an event. Its subsequent overthrow, in the reign of Charles I. was owing to the power of the sword; and in the course of a few years parties became so equally balanced, that, at the Restoration, it fell to the monarch to decide their pretensions, by throwing his own weight into the favoured scale. The reign of Charles II. was eminently the triumph of Episcopacy: For, notwithstanding there was a considerable party in opposition to it, yet, it then became more entirely identified with our political institutions; and the powerful circumstances of interest, education and habit, gradually rendered it the predominant religion. The power thus acquired, enabled the party to make its own terms at the Revolution, and to counteract the liberal principles of the new king, whose influence extended no further than to curb the passions of the more violent, and to restrain their talent for doing mischief. From this time, the interest of the sovereign became closely identified with that of the church-established, and has continued so to the present day. It would throw some light upon the subject of this inquiry, if we were to search into the reasons that may be supposed to have operated upon our former sovereigns in retaining the present hierarchy. But the space allotted to me will not allow of a detailed narrative. At the time of the Reformation, the world was governed by arbitrary monarchs, who had emancipated themselves from the trammels of the feudal system, and, by a train of circumstances, were enabled to consolidate, in their own persons, the power that had been before divided between the aristocracy and the clergy. England then possessed the same constitutional forms as at present; but the legislative branches were without vigour, and betrayed a passive submission to the nod of the monarch. As the Reformers were divided in their notions upon church-government, if they had been left to themselves, each party would have followed its inclinations in the selection of a discipline, and the different forms of religion, in common with other institutions, would have reaped the benefit of improvement afforded by increased knowledge and experience. But so enlightened a procedure squared as little with the policy of the sovereign as with the temper of the age. The arm of improvement was to be paralyzed by a dull monotonous uniformity, and the rights of thousands sacrificed to a state-policy veiled under the name of religion. As Elizabeth and her successors governed with an absolute sway, the retention of the supremacy was with them a matter of first-rate importance, not only as it increased their power and patronage, but as it furnished them with a numerous body of auxiliaries, whose interests were closely connected with their own. Another reason that may be supposed to have influenced them was, the consonance of this form of ecclesiastical government with that of the state. The hierarchy contained within its bosom a vast variety of official personages of different degrees, including a wealthy. aristocracy, whose revenues enabled them to vie with the nobles, with whom they held equal rank; and, being expectants of preferments, they swelled the troop of courtiers, and gave éclat to the splendour of royalty. A third consideration was the lax discipline of Episcopal Churches, which put fewer restraints upon the indulgencies of the court than were consistent with the more rigid forms of Presbyterianism. Far be it from me to insinuate that Episcopalians are necessarily less strict in their morals than other people. Human nature is pretty much the same under every profession of religion; and when temptations are thrown in the way, unless checks are provided, the bad passions will find a vent. I speak merely of the effect of the system under the comprehensive denomination of a national church. The long reign of Elizabeth had a powerful tendency to consolidate the interests of Church and State. This union was farther strengthened in the reign of her pedantic successor James I., whose absurd notions of government found numerous abettors amongst an order of men, to whose religion he became an easy convert. The vexations which he suffered them to inflict upon the Puritans, drove them still farther from the Church, and, com bined with his practice of kingcraft, in which he prided himself, laid the foundation of those troubles which produced an explosion in the next reign. The tyrannical government of Charles I. occasioned a greater intermixture of religion and politics, the Episcopal party siding generally with the Court, and the friends of liberty with the Puritans. In the conflict that ensued, the King and the Church fell victims to one common cause, and a Presbyterian Establishment arose upon the ruins. This new order of things, however, was but short-lived, being replaced at the Restoration by the former Episcopacy. King Charles II. had long decided with his grandfather, that Presbyterianism was not a fit religion for a gentleman, although he had formerly sworn to maintain it: so that, dismissing with his characteristic politeness the friends who had brought him back, he at once threw himself into the arms of an order of men who gave him but little disturbance in his pleasures, and administered to all the political vices of his reign. Thus Episcopacy became established upon a more permanent footing than ever; and the laws which were enacted for its protection in this and some following reigns, together with other circumstances, such as a monopoly of privilege, the decreased power of the crown, and the sentiment of society in its favour, have given to it a stability which is not likely to be shaken, excepting by some sudden national convulsion that shall involve both Church and State. The triumph of the Church of England was the signal for the ruin of her opponents; but it was accomplished gradually, and by other methods than those she had prepared for the purpose. That religious sects participate in the general fluctuations of society, is a matter rather of history than of speculation. The causes which produce them being less obvious, are liable to be mistaken; and, as greater tenacity is usually brought to bear upon religion than upon other subjects, the avenues to truth are narrowed accordingly. A slight glance at the history of Nonconformity must convince any one that it has undergone material changes, both in its internal economy and in its political attitude. It is also equally evident that these alterations have not been in its favour; but by what means they have been brought about, must be a subject of anxious inquiry to all those who feel any concern for its welfare. In the discussion of this question, it will be necessary to refer back to the reign of King Charles II., when the relative condition of the two parties became essentially changed, and in a manner finally decided. At the period of the Restoration, the Nonconformists probably outnumbered their adversaries; but the favour and patronage of the monarch soon reversed the balance. The religion of the Court will always influence that of the people, and draw within its vortex the majority who never think, as well as numbers who have private interests to gratify. Whatever stimulates the ambition, feeds the avarice, or dazzles the senses, comes with too powerful a recommendation to be resisted by persons who are not under the influence of religious motives; and these always constitute the bulk of mankind. The Episcopalians now obtained a position in the state which they had never before known, whilst the Presbyterians were subjected to penalties equally new and monstrous. Oaths and tests were invented to exclude them not only from the churches, but also from the universities, the magistracy, and in general from all offices, civil, ecclesiastical and military. The monopoly thus given the favoured sect had an important influence upon the cause of Nonconformity, the effect of which continues to the present day. If we look at the relative character of the two parties, there is no reason to suppose that the Nonconformists were at all inferior to their adversaries. The ministers generally had received a liberal education at one of the universities, and were not only good scholars, but well versed in ancient and modern literature. They were also pre-eminently distinguished for an attention to their official duties, and cultivated habits of personal piety. As for the people who attended upon their ministry, they were not not only irreproachable in their moral conduct, but remarkable for their punctual observance of religious duties; and they patiently suffered the reproach of Christ rather than conform to a church which they consi dered as nothing better than a worldly sanctuary, Notwithstanding the frowns of the Court, their cause was still patronized by many persons of wealth and consequence, who frequented their private meetings, and cheerfully paid the fines that were levied upon them for so doing. As a farther testimony of their affection for the cause, many of them received their ministers as inmates in their houses, either in their official character as chaplains, or as tutors to their children. But others, who were not so fortunate, "had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover, of bonds and imprisonments; they wandered in desarts and in mountains, being destitute, afflicted, tormented; of whom the world was not worthy." Many of them were compelled to seek refuge in a foreign land, whilst others, who staid at home, could, like former confessors, declare themselves "strangers and pilgrims upon earth, seeking a better country, that is, an heavenly." That these excellent men were sincere in the cause they espoused, no man can for a moment doubt who contemplates their sufferings, and the noble sacrifice of temporal good which they made upon the altar of conscience. The reign of Charles II. was emi nently that of science and of literature. In the production of this character, the Nonconformists are entitled to no inconsiderable share, having, in the course of their residence at the uni versities, superintended the education of many of the great men of the period; and in other respects they con tributed largely to the general stock. Many of thein were not at all inferior in critical learning and in polite literature; but in their contributions to theology, and to those branches of knowledge that pertained more im mediately to their profession, they far outstripped their adversaries. In the number, extent and value of their writings, the Nonconformists of this period may be safely compared with the writers of any age or nation, and are entitled to rank amongst the fathers of the church. If they paid less regard to the ornaments of style than some of their opponents, they abun dantly made up for it in the matter of their writings, which contain a mine of theological wealth, not easily to be exhausted. Upon controversial sub jects, they argued with the skill of practised polemics; and their devotional books discover a manliness of piety, with a fervour of affection, suited to any age of the Christian Church. The writings of Owen, Baxter, Bates, Charnock, Poole, Flavel, Gale, Manton, Goodwin,Jacomb,Alsop, Clarkson and Howe, besides a multitude more that might be named, have outlived their own and the succeeding age; and will probably survive as durable monuments of their own fame, and of the cause which they espoused. Upon the whole, if this is to be regarded as the period of triumph to the Church of England, so it was, in many respects, the golden age of Nonconformity. In the course of this reign, the terms of Conformity underwent a material change from the requisitions of its former standard. By the Act of Uniformity, passed at its commencement, those who were to officiate as ministers, were not only to declare their belief in the Thirty-nine Articles, and to swear canonical obedience, but also to avow their unfeigned assent, and consent to all and every thing contained in the Book of Common Prayer, which, had it been more free from error than it is, was a most absurd and tyrannical requisition. By subsequent Acts, all persons who undertook office, either in Church or State, were enjoined certain political oaths, calculated only to bind fast the chains of slavery, and to tie up the consciences of men from that free exercise which is the prerogative of their nature. During the same period, the controversy with the Church of England underwent some important changes. Most of the Nonconformists objected not only to the ceremonial part of her worship, in common with the early Puritans, but also to the existence of the episcopal order as distinct from the pastoral; and there was a considerable number who began to question the propriety of connecting religion with the state. Encompassed with the chains of slavery, as the nation was at this time, it is pleasant to find a noble spirit here and there bursting its fetters, and proclaiming the political rights of mankind. The writings of Milton and Owen, and Marvel and Locke, were, in this re spect of essential service, and created a new era in the history of religious liberty. The abettors of the state religion in this reign, who appear to have taken for their exemplars those worthy models of a zeal for rigorous Conformity, Philip. II. and Lewis XIV., ardently expected that their inquisitorial proceedings would deter the people from following their pastors; and that by cutting off the means of education, they should effectually prevent a succession of able ministers from rising up to vindicate their cause. In both these respects they were disappointed. Persecution made confirmed enemies of some that might have been friends, and gained others from a principle of compassion to the distressed; exemplifying a common observation, that a religion flourishes most when stimulated by opposition. Like the ancient apologists for Christianity, when smart ing under the rod of the Heathen emperors, many of them employed their privacy in writing vindications of the cause for which they suffered; and the zeal and ability which they brought to the work, had a considerable effect both in clearing their own conduct and in confirming the people in the principles for which they contended. As many of the Nonconforming clergy were men of learning and talents, and had acted as tutors in the universities, they were well qualified for superintendents of academies, which they now instituted, partly for their support and partly for the purpose of training up ministers who should af terwards take their places, and be the means of perpetuating a cause which they considered to be that of truth and piety. Perhaps nothing tended so much to annoy their adversaries as their employment in this way, as it defeated their expectation that the cause of Nonconformity would die with the ejected ministers. From the stormy period of civil commotion and arbitrary government, we now turn to the Revolution in 1688, when the political condition of the Nonconformists became fixed by law, and freedom of worship was guaranteed to them by the Act of Toleration. In enlightened views, the new king was a century before his subjects. His own principles were decidedly those of liberty; and he possessed a benevolence and single-heartedness that unfitted him to play the tyrant, or even to controul the factious disposition of his subjects. Had his means been equal to his inclination, he would have put an end to all political distinctions upon account of religion, being well satisfied both of their impolicy and injustice. But the power of the crown, when it might have been beneficial to the people, was greatly diminished; and the personal influence of King William was scarcely sufficient to protect the Nonconformists from persecution. In the following reign, the monster stalked abroad with a firmer step, and had nearly succeeded in bringing back the nation to the same state of priestcraft and slavery, from which it had been redeemed by the kindly genius of King William. But the death of Queen Anne saved the nation from this catastrophe, and the Dissenters from their fearful situation. In the interval between the Revolution and the accession of the House of Hanover, the Nonconformists con tinued to maintain that respectability of character which challenged and procured the respect of their adversaries. A few of the Bartholomean confessors still continued upon the stage, to give countenance to their younger brethren; and the rising generation of ministers, who had received a liberal education, continued with nearly the same success the designs of their predecessors. Many of them were their sons in blood as well as in the faith: possessed of solid learning, they were able advocates of the cause they had espoused, as well as of the common Christianity. By their judicious labours in the pulpit, their pious instructions in private, their attention to catechetical exercises, and their valuable productions from the press, as also by their schemes for perpetu ating a learned ministry, they kept alive the interest of Nonconformity, and it continued to flourish in their hands. As the State had laid aside the engine of persecution, they now began to erect meeting-houses in more public situations, some of them spacious and substantial; and they were well filled. The people, trained under these . excellent men, proved themselves there were many who distinguished every way worthy of such instructors. Their congregations were numerous and respectable. In some towns the corporation was of this profession; and it was no uncommon thing for the principal families in the neighbourhood to pass by the parish church on their way to the meeting-house, Several of the nobility and gentry had been educated under Nonconforming tutors, and still continued the practice of retaining them as chaplains and tutors. Uncorrupted by the profligacy of the times, by the temptations of the court, or the servile compliances of those around them, they held fast the profession of their faith without wavering, and sanctioned the religion of their forefathers by an attendance upon the same forms of worship. With the reign of Queen Anne ended the hopes of the high-church party, and the persecution of Dissenters by the civil power. George I. being of a different religious profession from the sect established, felt no sympathy with its prejudices, and would have extended the boundaries of toleration had the scheme been practicable. He clipped the wings of the clergy by overturning their convocation; and his successors in royalty have discovered the same tolerant disposition towards the Dissenters. But this sunshine of prosperity, however desirable, has been far from favourable to the Dissenting interest. To whatever cause it may be owing, it is certain that from the period of the accession of the House of Hanover, it has been visibly upon the wane. This declension was more particularly apparent in the reign of George II., and in the earlier years of his successor, when many meetinghouses in various parts of the kingdom were shut up for want of support. This circumstance sufficiently marked a numerical declension; but there were other particulars in which the signs of decay became manifest. At this time the snares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches had drawn aside from their ranks most of the leading persons in their communion. Many of the clergy, also, ran the same race of Conformity as the laity. Of the elder ministers, who continued stedfast to their principles, themselves by their learning and talents, by their personal piety, and by their valuable writings. As they grew in years, however, their congregations declined; and the younger ministers who took their places, being deficient in popularity, were unable to support a drooping cause. There was also a considerable alteration in the style and matter of their preaching, which was but ill adapted to the capacities of their people, and often involved topics in which they felt but little interest. It is no breach of charity to observe, that the race of ministers which sprang up about the middle of this period, was by no means equal to those which preceded it, either in ministerial qualifications, or in attachment to the cause. On account of the expense incurred at an university, some of them had received but a slender education; whilst, in some instances, they were taken into the pulpit without any previous preparation. The injury that must accrue to any cause from its falling into the hands of ignorant or half learned-men, was soon exemplified in the case of the Dissenters. Their adversaries began to treat them with contempt, from which their pretensions to piety could not redeem them; and they sometimes courted it by their folly and indiscretion. Destitute of the spirit of their profession, some of their ministers quitted it for trade, whilst others combined them together, and thus rendered themselves unfit for either. The little encouragement that was given to Dissent, deterred persons of any property from bringing up their sons to the Dissenting ministry. The consequence was, that their preachers were usually taken from the inferior ranks of life, and being wholly dependent upon their people for support, their incomes were generally small and precarious. Thus circumstanced, and destitute of that polish and refinement which are the effect of education, it is no wonder that they sunk from that station in society which was occupied by the earlier Nonconformists. Another very material circumstance that affected the prosperity of the Dissenters during this period was, the divisions that took place amongst them upon questions of dogmatic theology. |