566 
tary of State, &c. &c. for its different 
members; and the whole elientela of 
such association might readily adopt 
those particular titles, and call them 
generally, officers of state; but out of 
Ahe pale of its own self-created institution, 
exch of those appellations would have a 
very diflerent acceptation, and the in- 
congruity of such an adaptation of them 
be the subject of ridicule. If there be 
any peculiar title conferred by courtesy, 
wpon a certain class of persons, either 
en account of the relative sanetity of 
their office, or the yeneral dignity and 
utility of their characters in society, to 
the propriety of which title, the nation 
has long and generally subscribed, does 
Ht uot appear inconsistent, that this 
should be usurped (I will not say pros- 
tituted) by another description of per- 
sons, not acknowledged by thestate, but 
as existing upon sufferance? We cannot 
suppose the country so indifferent to its 
own establishment, nor the respectable 
part of our dissenters so self-eomplacent, 
zs to consider such an usurpation in any 
ether bght than as an act of violence, 
absurdity, and confusion. If I felt in- 
clined to be more particular, I might in- 
sist upon the inconsistency of including, 
under the same title, persons of the best 
education, of the most refined habits, and 
acknowledged respectability, ‘* who have 
had episcopal hands laid on their heads;” 
aud a number of illiterate vulgar per- 
sons, of the lowest crafts and vocations, 
who find a life of preaching and _ peal. 
mody more lucrative than the drudgery 
of daily labour, or who, by a li- 
eence, evade the service of their coun- 
try in a military capacity. But this 
would be termed intolerance. 
Speaking of Bishop Porteus, the writer 
observes, that he was “a man, (per- 
haps) of distinguished genius ; so was Ro- 
bert Robinson, to a certainty.” But 
where is the advantage of this ironical 
€ perhaps’? The public may doubt the 
distinguished genius of either. For my- 
self, 1 am prejudiced enough, not only 
very readily to give the palin to the bi- 
shop, but to wonder, by what strange 
fatality, the characters of two such men 
could ever come into competition. 
Of the bishop’s exhortation on the 
observance of Good-Friday, your cor- 
respondent remarks: “If there was in- 
tolerance in it, that was a pity; most 
hikely the good bishop’s maturer judg- 
micnt would have rejected every thing 
Defence of the Established Church. 
[ame dy 
of that kind in after life.” Here we see - 
the usual and unbecoming flippancy of 
the writer’s sarcesin. He appears win- 
cing under the spirit of dissension ; and 
upon a principle well-known among our 
Schismatics, of procuring converts by. 
affecting persecution, he attributes, ob- 
liquely, the utmost intolerance to the 
established hierarchy, Here again the 
writer betrays himself. But on the. 
subject of toleration, TE cannot help 
saying something more atlarge. I would 
ask these gentlemen, so abounding in the 
milk of human kindness, what is this to- 
leration, this conniving leniency, and 
moderation, which they make so great a 
desideratum in the members of the 
established church? Is it, that they shall 
compromise and surrender those very 
tenets which distinguish them as the 
most enlightened Christian establishment; 
and which it is required by the country, 
that they shall swear to defend? 1s it, 
that they shall countenance all the eli- 
gious schisms, that wage a secret, but in- 
veterate war, against their pohtical ex- 
istence? Or is it, that they shall sit 
down, regardless of the calumny and ma- 
chinations of men, averse to all national 
institutions, repugnant to religious sub- 
ordination, or careless whether we are of 
any distinct denomination of Christians? 
The real truth is this: if the church 
would renounce her temporalities, her 
respectability, her polities, and conceal 
her disgust at religious empiricism, her 
existence should instantly cease; she 
should be discarded by the state; the 
great lights of schism should shine un- 
rivalled; and the avenues to § filthy 
lucre’ be sufficiently widened for the 
inspired adventurers in evangelical traf- 
fic. But the tide of common sense, and 
real piety, is not yet at so Jow an ebb 
among the respectable part of the com- 
munity. 
I cannot conceive that Mr. Rohinson, 
if alive, would thank the writer for the. 
following complimental remark: “He 
(Robinson) had no :nore reverence for a 
mitre, than for a fuol’s-cap!” And yet 
your correspondent observes, that he is 
‘ “always disgusted with illiberality.” 
He proceeds likewise to make a syl- 
logism of no common ingenuity. “ The 
truth most probably was, the bishop was 
convinced that he had the weakest side 
of the argument ; and was too prudent to _ 
cail for a future discussion.” “ He (Ro- 
binson) had therefore a victory.” 3 
’ ' T leave 
