instruments in producing their calamities, they must in the end consider themselves as the passive instruments, and almost equally execrate their own supineness and degeneracy.

The unanimity with which the different denominations have acted on this occasion is greatly to their honour. We perceive persons some of whose opinions on doctrinal points, or rather whose parti- . cular explanations of scripture doctrines differ as widely almost as the two poles, meeting, conferring and harmonizing together on the subject of their common rights as Britons and as christians. Happy would it be for them were they to draw nearer, to each other in christian fellowship: the most essential points in christianity, those which involve the happiness of mankind in this world and that which is to come, are the plainest, and in these, christians are most generally agreed. Could they be brought to meet on these points, they would soon come to a better understanding on other points, or at least agree to differ, doing justice to each others motives, and entertaining that charity which is the bond of perfectness. As mau- › kind, after all the different opinions which have prevailed in the: world, will hereafter be divided into two classes only, the righteous and the wicked, the radically honest, and the radically dishonest, it is earnestly to be wished the division were more apparent in this world, and that the honest part of mankind of different sects and parties would firmly unite against the dishonest.

We with pleasure observe, that in order to obviate the "inconve"niences which have long resulted from a want of union and co-ope"ration among protestant dissenters for the protection of their reli"gious rights," it is proposed to establish a society for the purpose. Such a society is indeed absolutely necessary. The dissenters have too long silently submitted to a deprivation of some of the most important rights of citizens, hitherto denied them for no other reason, than their refusal to violate their consciences by profaning an ordinance of religion as a qualification for civil office. There are indeed various degrading distinctions on our statute books which when the greater part of Europe has set us the example of extended toleration, surely ought no longer to remain there. Lord Stanhope, whose extended views of religious liberty, and the rights of conscience, prevent him from holding even the Toleration act in vene、 ration, and who very justly regards EQUALITY in religion as the inalienable right of all God's rational creatures, has given notice of moving in the next session for a repeal of all the penal statutes in religion, of which he informs us there are upwards of three hundred yet remaining: surely the dissenters should, previous to the next session, enter into a serious consideration of the subject, and follow up their recent proceedings by preparing petitions to the legislature for the complete annihilation of these disgraceful statutes.

Lord Liverpool, with others of his Majesty's ministers profess to entertain high opinions of the loyalty of dissenters. The Duke of KENT, and the PRINCE REGENT with the other branches of the royal family, are we are assured by those in their confidence, the firm friends to the principles of enlarged toleration. The debates in the house of Lords have happily demonstrated, that the subject of religious liberty is better understood than it appears to have been for a long time past, and the motion for a general repeal of penal laws will, whenever it may be made, most assuredly be well supported.

On a subject so interesting we could indeed wish to see the union between the friends of Toleration (for whilst established churches exist the word must be used) and of religious equality extended. Towards the close of last session a petition was presented to the house of Commons, praying for a repeal of all penal laws in matters of religion. Whether this measure proceeded from any particular society, or from casual individuals, we know not; but as this is a subject of the utmost interest to the enlightened and the honest of all sects and parties; in the promotion of such a cause all distinctions relative to doctrine and discipline, between the Churchman and the Dissenter, the Presbyterian and the Roman Catholic, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Trinatarian, and the Unitarian, the Independent and the Methodist, ought to cease; all should be equally united in the endeavour to annihilate the common enemy of God and all good men-INTOLERANCE, in all its various forms and ramifications. Should there yet remain a few grown babies in religion, who may set up a squalling about truth suffering, aud heresy increasing, the only reply necessary is-That the propogation of truth can only be proportionate to the enlargemnent of religious liberty, and that the kingdom of the great Redeemer can never be completely established but upon the ruins of ecclesiastical tyranny.

It affords us additional satisfaction on the present occasion, to observe the part which certain dissenting ministers have taken, who have never before appeared in support of the rights of their brethren; yea, of some, who have formerly preached and written against those rights; and that the Methodists, who as a body, have servilely supported that system of war and corruption which has so disgracefully characterised the past fifty years, are at length aroused to assert their rights; to use their own language "the un "questionable right of British subjects to judge and decide for "themselves concerning the competency of those religious teachers "whom they conscientiously prefer, and therefore voluntarily sup "port. That as religious rights are justly deemed by a very great body of the people of England to be their best and dearest rights

to which they are most tremblingly alive, the probable consequence of any measure by which those rights appear to infringed, are at this eventful period most earnestly to be deprecated."They further declare, "That the Toleration Act is in their opinion a "most essential part, and one of the strongest bulwarks of our "glorious constitution as established by law at the period of the "the Revolution in 1688."-We earnestly hope that the people who thus talk of their rights, and of " the strong bulwarks of the "constitution as established at 1688," will in future act consistently. If the men who use language so becoming Britons and christians, understand its meaning, and feel its spirit, they must be sensible that some of the " strong bulwarks of the constitution raised at the "revolution" have by the perfidy, the undermining influence, and the open assaults of its enemies, been since sadly injured, and others completely destroyed. If therefore the Dissenters aud Methodists would not subject themselves to the charges of selfishness and inconsistency, their eyes will be fully opened to discover the inseparable connection between political, civil and religious liberty; and so far from opposing or being indifferent to the great cause of a radical reform of those state corruptions to which we owe our unjust wars, and oppressive taxes, productive of such complicated calamities throughout Europe, and which it is impossible for any christian with the New Testament before him to defend-they will for the future be found in the foremost ranks of the best friends of their country,-those who are uniformly endeavouring to promote national reformation as the sole preventative of national destruction.

Should Lord Sidmouth's bill have proved the means of reviving a spirit of true patriotism in the breasts of the various denominations of dissenters, we shall indeed hail it as an event most auspicious. Happy shall we feel in the removal of any part of that anfavourable opinion which past events have most reluctantly compelled us to entertain of the corrupt state of the majority of all sects and parties, political and religious. We rejoice at the return of long lost prodigals, and more especially at the return of Reverend prodigals; we would most gladly assist in preparing for them, and partaking with them the fatted calf. We have no inclination on such an occasion to reproach any sect or individual, and should we in the faithful discharge of duty, and by way of more effectual warning for the future, refer to their past conduct, we trust the inspired maxim-Faithful are the wounds of a friend, will not be forgotten. But to prove the present union founded on the true principles of religion and patriotism, past prejudices and opinions which have had so fatal an effect on the liberties, the morals, and the happiness of mankind must be sacrificed. We must have no more opposition

to the cause of reform, political or religious; no more revilings of those who have not only when a good cause was popular, but when it was unpopular, to the injury of their temporal interests, through evil as well as good report, stood the " pelting of the pitiless storm," and remained to the last the firm champions of civil and religious liberty:--We must have no more defences of, or apologies for those instruments of profaneness and intolerance, those prostitutors and murderers of the conscience, and the morals of the nation-the accursed TEST and CORPORATION acts:-We must have no more Jubilee sermons, distinguished for the grossness of their adulation, and for their panegyrics of a system which has drawn down the judgments of heaven on the continent, and on this country; and which like black clouds are now spreading over and thickening our political horizon. The absurd and odious maxims-"The Lord's people "have nothing to do with politics-Interfering in the concerns of "the state is a proof of lukewarmness and backsliding in religion," maxims which have proved infinitely mischievous in reconciling a great part of the religious world to wars the most unjust, and wickedness the most abandoned, must from henceforth be consigned to eternal oblivion; or if remembered, for no other purpose than to excite shame in those who have uttered, and acted upon them. The good government of society, or our well being in this world, is a subject the very next in importance to that of the salvation of the soul in á future world. Zeal for the reformation of our country, must go hand in hand with zeal for the preservation and enlargement of our peculiar rights; and we will add, for the propagation of religious truth, either in countries professedly christian, or in heathen lands.

At a period when the loyalty, and the constitutional demeanor of all classes of dissenters have been pretty generally acknowledged in the senate as well as by the public in general, it cannot but occasion some surprise, that their principles should have been so misrepresented by a writer who ought to have known much better; we mean Mr. Cobbett. In his Register of the 22d. he entered into the par-` ticulars of Lord Sidmouth's bill, and very plainly proved that it would have the tendency to " lessen the number of dissenting mi"nisters, and indeed render, as to them, the Toleration Act of << very little avail." The bill being lost, Mr. Cobbett is now pleased to inform us, "that as to the question whether it was right to do "this, he did not then enter on, and that he reserved it for the fol"lowing number." He has since entered upon the subject, but in such a manner as evidently discovers he himself does not understand it; and it need not excite surprise if the confusion of his own ideas should have produced a strange medley of inconsistencies respecting toleration, and of misrepresentations of the opinions of dissenters. Our limits will only allow us to glance at his principal positions, one

of which is of such a mischievous tendency, that not a moment ought to be lost in exposing it; this glance, so weak are these positions in themselves abstractedly considered, will be sufficient for our purpose. Mr. Cobbett seems to entertain some doubt, "whether "it would be desirable to lessen the number of dissenting ministers," but thinks, we ought first to inquire a little into what sort of a people they are, and what the tendency of their ministry; for," he adds, " upon the good or evil that they produce depends the answer to the question before us." This we beg leave to remark is floundering at the very outset. The first question to be asked is Who is to be the judge of the religion of the Dissenters, or of the good or evil tendency of their theological opinions or prac tices? To which we explicitly answer-neither Mr. Cobbett, nor his superiors. For further instruction on this part of the subject, we refer him to the excellent speeches we have quoted from the late debate.-Mr. C. observes" That men, all men should be "allowed to worship their maker in their own way, is I think, not to "be doubted." Very good; but he adds" Whether the govern“ment ought ever to meddle with religion is a question that I will "not now attempt to discuss ;" and yet he in the very next paragraph at once settles the question, for the people of Britain, and that in the most extraordinary way which could possibly have entered into the brains of the veryest fanatic, or the most bigotted votary of intolerance. 66 This," he proceeds, "I am not at all " afraid to assert, that without a state religion, a kingly government, and an aristocracy will never long exist in any country "upon earth; therefore, when the Dissenters as in the present case, come forward, and volunteer their praises of kingly government, and boast so loudly and so gratuitously of their ardent loyalty to their venerable sovereign, whose goodness to them has “made an indelible impression on their hearts-when they do this, they do in effect, acknowledge the utility and the excellency of a "state religion, because as I said before, and as all history will clearly prove, without a state religion, a kingly government can"not exist."

66

..

Such a jumble of wretched absurdities were we believe never before in so small a compass huddled together. We are not at all afraid to affirm in reply, that the assertion, "that without a state "religion, a kingly government and an aristocracy cannot exist," is a gross calumny cast equally on religion, monarchy, and aristocracy; and that so far from " all history clearly proving" the truth of this random assertion, it proves the direct contrary. We shall only further remark, what is indeed sufficient for the purpose, that the christian religion, has nothing to do with forms of civil government; that it inculcates obedience to "every ordinance of man," or every government chosen by the people, whether monarchical, aristocra