lishments, the single view under which we ought to consider them is, that of " a scheme of instruction ;" The single end we ought to propose by them is, "the preservation and communication of religious knowledge." Every other end which have been mixed with this, as the making of the church an engine or even an ally of the state, have served only to debase the institution, and to introduce into it numerous corruptions and abuses.

Q. What does the notion of a religious establishment comprehend ?

A. Three things; a clergy, a legal provision for their maintenance, and the confining of that provision to the teachers of a particular sect of Christianity. If any one of these three things be wanting, there exists no established church, according to the sense which these terms are usually made to convey.

Q. What is necessary to be shown in defending ecclesiastical establishments ?

A. The separate utility of these three essential parts of their constitution. The first question is,

whether the knowledge of Christianity can be maintained without a class of men set apart by public authority, to the teaching of religion, and secluded from other employments. Now, as Christianity is an historical religion, founded on facts written in a remote" age, in a distant country, and as it was first published in Judæa, is built upon the Jewish religion, and the' records of both religions are in languages which have long since ceased to be spoken, it is evident that

great study and preparation is necessary. The qualifications for such researches, as the establishing of the genuineness of the canonical Scriptures, demand a degree of leisure, and a kind of education inconsistent with the exercise of any other profession.

Q. But how few are there among the clergy from whom any thing of this sort can be expected?

A. We sow many seeds to produce one flower. In order to raise a few capable of improving and continuing the stock of Christian erudition, leisure and opportunity must be afforded to great numbers.

Q. Is it not acknowledged by some, to be barely possible, that a person who was never educated for the office, should acquit himself with decency as a public teacher of religion?

A. Yes; and that surely must be a defective policy which trusts to possibilities for success, when provision is to be made for regular and general instruction. Little objection to this can be drawn from the Quakers, who may be said to furnish an experimental proof, that Christianity may be upholden without a separate clergy, for they exist in conjunction with a regular establishment, and have access to the writings and labours of the clergy.

Q. What follows under the second head?

A. If an order of clergy be necessary, if it be necessary to seclude them from the employments and profits of other professions, it is evident they ought to be enabled to derive a maintenance from their own. This maintenance must either depend upon volun

tary contributions, or be assigned by law. As to voluntary contribution, however the zeal of a sect, or the novelty of a change might operate, it could not be relied upon as a general and permanent provision. It is also to be feared, if it were left to the discretion of each neighbourhood to provide a teacher, that many districts would remain unprovided with any.

Q. How would the voluntary system operate upon the preacher ?

A. Preaching, in time, would become a mode of begging. For a preacher to be thus at the mercy of his audience; to be obliged to adapt his doctrines to a capricious multitude, to live in constant bondage to tyrannical directors, are circumstances so mortifying, that it may be pronounced, that a ministry so degraded would soon fall into the lowest hands.

Q. If in deference to these reasons it be admitted, that a legal compulsory provision for the clergy be necessary, what will be the next question ?

A. Whether this provision should be confined to one sect of Christianity, or extended indifferently to all. Now, this question never can offer itself where the people are agreed in religious opinions, and it never ought to arise where a system may be framed to comprehend the whole. But, if this be despaired of, and different sects unavoidably continue, under such circumstances, whether the law ought to establish one sect in preference to the rest, i. e. whether it ought to assign a maintenance to its teachers, becomes a question of great importance.

Q. Shall we not find this question very nearly related to, and dependent upon another; viz., In what way, or by whom, ought the ministers of religion to be appointed?

A. Yes; if the species of patronage be retained to which we are accustomed in this country, and which allows individuals to nominate teachers for districts to which they are absolute strangers, the utmost discordancy of opinion between pastors and congregations might arise, without some test proposed to the nominees. The requisition of subscription, then, or of any other test, may be considered as a restriction upon the exercise of private patronage. The laws say to the patron, "Of those whom we have previously pronounced to be fitly qualified to teach, we allow you to select one."

Q. Suppose the appointment of the minister were left to the choice of the parishioners of every parish, might not this choice be safely exercised, without its being limited to the teachers of any particular sect?

A. The effect of such a liberty must be, that a Papist, an Anabaptist, or a Moravian would successively gain the pulpit, as the majority at each election might happen to be. This would necessarily produce bitter animosities, unconquerable aversion to the teacher, on the side of the defeated party, and other evils.

Q. Suppose the state should appoint the ministers of religion?

A. This constitution will differ little from the

establishment of a national religion; for the state will undoubtedly appoint those alone whose religious denominations agree with its own.

Q. What is your opinion of the plan proposed in some of the North American states, which makes a certain contribution to the general support of religion compulsory, but leaves each person at liberty to pay his portion to the minister of whatever denomination he may prefer.

A. It bears the appearance of liberality and justice, and contains some solid advantages, but it labours under inconveniencies which will overbalance these; such as, the making of the pecuniary success of the different teachers to depend upon the number and wealth of their respective followers, would generate strife and jealousies, and produce a polemical spirit, founded in, or mixed with views of private gain.

Q. By what steps, then, does the argument, by which ecclesiastical establishments are defended, proceed?

A. By these;-The knowledge and profession of Christianity cannot be upholden without a clergy; a clergy cannot be supported without a legal provision; a legal provision cannot be constituted without the preference of one sect before the rest; and the conclusion will be satisfactory in the degree in which these several propositions can be made out.

Q. Then, as some test appears to be the indispensable consequence of a national religion, the very existence of such an establishment supposes it.