benefice was resigned to him when he was a young man; duty done by a curate; tythe £1,600.

'Rector non-resident; is also rector of another large benefice, on neither of which did he ever reside; tythe £1,100.'

"I might carry out this list to an indefinite extent, but I forbear. A glance is sufficient. Kind reader, what do you think of it? Do you wonder that the Catholics of Ireland are not converted when such flagrant abuses exist before their eyes, and their deep poverty is taxed to perpetuate them? Suppose the established church should exist there in this attitude three hundred or three thousand years longer; is there the least probability that the people would, through her instrumentality, be brought over to the Protestant faith? Verily, it must require such faith as few Christians have any notion of to expect it.

"In the third place, not only are there hundreds of men, resident clergymen, supported by tithes in Ireland, but there are scores of sinecure benefices, in every sense of the term. In 1834, as appears from the report of the commissioners of public instruction, the whole number of benefices was about one thousand three hundred and eighty-five, In three hundred and thirty-nine of these the incumbent was non-resi dent; in two hundred and ten there was no church; and in one hundred and fifty-seven no service was performed by any person whatever, either incumbent or curate. In some of these parishes not a solitary Protestant could be found. In all the one hundred and fifty-seven last mentioned there was not one congregation, and in many others the term congregation was a mere ludicrous misnomer. And yet, till very lately, the whole tithe machinery was brought to bear, with unmitigated severity, upon the Catholic population. For example, in one parish, the Protestant residents are put down at ten, congregation six, tithes £500; in another, population thirty, congregation fifteen, tithes £1000; and in another, population fifteen, congregation five, tithes £500.

"Now some of these parishes contain thousands of Catholics, who, beside supporting their own clergy, are compelled to pay very large salaries to Protestant incumbents, for residing they know not where, and for doing just nothing at all, either by person or by curate. And yet some excellent people in the establishment, acquainted with all these facts, think it very remarkable that the truth has made so little progress in Ireland. They are astonished that so few Catholics have been converted; that under the shining of the true light, ever since the Reformation, the vast majority have continued in darkness until now. Is not the real matter of astonishment that any of them have been converted, under the goading, exasperating, and oppressive measures, both political and ecclesiastical, which have constituted the reigning policy of their Protestant masters ?"

Now, according to the best calculations, the whole amount of Protestant population does not exceed a million and a half, while the Ro. man Catholics number six millions and a half. About one half the

Protestants of Ireland are dissenters from the established church. Hence, more than seven millions, after voluntarily supporting their own clergy, are compelled, by law, to pay enormous salaries in behalf of the seven hundred and fifty thousand churchmen! And this proportion does not differ materially from what it has been for nearly these three hun. dred years.

Let the reader also glance at these ministers following the chase, and pursuing all the follies, not to say many of the vices, of the age. Do they watch over their flocks, and become examples for their imitation? Do they feed them and rule over them for their good, so as to reprove the obstinate and comfort the feeble-minded? Very few of these duties are done. The clergy of this church will certainly suffer in comparison with those of other reformed churches. But how great will the contrast be, if we compare our English and Irish rectors, vicars, and even curates, with the primitive ministers? How absurd their claims to almost exclusive apostolic succession among reformed churches, and how much more defective in genuine apostolical character than their neighbors, who make no such lofty pretensions!

8. Besides, their people, as might be expected, are very much like their leaders. What profaneness and glaring wickedness almost everywhere prevail among all classes of this communion! And where this is not so much the case, and where morality is inculcated and observed, how great is the ignorance of the doctrines of Christianity, and more especially of experimental religion! Certainly they are far from being truly apostolical, however they may trace their succession as regularly through Rome to Peter, as the Jews could their genealogical descent to Abraham, and claim to be his children. The Scripture requires that Christians should be holy, that they should forsake sin, and live in obedience to Christ's commandments. But this is not the case with the greater portion of this church, for we make our estimate of character from the majority or the greater part. We ought, nay, we are willing and desirous to make all proper allowance for unsound persons that may, for a time, be attached to any great body of men ; yet, when we see the majority in this condition, we are forced to conclude that, as a church, there is great want of conformity to the spirit and practice of religion.

9. There is another particular in which we think there is an exceedingly great lack of primitive excellence in the English Church; that is, her laxity in, or almost total neglect of, gospel discipline. Her members, in general, are members by birthright or baptism, and are regenerated, according to their generally received views, by baptism. No proper conditions are required of those who come into her pale; but any one who thinks fit may attach himself to her communion, how. ever unqualified he may be to bear the Christian name. Besides, as members of the establishment, there are no proper Christian requirements enjoined and exacted, any more than from others who make no pretensions to religion. Indeed, their church membership has scarcely any thing more sacred in it than citizenship, or to be born in some part of the British dominions. Sin is neither rebuked nor punished in any effectual degree. Drunkards, swearers, Sabbath-breakers, profane and impure persons, are retained in her communion without any adequate censure. Did the primitive church admit of persons of scandalous lives to attach themselves to her society? Or did they permit such to remain in her communion and approach her sacraments? We believe no person can say they did either of these.

That this view of the exercise of discipline is correct, no one acquainted with the Church of England will pretend to deny. Many of her own bishops, ministers, and people, are aware of this. Bishop

66

Burnet, in his History of the Reformation, speaking of discipline in reference to Elizabeth's reign, under the year 1559, observes, As for the canons and rules of the church government, they were not so soon prepared. These came out, some in the year 1571, and more in the year 1597; and a far larger collection of them in the first year of King James's reign. But this matter has yet wanted its chief force; for penitentiary canons have not been set up, and the government of the church is not yet brought into the hands of churchmen; so that, in this point, the reformation of the church wants some part of its finishing, in the government and discipline of it." (Hist. Ref., vol. ii, p. 518.)

Under the year 1553, in the conclusion of King Edward's reign, he inquires," Have we of the clergy made the steps which became us, and that were designed in the former age for throwing out abuses, for regulating the courts, and restoring discipline? While we have, for one hundred and fifty years, expressed once a year a faint wish that the primitive discipline were again restored, and yet have not made one step toward it. What a venality of the advowsons to livings do we hear of; and, at best, the disposing of them goes generally by secular regards, by importunities, obligation, or friendship; and, above all, how few of those who labor in the gospel do labor indeed, and give themselves wholly to it! How much of their time and zeal is employed in things that do not deserve it so well as the watching over, the instructing, and the building up their flock in the most holy faith! How few do fast and pray, and study to prepare themselves and their people for the evil day that seems nearer us than the greatest part are willing to apprehend, that so we may, by our intercessions, deliver our church and nation from that which is ready to swallow us up; or, at least, to be so fortified and assisted that we ourselves, and others by what they see in us, may glorify God in that day of visitation." (Idem, vol. iii, p. 264.)

In the conclusion of his admirable history, Bishop Burnet remarks,— "The proviso that had passed in Henry VIII.'s time, that continued all the canon law then received in England till a code of ecclesiastical laws was prepared, which, though attempted and well composed, was never settled, has fixed among us gross abuses, beside the dilatory forms of these courts, which make all proceedings in them both slow and chargeable. This has, in a great measure, enervated all church discipline. A faint wish, that is read on Ash-Wednesday, intimates a desire of reviving the ancient discipline; yet no progress has been made to render that more effectual. The exemptions settled by the papal authority do put many parts of this church in a very disjointed state; while in some places the laity, and in many others presbyters, exercise episcopal jurisdiction independent on their bishops, in contradiction to their principles, while they assert a divine right for settling the government of the church in bishops, and yet practise episcopal authority in the virtue of an act of parliament, that provisionally confirmed those papal invasions of the episcopal power, which is plainly that which, in a modern name, is called Erastianism, and is so severely censured by some who yet practise it; since, whatsoever is done under the pretence of law against the divine appointment, can go under no better name than the highest and worst degree of Erastianism." (Burnet, vol. iii, p. 397.)

VOL. VIII.—October, 1837. 33

According to this candid bishop, agreeably to the established polity of the Church of England, there were cases in which both the laity and presbyters exercised episcopal jurisdiction, independent on their bishops, by virtue of an act of parliament which confirmed this, though it was a papal invasion. Let this be distinctly remembered, as its application will be presently seen. It is useless to enlarge on the want of gospel discipline in the English Church, since it is acknowledged by their own divines and bishops.

VIII. Good qualities of the Anglican Church.

Notwithstanding the various defects of the English established church, enumerated as above, and they are such as are inconsistent with their claims to exclusive apostolicity, there are, nevertheless, many excellent traits to be found in her, of great utility to mankind, and of acknowledged Christian character. And though we have freely, and without ill-will or malice, but with sentiments of respect, pointed out her defects, it is with the greatest cheerfulness that we acknowledge her good qualities, and are willing and desirous to point them out.

1. Her firm opposition to papal tyranny calls for the praise of the world, and all Protestants in particular. The power of the pope had risen to the greatest pitch at the Reformation. The secession and opposition of Luther and the continental reformers gave a mortal wound to papacy. This wound was likely to be healed, had it not been for the timely and firm resistance to popery from the English nation. In almost every age since, and in every great exigency, England has stood as the great bulwark of the Protestant world; and she, and perhaps she alone, could cope with papal tyranny so as to preserve, or rather bring about, that liberty of conscience which now is gaining so much ground in the world. Indeed, the whole Protestant world are, under God, indebted to Britain, and Protestant Britain, for the freedom from papal usurpations which they now possess. It is, however, to be noted, that the dissenting Protestant portion of England have been, and are yet, on the lowest scale of calculation, nothing behind the portion that are attached to the establishment. Be this as it may, Protestant Britain is the palladium of liberty to Protestantism; in a great degree also to Roman Catholicism in time of need; for, when her persecuted clergy fled for protection, they found in England both protection and assistance. And what is the liberty of the United States but British freedom stripped of its encumbrances, and called forth into unrestrained practice in the free institutions of our government!

2. The English Church, to a very considerable extent, has fostered and promoted learning of every kind. Her learned divines and gifted laity have blessed the world with many of the best productions on the subject of divinity and Biblical criticism, as well as on every branch of science and literature. Her early progress, and her continued advancement in promoting knowledge of almost every kind, has produced, and continues to produce, a benefit to the world that future ages will be thankful for and acknowledge, when those party divisions that now refuse to confess it will have no existence in the world. The names of Newton, Tillotson, Watson, Walton, and a host of others, will ever be held in veneration and esteem.

3. Notwithstanding her defects, there have been, and there still

are, many pious people and ministers in her communion; and though the great bulk of her members are very little acquainted with experimental religion, there are still many that love and serve God. And we have reason to believe that the number of pious ministers and people is on the increase; and that she can number many more of this class now than she could sixty or a hundred years ago.

4. Add to this, that in her bosom a great and extensive revival of religion has taken place within these last hundred years. Some of her ministers, with the Rev. John Wesley at their head, prophesied. On many others, also, the Spirit rested. By the labors of both, great has been the work in her midst. And it is a matter of surprise, as well as of thankfulness to God, that the opposition to this blessed renovation from her lukewarm clergy has been so little, rather than that it was such as did really exist.

5. Besides, her moderation and tolerance, especially in latter times, call for admiration. It is true, the puritans, and various branches of dissenters, have suffered much, and still labor under privations. Yet no other church in her circumstances would, perhaps, be equally indulgent to those who differed from them. Her example in this is acknowledged to be salutary, and, no doubt, will have an extensively beneficial effect on the Christian world. It may be said that the tolerance and moderation of the English nation and church are to be traced to the principles and influence of the puritans, and dissenters, and Methodists. Be this as it may, this effect was accomplished where the English Church had supreme rule; and if we proceed to the immediate instruments, they were those who received their first lessons, at least, in the very cradle of the Church of England.

6. Her vast efforts in the Bible cause ought not to be passed by. Her kings, her lords and commons, her high church dignitaries, her clergy and her people, have conspired together, by a superhuman effort, to cause that the Bible will speak to every people under heaven in their own native dialect. She has been singularly foremost and active in bringing about a new pentecost, as to tongues and spiritual influence, that shall continue and extend till the kingdoms of this world shall become the inheritance of Christ. Her liberality and giant efforts, in these respects, must not be envied and overlooked by those who are either unable or unwilling to do as she has done or is now doing.

With the greatest cordiality we acknowledge the excellencies of the English Church, though we deem it our privilege to point out her errors, that we may give reasons to others why the Methodist Episcopal Church feels herself justified in doing as she has done in forming a separate organization in America; and why Wesleyan Methodism in Europe has taken the course which it has done, in so far as it has separated from the English establishment? As to any plea which the Protestant Episcopal Church can make against the Methodist Episcopal Church for separating from her, nothing is more foolish than its bare mention. She had no being when the Methodist Episcopal Church was formed; and for her to talk about schism or separation in such a case is the height of presumption, if not of dementation.