the hue and cry of infidel, chartist and dissenter, against the establish ment." This, if it means anything, must mean that in his judgment the evils in the ecclesiastical establishment of England are so few and inconsiderable, that there is no occasion for Episcopalians in this country to make any protest against them. He is "free to admit also that some of the English clergy receive enormous salaries, and that pluralities, except in case of small parishes, and non-residences, are evils. But neither of these evils," he adds,—that is, neither the evil of pluralities nor the evil of non-residences, "is as great, or as extensive as has been represented." Whether the " enormous salaries" are an evil he does not tell us. He has no hesitation in granting that there are worldly and bad men in the ministry of the church of England." But that this evil is as great as we have represented, he "utterly denies." And, O most magnanimous Jurisconsult!--he volunteers to prove his denial.

After the specimens which we have heretofore given of this writer's peculiar methods in criticism and in logic, we shall hardly be expected to follow him in his attempt to prove that the church of England is not so bad as we have represented it. The question of more or less, in regard to the abuses which make up the anomalous institution called the church of England, and in regard to the influence of those abuses upon the prosperity and honor of religion, is a question about which there would be little profit in disputing with any writer, and least of all with such a writer as the one now before us. The weakness of his argument in the present instance is so manifest, and his evasions and sophistries are so wanting in ingenuity, that it can hardly be necessary for us to do more than refer the readers of this pamphlet to the article in our last Number which re

views his former pamphlet, and to which this last performance is a professed reply.

The

For example. We gave an illus. tration of the character of the church of England, from a sermon addressed by Archdeacon Paley to the younger clergy of the diocese of Carlisle. This he sets aside entirely by the remark that the sermon was "delivered just sixty-three years ago the 29th day of next July;" and that we ourselves admit that since Paley's time there" has been some improvement." But did we admitdare he assert-that since Paley's time there has been any improvement of the politico-religious insti tution called the church of England? Did we not expressly say, system is the same, its' general ten. dency' the same; and, by the laws of human nature, the results must be essentially the same"? The morals of the English clergy have improved somewhat since Paley's time, because the morality of the English people, and particularly of the nobility and gentry who control the clergy, has improved. The revival of religion in England, which commenced a century ago with the labors of Whitefield and Wesley, has at last so affected the standard of morals there, that even the clergy of the state church are undoubtedly better in respect to morals than they were sixty years ago. But what change has there been in the church itself, or in any of its legitimate tendencies?

We gave another illustration of the character of the church of Eng. land, from "a series of articles which the New York Churchman has re published from the London Times." All this, however, is set aside with very little ceremony. Our lawyer admits, indeed, that the extracts from those articles, in our last Num ber, "look something like proof;" and presuming, in his good nature, that we are not familiar with the state of parties in England,' he is

6

almost ready to pardon us for think ing that they are proof. But he is sure we can not but see that "the apparent pertinency of their evidence vanishes at once," when we are informed by his superior intelligence 'that the London Times is a thorough-going political party paper, characterized by strength and bitterness,' and 'that the articles in question were written for political effect by a member of a new political party which bears the ominous title of Young England.' As for the first part of this information, it is almost impossible that any man who reads the American newspapers should be ignorant of it, or ignorant that the party to which the Times belongs is the high-church tory party. As for the other part of it, we hardly need say to any of our readers, that the party which "assumes to itself the ominous name of Young England," is nothing else than the ultra-Oxford party acting in the sphere of politics; or that we therefore spoke of the articles in question as showing what ideas the men of that party entertain respecting the actual character of the English state clergy. Now if the fact that the Times is a highchurch tory paper, is a reason why any testimony which it may happen to give against the immaculate purity of the church of England must be ruled out of court; and if the fact that the writer of the articles in question is a professed and unswerving disciple of the Oxford tracts, must be taken as proof that there is no truth in what he says; then indeed we have made a mistake, and ought to be thankful to this charitable law. yer for suggesting our ignorance as as an apology. But the New York Churchman, unhappily, is in the same condemnation with ourselves, and to impute a want of familiarity with the state of parties in England to the editor of that journal, requires a pitch of audacity to which Bishop Brownell's armor-bearer has not attained. So for Dr. Seabury,

whose name appears upon every number of the Churchman as its editor, and for Bishop Onderdonk, who makes it his "official organ," and under whose "general direction and supervision" it is edited, some other apology must be invented. Accordingly our lawyer adds, "For what purpose those articles were published in the Churchman, we know not; probably from inadvertence, as they contain language which no Christian man can approve, and statements which a trifling acquaintance with things in England would show to be erroneous." Inadvertence! Before the first of those articles was republished, the editor announced to his readers the intention of republishing them, as articles "which have excited much sensation in England." The first, when republished, was accompanied with an editorial notice. "Our chief reason," said Dr. Seabury, "for calling attention to the article, is, that it gives, without being intended to give, a vivid sketch of the real state of things in the church of England." Does this look like "inadvertence?" And as to our lawyer's assertion, that the articles "contain language which no Christian man can approve," we find that the editor was not inadvertent even in that respect. "The 'spirit' of the article," he says, "has been condemned by some that approve of it in other respects. But this, we think, as the word is commonly used, is a most capricious charge, having no other standard than the taste or fancy of the person who makes it. our own part, we object less to the 'spirit' of the piece than the 'spirit' of its censors." Yet our lawyer argues that the articles must have been admitted into the Churchman "from inadvertence," because "they contain language which no Christian man can approve ;" though Dr. Seabury, "under the general direction and supervision" of Bishop Onderdonk, does expressly approve the spirit in which they are written. Be

For

sides all this, and as if for the very purpose of precluding such an imputation of editorial inadvertence, the editor of the Churchman, when publishing the last article of the series, says, "We strongly commend [it] to our readers," and then argues that the very constitution of the church of England, as a state church, can hardly be expected to produce any thing better than that state of things which the writer of the articles in question so earnestly deplores.

In one of the articles here referred to, it was asserted that "Sabellianism is taught in Dublin, and Nestorianism propounded at Cheltenham." 'This,' we said,-whoever may be the offenders, indicates something like heresy winked at by the bishops. The attorney for the bishop, pitying our supposed ignorance, undertakes to "enlighten [us] on these points," by telling us who the offenders are. "The persons referred to," he says, "are Archbishop Whately, whom the reviewer and his associates delight to honor, and Rev. Francis Close, a prominent and influential clergyman of the evangelical party." Indeed! Then it would seem that the writer in the Times alluded to what was notorious, not only in England, but on this side of the Atlantic. He merely spoke of Sabellianism taught in Dublin; and Juris Consultus, the sworn defender of the church of England against all suspicions, instead of denying the charge, declares that the offender is no less a personage than the Lord Archbishop of Dublin. Nestorianism is hinted at as propounded at Cheltenham; and Juris Consultus tells us, gravely, that the heretic is

66

a prominent and influential clergyman of the evangelical party." As if we were to be refuted by being told that one of the four highest dignitaries in the united church of England and Ireland is a Sabellian; and that a certain "prominent and influential clergyman of the evangelical party" in the church

of England, denies the union of the divine and human natures in the person of Christ.

The actual state of things, how. ever, as to the character of the clergy in the English establishment is too well known to be disposed of by any special pleading, founded on the time that has elapsed since Paley was archdeacon of Carlisle, or on the fact that the London Times is a political party paper. English litera ture is full of illustrations. The newspapers, even on this side of the Atlantic, are continually making the subject plain. Look at a case which has happened to be published extensively in our newspapers within a few weeks past, the case of Herbert Charles Marsh, rector of Barnack, and the incumbent of a prebendal stall in the cathedral of Peterborough, where his father, the eminent translator of "Michaelis's Introduction," was formerly bishop. This member of the "ravening wolfhood," whose portion of the prey was something less than $6000 per annum, employed a curate to per form the service of his parish, and earned his prebendal wages by one month's residence annually at Peterborough. The remainder of his time he resided in such places as London and Paris, spending more than $5000 annually of church revenues upon his lusts. We do not refer to this case as if it were a fair specimen of the morality of the English clergy. Instances of corruption and baseness, in every kind and degree, must be expected to occur in so large a body of men, under any arrangement. But there are facts which make this case instructive, as to the character of the English establishment. It ap pears that the actual criminality of Marsh was well known to the lord bishop of Peterborough six months before it was known to the public; that during all this time the bishop did neither depose the offender nor suspend him from the ministry, and indeed did nothing except by an indi

rect communication,by which the leprous prebendary knew that his guilt had been betrayed; and that when the case, in consequence of a trial in a court of law, had become notorious, and the public sense of decency began to vent itself in the form of indignation against the bishop, his lordship made a speech in the house of lords, showing that "his hands were tied," and that no act of parliament gave him any jurisdiction over offenses committed, as this had been, more than two years ago, or committed, as this had been, out of his diocese. Is that establishment a church of Christ, which has no power, and claims no power, to depose a fornicator from the sacred office, except by the letter of an act of parliament? The Romish hierarchy is respectable by the side of such an establishment as this.*

Touching the revenues distributed among the clergy of the church of England, we intimated, in our

*In commenting on this case, the New York Churchman expresses its sympathy with those "who would advise a bishop in such an emergency to throw himself on the inherent powers of his office; to pronounce instant degradation on any and every Herbert Marsh of his diocese, and quietly to take whatever consequences of fine or imprisonment the state may see proper to inflict." Such advice might have some savor of wisdom in it, but for three considerations. First, there are no "inherent powers" pertaining to the of fice of an English bishop. If a sheriff, or a judge of the queen's bench should throw himself upon the inherent powers of his office," and attempt to exercise a power beyond the law, there would be no more absurdity in the proceeding than in a like proceeding on the part of the Bishop of Peterborough or any other bishop in Eng; land. Secondly, whatever "degradation," not warranted by the law, his lordship might "pronounce" on Mr. Prebendary Marsh, would be a mere brutum fulmen, and would have no more effect on Mr. Marsh's dignities and emoluments in the church of England, than if it were pronounced by the Grand Mufti of Constantinople. Thirdly, their lordships the bishops of the church of England, are of all the men in Christendom the most unlikely to put themselves in the way of " fine or imprisonment" for nothing.

former article, that there is at present no possibility of coming at the exact truth. The author before us had given one side of the story. To show how much it was worth, we gave some of the estimates which have been made on the other side. It may be presumed that the truth is somewhat between the opposite representations; but at the same time there is no certainty that the income of any prelate or dignitary, say of the bishop of London, is not greater than the largest estimate. That the statistics given by this author in his former pamphlet were not exact he now confesses. "has received from England," he tells us, "documents which give the value of every benefice in England and Wales, and the income of every individual connected with the estab lishment as it stood in 1843;" and by these documents it appears that the bishops are not so rich as he said they were. This shows how little is known about the revenues of the clergy. Every practicable art is used by those who are interested in those revenues, to mystify the subject, and to prevent the public from knowing how much they receive.

He

When we speak thus freely of the great and corrupt political institution called the church of England -an institution as completely the creature of the state as is the Bank

of England, the East India Company, or the Navy-and when we deny that this institution is a church of Christ, we are far from denying that there is a church of Christ in England, or that there is a church of Christ in the ecclesiastical establishment. Christ's "visible church" in Eng. 66 congregaland includes all those tions of faithful men," whether in the establishment or out of it, "in which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments are duly administered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same." That there are many

such congregations connected with the establishment, we would be the last to question. On the contrary, the progress which evangelical truth has made among the clergy and people of that establishment within the last half century, in the face of the greatest obstacles and in resisttance to the corrupting influences inseparable from the establishment itself, is in our view one of the most striking illustrations which history affords of the intrinsic power of the gospel. We certainly have no disposition to deny the progress which that great revival, begun by the la bors of Wesley and Whitefield the last century, has made, and is still making in England; the improve

ment which it has caused in the standard of morals and of decency in society; or the effect which it has already had upon the character not only of the middling classes, but of the aristocracy on the one hand and of the lowest orders on the other, the two portions of society to which corruption most naturally adheres. In all this, however, we see evidence not of the excellence and usefulness of the establishment which Englishmen call the church of England, nor of its permanence as it is now organized, but of vital energies which will not cease to work till England is reformed and the church of England shall be, not Cæsar's church, but Christ's.

It is not often that we take up a pleasanter book of travels over a beaten track, than these two neat volumes from the pen of a Methodist minister. The Rev. John P. Durbin was a few years ago one of the chaplains to Congress. About the same time he attracted attention out of the sphere of his own ecclesiastical connections, by some well written articles, addressed to his Methodist brethren, in behalf of institutions for liberal education. Dickinson College in Pennsylvania passed into the hands of the Methodists, he has been made the head of that institution, which we believe is doing well under his administration. Two years ago he visited the old world. These volumes record some of his observations in those countries which thousands of Americans are continually visiting, and in which almost every one of our more con

Since

* Observations in Europe, principally in France and Great Britain. By John P. Durbin, D. D., President of Dickinson Col. lege. 12mo. 2 vols. New York, 1844.

siderable newspapers has its corres pondents, either stated or occasional, or both. And yet the reader finds constant entertainment, as the author leads him along through places with which so many other travelers have already made him so familiar. The liveliness with which Dr. Durbin re presents his own impressions, is somewhat like seeing with our own eyes that which we have seen before only in description.

We notice these volumes, not with the purpose of tracing the author's voyages and journeys, or criticising his opinions on matters of taste or politics, but chiefly for the sake of his observations on the religious state and prospects of the countries which he visited. These observations com. mend themselves to attention not only as proceeding from one accustomed to take intelligent and manly views, but also as marked with much of a candid and catholic spirit towards forms of doctrine and of worship widely differing from those in which he was trained, and which he regards as the best. We find nothing