleasure the revenues of any future priests may be confessed, while a doubt may be entertained, whether it is competent to change the fortune of those to whom it has solemnly promised a certain income for life. But these distinct subjects have been confounded, that sympathy with suffering individuals might influence opinion on a general question, that feeling for the degradation of the hierarchy might supply the place of argument to establish the property of the church. To consider this subject distinctly, it cannot be denied that the mildest, the most equitable, and the most useful expedient of polished states in periods of emergency, is the reduction of the salaries of their servants, and the suppression of superfluous places. SIGMA.

ON THE ORIGIN AND PROGRESS OF UNITARIANISM AND UNIVERSALISM IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

No. III.

I COME now to the consideration of the particular measures that were successively adopted in the colonies of New England, and especially in those of Massachusetts, which, in the course of time, favoured the introduction of erroneous doctrine.

1. The first of these was the theocratic law which constituted membership in the church essential to the right of citizenship. In other words, no one, who was not a professor of religion, could be entitled either to give a vote at the political elections, or to become a candidate for the civil offices of the colony. This law was adopted at the very outset of the settlement of the Massachusetts Bay

VOL. I. N. S.

3 B

Colony, and, if I am not mistaken, it existed also in the Plymouth Colony, as well as in the colonies which were planted in Con

necticut.

This, then, was the first capital error which was committed by the Pilgrim Fathers. It arose out of the beautiful but impracticable theory, which they had adopted, of forming a "Religious Commonwealth." Their minds were bent upon founding and perpetuating a colony which should, in time, expand into a nation of Christians. No men could be more deeply penetrated with a sincere and pure desire to build up the kingdom of God on earth. This was the grand object which filled the vision of their minds. To accomplish this, every measure was adopted which they deemed to be conducive to that great end. That they erred is now manifest, not only in the particular measure under consideration, but also in some others; but it was an error of the understanding, and not of the heart.

It does not seem to have occurred to them that it was absolutely impossible to exclude all persons who were destitute of religion from their colonies; and that it was not within the compass of probability that all their own children, as they grew up to manhood, would become pious;-a consummation, indeed, greatly to be desired, but which was scarcely to be expected, especially when there is reason to fear that they relied too much on their civil arrangements, and not sufficiently on the Spirit of God-the only agent of accomplishing this most desirable end.

The consequences which flowed from the adoption of this measure were soon felt. Its operation was injurious in two ways. First, it offered a strong inducement to hypocrisy, and led many who were decent in their external deportment, but destitute of true piety, to enter the church for the purpose of enjoying the civil and political privileges connected with its membership. Secondly, it exasperated those who could not or would not pursue that course. Many of the children of the founders themselves, who were not pious, soon felt the pressure of this unwise, unjust, and injurious enactment. Grievous complaints were made. Petitions were addressed to the general courts or legislatures of the colonies and to the British Parliament, as early as 1646, praying in behalf of " thousands," that they might enjoy, with others, the rights and privileges of freemen.

The enactment of the founders of those colonies, of which I have just spoken, and which corrupted the church, by introducing into it many unsanctified persons, and injured religion by creating deeplyrooted prejudices against it in the minds of the unconverted, was repealed in 1662, soon after the accession of Charles II., but not until the mischief which it occasioned was widely spread and felt in all New England. I consider this early mistake on the part of the pious founders of those colonies as fundamental, and as one of the chief causes of the corruption which flowed into the churches of New England. Other causes undoubtedly existed, which I shall hereafter mention. But this was the first and one of the most fatal.

2. A second cause of the corruption of religion in the New England Colonies was the half-way covenant plan, as it has been termed. This was a consequence of the adoption of the principle which I have just named.

Amidst the zeal of the Pilgrim Fathers for church order and government, the necessity for the out-pouring of the Spirit and genuine and extensive revivals of religion was too much overlooked. The consequence was, that many of their children who had been devoted to the Lord in baptism by their pious parents, grew up unconverted, and not only destitute of civil privileges, but what was more grievous, were out of the church, and could not have their children baptized. This was felt to be a great evil. They were generally persons of serious and moral behaviour, but still not pious. What was to be done for them and their children, who were likely to grow up heathen, unbaptized, and without the pale of the church? These were perplexing questions. They were first agitated in Connecticut, and gave rise to much feeling in the hearts of pious fathers and grandfathers, as may be readily supposed. They were discussed and decided at a meeting of ministers in Boston in 1657, and in a general synod in 1662. In these decisions, which were substantially the same, it was not determined that those who gave no credible evidence of piety should be admitted to the communion of the church. Nor was it determined that they could have no sort of connexion with the church, or that their children must necessarily remain unbaptized. middle course was suggested and adopted; viz. "That it is the duty of those who were baptized in infancy, when grown up to years of discretion, though not fit for receiving the Lord's Supper, to own the covenant made on their behalf by their parents, by entering thereinto in their own persons. And it is the duty of the church to call upon them for the performance thereof; and if being called upon they shall refuse the performance of this great duty, or otherwise continue scandalous, they are liable to be censured for the same by the church. And in case they understand the grounds of religion, and are not scandalous, and solemnly own the covenant in their own persons, wherein they give up both themselves and their children unto the Lord, and desire baptism for them, we see not sufficient cause to deny baptism unto their children."*

A

The effect of this measure was just what might have been foreseen. It quieted the consciences of many, who enjoyed, in this way, a connexion with the church without piety. Most persons of sober life, when they came to have families, owned the covenant, and presented their children for baptism. But the number of church members in full communion was comparatively small, and continually diminishing. In some respects it produced results that were the converse of the measure, which I have first noticed; whilst that led hundreds and thousands to enter the church without having experienced the power of religion in the heart, this led multitudes to neglect of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, and made * Cotton Mather's History, Book V.

them contented with only such a connexion with the church as secured political privileges for themselves and baptism for their children. Both measures were exceedingly fatal to the interests of true religion, as was soon apparent to candid and capable ob

servers.

It is proper, however, to say that this decision of the General Synod, though recommended by the General Court or Legislature, was much opposed by President Chauncy, Mr. Davenport, Dr. Increase Mather, and others, and perhaps never became universal in its practical operation. It was not carried into effect in Connecticut until 1696.

These two measures, as I have stated, exerted a withering influence on the piety of the churches in the colonies of New England. But that influence was exceeded in mischief by that of another measure or practice, which subsequently gained a footing in the churches, and which accelerated the sad declension of religion which had commenced long before. I now proceed to notice that practice.

3. Towards the close of eighty years from the planting of first colonies in New England, (i. e. about the year 1700,) the doctrine prevailed that the Lord's Supper is a means of conviction and conversion to the unregenerate, as well as a means of edification to believers. This notion was openly and strongly maintained by the Rev. Solomon Stoddard, of Northampton, the maternal grandfather of the celebrated Jonathan Edwards, as early as the year 1675 or 1680. It is true that great opposition was made to this dangerous but plausible error, by the Rev. Dr. Increase Mather, who had a public discussion with Mr. Stoddard on this subject, and by other ministers, and eventually, and perhaps most ably of all, by his own grandson Mr. Edwards, who was (during the latter portion of Mr. Stoddard's life) his colleague in the church at Northampton.*

The mischievous consequences of this doctrine are too obvious to need many remarks. It did not, indeed, gain a universal, but rather a very widely-extended prevalence in New England, and it is to be feared, in other parts of the whole country also, especially in the Presbyterian churches. Thousands of unconverted persons, whose lives were externally moral, entered the church; and whilst they increased its numbers, diminished its strength and defaced its beauty. From the year 1680 to 1740, very many persons of this description were added to the church of Christ. There was but little strictness in examining those who applied for the privileges of church-fellowship. If they said they had arrived at what they believed to be the period of life at which they ought to make a profession,

* The work referred to is entitled "An Humble Enquiry into the Qualifications for full Communion in the visible Church of Christ." "Edwards's conduct in this controversy," observes Professor Rogers, in his beautiful Essay on his Genius and Writings," when viewed in all its circumstances, affords one of the most impressive exhibitions of lofty integrity, perfect candour, and magnanimity the world has ever seen;" and he adds, that "the controversy has now entirely passed away, owing to Edwards having convinced all America of the truth and reasonableness of his opinions, though he at first stood nearly alone."— Editor.