will of course admit, should all be men of good report. But is this the case? That it includes many excellent men, is not denied; but it is a lamentable fact, and too notorious to be concealed, that it also includes, ministers of a very opposite character, who are a reproach, not only to the Christian ministry, but to the Christian name, who are nevertheless permitted to continue in office. And is that church which tacitly sanctions evils in her ministers, which the apostles would have punished by excommunication in her members, to be held up as the most pure and apostolical form of Christianity in the world? The attempt is ludicrous; for were a resemblance in constitution admitted, there is a complete opposition in practice.*

in

The Rev. Mr.

*Not long since a most disgraceful circumstance occurred at was so completely intoxicated, that he could not read his sermon. He had no sooner read his text, than he fell forward upon the cushion. When he recovered his erect posture, he attempted to proceed, but could not. He then talked to the congrega. tion about an election for a minister which was to take place at a neighbouring town early in the week, and exhorted them to give their votes and influence in favour of the Rev. Mr. Several of the con

gregation began to leave the church, which when he perceived, he exclaimed, "Pay your shot first, I tell you, and then you may all go.' Had this been the first instance of delinquency in the life of this gentleman, no blame whatever could have been attached to the church on account thereof; for the apostolical church itself had its delinquents: but when wickedness is systematic, and continued in for years; and when those whose office it is to exercise discipline on the clergy, after knowing the fact, connive at such offences, and permit such offenders to continue in the ministry, then the evil becomes entirely chargeable to the discipline, or rather to the want of discipline in the national church. This want of discipline is deeply deplored by the pious members of the church of England, both clergy and laity. It is confidently said that application for the removal of this notoriously immoral minister was made some time since to his bishop, who returned for answer that he belonged to the Dean of and therefore could not interfere. The dean was applied to, who said he had nothing to do with him; but referred them to his diocesan. So he is permitted to continue, to the disgrace of the Christian ministry, to the encouragement of vice, and to the grief of every pious mind in the neighbourhood.

I would say of eulogy what a late ingenious writer has said of ornaments. "Eulogy becomes none except the handsome. To all others eulogy only attracts people's eyes to behold infirmity and ugliness."

But when you describe the church of England as the most pure and apostolical form of christianity, you perhaps refer not so much to her ministry, as to her form, or manner of worship. That there is much resemblance here will not readily be believed, till it be proved that formularies of devotion were used in the apostolical churches-that in those formularies baptism and regeneration were terms of the same import -that they acknowledged other priests besides Christ -that in baptism they signed with the sign of the cross-that they consecrated the bread and wine in the eucharist—that they had an altar, and knelt before it-that they repeated a creed aloud, and turned their faces towards the east-and that the minister read prayers in a surplice, and preached in a gown.

In the preceding observations I have endeavoured to avoid exaggeration, and aimed at a plain statement of truth; after the examination of which your readers may judge of the exact agreement between the worship of the church of England and that of the apostles.

I remain,

Reverend Sir,

Your Servant in the cause of truth,

J. STANLEY.

LETTER II.

REVEREND SIR,

You profess to believe the church of England to be "the most perfect form of Christianity," to be "enlightened by the faith, and strengthened by the blood of martyrs," "founded upon the prophets and apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the head corner stone;"" and as to human security, supported by the laws of the land, and connected with the most vital parts of the constitution :"* yet, somewhat inconsistently, you seem, though you affect to conceal your fears, to apprehend dreadful things from a combination of Methodists against it. "Our church," you say, "circumstanced as I have described it, has once been overthrown by a sect in many respects resembling the Methodists, by the Puritans."+ The excesses of those times are certainly much to be lamented; but they were very few in comparison with those which have in general attended national revolutions.

But what were those Puritans? Persons without religious principles, or whose principles were so accommodating as always to yield to the will of their superiors? Persons over whom the pride and emolument of office had such absolute influence as utterly to silence the voice of conscience, and, if not to annihilate, at least, throw the moral sense into a profound sleep? No: they were men in general of unconquer

able virtue-men who could not be prevaled upon to act contrary to principle either by the smndes or frowns of princes-men who opposed the exercise of arbitrary power by those enemies to the liberties of Britains, the first James, and the first Charles, whilst their persecutors, the bishops, laboured to emslave the nation-men who, rather than pollete their consciences by the sacrifice of principle, either to acquire or retain bonourable and lucrative offices, renounced every earthly prospect, and submitted to the severest sufferings, and the deepest degradation-men, ** but for whom the constitution, which is now the admiration of the world, would have been lost in an absolute tyranny, and popery, with all its absurdities, superstitions and cruelties, inevitably introduced-and men who, whilst the names of their persecutors will be written in the dust, or held up to endless execration, shall, like the just, be had in everlasting remembrance. The Methodists, Sir, you highly honour by such a resemblance: they, I trust, will not be ashamed of their glory.

But these, it seems, overthrew the church. That they, in common with the great majority of the thinking part of the community, approved of that act of the great council of the nation which abolished episcopal government, is not denied. And had not the church of England already overthrown the church of Rome? thus furnishing an example of schism and precedent in the work of reformation. But the church of England had reasons to justify her conduct. And the Puritans also had reasons to justify their's. The prelacy of those

times were generally devoted to the establishment of an absolute tyranny. Both James and Charles ardently thirsted for unlimited power and authority, and they had studied human nature sufficiently to be convinced that episcopacy was more friendly to such despotism than any popular form of church government. The king cried up the bishops, and the bishops in their turn cried up the king, and both agreed in crying down the just liberties of the subject. The principal bishops were cringing sycophants of the sovereign, and the most inexorable persecutors of the people; and to their abominable intolerance must entirely be ascribed the demolition of the hierarchy in that age.

*At the celebrated conference between the Bishops and Puritans, held by the appointment of King James the first, at Hampton-Court, in which there were nine bishops and as many dignitaries of the church on the one side, and only four Puritan ministers on the other, in which James also took a considerable part on the side of episcopacy, Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury said, "That undoubtedly his majesty spoke by the special assistance of God's Spirit ;" and Bancroft, bishop of falling on his knees, with his eyes raised to-James, expressed himself thus: "I protest my heart melteth for joy, that Almighty God, of his singular mercy, has given us such a king, as since Christ's time has not been." Yes, my lord, a blessed and most gracious king-a Daniel, a second Daniel. But what would my lord of Canterbury, or his brother Bancroft have said, had they heard him in the year 1590 make the following declaration in a general assembly held at Edinburgh? “I praise God that I was born in the time of the light of the gospel, and in such a place, as to be the king of the sincerest (i. e. purest) kirk in the world. The kirk of GENEVA keep pasche and yule (i. e. Easter and Christmas.) What have they for them? They have no institution. As for our neighbour kirk of ENGLAND, their service is an evil said mass in English; they want nothing of the mass, but the liftings (i. e. the elevation of the host.) I charge you, my good ministers, doctors, elders, nobles, gentlemen, and barons, to stand to your purity, and to exhort your people to do the same; and I, forsooth, as long as I brook my life, shall do the same.”

Calderwood's History of the Church of Scotland, p. 256.

See the cases of Prynne, Smart, and Dr. Leighton, in Atmore's edition of Dr. S. Chandler's History of Persecution, pp. 330-338.