ASPECTS OF EVANGELICAL RELIGION IN ENGLAND.

47

then presents us with a view of evangelical religion, which we may contemplate to advantage. There are forms and ceremonious pretensions in the episcopal establishment, and there may be, and doubtless are, ceremonies and sentiments in other communities, which are repugnant to our conceptions of " Apostolic doctrine and fellowship; " but if, in connection with these, the great cardinal doctrines of the Gospel are firmly held, and the power of divine grace in the heart is earnestly sought for and enjoyed; if, in other words, all that is truly vital in real piety is found there, ought not every one who loves our Lord Jesus Christ to rejoice?

What is the vitality of Evangelical Religion? Does it not consist in the reception of Christ as the only Saviour, in the experience of the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit, and in the consecration of the life to the service of God? The promulgation of the doctrines that lie at the root of vital religion, and the exhibition of the fruits of such religion in the spirit and life, though attended with much that is exceptionable, cannot be a matter of no moment to every one who says from his heart 66 grace be with all them who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity." There is amongst all such, whether it is recognized or not, a oneness of feeling, a unity of aim and purpose; and though, through the influence of education, associations, early prejudice, or want of intercourse with each other, there may be separation and at times even suspicion, yet they are really "all one in Christ Jesus," and in their own way are labouring for the same object, and advancing the same kingdom.

The Evangelical Alliance, to which reference was made last month, is an attempt to break down the barriers which have separated good men of various religious bodies from each other; and without compromising any distinctive denominational peculiarities, to secure an open and general recognition among all Evangelical Christians. The State Church, by its exclusiveness and government, stands strongly in the way of the complete success of this attempt; nevertheless the attempt will do good, and if it does not accomplish all that is desired, it may lead all good men to have kinder thoughts and more charitable feelings towards others who do not belong to their communion.

Apart from open recognition and visible union, every enlightened and right-hearted christian rejoices in every manifestation of vital godliness, and in every measure of activity used for its extension, let it be made by what party soever it may. He is a christian, and he feels an interest in all that concerns the kingdom of his Lord. Whether true christian vitality, activity, and progress be exhibited among the Churches of his own faith and order, or amongst those of other denominations, his heart is glad, and he feels that such manifestations call for devout thankfulness to Almighty God. How then stand the facts? Without attempting to give statistical details, or even more than a general view of the friends and abettors of evangelical religion (which is, in our estimation, the only vital godliness in our land), it may be safely affirmed, that there never has been a period in the history of this nation, when their numbers were greater, or their efforts more noble and promising than at the present time. Look at the various sections of Wesleyans, from the Conference to the Primitive. Their contentions have subsided, and they are pressing on the good cause. Are they not as orthodox, as laborious, and are not their ministers as well instructed, their people as numerous,

and their efforts as enterprising as at any former period? Their Sabbath Schools, their Foreign Missions, their spirit of aggression on the world, show no signs of decay.

Look again at the Congregational body. Despite a few disputations, how numerous are their congregations, how generally well-trained are their ministers, and how much of energy and liberality is there in their movements. Their Foreign Mission, their Home Mission, their Sabbath and Day Schools, their Colleges, their various means and appliancies for the diffusion of the great truths of religion, are superior as a whole to what they have ever been. Come again to the Baptists. It is not true that throughout this body there is a broader catholicity of feeling, and a greater measure of free evangelical preaching than formerly? The two great sections, Particular and General, are so blended as scarcely to maintain the old line of demarkation. Some belonging to the former, seem really to be of the latter, while these feel no difficulty in ministering amongst their so-called calvanistic brethren. And though there may be some exceptions, is it not true that, as a whole, their churches are as active and zealous, their public institutions for sending the Gospel to the heathen, for diffusing it at home, for training the rising race, and for preparing a well qualified ministry, are more liberally sustained than in former years ? There may be less of denominational bigotry, but there is not, we opine, less of enlightened zeal in advocating the truth, or in vindicating the ordinances of Christ. And as to our distinctive peculiarities, we well know that our sentiments permeate, to a considerable extent, all other christian communities. Amongst the Congregationalists, the Wesleyans, and elsewhere, Baptists are found, so that we are a much greater body than we seem. But, apart from all this, it is hoped that attachment to, and advocacy of, the true principles of evangelical religion are not declining among us. Would that we could speak better of ourselves! Yet, looking at home and abroad, is there not room for encouragement?

We look again, we were about to say, on forbidden ground, amongst the Unitarians, and find something to afford hope. Long since, in America, this body had become weary of its negative creed. Something positive and practical, something that affected the heart and life was sought after. And it was matter of pleasing surprise to us when in America, on enquiring to what denomination a minister belonged who had offered a beautiful and scriptural prayer, to be told that he was called a Unitarian. The prayer was as full of evangelical spirituality, and of the Holy Ghost, as could be desired. So now in this country. There seems to have arisen in this body a new and divine life. Without openly repudiating the dogmas of their fathers, many of them are clearly returning practically and experimentally to the orthodox faith. Their references to the dignity of Christ, to his character and work as the Saviour of men, and to their need of, and dependence on, the grace of the Holy Spirit, are startling and pleasing evidencies of a new life being vouchsafed to them. The result is and will be a renewing and enlarging of the extent and influence of this body. In some large towns they were become almost extinct, and save a few old families, none scarcely attended their sanctuaries. But "the supply of the spirit of grace in Jesus Christ," will make the dry bones live, and give a power and vitality to their religion to which they have long been strangers.

ASPECTS OF EVANGELICAL RELIGION IN ENGLAND.

49

In referring, finally, to the Episcopal Establishment, we see much to encourage. There never was a period when there were so numerous and widely diffused a band of excellent and earnest preachers of Gospel truth within its pale as at present. Several of its Bishops, not excluding the Primate of all England, are evangelical men. There is a larger degree of zeal and devotedness of the right kind, within "the Church," as its friends love to call it, than at any former period. There was a time when one of her ministers, the Rev. John Newton, said, "I am not sure that in 1740, there was a single parochial minister, who was publicly known as a Gospel preacher, in the whole kingdom." How different now! We spent a Sabbath recently in a large county town, and were delighted to hear that "every episcopal clergyman in the place was esteemed evangelical, and that all had good and some large congregations." The same may be true of very many other places. The extraordinary efforts made in London, and in many other places, by the clergy to draw the attention of the people to religion, and to lead them to receive the simple and elementary truths of the Gospel, are not without their significance. The evangelical clergy, as a class, while more numerous are less exclusive than in former times. Some of them are ill at ease under their old formularies, and would be glad of more freedom; and many of them are known as most effective and useful preachers. In every large town too, and in many villages, the Church Sunday-schools are large and well conducted. Voluntary labours, and contributions for the advancement of religious and benevolent objects are as common now among Churchmen as among Dissenters, and the Church Missionary Society is among the foremost in the land both for the amount of its funds and the efficiency of its agents.

Some ten or fifteen years ago a wave of scepticism scemed to pass over all the British churches. It received its impulse from the German mind. But that has now subsided, and the influence left seems mainly to be that of leading christian ministers and people to adhere more closely to the great truth that "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."

Here then we may pause. While we could wish that many things in the Episcopal Establishment were reformed or abolished, especially its connexion with the State, its simony, its pride, and its frequent assuption of being "the Church"; and while we could desire to see many things among Dissenters corrected and amended, there are aspects in which even the whole may be contemplated in their relation to evangelical principles and vital godliness, that, especially when viewed in contrast with former times, awaken sentiments of devout gratitude and blissful hope. "According to this time it shall be said of Jacob and of Israel, What hath God wrought."

THE QUEEN'S PROCLAMATION AT CUTTACK.

L.

THE following account of the proclamation, given by our brother Buckley, who was a witness of it, as well as his own comments on the proclamation itself, will be read with deep interest. We much fear lest it will be found that some of his apprehensions are not groundless.--ED.

On Monday, the 1st of November, at five o'clock p.m., a considerable

number of persons, probably from fifteen to twenty thousand were assembled on the parade ground, Cuttack, to hear the gracious proclamation of Her Majesty, on assuming the direct Government of her Indian territories. The civil and military officers of the station were there in full dress, and the Madras regiment, by which we are garrisoned. All the missionaries belonging to our Society, and two out of three of our American brethren, were present on this memorable occasion. The proclamation was first read in English by G. F. Cockburn, Esq., the Commissioner of Orissa, after which it was read in Bengali, Oriya (partially and I believe very imperfectly) and to the Sepoys in Hindostanee or Telegoo. Royal proclamations as well as royal speeches are always, by courtesy, gracious; but this was really and indeed pre-eminently so. The act of grace which inaugurates the direct reign of the Queen in India has my warm approval. I rejoice that it is so extensive, while I entirely approve of the excepting from mercy those who have "directly taken part in the murder of British subjects." Well, and wisely, is it said in regard to such that "the demands of justice forbid the exercise of mercy." I rejoice in the acknowledgment by the Queen to her Indian subjects that she firmly" believes in the truth of Christianity, and gratefully acknowledges the solace of religion"; nor do I at all object to the terms in which she disclaims the right and the desire to improve, by the authority and power of law, her convictions on any of her subjects. This is as it should be. But I am sorry that I cannot express my unqualified approval of other parts of this able and important State Paper. Let the following be pondered :

"We do strictly charge and enjoin all those who may be in authority under us that they abstain from all interference with the religious belief or worship of any of our subjects, on pain of our highest displeasure."

This, of course, does not apply to missionaries, but to the servants of Government. If compulsory efforts be merely prohibited, we shall heartily approve; but this is not the way in which it will be interpreted, and I fear it must be added, not the way in which it was intended to be interpreted. Already the infidel papers are exulting that we shall have no more preaching colonels, or proselyting officers of Government. It is then pertinent to ask, What constitutes interference with the religious belief of the natives? If a military officer gives a tract or a portion of the Word of God, the reception of which is perfectly voluntary, to a Sepoy, or if a civilian do it to any under his authority, is that interference? If any of the Queen's Indian servants contribute to Mission Schools and other objects connected with the furtherance of the Gospel--is that interference? If any of her Majesty's Christian servants, imitating the worthy example she has set them, say, in kindness and love, to those under them, that they, as well as the Queen, firmly rely on the truth of Christianity," and rejoice in "the solace of religion," will that be regarded as interference? Surely the Queen cannot visit with her displeasure," still less "her highest displeasure" any of her officers for simply doing what she has done herself? But if they go a step further, and say that they not only believe, firmly believe, in the truth of Christianity, and rejoice in its solace, but desire others to be partakers with them of its blessings, I should say, that it would be a great improvement; but the question returns, would it not constitute interference? God forbid that any in the service of Victoria should be prohibited from acting as consistent and enlightened Christians ought to act. If it be so, which, how

THE QUEEN'S PROCLAMATION AT CUTTACK.

51

ever, I cannot believe, then, with unfeigned loyalty, but fearless honesty, be it spoken, the honour of Victoria's name-a name which our lips have never pronounced but with reverential regard-will be as certainly tarnished as there is a God who judgeth in the earth. But I will not, cannot, believe it. My private opinion is, that all the grace of the proclamation is the Queen's own, and that the words complained of are the result of that pestiferous influence at the India Board which I hope some honest M.P. will fearlessly expose. The people of England must keep their eyes open, or the clause may lead to bigoted and intolerant proceedings,

The clause in which the Queen notifies that "her subjects of whatever race or creed, may be freely and impartially admitted to offices in her service," the duties of which they may be qualified to discharge, is satisfactory, but it is qualified by the phrase SO far as may be," and it is difficult to say how much or how little such phrases mean.

Another clause will, I fear, have an unhappy influence, "We will that generally, in framing and administering the law, due regard be paid to the ancient rights, usages, and customs of India." Of course rights," whether ancient or modern shall be respected; but what regard is due to" usages and customs" like the Suttee, infanticide, the Meriah rite, the polygamy of the Koolin brahmins, the prohibition of marriage to widows, the public obscenities in connection with their worship, and other things that might be mentioned? Several wise and useful legislative enactments have past during the last few years, which a clause like this might have prevented. No one wishes the customs of the people to be violently and unnecessarily interfered with. It may be said that the Queen only promises "due regard" to these said customs; where no regard is due, as to usages like those mentioned, none is promised. It may be added that this " due regard" is only promised "generally," and this implies exceptions. Still I fear this clause will be used to prevent enlightened progress.

The Queen tells the native princes and people of India that she desires no extension of our present territorial possessions." I do not object to this, though not an enemy to annexation, and though in common with a large majority of those who have studied events in India, with the advantage of a practical knowledge of the people, I believe that the annexations of the last half century have, with rare exceptions, been forced upon us; still I am much more anxious that our present possessions should be well governed than that they should be increased, and all candid persons must feel that the fidelity which the Nizam, Holkar, Scindia, and other native princes have shown in our day of adversity, wisely, it is true, for themselves, but most happy for us, should be most honorably and indulgently regarded. After all, the student of history cannot forget that seventysix years ago the Parliament of England solemnly declared that extending our dominions in India "was repugnant to the wish, the honour, and the policy of England," and that the Marquess of Wellesley-one of the ablest Governors-General that India has had-was reminded in no very gentle terms of this resolution of the Commons, after he had annexed Orissa, and other kingdoms; still it was a blessing that Orissa was annexed, and the same remark applies to other provinces. The future is known only to God; but the history of India reveals a series of events which the wisdom of statesmen could not foresee; and the consultations of cabinets and the determination of monarchs could not prevent. There is a Power