CHURCH PREFERMENT.

257

blishment; more especially, under the recently augmented hostility of the British civil government, and its episcopal bench, generally, against all evangelism? An hostility quite natural in formal, unregenerate, ungodly men; whether laics or clerks. And hence, formalism has prevailed in the English church, from its first full introduction by Laud, and its entire consummation by Sheldon, to the present hour. During the whole of which period, formal, secular churchmen have, very steadily, received the protection and patronage of the state government; to the almost total exclusion of evangelical ministers.

Nor is this, in any way, marvellous; seeing, as bishop Burnet expresses himself, in his exposition of the twenty-fifth article, "the greater part, both of the clergy and laity, ever were, and ever will be, depraved and corrupted; it being certain, that the far greater part of mankind is always bad, we must conclude, that the evil does so far preponderate the good, that they bear no comparison or proportion to one another." Now the men who have composed the British government, for the last two hundred years, have been, like those who have wielded the other governments of Christendom, very generally irreligious, unconverted, unregenerate men, uotwithstanding their regular baptism. In general, the nearer to courts, the farther from Canaan; whatever fawning deans or bowing bishops think.

But the Scriptures tell us, the carnal or unrenewed mind is enmity against God, and the things of God, and the children of God; and, consequently, carnal, worldly, secular statesmen, ministers and sovereigns, would prefer formalism in their established clergy, because it checks no man's conscience, but allows him to live as he lists, without God in the world; to evangelism, which insists upon a holy life, as the only evidence of a living faith; alike in princes and politicians, as in the meanest citizens and subjects. A sufficient reason this, in itself, against a political alliance between church and state; because it necessa

258

CHURCH ORDINATION.

rily ensures an unevangelical, unreligious national clergy.

Nay, but in addition to the dark prospect of church preferment, how are Mr. Simeon's young evangelicals to obtain even ordination at the hands of a formal diocesan? For example, what pious protestant candidate could swallow the captious sophistry of the Peterborough questions; avowedly framed to stop the ingress of evangelism into the church of England? or digest the double justification of Dr. Tomline? or bolt the baptismal regeneration of Richard Mant?

But neither baptismal regeneration, nor double justification, nor Peterborough casuistry, nor any thing else, would prove the least impediment to the ordination of secular, formal, irreligious candidates. The doors of the Anglican Church establishment are always open for the admission of ministers, who are entire strangers to the grace of Christ; devoid of Christian knowledge; lovers of pleasure, more than lovers of God; profane, caring for no man's soul; companions of the unholy; making a gain of godliness, and entering the state church from the most degrading motives, that they may revel and fatten upon its revenues; while their hearts are radically hostile to the sacred function which they assume: and to the evangelical doctrines of the church, which they plunder and disgrace.

Are such ministers calculated to promote piety, and prevent paganism, in a nation? calculated to bring man into a covenant of grace with his offended Maker, when they are themselves enemies to God by wicked works? Are the mere, careless repetitions of a form of prayer, and the hurried, heartless reading of a printed, or a borrowed sermon, to manifest the presence, and call down the grace of God, upon the attendants in a parish church? What an awful proportion of these episcopally ordained clerks still remain in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity; and go forth to take possession of the

CHRISTIAN OBSERVER.

259

church benefices and dignities; procured for them," either by money, in the way of purchase and barter, or by family connexions and interest, or by political influence and exertion; for what? only to counteract and destroy the beneficial tendencies of the Gospel, with whose precepts and principles, their whole secular lives are at variance; to swell the triumphs of infidel and wicked men; and to tread in the foot tracks of that primitive bishop, who, after he had swallowed the sop, went out and betrayed the Lord of life.

Such being the condition and direction of the English ecclesiastical establishment, we are not surprised at the general prevalence of infidelity and irreligion in England, now, after nearly three hundred years trial of the experiment of a state church.

The proof of this awful and alarming state of things, in England, is taken from the most unexceptionable source. The Christian Observer deservedly bears a high character for talent, and learning, and various information. And, what is infinitely better, it is truly evangelical; and as such, esteemed by serious persons of all denominations in Christendom; and reviled, accordingly, by all the stoutest formalists, in these United States, as well as in England. It is, also, a stanch, able, and uniform advocate for the national Anglican Church, by law established.

A more estimable body of men, in all purity of doctrine, and holiness of life, than the evangelical clergy of the church of England, never adorned and blessed the earth. And, as a body, they are most conscientiously attached to the establishment of church and state, under which they have been born, and trained up, and live. Whence, their statements of the general condition of religion and morals in Britain, are entitled to the greater weight, because they bear directly against the usefulness of that very church establishment which they labour to uphold, and to extol. A witness is always competent to testi

fy in opposition to, though not in favour of his own interest.

Does the English established church, as such, encourage the efforts, now making in the British Isles, to evangelize the heathen; to diffuse the Gospel among seamen; to circulate the pure, unsophisticat ed word of God, without note, and without comment; to educate the universal poor of England and of Ireland?

Nay, but does not the far greater proportion of that state church, with all its complicated, and cumbersome apparatus of archbishops, and bishops, and deans, and canons, and prebendaries, and archdeacons, and rectors, and vicars, and curates, frown upon, and execrate the British and Foreign Bible Society; the church, and other missionary institutions; the Bethel union; and every other effort made to evangelize and to instruct, either the home or the colonial population of Britain; as well as the inhabitants of foreign nations?

Is it thus, that the Anglican Church establishment promotes piety, and prevents paganism among the British people? How many English and Irish bishops are now members of the British and Foreign Bible Society? When the When the comparatively few prelates, that belong to that blessed institution, die, will their vacant seats be filled by their episcopal successors? or will that great national society be carried on in all its mighty and beatific operations, by nonepiscopalian denominations; as the American Bible Society is conducted in these United States? Are missions, at home and abroad; are the Bethel flags, and the education of the poor in elemental Christianity, to be consigned, altogether, to hands other than those of the established church of England?

And is such conduct calculated to seat an expens ive and burdensome church establishment deep in the heart affections of the British people? or, does it directly tend to rouse their resistless indignation against a state machine, whose constant operation it is

ESTABLISHED CHURCHES.

261

to crush every effort made to promote the best, the immortal interests of the human race?

The evil tendency of all churches is to formalism, which extinguishes all spiritual mindedness and practical piety. But established, national, state churches increase, and perpetuate this evil, by upholding, with the secular arm, the church walls, priesthood, and wages, when the religion is gone; and, also, by proscribing the growth of evangelism in other denominations, as well as in the dominant sect, Whereas, in unestablished churches, a general prevalence of formalism only depletes, and destroys the formal sect, without injuring the community at large; because other denominations are left at full liberty to build themselves up in strength; and to fill their places of worship, by faithfully preaching the pure Gospel, and by zealously discharging the important duties of the pastoral office.

If a church establishment be necessary to promote piety, and prevent heathenism, why is Ireland now so much more popish and paganish, than when she first experienced the blessings of her present protestant episcopal established church, about three hundred years ago?

In April, 1822, sir John Newport called the attention of the English house of commons to the deplorable state of Ireland. During the debate, Mr. Charles Grant, the late secretary to the Irish viceroy, said: that various petty insurrections had agitated the. peasantry of Ireland for the last seventy years. They. generally arose out of local and casual circumstances. Their effect has been to render the Irish peasant, in a great degree, indifferent to all the danger and discomfort, the outrage, violence, and cruelty, which are the inseparable attendants upon popular

commotion.

Without property, and with scarcely any of the comforts of home, he is ever ready to obey the summons to insurrection, in which he has nothing to lose; and the personal danger of which, it has been his