Our readers, perhaps, may have borne in their memories the subject of our leading article in the January number; we endeavoured to combat an argument frequently addressed to the imagination and the feelings, that there can be no apprehension of the re-establishment of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, as the Italian hierarchy could not, in the present state of diffused knowledge, reassume its original supremacy; and, therefore, that the future entire abolition of the Irish branch of the Church of England may be contemplated without danger. How far we have succeeded in discussing this point, we shall leave to the decision of our umpire, the judicious public, and shall now proceed to examine another proposition, vainly and arrogantly defended by the revolutionary and anti-religious party in this country. That proposition is, that the union of the Church with the State was devised for the sole object of erecting a barrier against the aggressions of the Roman Catholic religion; and as the danger to be anticipated from its ascendancy has disappeared, the design of the union of the Protestant Church with the State is deprived of its primitive urgency, and therefore its dissolution is justifiable.

This view of the question, though it were correct, which, in the former number, we have proved it is not, proceeds upon the assumption that the first hypothesis has been established, namely, that there is no probability of the ascendancy of the Roman Catholic religion, The position which we now undertake to expose is upheld by a large portion of the heterogeneous enemies of the Church of England, particularly of those who, radicals in politics, are infidels in religion. These persons profess to believe that the circulation of knowledge, and thereby the increased detestation of the enormities of the Italian faith, will for ever preclude its legal acknowledgment; and that whatever influence, as a political body, the disciples of the Church of Rome may possess as

N. S. VOL. II.

K

an established church, they never can influence the government or destinies of the nation. For who, they urge, can imagine any thing so preposterous as the extinction of the Protestant church, because it was in connection with the State, and yet permit the adoption of the Roman Catholic into a similar pre-eminence. Thus they argue. Being convinced that the ascendancy of the Romish faith is, in these enlightened times, "as improbable as an invasion of Great Britain by the Romans," they are content to abolish the Protestant church, because its union with the State originated from the fear of a danger that now is exhausted of all its terrors.

The union between the Church and State owes not its institution to the terror consequent upon the prospect of the establishment of the Romish faith. Doubtless, at the Reformation, and, in a more special degree, at the Revolution, it was necessary to strengthen this connection, in order to paralyze Popish power, on these occasions the direst foe with which the State had to wrestle; and hence the undying hostility and sleepless jealousy with which the Roman church is affected towards the Protestant establishment. As systems of religious opinions, broadly contradistinguished from the Romish creed, the reformed doctrines, under all varieties of shades, are viewed with a prejudiced vision. On this ground alone, therefore, the Church of England shares in the general anathema. But in these countries, the special vengeance of the Church of Rome is directed against that form of doctrine and discipline which was erected upon her downfal. The Church of England, having been made the established religion, and being incorporated with the State, is connected in history, and, what is more disastrous still as to its consequences, in feeling too, with the impression that this legal association was devised solely for the prevention of the re-erection of Romish dominancy. Hence, therefore, arises the keen ardour with which the interests of the established religion are impeded, its clergy maligned and persecuted, and the appaling vengeance with which, in the open day, they are butchered; and thus the existence of the church is brought into daily jeopardy. This feeling operating generally against the united Church, prevails with indomitable violence and instinctive rancour against the Irish branch; for here it is regarded, as spreading forth the last lingering cloud of darkness that conceals the sun of ascendancy from the Romish church. In proportion as the interests of that church have grown, in defiance of resistance, into acknowledged eminence, the one solitary barrier that obstructs the concession of its legal establishment, is attacked with consistent and corresponding pertinacity. Every Roman Catholic, of every grade in society, even the peasant, inveigled by the fond argument of antiquity, unites with the remembrance of it, which hallows his church, the belief that, but for the Protestant Establishment, the glories of former times, cunningly magnified, or rather created by legendary tales and visions, would return to irradiate, not only

their long banishment from ecclesiastical pomp and splendour, but their personal fortunes and individual interests.

It is forgotten, however, or concealed, that the Roman Catholic religion was in union with the state, previous to the Reformation; therefore the mere circumstance of the incorporation of religion with the state, does not, necessarily, suggest the conclusion that opposition to Popery, is now the leading and characteristic principle of the present union. For, surely, none will contend that before the Reformation, the original design of the incorporation could have proceeded from an intention to annihilate the authority of the Romish Church; nor could it have been to discourage the prosperous advancement of the tenets of her creed.— Nor, again, on the other hand, can it be alleged with truth, that this union was submitted to, from an impossible avoidance of it, on the ground that this Church, though the State had been hostile to an alliance, possessed such paramount authority over the temporal concerns of kingdoms, as to be enabled to enforce this union wherever Christianity was acknowledged. For never did Protestant England, with more national ardor, and resolute patriotism, spurn the Pope's temporal sway, or the domestic ascendancy of his legionary priesthood, than did of old, our Popish kings and Popish legislators. On numerous occasions, the nobles and commons of England asserted the real and leading principles, for which the primitive union of Religion with the State was devised and adopted. These were far different, indeed, from the furtherance of the Pope's temporal sway, or even the advancement of the Romish creed, considered as such, or for the sole and primary design of State precautions for secular advantage.

If these assertions can be established, it will appear, that the grand design of the union of the Church with the State at the Reformation, was not simply to exclude (though this was one collateral consequence of it,) the authority, and annihilate the power of the Roman Catholic church; nor, before the Reformation, for the purpose of maintaining and propagating the tenets of her faith.

And here, we may be permitted to allege, lies the true and just view of this much ventilated question, the alliance between Church and State. We shall not weary our reader's patience by referring to ancient statutes and charters, in affirmance of our present position; but we shall request their serious and particular attention to the authority of a very distinguished constitutional lawyer, and learned and accomplished scholar, Sir John Davies, the Attorney-General in Ireland, of James I. In commenting upon the legislative acts of the three first Edwards, relative to the Church, he has used the following observations:-"There, (the 25 st. of Edward III., in which the 25 Edw. II. is recited,) all the Commons of the Realme doe greviously complaine, that where the holy Church of England was first founded in Estate of Prelacie by the kings and nobilitie of that realme, and by them endowed with great possessions and revenewes, in lands, rents, and

advowsons, to the end, THE PEOPLE MIGHT BEE INFORMED IN RELIGION; hospitality might bee kept, and other works of charitie might be exercised within the realme. And, whereas, the king and other founders of the said Prelacies, were the rightfull patrons and advowees thereof, and uppon avoydance of such ecclesiastical promotions, had power to advance thereunto, their kinsmen, friends, and other learned men of the birth of that realme, which being so advanced, BECAME ABLE AND WORTHY PERSONS TO

SERVE THE KING IN COUNSELL AND OTHER PLACES IN THE COMMONWEALE, &c.*"

In order to exhibit the intimacy of interest that existed between the crown and the Church, and between them and the magnates, and commons of England, we shall transcribe what the same author says, on the 16 Richard, II., cap. 5-“They (the commons) complaine, that by bulls and processes from Rome, the King is deprived of that jurisdiction which belongs OF RIGHT to his imperial crowne; that the king doth lose the service and counsell of his prelates and learned men-and, thereupon, out of their exceeding zeale and fervencie, they offer to live and die with the king in defence of the liberties of the crowne.—And the lords, spirituale and temporale, did all answere, that these usurpations of the bishop of Rome were against the liberties of the Crowne, and that they were all bound by this allegiance to stand with the king, and to maintaine his honour and his prerogative." These remarks not only have the warrantry of so high an authority as Sir John Davies, but they are recapitulations of the statutes of an English parliament. They do not, it is true, refer to a period anterior to the thirteenth century, but they assert what was the law and constitution, and the prescriptive rights of the crown and Church-not merely when these statutes were enacted, but when the Church was founded. "The holy Church of England was first founded, in estate of Prelacie, by the kings and nobilitie of that realme, and by them endowed with great possessions, &c." Here was no voluntary and imaginary compact between two contracting parties, the one promising protection-the other, engaging obedience and peace. The Church was founded by the king and nobles of the land:-The corner stone of this foundation was, "that the people might bee informed in religion.” That the Roman Catholic religion was that legally associated with the State, was unavoidable, as its doctrines were those only known, except by a few scattered witnesses of the truth, that wandered in the desert, or concealed through fear of martyrdom, their light under a bushel. The great object was, that the people should be informed in religion, not because the doctrines taught

Le primer Report des cases et matters en Ley resolve et adeudge en les courts del Roy en Ireland.—The case of Præmunire, p. 87, 88, 94.— Dublin, 1615.

† Case of Præmunire, p. 87.

were those recommended by the authority of the Roman pontiff, whose interference the whole nation abjured, but because no other system of Christian principles was in general reputation. If a purer code of Christian doctrine had existed, the strong national feeling so frequently evinced against the Roman See, justified the supposition that such a code would have received ligislative sanction, and the reformation establishes the justice of this reasoning. From hence it would appear, that, according to the spirit of our Constitution, and the primitive intention of the founders of the Church of England, the selection of that form of doctrine which shall be associated with the State, does not rest with the chief magistrate; a principle, superior to his authority, claims for itself, full and prior operation. That principle is, that the Divine law shall be taught in the purest form to the people. We do not deny that the king, lords, and commons, may abrogate the Protestant religion in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and introduce instead thereof, the Roman Catholic. But this omnipotence of parliament, exerted to effect the overthrow of the parest platform of religious opinions, and the adoption or substitution of an exceptionable system, possesses none of the characteristics of that liberty which some philosophers claim over their own lives. It is a State suicide. But this proceeding, however, should be advocated upon the ground that Popery was preferable to Protestantism. What the defence would be of maintaining Protestantism in one part of the British dominions, because it was the purest system, and abrogating it in order to select the Romish faith in an other, is beyond our powers of research; yet this is the dilemma, in which Lord Grey, and the abettors of an invasion of the rights of the Church in Ireland, would involve the king of England.

But to proceed. The grand object in the foundation of the Church of England, being the instruction of the people in the purest doctrines, we find that the vouchsafement of this protection, or, in other words, the advantages of the union with the State to the Church, were displayed in the succession of means adopted for the maintenance of the original design. Though no contract existed between the Church and State, there was a reciprocity of advantages. The people were loyal citizens, in proportion to the exertions of the clergy; and that these exertions might be effectual of good, the clergy were liberally endowed. The temporal advantages derived to them "from the great possessions, revenewes in lands, rents, and advowsons," secured to the State, as a natural consequence, the secondary object of the original union, (namely,) "able and worthy persons, to serve the king in counsell, and other places in the commonweale," the bishops as peers being hereditary counsellors of the crown, and the clergy dispersed throughout the nation, in their own persons, as well by the effect of precept and example, being supporters of the interests of the commonweal.

Such we take to be the simple origin of the union of Church