tians. Sabbaths and Lord's-days are there mentioned as if they were cou vertible terms; whereas no terms in theology can be more distinct. The Sabbath, however it originated, was become, at the advent of Christ, exclusively Jewish. On that day, by divine direction, all business was rigorously prohibited, though not innocent amusement, as has been often, erroneously, supposed. Respecting the occupation of the Lord'sday, there is no trace of any prohibition in the New Testament, nor can it be there discovered, that Christians are commanded, though they have been generally agreed, to meet specially on that day for public worship and instruction; a custom, the religious expedience of which I am not inclined for a moment to dispute. Should R. F. be a Calvinist he may be disposed peculiarly to respect the opinions of Calvin. In the Institutio (L. ii. C. viii. S. 32-34), he will find a view of this subject very different from that of the English and Scotch Puritans or the modern British Calvinists. A learned writer of the latter class, Dr. J. P. Smith, in his "Scripture Testimony to the Messiah," (I. 81,) censures Mr. Belsham's well-supported declaration, that "any employ ment, or any amusement, which is lawful on other days, is lawful on the Sunday." Not that Mr. Belsham, or those who agree with him, would forget Paul's distinction between the lawful and the expedient, or slight his counsel, not to suffer their good to be evil spoken of. The learned writer endeavours, at. the page I have quoted, to prejudice his readers against Unitarians, by representing those who imbibe "the spirit of Unitarianism," as disposed to neglect a "sacred obligation." He had also examined the Institutio so accurately as to decide (p. 78, note), that "Dr. Priestley's Institutes, considered with a view to its practical bearings only, forms a melancholy contrast to Calvin's great work." He could not then have been ignorant, from several passages in that work, of what it was beside his purpose to acknowledge, that no two Christian Jwriters, though in such different ages and so widely separated on other points, had treated the question of VOL. XIV. 3 L the holiness of Sunday more alike, than Calvin and Mr. Belsham. The learned author of the Scripture Testimony, probably knew also from Owen, as quoted by Mather, in Elliot's Life, (Ed. 3, p. 29,) that there were in the seventeenth century "sundry divines of the United Provinces," not charged with any heresy, who called "the doctrine of the Sabbath, Figmentum Anglicanum." It is, however, too much to expect that Dr. J. P. Smith or any other learned Calvinist will hastily incur the odium of denouncing Calvin, as what his Judaizing, or rather Ultra-Judaizing followers in Great Britain, call a Subbath-breaker. Should this representation of Calvin's anti sabbatical notions be disputed, I am not destitute of authori ties in its support. SIR, DOMINICUS. I BEG leave to call the attention of your readers to the following extraordinary position contained in a work, entitled " Essays on the Wisdom of God," recently published by the Rev. Daniel Tyerman, a minister of the Independent denomination of Dissenters, residing at Newport, Isle of Wight. "The difficulty of meeting the claims of the moral government of God forms another obstacle to the salvation of man. As this government must be in all respects perfect, its claims must be honoured, with respect to man, before his salvation can be possible. Though by the fall, man has lost his ability to meet the claims of this moral government, yet he is still a subject of it, and is under the same obligations as ever to act agreeably to its laws, for a loss of power to obey, by no means infers an exemption from obligation. Man is still within the sphere of this government, and God still demands a perfection of obedience, and threatens him with an eternity of punishment in case of non-compliance." If this be justice, how falsely has the memory of an ancient potentate been calumniated, his name made a by-word and a reproach, and his conduct handed down to distant posterity as the model of injustice and oppression! Pharaoh, it is true, required the Israelites to produce the same number of bricks when he no longer furnished the straw which was requisite for their formation, but he never prevented the people from searching where the necessary materials were to be found; he might, it seems, not only have abstained from giving them straw, but might have absolutely put it out of their power to obtain it, and yet have justly required the same degree of successful exertion, since "a loss of power to obey, by no means infers an exemp. tion from obligation." It would certainly be extremely unfair to consider any class of Chris tians as answerable for the opinions of one of its members. As, however, the Congregational Magazine, a work of extensive circulation and high orthodox character, considers the Author's religious principles as "invulnerable," and recommends the work to its readers as 'truly evangelical," we must, I fear, consider Mr. Tyerman's opinions, as those of the denomination to which he belongs, and if so, what painful impressions crowd on the mind! It is well known that great exertions have been made of late to convert the Heathen; we have been told that their barbarities, the mere recital of which makes us shudder, proceed entirely from an erroneous faith and it is triumphantly asked, How can we expect that the worshipers of Juggernaut should be kind and compassionate to their fellow-creatures? If, however, they are to be taught in Mr. Tyerman's theological school, it is to be feared they will profit but little by the exchange. If they are to be told that God will eternally punish his creatures for the omission of duties he has denied them the ability to perform, they may still be cruel, vengeful and unjust, and still plead the example of the Deity whom they worship, in defence of their conduct. The Corporation Act was passed in 1661, immediately after the Restoration; it enacts that no person shall fill any employments relating to the government of Corporatious, who shall not, within a year before his appointment, have taken the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, according to the rites of the Church of England; in default of which his appointment is declared to be void. The Test Act was passed in 1672, in a period of great ferment and distraction. It is entitled, "An Act for preventing Dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants." Among other things, it is enacted, That every person that shall be admitted into any office, civil or military, or shall receive any pay by reason of any patent or grant, or shall have command or place of trust, or shall be admitted into any service in the Royal household, shall receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, according to the usage of the Church of England, within three months after his admittance, in some public Church, upon some Lord's day, immediately after divine service and sermon; any person taking office or employment without this qualification, and being thereon lawfully convicted, is disabled from suing or using any action in law, from being guardian of any child, or executor, or capable of any legacy or deed of gift, and forfeits the sum of £500, to be recovered by him or them that shall sue for the same. Subsequent statutes have modified and softened these rigorous acts. By the 5 Geo. I. the election of a person to a corporate office, who has not received the Sacrament according to the usage of the Church of England, within twelve months preceding such election, does not make the office absolutely void, but voidable only in case he is prosecuted within six months afterwards; but if he continues in office peaceably for six months his election is as valid as if he had been qualified at first; and by the 16 Geo. II, there is an enlargement of time as to the Test Act; it is thereby required that persons should take the Sacrament within six months of their admittance to any office, or receiving any employment, and if they be beyond sea at the time of their admittance within six months after Universities would maintain their hard tests of Subscription. their return to England. Besides these mollifying ordinances, there is an annual Indemnity Bill, which allows to persons not having complied with the Test Act up to the beginning of every Session of Parlia. ment, six months further in which to qualify, after which, should any proceedings commence on non-compliance, they may be deferred by some legal process until the next Indemuity Bill passes, so that the Test Act would seem to be a dead letter. The annual relaxation of the Test Laws does not, however, wholly set aside their operation. But for the liberal spirit of the times, they might be put in force in some cases of forgetfulness or remissness, to the great inconvenience aud vexation of the offender against them. Upon succeeding to an office of inheritance, (as no entry is necessary,) a person may suffer in consequence of the lapse of the six months before he has even notice of his right having accrued. And, contrary to the spirit of all law, the innocent may be made to suffer for the legally guilty, as no man (if the objection be taken in proper time) can recover a debt in an inferior court, over which an unqualified Corporator presides, nor can the election of a corporate officer, before magistrates who have neglected to qualify, be supported. In reality, the Test Laws exclude almost all such Dissenters as cannot conscientiously conform occasionally to the Church of England; few choosing to risk the dangers of setting them at defiance. And, by their indirect operation, they keep up a line of distinction between the Dissenters and others throughout the community generally. Were they abolished, it is scarcely to be expected that one of the Inus of Court would continue to exact the Sacramental Test, † or that the two • Case of the Prot. Diss. p. 3. + "Till some time in the reign of George the Second, all students of the law were obliged to receive the Sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England, before they were admitted to the bar. The Society of Lincoln's Inn first discontinued the practice. The Inner harmless, that circumstance would be But were the Test Laws entirely only a reason for their express repeal. Unjust and bigoted laws, though counteracted by wise and humane legislative provisious, are dishonourable to the community which suffers them to remain as laws. Nor can they be considered as innoxious, if they operate as a tax upon honour and conscience, if they divide a nation into parties and and insolence in the stronger, and engender discontent in the weaker above all, if they pervert religion into an instrument of worldly policy, and especially of mischievous faction, The Sacramental Test is an anomaly in political regulations. † No Temple and Middle Temple have since followed the example; but, to the disgrace of Gray's Inn, it is still required there." See "the Right of Protestant Dis1789, p. 1. This valuable pamphlet, atsenters to a Complete Toleration," 2nd ed. tributed to a gentleman yet living, high in the profession of the law, well deserves to be republished: it would convey much important knowledge and truth to that generation of Protestant Dissenters, which has grown up since its first appearance. offices fall within the provisions of the "A vast variety of occupations and nite between the Lord High Chancellor of Test Act. The gradations are almost infi stroyer to his Majesty. The Postmaster Great Britain and the humble bug-deGeneral is in a civil office, and has authority derived from the King; so that the proprietors of mail-coaches throughout the kingdom, having places of trust under him, might, if the Act was strictly exeented, be obliged to receive the Sacra, ment, according to the rites of the Church of England. May we not congratulate religion, when not even a bug can be deour country on its wonderful uniformity of stroyed within the purliens of the royal household, but by the hallowed fingers of a communicant; nor a post letter conveyed to any part of the kingdom by horses belonging to a Protestant Dissenter !". Right of Protest Diss. p. 41. ment, according to the usage of the Church In former times the taking of the Sacraof England, was insisted upon as a previous qualification to obtain licences to sell ale! The Author just quoted states, p. 63, &c. a singular practical absurdity in the Test Laws, "By the Act of Union the people on the face of the earth, except the English, ever dreamed of such a measure of fitness for civil office. It does not ascertain a man's talents or virtues, or Christian faith, or even his sanity of mind. It proves nothing but his desire of office, and his power of swallowing a morsel of bread and a drop of wine. The object of the Test is to keep out Nonconformists from places of trust and power but it does not answer this end. Some Dissenters can allow themselves (I say not how consistently) to conform in this particular. The only persons that can be stopped by the bar of the Communion Table are those that possess niceness of honour and scrupulosity of conscience. If amongst the Dissenters there be persons whom the oath of allegiance caunot bind, these will not be tied up by the Sacramental Test: and thus the State shuts the door against that class of people whose characters would serve and adorn it, and opens it to another class whose want of character may make them dangerous. The honest and religious Protestant Dissenter may be excluded by the Sacrament, but it opposes no barrier to the unbeliever." Test Laws were not repealed. There is no Sacramental Test, however, in Scotland, as there is in England: whence this palpable injustice follows, that a member of the Church of England has full and free access to all the offices of Scotland; while a member of the Kirk of Scotland is incapacitated from holding one in England, unless he takes the Sacrament, according to the rites of her Established Church, The same national injustice now exists with regard to Ireland, for there is no religious test in that country." The effect of the Test Laws upon the Church of Scotland is deplorable. Most of the Scottish nobility and gentry are Conformists to the Established Church when they come into England. * Protestant Dissenters, who only differed from the Church in some minute points of discipline, were excluded from offices and persecuted, at the time when Lord Shaftsbury was Lord High Chancellor of England, and when Mr. St. John (afterwards Lord Bolingbroke) was Secretary of State, and high in favour with a princess of pious memory. Anthony Collins, Esq., who wrote several treatises against Christianity, was in The use, or rather abuse, of the Lord's Supper as a civil Test has been, from the first, lamented by religious men of all communions. That rite of peace and charity is surely profaned, when it is made a standard of political party. The profanation is the greater in the Church of England, since her articles and rubrick represent it as a saving or condemning ordinance, the seal of absolution on the one hand or of damnation on the other. Conscientious clergymen of the English Church are reduced by the Test Act to an alternative, which even Nonconformists cannot but pity. They are required by their religious vows to exclude from the Sacrament all dissolute and profane persons, and yet if they refuse to administer it to one who applies for it as a civil qualification, be his character what, and as notorious as it may, they subject themselves to a prosecution, and may incur heavy penalties. Were the clergy, therefore, more intent upon the spiritual interests of their church, than upon the temporal endowments and immunities of their ecclesiastical corporation, they would be the first to petition the Legislature for the abolition of the Sacramental Test. It may be remarked here, as a sin the commission of the peace; and being obliged to qualify himself according to the Test Act, is said to have given notice of his design in the following ludicrous and profane manner, "Sir, I design to take a bit of bread and a cup of wine with you;' and when he was pressed by s friend upon the impropriety of a person professing his principles, receiving the Sacrament, he answered, "I only do it to pay a compliment to the custom of my country." "The clergy are in a pitiable condition. A pious man, feeling exquisitely for the interests of religion, is obliged, under the peril of a suit at law, which may bring ruin upon himself and family, to administer the Sacrament without reserve to the most profligate unbelievers, and to wretches whose lives are a scandal to human nature; at the same time that he is solemnly bound, by the ties of duty and office, to exclude them from the altar, and runs the risque of a prosecution in the Spiritual Courts for admitting them."— Right of Prot. Diss. p. 69. gular instance of retributive justice, that the Test law has rebounded upon the heads of its contrivers and supporters: the Nonconformists urged it on as a punishment of Roman Catholics, and it has proved the great scourge of their own body: Churchmen have maintained it in order to keep down the Dissenters, and it has been one of the most annoying and disgraceful of the tasks imposed upon their own clergy. The question of the propriety of continuing the Corporation and Test Acts, is quite distinct from that of the necessity or use of a National Establishment of religion. Were there no such Establishment, there could, of course, be no sacramental Test, but the discontinuance of the Test would not affect the Establishment. It existed before the Test, and would continue to exist after its abolition, in so far, at least, as the Test itself is concerned. Would the imposition of a Test in Scotland strengthen the Establishment in that part of the United Kingdom? Why then should it be thought to have any beneficial influence upon the Church of England? In the Test laws, the State recognizes the Church only in the character of a servant bound to perform any work, however uncongenial with her character, which it pleases to demand; in repealing those laws, it would emancipate her from a servitude in which she has acquired neither power nor wealth, in return for the suspicion and odium which she has incurred from within and from without. The Church of England reposes, and at present reposes securely, upon Acts of Parliament; and were she to lose any guard or support by the fall of the Test Laws, let her seek to repair the, loss by some new legislative enact ment. I have not gone, nor am I disposed to go into the inquiry, how far a Protestant Dissenter may conscientiously submit to the Sacramental Test. For others I cannot judge, to others I wish not to dictate; it is sufficient for me to declare, that I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which I myself could conform to it without selfdegradation, and a violation of the principles which I hold most sacred. But it must not be overlooked, that there are certain pleas made use of in this case, of which we are disposed to admit the force in other cases. The complying Dissenter urges that he is called by station or profession to serve his country; that the sacramental ordeal is to him a mere civil regulation; that the priest is in his view only an officer of the State, and that he is as innocent in taking bread and wine from his hands, as he is in counting hob-nails before a baron of the Exchequer; and that whatever be the absurdity, or impolicy or profaneness of the whole proceeding, he washes his hands of the blame, and refers it wholly to the legislature of his country. This justification savours, it is true, of worldly-mindedness, and countenances a laxity of principle which in other cases might be most mischievous: but what other justification have we, as Unitarians, for bowing down to the Trinitarian matrimonial service? In truth, the most powerful argument against this interference of the State with conscience, this mixture of spiritual and secular concerns, is the necessity which it lays men under of resorting to mental reservations which are unfavourable to that purity of moral feeling, on which depend the sanctity of civil obligations and the healthiness of the public mind. It is curious that while Churchmen have been auxious for the preservation of the Test Laws in order to discourage and repress nonconformity, Dissenters themselves have sometimes been indifferent to their repeal, on the ground of a belief that such a measure would tempt the more wealthy of their members away from their communion. These conflicting fears destroy each other, and leave the subject to be regarded in the light only of justice and civil policy; in which view the Corporation and Test Acts must ever be condemned as invasions of natural right, as snares to conscience, and as a flagrant abuse of the Christian religion. Whatever interest, whether it be conformity or nonconformity, owes its prosperity to such laws, is in itself bad, and the sooner it perishes the better. But I need not remind you, my brethren, that the true principles of nonconformity are those of the New Testament; princi |