of those places the clergy are almost constantly declaiming from the pulpit against methodism; that in the other, the clergy (including several justices of the peace) are remonstrating against a too precise regard to the sabbath, one of them (at a place which I know) encouraging the boys and young fellows to play at various games just in front of his house, on the Sunday. And yet this clergyman-justice is a respectable, moral man. This slight series of notices afford but a faint and meagre hint of the large and awful indictment against the established church. And that indictment is, by the whole school of the able advocates of dissent on principle, charged in this form; namely, that such are the natural effects of a secular church establishment,—not accidental evils of an institution fundamentally good. And this should, I think, be as evident as any possible instance of cause and effect. Consider, what is the patronage of the church? For one large portion, it is in the hands of the state, of the ministry-men most commonly ignorant and careless of religion, and only consulting secular and political interests. It is in the private hands of great lords, and great squires, of colleges and corporations. No small proportion of it is a matter of direct traffic in the market, like farms or any other commodity. So many thousand pounds for a "cure of souls!" Consider, again, that young men (a vast majority of those who enter the church) enter as on a profession or trade, and a thing which places them on a genteel footing in society. The church is the grand receptacle, too, for secondary branches of the upper sort of families. Many latterly are from the army and navy. Consider, that personal piety is not, nor by the nature of the institution can be, any indispensable prerequisite. Who or what is there to require any such thing, or to judge of any such thing? The candidate passes through a few formalities, and it is done. And if the parishioners receive a man who is most evidently destitute of any such qualification-receive him as their instructor, consoler, and example-they have no remedy. They

must be content; they cannot remove him; and the church, and even the evangelical clergy, censure them if they presume to go to hear instead, a pious and sensible preacher in a meeting-house in their neighbourhood. We affirm, then, that this fearful mass and variety of evils consistently, and for the main part necessarily, result from the very nature of an established church; and are not accidental and separable; and that therefore the thing is radically and fundamentally bad, and pernicious to religion. If one hears talk of correcting it, making it a good thing by "reform"-one instantly says, How correct it? Can you make kings, ministers of state, lord chancellors, to become pious and evangelical men? Can you convert the whole set of patrons-lords, baronets, squires, corporations? Can you work 'such a miracle in Oxford and Cambridge, that they shall fit out no young gents for the church, but such as give proofs of personal piety; or make the bishops such overseers that they shall allow none to go into the fold but such as bear the evident qualifications for the shepherds of the flock? Can you secure that, when advowsons are advertised for sale, none but religious men shall buy or bid for them? Even if all this were not essentially and flagrantly impossible,—if it might be brought about sometime,—I would say, How long, meanwhile, are the people, myriads and millions of them, to be left to be misled in the most momentous of their interests by multitudes of authorized teachers, who teach them not the gospel? How many of these multitudes and myriads can we contentedly resign to live and die under the delusion, that a little middling morality (honesty chiefly), with the aid of the Christianizing sprinkle of water, the confirmation, and the talismanic sacrament at last, will carry them to heaven? There is, besides, something strange, and rather ludicrous, in the notion of correcting, what is itself appointed to be, and assumes to be, the grand corrector. There is a class of persons highly authorized, ordained, and officially appointed, to instruct, illuminate, and reform the

community; the community, wiser than their teachers, are to pity them, instruct them, get them reformed, and then go to them for "instruction and correction in righteousness!" A curious round-about process, even if it were practicable.

Now, my dear sir, all this being so (and how feeble a representation of the state of the case!), it is, I confess, with amazement that I hear you say, while still professing yourself a dissenter-that you desire the permanence of our church establishment, so that if its standing or falling depended on your will, you would fix it to stand. What! pronounce for the permanence of an institution, which is at this very day, by an immense majority of its ministers, teaching the people (the little that it does teach) such doctrine as, if you were to hear it at Broadmead, you would earnestly protest against, as contrary to the New Testament, and fatally pernicious to the souls of the hearers, if they believed it! What! pronounce for the continuance of a most awful mischief to the best interests, on the calculation that perhaps in some future age (when? when? when?) there may be a reversal of those causes which render the institution what it is; when statesmen shall be pious Christians, and colleges, wealthy patrons, and bishops, shall acquire the spirit of Christ and his apostles!

But it will be alleged, there is a very material reformation already; there are many evangelical, and in all respects, excellent ministers in the church. This is true; at the same time, a place like Bristol is no fair specimen of the whole state of the church, through the nation; in many grand portions of which such clergymen are scattered few and rare. There are some religious patrons, and latterly a few truly religious ecclesiastics have attained the bench; -as the brothers in consequence of one of them having been highly approved as tutor in the family of and, from the accident of having a brother in the ministry; which brother as I heard Hughes

tell, had a violent contest with his colleagues for the point, and threatened to desert them if they did not yield it.

But now, these genuine Christian ministers in the church;-I dare, in the first place, put the case respecting them in a much stronger shape than I shall, or need, abide by. In speaking of other kinds of institutions, if it were shown that though there is a considerable measure of good in it, yet there is, and in all reasonable probability is likely to be for an indefinite time to come, more harm than good, we should not hesitate to say it had better be abolished, even at the cost of losing that good. Now, this is the case of the church. While a considerable number are teaching the doctrines, and in the true spirit of the doctrines, which you yourself regard as the very vitality of the Christian religion, an immensely greater number are teaching in a way that disavows those doctrines-teaching a doctrine which in very many cases expressly contradicts and explodes them, and in others, does virtually and in effect the same thing; satisfying the minds of the believing hearers with what is much more accordant to the corrupt mind, and betrays to a fatal consequence. It is a melancholy thing to be striking a balance upon; but have we not here a plain case of more evil than good? The inference is obvious, according to any rules we think it rational to judge by in other cases. As to any pleading that though the ministers do not teach the evangelical truth the prayers do, I am sure the allegation is utterly futile. From a vast number of observations, and the statements of numerous deponents who have had much larger experience, I am certain the form of prayer is utterly unavailing to impart, even in the faintest degree, the evangelical sentiments, the mere notions, I mean, when the ministry is of a contrary tenor. Even H. More once owned this to Lowell, and professed to wonder at it. But there is no need to put the case thus. I revert to what I said in the debate with you; that is, "Would the downfall of the establishment be the loss, the silencing, of the truly religious ministers?" What!

would they not take the trouble to preach to the people, if the church, as a mere national and government institution, were abolished? Is that all they care about religion and the people's welfare after all? If it be, they are enjoying vastly more credit than they deserve. As to their support, not a few of them are men of property; and for the rest, the much greater number of course-how are the dissenting ministers supported? The church property, besides, being in the supposed case applied to the national service, would greatly alleviate, on the general scale, the difficulties of support. If it were alleged that, in their capacity of ministers of the national establishment they have a certain character of authority in the people's apprehension, which contributes to add weight to their ministrations, beyond what they would have as mere Christian ministers, I should answer, that this is a true but unlucky argument; for that this circumstance equally gives weight and authority with the people to those who are not teaching genuine Christianity-who are the far greater number.

Well then, supposing the church as a secular establishment to be suddenly prostrate in ruins, what is the consequence? First, we have all the truly evangelical, pious, and zealous ministers still preaching, and many of them much more widely and frequently than at present they can or dare do; and next, we have the instant relinquishment and silence of the many thousands of clergymen who care nothing about the ministry, but as a profession or trade. Now, my dear sir, do answer it to yourself, with unprejudiced simplicity, whether this would not be a most important advantage gained to the cause of religion. Answer this in honest candour.

It is true, there would at first be a strange confusion, in consequence of the vacating of so many ill-occupied pulpits. But this would fast abate. If the people really cared about attendance at church, they would be sure to have the scriptures and prayers read (the only good thing they had before), and any respectable reader could do this. For