1823.

THE Bill now pending in Parliament to enable Unitarians to solemnize marriage in their own meetinghouses, has excited unusual attention among the members of the Church. There is, indeed, in our opinion, much ground for serious alarm. We do not conceive that any sufficient reasons have been adduced for the measure which is now contemplated; and we are sure that if Lord Lansdowne's propositions were to pass in their present form, the consequences would be disastrous. It was not our intention to have touched upon this subject, until the Bill had been revised by the Committee; but a "Letter to the Marquis of Lansdowne" has appeared, which deserves immediate attention. This pamphlet is -written in a spirit of affectionate attachment to the Church, and will be found to contain some facts, which in these days of spurious liberality ought not to be forgotten. The author complains in the early part of his letter, that there seems to be a disposition in the Legislature not only to remove the safeguards of the Church, but " to give a preference to dissent."

even

"If a congregation is disturbed in the church, all the redress which the minister

can obtain upon application to a magistrate, is, to have the offender put in the stocks for a short time, or fined a few

"I speak from what happened under my own eye. A Clergyman, on applying to a neighbouring Magistrate on an occasion similar to this, was informed, that

shillings. If the same thing happens to a dissenting congregation, the fine may be TWENTY POUNDS. If a Clergyman has occasion to do duty on a Sunday out of his own parish, the law requires him to pay DOUBLE TOLL at the turnpike-gate; if the dissenter passes through the same gate to his meeting-house, HE IS PERMITTED

TO GO FREE. If one of our national schoolmasters applies to the magistrates for exemption from serving in the militia, on the ground of his employment as teacher, his application is unsuccessful. If a dissenting schoolmaster claims the same privilege, HIS CLAIM IS ALLOWED, on the ground that he is a DISSENTING MINISTER, as their schoolmasters generally are. These are some of the many instances which might be adduced, to shew what a preference is now given to dissent, and that it is, in fact, encou raged to the prejudice of the Established Church." P. 15.

The author then proceeds to of Dissenters, that many of them prove, from the recorded language regard the Church with feelings of hostility. Some curious passages Hill's "Sale of Curates," one of are here introduced from Rowland the most vulgar and scurrilous productions of the fanatical press. The argument is then pursued in the following terms.

"Now, my Lord, imagine all the dissenting bodies acting together for the attainment of some great object, and suppose that object to be the downfall of the Church Establishment; is it likely, that scribed, they would not, if they had the with the feelings and opinions already de

object, and subject the country to the power, press on to the attainment of their same bloody scenes as were acted by the

Presbyterians, Independents, and Roundheads *?

"And it is a fact, worthy to be noted by every friend of the Church, that, widely as the dissenting bodies differ from each other in religious belief, there is one point upon which they are all agreed; and that is, in hostility to the Church; witness the establishment of the RELIGIOUS LIBERTY SOCIETY.' That society is the representative of the whole dissent ing interest in the kingdom. It is the agent and watchful guardian of Presbyterians, Baptists, Independents, and Methodists; and one of its avowed objects is, to obtain a repeal of every statute by which the Church is protected. I am aware that the Dissenters disclaim such intention. They pretend that their object will be answered, when they shall have secured the same civil privileges as those possessed by Churchmen. But, who that looks back upon the past history of either Protestant or Popish dissentients, will be weak enough to believe such assertions? Sic notus Ulysses?'

"Did they not both, when they had the power, persecute the Protestant Established Church to her entire subversion? And after her ascendancy was happily reestablished, and she consented, with her wonted mildness and charity, to the removal of those restrictions which their former violence had rendered necessary, how have they since acted? Have they shewn any gratitude or contentment for past favours? On the contrary, have not their demands increased with every increased indulgence? Is not the maxim

Give, Give,' so kindly attributed to the Church by a Northern Reviewer t, much more applicable to them? And can any one doubt for a moment, who pays the least regard either to the nature of the thing, or to their own declarations, that they consider nothing granted so long as there remains any thing to grant?

Actum, inquit, NIHIL EST, ni Pano

milite portas Frangimus, et media vexillum pono suburra +.'

* « Τίνος εν ἕνεκα ταύτα λέγω; ἵνα

"Nothing satisfactory done, till with a Presbyterian force, they can break down the barriers of the Church, and raise the standard of, dissent upon its ruins.

Perhaps your Lordship may say, Give them what they ask, and they will be satisfied.' But how, in the nature of things, is this likely to be the case? Suppose them possessed of equal privileges with Churchmen, how may we expect they would use those privileges? How would they act upon any question in which the interests of the Church and those of Dissenters came in conflict? Having broken down the fences of the Establishment, and brought her to an equality with sectarism, would they not endeavour to obtain a share, at least, in her revenues? And deeming her (as they say she is) corrupt in doctrine, and superstitious in ceremonies, would they not plead scruples of conscience, and assert, as did their forefathers, that they should think it contrary to their duty to permit such a system of things any longer to remain? Your Lordship, I am persuaded, thinks the Dissenters of the present day incapable of such conduct, or you would not favour their cause by the sanction of your name, and the exertion of your great talents. You are not, perhaps, aware of the assumed importance with which they now act. They look upon the people in our parishes who have not the happiness to be guided by them, as almost in a state of heathenism". They honour the Clergy

"There is not, I believe, any town or city in England where the labours of the Clergy, for the welfare and happiness of their people, have been more zealous or successful than those of the Clergy in YORK. From the amiable and exemplary Archbishop, at their head, down through all the different orders, this may be truly said: and yet, notwithstanding these exemplary and useful labours, the Independents had the modesty to proclaim to the world, in one of their periodical prints, that there was no city in England where so little had been done for Christ as in York; and they, in consequence, appealed to the liberality of their friends and the

οτι δεν ετε Φυλαττομενοις υμιν, επι φοβερον ετ' ἂν ολιγωρῆτε, τοιετον, οἷον αν υμεις Βελησθε.”DEMOSTH.

+ Edinburgh Review, No. 75, page

150."

"Juvenal."

expence of erecting a large new Independent Chapel, which might be the means of bestowing the benefits of the Gospel upon the inhabitants of that benighted city. This appeal, unhandsome and un

with the courteous appellation of ' dumb dogs,' wolves in sheep's clothing,' and 'blind leaders of the blind? They divide the country into sections and districts, with a view, as they say, to bestow upon the benighted inhabitants the bene. fits of the Gospel. They assume all the marks of an established Clergy; erect meeting-houses and Sunday schools in our parishes, where none are wanted; and make use of every art to decoy the people into them they bury, and administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper; and carry themselves with such loftiness and disdain towards the parochial Clergy, and especially towards those who endeavour to guard their people from the influence of their doctrines, that we can easily see what sort of treatment the Clergy may expect, whenever the sects shall possess the power to carry their designs fully into execution." P. 41.

were constantly employed in circulating the most impudent falsehoods against both. The Bishops and dignified Clergy were represented as base hirelings and time servers, as intent only upon their own aggrandizement, and as possessing no moral fitness for their situations*; as wallowing in wealth wrung from the distresses of the people; as waging a ceaseless strife with those whom they ought to comfort, to cherish, and to teach † nay, as beetles and vermin creeping about in the holes and crevices of the Church, and as certainly working her ruin ‡.

"The revenues of the Church, too, were exaggerated in the most shameless manner; statements the most improbable were put forth, and with a degree of confidence that, at first, staggered the minds of the most thoughtful and reflective. A leading paper of opposition §, which was

true as it was, completely succeeded; they have now erected a chapel, and put into it a preacher, who, according to the enlarged and charitable notions of his supporters, is to do more for Christ than has hitherto been done by the laborious exertions of the Diocesan and District Committees for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, and National Schools; by the ministrations of the Grahams and Richardsons, and all the rest of the parochial Clergy put together.

"I trust, however, that the good people of York are too well taught in the doctrines and discipline of the Established Church, and too much upon their guard against the dangerous errors of the Independents, to be induced to leave the wholesome instructions of their parochial Clergy, for the turgid declamation and fierce verbosity of Lendal Chapel."

"The very same epithets were given to the Clergy by the Presbyterians in 1637. — See Hume's History, Vol. VI. page 308."

"Since writing the above, I find the able Editor of the QUARTERLY REVIEW has noticed this subject in the following words: MORE THAN ELEVEN MILLIONS OF NEWSPAPERS are annually circuREMEMBRANCER, No. 65.

of the number, aim at the destruction of those principles, which our forefathers held sacred, and upon which public prosperity and private happiness are founded. Whatever difference may exist among these papers, on other points, they agree in their enmity_to_religion, and their hostility to the Establishment, which our forefathers in their wisdom and piety, instituted for its maintenance and preservation.'-July, 1823, page 523."

Our bench never contained so few men distinguished for learning or gravity, as at this moment; and never was there so much dissipation and neglect of duty in the clergy generally.' Morning Chronicle for Sept. 1822.-The Bishops never oppose the Minister but when he wishes to do an act of justice.' Eclectic Review."

+"Edinburgh Review, No. 74, page

367."

followed by all the inferior fry of opposition papers, described the income of the Church as amounting to the enormous sum of seven millions six hundred thousand pounds, a sum more than five times the real income of the Church, according to the calculation of BISHOP WATSON. And, as this Prelate was no way prejndiced in favour of the Establishment, but, on the contrary, was very friendly to the Dissenters, and is by them frequently appealed to as very high authority on Church matters, I hope, I may be excused, for quoting at length his Lordship's opinion on this subject.

"The revenue of the Church of England,' says the Bishop, is not, I think, well understood in general, at least, I have met with a great many very sensible men of all professions and ranks, who did not understand it. They have ex pressed a surprise bordering on disbelief, when I have ventured to assure them, that the whole income of the Church, including Bishoprics, Deans and Chapters, Rectories, Vicarages, Dignities and Benefices of all kinds, and even the two Universities and their respective Colleges, (which, being lay Corporatious, ought not to be taken into the account) did not amount, upon the most liberal calcula tion, to ONE MILLION, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS; and that, if we had no Bishops to inspect the Church, no Deaneries, Prebends, or Canonries, to stimulate the Clergy in literary attainments, no Universities; no Colleges, (which, with all their faults, are the best seminaries of education in Europe) to instruct our youth; nothing but parochial

* "Cobbett's Register, the Sunday Times, the York Herald, and the Radical apers in Liverpool, Leeds, Durham, Manchester, &c. The Edinburgh Review,

also, is guilty of the same unfair and false statements; when to all this, says the Editor, (No. 74, page 364,) we add the exorbitant wealth, the political functions, and connexions of the Church; ITS PLU.

RALITIES AND NON-RESIDENCE IN A DEGREE UNKNOWN TO THE ROMISH SCHEME; the unequal distribution of its endowments, exhibited in the poverty of the labourer, and the luxury of the sinecurist; we shall probably see reason to hold, that its approach towards the Church of Rome, is far too close to justify that repugnance with which it regards the parent Establishment."

Clergy, and all these to be provided for by an equal partition (notwithstanding the great inequality of their merits) of the present ecclesiastical revenues, there would not be, (estimating the number of Clergy at ten thousand,) one hundred and fifty pounds per annum for each individual? Had the adversaries of our Church paid any regard to truth or candour, they would have been deterred by so high an authority as DR. WATSON, from uttering the numerous slanders in which they have indulged. They had, however, a purpose to serve; and with a view to effect that purpose, they made use of every means, however dishonourable, which they thought likely to contribute to their success.

"The Edinburgh Review, with its wonted accuracy, informs * us, that ‘ Pluralities and non-residence in the Church of England, are carried to a degree of extravagance beyond what was ever known in the Church of Rome -In Parliament, Mr. Hume is reported to have said, ' It is a curious fact, that during the sway of the Popish Religion, (in this country)

NO MAN WAS PERMITTED TO HOLD A BENEFICE, WHO DID NOT PERFORM THE DUTIES ON THE SPOT; and that it was left to the Reformation, (which was said to have established religion in its purity,) to entitle a man to a large income for the cure of souls, in a district which he never visits.'-Now to me it appears quite impossible, that either the Reviewer or the Member of Parliament, could be so utterly ignorant of the history of this country, as not to know, that both these assertions are entirely without foundation. Let them consult any history whatever of the times referred to, and

they will find it so far from being true, that under the sway of the Romish Church, no individual was permitted to hold a living, who did not do the duties on the spot; that numerous Italians and other foreigners were allowed to hold dignities and benefices in England, who never once set their feet in this country. Strype mentions several, who, at so late a period as Mary's reign, when these abuses were in some measure corrected, held five or six in as many different counties +. And in former reigns, when the system of plaralities was carried to its utmost extent,

"No. 74, page 364."

"See also Gilpin's Lives of the Reformers, Vol. II. page 162."

instances of far greater enormity are to be found. A list of some of these pluralities is now before me, from which I beg to make two extracts, as a set off against the assertions of these two gentlemen:Henry Sampson held SIX BENEFICES in so many several dioceses of the Province' 'Bogo de Clare held THIRTEEN BENE

FICES WITH CURE OF SOULS, IN THE PROVINCE OF CANTERBURY, BESIDES SEVERAL PREBENDS: BUT ALL THIS WAS INCONSIDERABLE TO WHAT HE HELD IN THE PROVINCE OF YORK.' So much, then, for the accuracy of the Reviewer's assertions, and the truth of Mr. Hume's curious fact.' And, be cause the Clergy, in the midst of all this hostility and menace, deemed it proper to petition Parliament against the threatened invasion of their rights;-they were severely lectured for their presumption, and held up to public obloquy, as having impertinently interfered in matters, which lay entirely beyond the line of their province. But, can it justly be said, that the Clergy have no concern in proposi tious, which aim directly at the spoliation of the Church? As well might it be said, that the Corporation of York, for instance, would be guilty of impertinent interference in petitioning Parliament against a measure, which had directly for its object the confiscation of their property. Nor would one have thought, that persons of liberal principles + could have felt the least objection to a temperate exercise of that privilege, (the right of petition) which they profess to guard with their utmost vigilance, aud to hold in the most solemn veneration: One would have supposed, that, when they themselves thought it not inconsistent with their duty to present petitions from such men as HUNT and CARLILE; men convicted of sedition and blasphemy; they would be the last persons to object to petitions coming from any quarter whatever. But the petition in question was from the Clergy; and the Clergy are not men, they are wretches worthy of no consideration; undeserving of the rights of citizens; to be

"See Mr. Hume's speech on the subject of the Established Church."

+"Such as Mr. Western, Mr. Hume, and the late Mr. Ricardo."

"See Rowland Hill's Sale of Curates,' the Morning Chronicle, the Sunday Times, and all the Radical Newspapers published in 1822, and the beginning of the year 1823."

put after BLASPHEMERS and INFIDELS: their order is execrated: Hic niger est, Hunc tu Romane caveto." And who, my Lord, does not see, in this fierce and incessaut attack upon the Church and her Clergy, the same course adopted as that, which formerly led to her subversion? In the present times, the rights of the Clergy are attempted to be taken away :-themselves are insulted; their characters scandalized; and the revenues of the Church threatened with confiscation. What was

"The propositions lately submitted to parliament, by MR. HUME, relative to the property of the Church in Ireland, are of a nature so very similar to the resolutions passed by the House of Commons in the beginning of that revolution which overturned the Church, and shed the blood of one of the best of Kings, that I am induced to put down a few of the most striking, and leave it to the reader to say, whether the propositions of the Revolutionary Parliament and those of Mr. Hume were not all intended to answer the same end.”

"Revolutionary Parliament.-Whereas the government of the Church of England, by Archbishops and Bishops, and their Chancellors and Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, &c. hath been found, by long experience, a great impediment to the perfect reformation and growth of religion, and very prejudicial to the state and government of this kingdom;-resolved that the same be taken

away.'

66