London is only a pattern of others. "Carlisle is a small diocese: the tithes received by the dean and chapter for Hesket, amount to 1,000/. or 1,5007. a year: they pay to the curate who does the duty, 181. 5s. a year, that is to say, one shilling a day, being after the rate of a bricklayer's labourer's wages! In Wetheral and Warwick, the dean and chapter draw about 1,000l. a year from tithes, and 1,000. a year from the church lands; and they pay the working minister (probably one of the most exemplary and beloved men in England, in his station), the sum of 50%. a year, the wages of a journeyman cabinet maker. Mrs. Hannah More was therefore perfectly justified in describing the poorer clergy, as for the most part deserving gentlemen, bred to liberal learning, whose feeling that learning has refined to a painful acuteness, and who are withering away in hopeless penury, with a large family, on a curacy but little surpassing the wages of a livery servant *'"' Section 11. High Church, or Orthodox Party. Spirit of high churchmen Opposed to Bible Societies - Sentiments of Bishop Hobart, Archdeacon Daubeny, Bishop Gray, Archbishop Howley, Bishop Blomfleld Their uncharitableness - Apology of Rev. C. Girdlestone Attainments of high churchmen-Encourage popular education-Remarks of Rev. J. Riland -Their pastoral qualifications -Societies Christian Knowledge Society. Ecclesiastical hierarchies necessarily produce a corresponding spirit among their members; and this appears remarkable in the Church of England. Patronage, pluralities, and “traffic in benefices," could not fail to introduce ministers into the church, whose sentiments and temper illustrate their system. From a review of the "Statistics of the Hierarchy," it will be natural to expect that the majority, especially among the dignified clergy, would require a peculiar denomination. High Churchmen, to which they are not averse, is their appropriate designation. Orthodoxy is especially claimed by this body: but though *Book of the Denominations, p. 419, 420. : subscribing to the same "articles of religion, and reading the same forms of prayer," they are far from being agreed in their doctrines and, as appears from their writings, every shade of religious opinion is held by different individuals among them, from high Calvinism to low Arminianism, and from Socinianism to Antinomianism. Of the latter perversion of the Gospel there are inany advocates; and the sentiments of the former are attributed by common report and by the Christian Observer, to Dr. Maltby, the present bishop of Durham. High churchmen are generally opposed to the peculiar doctrines of the Reformation, as sealed by the blood of the martyrs; and their evangelical brethren are contemned and shunned, as inculcating Puritanism and Methodism. As they are not remarkable for personal piety, so their spirit is exclusive, repugnant to that heavenly charity which affectionately embraces "all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity," and precisely the same as distinguished this class in the reigns of William and Anne, as we have seen described by Bishop Burnet. High churchmen have uniformly been hostile to the "Bible Society;" and even to the "Church Missionary Society," whose adherents, among the evangelical clergy and laity, they regard as a class of schismatics in the church, symbolizing with dissenters: but, with invigorated zeal, since the formation of those institutions, they have patronized the "Society for promoting Christian Knowledge;" most of whose publications inculcate the peculiarities of the hierarchy, with a very meagre exhibition of Christian doctrine, and many represent the distinguishing opinions and spirit of its patrons. High churchmen, however, will be most correctly represented by a portraiture from the pen of the Editor of the Christian Observer; and this we give from his notice of Dr. Hobart's discourse, entitled "America and England compared," published after his return to America in 1825, from a visit to England. Dr. Hobart was bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in New York, decidedly opposed to the Bible Society, and similar institutions, participating largely of the spirit of the English hierarchy: he was therefore welcomed by high churchmen in England, while he had but little intercourse with any of the evangelical clergy: nevertheless, his "Discourse" proclaims the enormities which he beheld in our hierarchy, which he des ribes as a mere political engine of the state. This of course grievously offended his friends in England. "Its statements greatly astounded some of the Bishop's warmest admirers in this country," says the Christian Observer." We shall not rehearse either the doleful lamentations or the angry words which have been uttered by certain of the periodicals which emanated from St. Paul's Churchyard and Waterloo Place.”—“It is most disastrous also, that his unhappy opinions respecting the state of our church should have been formed, not among the Bible Society and Church Missionary schismatics, where no reasonable man could, of course, have expected any thing better, but in his intercourse with the warmest opponents of all such outrageous proceedings, to whom his well-known opinions, on these and similar matters, had introduced and recommended him. It seems to have been strangely concluded, that because Bishop Hobart was opposed to the Bible Society, and to what are called the evangelical clergy, he had of necessity forgot his Americanism also: that he was a friend to the union of church and state, and to tithes and pluralities, and official church patronage. But not so; for the bishop chastises us mightily. If Bishop Hobart is an enemy, as some of his former friends begin to consider him, it is not unlawful to learn from a hostile quarter. Let, then, our ultra-highchurch and ultra-orthodox friends reprobate, if they will, either the conduct or the motives of our right reverend castigator; but let them not refuse to profit by his reprehensions. — It would be both folly and insincerity to say that there is not too much of substantial truth in many of Bishop Hobart's friendly charges*." High churchmen, strange as it may appear in this age of prevailing Christian knowledge, generally will not allow that dissenters from their hierarchy are to be regarded as in a state of salvation; assuming to themselves the privileges of the only true church of Christ, and denouncing others as guilty Christian Observer for 1826. of schism and heresy. Bigotry, worthy only of the Romish antichrist, is cherished by many of the published works of this body. "The venerable archdeacon Daubeny," in his popular "Guide to the Church," declares concerning the pastors of churches among the Dissenters, "Let it be observed, these ministers are not the ambassadors of Christ; nor are the sacraments which they administer the sacraments of Christ; for the essence of an ambassador's office is, that he should be commissioned by the party in whose name it is made. But ministers of the separation are not ambassadors of Christ, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN SENT BY HIM; and with respect to the benefits to be derived from the sacraments administered by them, THEIR DISCIPLES MUST NOT LOOK TO GOD, for this obvious reason, because God is not bound but by covenants of his own making." Popery, in its worst days, could scarcely express sentiments more abhorrent from Christian charity: but this unlovely spirit is nourished by the doctrine of many of the publications issued by the "Christian Knowledge Society." Bishop Gray, in a tract entitled, "A Serious Address to Seceders and Sectarists of every Denomination, who exist in separation from the Church of England," &c.* having reprobated "instantaneous conversions to holiness," as taught by the Dissenters, remarks, "These opinions, however, and grounds of dissension, unreasonable and insufficient as they are, must not be considered as the real principles upon which all the followers of these respective sects separate from the Established Church: many incur the guilt of schism from motives the most evidently trifling and reprehensible. It is observable, that the preachers at the different conventicles, in their general discourses, often keep in the back ground the peculiar tenets of their persuasion.— The mischievous effects of the delusions which are produced by ignorant and interested men, who set up as teachers in these conventicles, are sometimes exhibited even in the meetings in which congregations are assembled under the pretence of worshipping a God *By the Right Rev. Robert Gray, D. D. Lord Bishop of Bristol, and Prebendary of Durham. Sixth Edition, 1829. of purity. The dissenting preachers cannot have any pretence to a particular inspiration of the Holy Ghost, for they depart from the directions of Christ. They'run, though they are not sent,' and act in opposition to the example and precepts of the apostles. For what, then, are the noble structures in which our forefathers worshipped God, and called down the blessings which have raised our country to the highest eminence, for what are they at any time deserted? For conventicles, in which the doctrine and service vary with every new teacher, in which the unprepared rhapsodies of the moment are poured out by individuals ignorant of, and despising the forms in which the Church, through all ages, hath offered up its praises and thanksgivings to God. I adjure you, who are teachers and leaders of sects and heresies, to consider what responsibilities you incur by misleading others." Turning to the laity, the zealous prelate thus appeals to their loyalty "I entreat you, my brethren, to reflect on these things, and to be ashamed of these follies. When every honest man is desirous of ranging himself under the banners of loyalty and religion against the enemies of government and good order, be careful that you conspire not with the views of those who would pull down every institution, however venerable and sacred." - Even Dr. Howley, the present "mild and amiable" archbishop of Canterbury, exhibits the same spirit, speaking of them as the "promiscuous multitude of confederated sectaries"-a "dangerous faction"-combining "the joint machinations of infidels and sectaries"—"the insidious practices of schismatics Dr. Blomfield, bishop of London, has carried his antipathy so far as to recommend to his clergy, in his late "charget," a volume of anonymous "Letters to a Dissenting Minister," written by a clergyman. But this is shown, by a layman of the church of England, to be “an impure and malevolent volume - a tissue of falsehood, ignorance, calumny, and uncharitableness, directed against the personal character *Primary Charge, in 1814. † In 1834. |