tuations, till the glorious revolution under William, in 1688, placed it on a firm and permanent foundation. The family of the Stuarts were bitter enemies to the civil and religious liberties of their subjects, and violently attached to Popery. Dr. Goldsmith tells us, in his History of England, that James the Second, in endeavouring to convert his subjects to the Popish religion, descended so low as Colonel Kirke. But that daring and unprincipled soldier assured his majesty that he was pre-engaged, for that if ever he did change his religion, he had promised the Emperor of Morocco, when quartered at Tangier, to turn Mahometan!

Mr. Gisborne, in his excellent Familiar Survey of the Christian Religion, has the following remarks on Church government:-" In every community or body of men, civil or ecclesiastical, some species of government is requisite for the good of the whole. Otherwise all is irregularity, and interminable confusion. How then in any particular country is the Christian church to be governed? Every separate congregation,' answers the Independent,' is a sovereign church, amenable to no extrinsic jurisdiction, and entitled to no jurisdiction over other churches.' 'That mode of government,' replies the Presbyterian, is calculated to destroy union, cooperation, and concord among Christians. All

congregations within the same, which agree in doctrine, ought to be under the general superintendence of a representative assembly, composed of their ministers and delegates.' Such a representative assembly,' returns the Episcopalian, 'wants vigour and dispatch, and is perpetually open to tumult, and partiality, and faction. Divide the country into dioceses, and station a bishop in each, armed with sufficient authority, and restrained by adequate laws from abusing it. Such was the apostolic government of the church --such, perhaps,' he adds,' was the government enjoined on succeeding ages.' 'Away,' cries the Papist, with these treasonable discus sions. The pope, the successor of St. Peter, is by divine right the only source of ecclesiastical power, the universal monarch of the universal church!'

"Writing as I am to Protestants, I may pass by the claim of the successor of St. Peter. But the concluding words of the Episcopalian are of prime importance. If Christ or his apostles enjoined the uniform adoption of Episcopacy, thę question is decided. Did Christ then or his apostles deliver or indirectly convey such an injunction? This topic has been greatly controverted. The fact appears to be this-that our Saviour did not pronounce upon the subject; that the apostles uniformly established a bishop in every dis

trict, as soon as the church in that district became numerous; and thus clearly evinced their judgment as to the form of ecclesiastical government most advantageous, at least in those days, to Christianity: but they left no command, which rendered Episcopacy universally indispensible in future times, if other forms should evidently promise, through local opinions and circumstances, greater benefit to religion. Such is the general sentiment of the present church of England on the subject." Bishop Prettyman has expressed himself much after the same manner in his Elements of Theology*.

DISSENTERS.

Dissenters from the church of England made their first appearance in Queen Elizabeth's time, when, on account of the extraordinary purity which they proposed in religious worship and conduct, they were reproached with the name of Puritans. They were greatly increased by the

*As the established church in Ireland is the same with that of England-so are also the Dissenters of much the same complexion. The Papists, indeed, are very numerous there, as are likewise the Presbyterians in the North of Ireland. Abernethy, who wrote on the Attributes of God, and Duchal, who wrote on the Internal Evidences of Christianity, were ministers of eminence amongst them.

act of uniformity, which took place on Bartholomew-day, 1662, in the reign of Charles the Second. By this act 2,000 ministers were obliged to quit the established church, refusing to conform to certain conditions, whence they were called Nonconformists. An instructive and entertaining account of the lives, literature, and piety of these good men, is to be found in Palmer's Nonconformist's Memorial,.of which work there is a new and improved edition, lately published, in three volumes. Their descendants are known by the name of Protestant Dissenters, and rank under the three denominations of Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists.

Of the origin and progress of the Dissenters, a full account is contained in Neal's History of the Puritans, an improved edition of which work has been published by Dr. Toulmin of Birmingham, who has accompanied it with notes, in which are obviated the objections which have been made to it by Grey, Maddox, Warburton, and others. Here the historian traces, step by

* It is remarkable, that little notice is taken in this work of John Bunyan, the celebrated author of the Pilgrim's Progress; he was twelve years in Bedford goal, and therefore deserves to have been particularly mentioned, were it only for his sufferings as a Protestant Dissenter. But Crosby, in his History of the Papists, accuses Neal of not having treated the Baptists in that work with impartiality.

DISSENTERS.

step, the differences which originally occasioned the separation, and an affecting narrative is given of the sufferings which our forefathers underwent in the cause of religious liberty. A brief history of the Puritans also was published in 1772, of which the author, the Rev. J. Cornish, of Culliton, has given an enlarged and pleasing edition. The principles on which the Dissenters separate from the church of England are much the same with those on which she separates herself from the church of Rome. They may be summarily comprehended in these three: 1. The right of private judgment. 2. Liberty of Conscience. And 3. The perfection of scripture as a Christian's only rule of faith and practice.

The late Dr. John Taylor, of Norwich, thus expressed himself concerning the principles and worship of the Dissenters :-" The principles and worship of Dissenters are not formed upon such slight foundation as the unlearned and thoughtless may imagine. They were thoroughly considered and judiciously reduced to the standard of scripture and the writings of antiquity, by a great number of men of learning and integrity. I mean the Bartholomew divines, or the ministers ejected in the year 1662, men prepared to lose all, and to suffer martyrdom itself, and who actually resigned their livings (which with most of them were, under God, all