U‘.

360 cnuacu aaroaM.

Mr. Fa‘ithful, pursuant to notice rose to submit to the housea proposition in refe- rence to the established church. His re- solution divided itself into three heads, each involving a separate principle of great public importance. The first was that the church of England as by law established was not recommended by practical utili- ty; the second, that its revenues have al- ways been subject to legislative enact- ments; and thirdly, that the greater part, if not the whole of these revenues, ought to be appropriated to the relief of the na- tion. The resolution was not brought for-

ward by him in any spirit of prejudice or '

hostility to the church of England. (bean) Itrequired no great acuteness to distin-

guish the church from the establishment; .

he reverenced the one—he detested the latter. Neither did he seek the eve throw of the establishment.

their archbishops and their hi 3, their worldly humility and habi of useful- ness, so like the apostles andjrst teach- ers of christianity, and their chdeacons and their deans, and theit' prebendaries, and their canons and ,_ minor canons, and all the rest ‘ 1r overworked and underpaid funo iaries, as long as they liked; all he asked was, that to maintain those gentlem violence may not be done to the conscie e of any man, and that no man should befoompelled to pay for the support ofaelergyman of whose commu- nion he was bet a member. This was all he asked: he would not be content with less. ltwas to obtain it that he put for— ward the proposition that the established

church was not recommended by its utility. ' He w0uld ask any man who heard him—

he would defy any bishop or dean in the whole establishment to show where an es- tablished church was, either directly or indirectly, or authorised or sanctioned by our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles? He would not quote the evidence of the Dissenters to show that the Gospel hadin- variably condemned all secular or civil alliance with religion, but would refer them to the evidence of their own clergy, to that of Paley, and Warburton, and Black- burn, and others Hewould ask them to point out a single passage in the New Tes- tament calculated to impress them with a conviction that an established church like that of England was an eligible iqtitu- tion—nay, was it not the very reverse? Was it not a melancholy fact, of which all history was a painful comment, that the union of church and state was banetul to 0th? When did the Christian religion come astate religion? Why, under that stained with every crime, Constan- hose reign was the date of its de- and corruption.

m Barriers Wow

state religions, the Constantines . Clovises, practically outraged "every ciple of true religion. the, a

quel of this unholy alliance, as with of its parents. Were they tians? What was Christi conceive it to be somethi worth contending for?

it to be a religion of go affections? Could an . only result of the es the opposite.-—that it and heart burnings, animosities? Di ey want a them look to th l conditiou of Ireland, with church. (Hear, hear.) s a compulsory maintain- , eclergy spoken of in the gos- at act of the apostles sanctioned tion? Did not they live by the la- our of their hands, and did they not de- precate compulsory and high remuneration as fatal to the true religion. Then let them consider how an established religion operated as a temptation to hypocricy? Was hypocricy, he would ask them, com- patible with pure Christianity? If not, he would further ask them should an esta- blishment be encouraged which engaged hypocricy? Was it therefore too much fqr him to assert that the established church was not recommended by its practical uti- lity? This sounded, he admitted, boldly: but it was no less true. Paley, and other “ established church” writers, had shown that the church was only a snare for the consciences of its ministers, and that it shut out the upright and conscientious while it opened wide its doors to the sub- servient and the unscrupulous. But this was not the only, nor perhaps the worst fruit of an established church. It invariably converted the clergy, who ought to be the ministers of peace and good will

persecutors. Who crucified our Lord? The Jewish priesthood. The genius of the heathen world was tolerant, and yet hea- then priests persecuted the early Christian martyrs. And in late times, there were the Catholic priesthood persecuting the Protestant, and the Protestant, too, in their turn, the Catholic. He might be told, perhaps, that the clergy were now in- fluenced by more charitable feelings, that they partook of the more enlightened spirit of the times. He could not believe it Where had they evinced the want of inclination to be intolerant and oppressive? Give them the power they enjoyed under old Queen Bess—that is, give them the means of persecuting—and who would an- swer for the result? Then, what said Warburton and Paley as to the effect ofan

established church like the present in gene- rating habits of corruption and hypocrisy

It was to reflect among- tbe clergy? Was it not an unde-

that the great protectors and tutitub! ' i ‘

powerful? Far from it.

deadly hatred and proof, let

to all men, into the most unrelenting of

I act that the fitness was the tion sought for in bestowin Y .- " wflch was bestowed as te _ of political sycophancy? Then, . re the counterbalancing advantages established church? Was it the

"‘ them against the oppressor and The clergy the church of England were the invaria abettors of every measure which tended encroach upon the rights and liberties the subject: and the invariable foes of e ry measure calculated to advance the in rests of either. What was their cond with reference to the reform bill? Th was not the system monstrously venal a simoniacal? Was not the establish church a regular trading concern? We not livings and “ cures of souls” advertis for sale, and as open marketable comm dities as any thing sold in open day? (he hear). What induced young men to ent the church? Was it not notorious th call was not that ofthe Holy Ghost? W it not notorious that they entered t church as the would the army and na or any other professional means of a liv lihood.? \Vas this the precept or t example inculcated by Christ and the ap tles? Remen her the emphatic denunci tions of Warburton and Hanley and Sim son against the “grandee” monopoly the rich livings of the church. The co sequences of these grandee doings wou lead to a revolution which was at ban and which would purify religion from the doings. Then see how the certainty reward tended to induce habits of indifi‘ rence and remissness on the part of t clergyman, who feeling himself secured the law of his tithes, let his flock take ca ofthemselves. On this point it would sufficient to quote the forcible observatio of the author of the Wealth of .N‘ati “The proper performance of every se vice seems to require that its pay or reco pence should be, proportioned to the nature of the servic If any service is very much under paid, is very apt to suffer by the meanness an incapacity of the greater part of those wh are employed in it. If it is very muc over paid, it is apt to sufl'er perhaps sti more by their negligence and idleness. man of a large revenue, whatever ma be his profession, thinks he ought to liv like other men of large revenues, and t spend a great part of his time in festivit in vanity, and dissipation. But in a cle gyman this train of life not only consum the time which ought to be employed the duties of his function, but in the gay of the common people destroys almost?

tirely that sanctity of character which at

w U! o as as O 2 "< m u ’d o a 2 G'