t 
1802.} Letters between T. Adercer, 
tercourfe with mankind in the bufinefs ‘of 
life has confirmed me in thefe principles. 
Their tendency and end is the happinels of 
mankind on the moft enlarged fcale; and 
as this ought to be confidered as the end 
of ali government and of all fociety, fo is 
it happy that ajl the neceflary knowledge 
re(pecting it is not of difficult acquifition. 
To the bulk of mankind the ftores of 
profound ftudy and profound fpeculative 
icience are inacceffible; but a moderate 
portion of commen fenfe is an excellent 
gvide in common life: and if it, be true, 
as I have read in very good authors, that 
thofe things which. are of moft effential 
importance lie almoft on the furtace; 
they are attainable by almoft every un- 
derftanding, not warped by the prejudices 
of fyttems, or an adherence to a wrong 
caft of early opinions. But this, it is 
confeffed, may be very difficult to thofe 
who have been taught to believe, that the 
fimple and unadorned fcheme of Chrifti- 
anity, contained in the facred Scriptures, 
has been, improved and ‘embellithed by 
rites and ceremonies, and creeds, invented 
by higli-titled dignitaries, who, though 
claiming de{cent from the in{pired apoftles, 
do, notwithftanding, think themfelves 
better acquainted with what regards the 
beauty of holinefs than were their mafters, 
and therefore have added, and claim au- 
thority ftill tp add (and to enforce the ob- 
fervance of ) what they prefumptuoufly 
fuppofe their mafters had negligently 
omitted. 
A ereat part of your letter, Sir, is em- 
ployed on the ftate of the Gallican Church, 
and the alterations made in its property ; 
and you are difplezfed with me for ufing 
certain illiberal terms towards its prelates, 
_ whom I called <“* pampered and loxu- 
rious.”” To this charge I plead guilty, 
ang? was forry for having ufed the words, 
even before you received my letter. But 
this intemperate effufion in no manner 
affects my argument, that the /abvurer is 
eworthy of his hire; and certainly the pa- 
rifh-prieft is the principal labourer in’ the 
church; and I believe it may be made 
clear, that there would be no injuftice in 
taking fomething from the overfeer (if in 
truth the prelate may be fo called, by his 
really saking upon himfelf the trouble of 
an overfeer) and giving it to the actual 
labourer, provided the ftate, to whom 
this matter indubitably helongs, fhould fo 
pieafe to order. 
ln treating this fubje& I thal] no doubt 
difcever opinions confiderably different 
from your’s; but I have pledged mylelf 
to be fiank and open, and 1 wiil perform 
efq. &F the Rt. Hon. E. Burke. 921 
the engagement. And fir, I humbly 
apprehend that your ideas of vefted pro- 
perty and legal poffeffion will not apply 
in the prefent inflance, as they would do 
to private property, whether hereditary or 
acquired ; for an ecclefiaftical eftablifh- 
ment is the creature of civil powcr. It 
depends on the civil power for its ex- 
iftence, its privileges, and its patrimony : 
and to be modelled in its dilcipline and 
its fupport by its maker is the fundamen- 
tal law of itsnature. Every circumftance 
refpeting it may be ordered in fubfer- 
viency to the weliare of the State, whofe 
right and duty it is to take care, that all 
the minifters of its own efiablifhment (1 
am writing of dominant modes of wor- 
fhip, not of genuine vital religion, which 
is quite another fubject) fhail be main- 
tained with decency ; ‘that thofe who have 
toomuch, however acquired and fanctioned ° 
by time, may be reduced to moderation ; 
and that the furplus, if there be any, after 
the aétual labourers are comfortably pro-~ 
vided for, may be applied as the State 
may think fit—for fuch is the nature, as 
T take it, of all human ecclefiaftical efta- 
blifhments, that the whole income or pro- 
perty of them proceeds from, and belongs 
to, the State, fuch being the ground on 
which they ftand from the firft principles 
and neceffary condition of their exiftence.* 
Whatever may be the final iffue of the 
attempt made by the French nation te 
obtain a rational conttitution of Govern- 
ment, I cannot fay; but when I wrote to 
you on this fubject, it appeared to me 
that they had no idea in France of reducing 
the higher clergy to the laf? difrefs. They 
{cemed to leaye them enough, contidering 
that they are bound-to a lite of celibacy; . 
and if they rightly underftood their fitua- 
tion as Chriftian Miniffers, they would 
net complain. And a much lefs right 
would their fucceffors have to complain, 
who, having zo hereditary right, world 
have no claim, either to the office or the 
emoluments, but what might arife from the 
appointment of the State. And, if the 
National Affembly are finally fuccefsful 
in their attempt to equalize, ima certain 
degree, the fupport of the clergy, ana to 
render the office of the fuperior orders 
* Did the prefent Bifhop of Llandaff, Dr. 
Watton, entertain an idea that he was about 
to violate the vefted property and legal pof- 
fefhon of the Church of England, when he 
fome years ago recommended a more equal 
diftribution gf its revenues among the la- 
bouring clergy than takes place at prefent ? 
: Pranfcriber, 
elective 
