give me your hand, Morgan, and so do I; and I will tell you farther, that I wish all the revenue that may arise from the sale of tithe, to be applied indiscriminately to the ministers of all denominations, for I hate the name of Churchman as I do the name of Dissenter; let us all be called by the name of the Church of Christ; and what do you think of that, Morgan?' 'I certainly, sir, cannot but admire the principles, which could have dictated these liberally expressed sentiments; but you have outstepped the bounds I had marked out for myself, and I would, by permission, propose as an amendment, that all the available revenue of the Church should be applied towards the liquidation of the national debt, thereby ridding ourselves at once of about two hundred millions; and what a fine thing that would be, sir. But as for the Dissenters to accept any share of it, I think I can answer for them, that no consideration on earth could induce them to accept the offer. They wish to adhere to the principles of the first Christian ministers-to accept only of the free-will offerings of their Congregations.'

Who, then, shall stay the dissemination and practical realization of these principles? The House of Lords? It may erect itself into the stronghold and defence of spiritual, as it did of civil corruption. Its mitred defenders are there, in their "pride of place;" and they are prepared to yield nothing to "popular clamour." The aristocratic caste are so wedded to corruption, and the Church affords such easy methods of portioning off its younger branches, that hereditary wisdom will uplift its voice in behalf of things as they are, and rally round "the altar and the throne.' But its wisdom was changed into imbecility, when the dread voice of awakened millions demanded the recognition of political rights. Even the Episcopal bench quailed before its mandate. Auspicious omen for the emancipation of the religion of Christ from earthly bondage!

As a last resort, there will be the coronation oath pleaded for the continuance of misrule" the conscience of the king"-religious scruples, combined to oppose the progress of religious purity, and the practical observance of the commandments of Christ. But delusive is that plea. It was urged against the repeal of those Test and Corporation Acts, which barred the Dissenter from social rights, by branding him as a heretic to the religion of his country. It was urged to stop the emancipation of the

Catholics from the power of laws as iniquitous as they were antichristian. But Catholic emancipation was granted, and Test and Corporation Acts were repealed, notwithstanding. The coronation oath! Why is it taken? Is it not a form by which the sovereign pledges himself to maintain and to promote the welfare and happiness, the rights and privileges of the people? What is government? A complicated apparatus to ensure wealth and splendour to the governor, regardless of what becomes of the governed? Or is it a sacred stewardship entrusted to responsible agents, in order that they may watch over, protect, and advance the welfare and happiness of the people who created it? The first is tyranny, the latter freedom. If grants were made in ages of darkness, which operate now as a hindrance to improvement-if privileges were then bestowed which at present benefit the few, to the injury of the many-if Establishments were in bygone days founded, which in those ages included within their pale the mass of the people, but to which in these days a vast majority of the inhabitants of the land do not belong, the object of all righteous government would be defeated, the coronation oath would be falsified, were such Establishments, or privileges, or grants, not at once to be abrogated.

That a vast majority of the people of Great Britain and Ireland are dissenters from the Established Churches, cannot be denied. In England and Scotland, it is a rapidly increasing class; in Ireland, it is seven millions-to five hundred thousand. Every principle of freedom, justice, and Christianity, cries out against the longer continuance of a system like this, a system which enables the few to batten on the miseries of their country, which converts the religion of Jesus into the pander to corruption and misgovernment, and makes him who should be the minister of glad tidings of great joy to all, the rapacious tyrant instead of the friend and brother of the people.

In the midst of this annunciation and vindication of rational and generous and Scriptural principles, it is with pain we notice the alloy of an exclusive and intolerant spirit mingling in the societies north of the Tweed. In Church Establishments, the spirit of bigotry and anathema is not wonderful; it forms part and parcel of their institution. It is the encouragement of that spirit which constitutes a portion of their crime against society. But the

free spirit of Dissent should know nothing of the contamination. Wherever or by whomsoever manifested, proof is given that the parties know not the genuine nature of the principles of liberty they advocate. It is not the spirit of Christ. The third rule of the Edinburgh Society enacts, that it "shall consist of persons of all the denominations usually called Evangelical." Usually called! By whom? Where? The term changes its meaning in different latitudes. The "Evangelical Missionary Society" of Massachussets is Unitarian. Here the name is synonimous with Calvinism, and the object is to exclude the Unitarian. The Glasgow Society goes farther still. Its third rule declares, it "shall consist of the friends of voluntary churches, holding Evangelical sentiments." And who is to judge? Is the Voluntary Church committee, a "heart-probing" one also? The rule cannot secure uniformity of opinion, though it may exclude the Unitarian. There is diversity of religious doctrine even in their Committee. There is one individual, at least, whom the Edinburgh rule might have shielded by its phrase "usually called," but whom the Glasgow rule would exclude, if "holding evangelical sentiments" is to be interpreted according to Scottish parlance; but he is a minister, and passes muster accordingly!

We have thought it our duty to condemn this petty exhibition of sectarian bigotry, this inconsistency between the principles of Dissent and the practice of Dissenters, this aping of the odious spirit of the Establishments against which they associate. Let not, however, all the members of those Associations be involved in the condemnation. There are individuals belonging to them who are as much opposed to this bigotry as ourselves. Nay, even in the Provisional Committee, advocates of perfect religious freedom were to be found. The matter was contested there. A proposition was made in that Provisional Committee, for a Rule which would have included as members of the

Association, every denomination, every individual opposed to Church Establishments, whether that opposition sprung from religious or political considerations. But bigotry was alarmed. "The Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans." To associate with "Socinians!" Impossible! And bigotry carried the day.

Notwithstanding these exclusive rules, and the kindred spirit manifested by some of the speakers, we rejoice in

the formation of the Associations. Let them labour in disseminating the genuine principles of dissent, of Christian freedom; and exclusion and bigotry, as well as the Establishments from which the infection was caught, must give way. Pure and undefiled religion will flourish in their stead, and then will there be peace on earth, good will to men, and glory to God in the highest.

ARGUS.

CHRISTIAN PIONEER.

No. 78.

FEBRUARY, 1833. Vol. VII.

An Address to the Labouring Classes of Great Britain, on their Moral, Domestic, and Political Importance. By the Rev. J. R. Beard.

(Concluded from p. 151.)

To contemplate your character in another point of view -You are a father, the master of a family, who are dependent on you, and without you perhaps utterly destitute. A female, in those days when hope and imagination drew out a prospect in bright and enchanting colours, entrusted her happiness in your hands, relying on your assurances and fidelity. Her little ones and yours are around her, and from her and you are to receive every influence that will affect their character and their happiness. Their young hearts are yet unsullied by vice, and the tear that has dimmed their eye a quick coming smile has driven away. How happy and joyful do they live, how fondly do they crowd around you when you return from your labour, and with what gay and innocent prattle do they tell you all their little news! Whether or not their bright morning shall be followed by a day of darkness, who but you will determine? Oh! can you think without pain of their becoming wretched in becoming vicious? How much more acceptable the thought, that they will grow up to be a comfort to yourself and her that fed them at her breast; and when your day of labour is past, and the darkness of age comes upon you, to pay the debt they owe you, in aiding you to procure a subsistence, and smoothing, by kind attentions, the rough road you will have to tread. Look at your family, and learn the importance of the station you hold. Their happiness-your own happiness-both depend on yourself. And of what consists the bulk of society but of families like yours? On parents, therefore, depends the happiness of the community. You have to answer the question-Shall this land be a land of peace or wretchedness? Shall its people have or not bread to eat, and comfortable abodes and clothing? Shall they be instructed or ignorant, virtuous or vicious, an honour or a disgrace to themselves and their country? And that,

R