expressly commanded once, was declared not binding upon Christians, is much stronger against the binding nature of Episcopacy, which never was commanded at all; the reason being, that all forms of government and ritual are in the Christian Church indifferent, and to be decided by the Church itself, pro temporum et locorum ratione, "the Church" not being the clergy, but the congregation of Christians.

If you will refer me to any book which contains what you think the truth, put sensibly, on the subject of the Apostolical Succession, I shall really be greatly obliged to you to mention it. I went over the matter again in the holidays with Warburton and Hooker; and the result was a complete confirmation of the views, which I have entertained for years, and a more complete appreciation of the confusions on which the High Church doctrine rests, and of the causes which have led to its growth at different times. By the way, I never accused K- or N- of saying, that to belong to a true Church would save a bad man; but of what is equally unchristian, that a good man was not safe unless he belonged to an Episcopal Church; which is exactly not allowing God's seal without it be countersigned by one of their own forging. Nor did I say, they were bad men, but much the contrary; though I think that their doctrine, which they believe, I doubt not, to be true, is in itself schismatical, profane, and unchristian. And I think it highly important that the evils of the doctrine should be shown in the strongest terms; but no word of mine has impeached the sincerity or general character of the men; and, in this respect, I will carefully avoid every expression that may be thought uncharitable.

LXIV. TO REV. JULIUS HARE.

Rugby, May 12, 1834.

I would admit Unitarians, like all other Chris

tians, if the University system were restored, and they might

have halls of their own. Nay I would admit them at the Colleges if they would attend chapel and the Divinity Lectures, which some of them, I think, would do. But every thing seems to me falling into confusion between two parties, whose ignorance and badness I believe I shrink from with the most perfect impartiality of dislike. I must petition against the Jew Bill, and wish that you or some man like you would expose that low Jacobinical notion of citizenship, that a man acquires a right to it by the accident of his being littered inter quatuor maria, or because he pays taxes a. I wish I had the knowledge and the time to state fully the ancient system of πάροικοι, μέτοικοι, &c., and the principle, on which it rested; that different races have different vóμua, and that an indiscriminate mixture breeds a perfect "colluvio omnium rerum." Now Christianity gives us that bond perfectly, which race in the ancient world gave illiberally and narrowly, for it gives a common standard of voμua, without observing distinctions, which are, in fact, better blended.

[This letter, as well as the following, alludes to the subjoined Declaration, circulated by him for signature.]

"The undersigned members of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, many of them being engaged in education, entertaining a strong sense of the peculiar benefits to be derived from studying at the Universities, cannot but consider it as a national evil, that these benefits should be inaccessible to a large proportion of their countrymen.

a Extract from a letter to Mr. Sergeant Coleridge. "The correlative to taxation, in my opinion, is not citizenship but protection. Taxation may imply representation quoad hoc, and I should have no objection to let the Jews tax themselves in a Jewish House of Assembly, like a colony or like the clergy of old; but to confound the right of taxing oneself with the right of general legislation, is one of the Jacobinical confusions of later days, arising from those low Warburtonian notions of the ends of political society." See also Preface to his Edition of Thucydides, vol. iii. p. xv.

"While they feel most strongly that the foundation of all education must be laid in the great truths of Christianity, and would on no account consent to omit these, or to teach them imperfectly, yet they cannot but acknowledge, that these truths are believed and valued by the great majority of Dissenters, no less than by the Church of England; and that every essential point of Christian instruction may be communicated without touching on those particular questions on which the Church and the mass of Dissenters are at issue.

"And, while they are not prepared to admit such Dissenters as differ from the Church of England on the most essential points of Christian truth, such as the modern Unitarians of Great Britain, they are of opinion, that all other Dissenters may be admitted into the Universities, and allowed to take degrees there with great benefit to the country, and to the probable advancement of Christian truth and Christian charity amongst members of all persuasions."

LXV. TO W. W. HULL, ESQ.

Rugby, April 30, 1834.

I have indeed written a large part of a volume on Church and State, but it had better be broken up into smaller portions to be published at first separately, though afterwards it may be altogether. My outline of the whole question is this:-I. That the State, being the only power sovereign over human life, has for its legitimate object the happiness of its people, their highest happiness, not physical only, but intellectual and moral; in short, the highest happiness of which it has a conception. This was held, I believe, nearly unanimously till the eighteenth century. Warburton, the Utilitarians, and I fear Whately, maintain, on the contrary, that the State's only object is "the conservation of body and goods." They thus play, though unintentionally, into the hands of the upholders of ecclesias

tical power, by destroying the highest duty and prerogative of the Commonwealth. II. Ecclesiastical officers may be regarded in two lights only, as sovereign or independent; if they are priests, or if they are rulers. A. Priests are independent, as deriving either from supposed holiness of race or person, or from their exclusive knowledge of the Divine Will, a title to execute certain functions, which none but themselves can perform; and therefore these functions, being of prime necessity, enable them to treat with the State not as members or subjects of it, but as foreigners conferring on it a benefit, and selling this on their own terms. B. Rulers, of course, are independent and sovereign, ipsâ vi termini. III. But the ecclesiastical officers of Christianity are by God's appointment neither priests nor rulers. A. Not Priests, for there is one only Priest, and all the rest are brethren; none has any holiness of person or race more than another, none has any exclusive possession of divine knowledge. B. Not Rulers, for, Christianity not being a guia or ritual service, but extending to every part of human life, the rulers of Christians, quà Christians, must rule them in all matters of principle and practice; and, if this power be given to Bishops, Priests and Deacons by divine appointment, Innocent the Third was right, and every Christian country should be like Paraguay. You shall have the rest by and by; meantime I send you up a paper about the Universities. If you like it, sign it, and try to get others to do so; if you do not, burn it.

LXVI. TO W. EMPSON, ESQ.

Rugby, June 11, 1834.

The political matters, on which you touch, are to me of such intense interest, that I think they would kill me if I lived more in the midst of them; unless, as was said to be the case with the Cholera, they would be less disturbing when near, than when at a distance. I grieve most deeply at

this ill-timed schism in the Ministry, and, as men, who have no familiarity with the practice of politics, may yet fancy that they understand their principles, so it seems to me that both Lord Grey and the seceders are wrong. We are suffering here, as in a thousand other instances, from that accursed division between Christians, of which I think the very Arch-fiend must be xar' óx the author. The good Protestants and bad Christians have talked nonsense, and worse than nonsense so long about Popery, and the Beast and Antichrist, . . . . . . that the simple, just and Christian measure of establishing the Roman Catholic Church in threefifths of Ireland seems renounced by common consent. The Protestant clergy ought not to have their present revenues in Ireland-so far I agree with Lord Grey-but not on a low economical view of their pay being over-proportioned to their work; but because Church property is one of the most sacred trusts, of which the sovereign power in the Church (i. e. the King and Parliament, not the Bishops and Clergy,) is appointed by God trustee. It is a property set apart for the advancement of direct Christian purposes, first by furnishing religious instruction and comfort to the grown up part of the population; next by furnishing the same to the young in the shape of religious education. Now the Christian people of Ireland, i. e. in my sense of the word the Church of Ireland, have a right to have the full benefit of their Church property, which now they cannot have, because Protestant clergymen they will not listen to. I think, then, that it ought to furnish them with Catholic clergymen, and the general local separation of the Catholic and Protestant districts would render this as easy to effect in Ireland as it was in Switzerland, where, after their bloody religious wars of the sixteenth century, certain parishes in some of the Cantons, where the religions were intermixed, were declared Protestant and others Catholic; and, if a man turned Catholic in a Protestant parish, he was to migrate to a Catholic parish, and vice versâ. If this cannot be done yet, then religious grammar schools,