CORRESPONDENCE. The Editor begs to remind his readers that he is not responsible for the opinions ANTI-PRELATISTS OF MODERN TIMES. 66 over I HAVE trespassed, I fear, too largely upon your useful pages with the "Anti-Prelatists" of the past. This is all out of the "old almanack;" and, as I fear we are at this moment on the rapids, it may be too late to look back, to any good purpose-even if we thought of deriving instruction from our own history-to" tales of Charles the First and Bishop Laud." Let us now, then, advert to the late motion of the "Anti-Prelatists" of the present day, and in the British House of Commons. Three of the great embankments of our constitution have recently been cut through,-one in 1828, another in 1829, and a third in 1831. The first broke down the long-established qualification for office in our Christian state; the second let in, as legislators, men implacably hostile to the great living principle of all our institu tions; the third, as a natural consequence of the two former, poured into the House of Commons (to use the Hollander's term) an strooming" of the turbid waters of sheer mammonry, democracy, and republicanism. The professed object of all these changes has been to liberalize our institutions; or, in other words, to obliterate what are called all INVIDIOUS distinctions. The consequences of these vital changes in our constitution are daily manifesting themselves in the necessary laxity and (so called) popularity of public measures, which actually leaves all the great interests of society in a state of instability and insecurity. I am sure that no man, who has watched the progress of these disorganizing principles, was in the slightest degree astonished at Mr. Rippon's motion, on the 13th of March, to bring in “ bill to relieve" (observe the sarcastic malignity of the term!) "the archbishops and bishops of the established church from the exercise of their legislative and judicial functions in the House of Peers." As it is the peculiar province of this Magazine to "register monthly the religious and ecclesiastical" events and information of this country, it is most important that the more striking sentiments and allegations of the speakers in that debate should be found on record within its pages; and more especially as they develop the animus of the "AntiPrelatists" of this day. In so doing, I shall canvass only the opinions of persons deputed to make our laws, opinions which are therefore public property, or subjects for public discussion. Of the speakers and others, personally, who advocated the motion, I have nothing to say; but I may just remark, that they are affirmed, by the best informed journalists, to be either dissenters, papists, Socinians, or infidels; at all events, be it carefully remembered, whoever or whatever they were, they mustered a minority of SIXTY-SEVEN against 125. Mr. Rippon, the mover, and member for Gateshead, described his motion as "the first step (the little whimble') towards a full and VOL. VI.-Sept. 1834. 2 N a fair discussion of the church establishment;" and, in the plenitude of his candour, observed, that " the state of the community was such as to demand a reform in the established church, to make it conformable and afford satisfaction to an ENLIGHTENED people." This reform he would have made in time, while it may be "considered a boon, and possibly not extorted as a matter of right." "He would not go back to the Saxon times, and times when the superior knowledge of the clergy enabled them to have kings and people alike at their command, nor to the period between a Becket and a More, when bishops were the keepers of the king's conscience"-(they might "go farther and fare worse")" nor when fifty-four ecclesiastics had seats in the House of Lords. No! He would" (leave all these Ogygian matters and abuses, and)" ask, was it proper to impose legislative duties upon those who were set apart from the rest of the people to the service of God and the care of the church?" (In other words, were they ever less wanted in parliament to take care of the church, than when there was within its walls a strong party, bent upon the destruction of the church?) And now we get a glimpse of the interior: "What were the evils of the present system?" (i. e., of " imposing legislative duties on the bishops, set apart to the service of God and the care of the church.”) Who shall guess what these alleged consequences, so mischievous and alarming, can be? Is it the conversion of the House of Peers to, or their maintenance and continuance in, the doctrines of the church of England, and the Christian spirit of our constitution in the olden time? Is it the admixture of the highest sacred with profane information infused into the debates? Is it the calm and pure, the gentle and sanctifying truth and influence of the Gospel, interposed by their eloquence, or intimated and admonished by their presence? None of them; but, strange to say," pluralities, non-residence, and an unequal division of wealth." The mysterious causality of Tenterden Steeple was a mere fool to this! "Pluralities, non-residence, and an unequal division of wealth," are the consequences, be it known on the authority of the member for Gateshead, of bishops sitting in the House of Lords. Now it is a consequence of the unequal division of wealth that Mr. Rippon has a seat in the House of Commons; and, God knows, if his motion and principles, and the suicidal political measures of persons of his opinion, were once sanctioned and carried into effect by any malipotence of parliament, his and their sitting in the House of Commons would be the cause of such an unequal division of wealth as would make him envy the bishops in their then degradation, as much as he and they now envy them in their wealth and rank. Houses of Commons are subject to the fates of other "houses;" and their most favourite measures have been crowned with the most destructive suceess, like those of other houses: "Evertêre Domos totas, optantibus ipsis, But it would be endless to dwell upon each head of this most acrimonious speech. "Political intrigues and courtly favour had sometimes afforded more powerful recommendations than private qualities." And who is to blame for that? the bishops, or those who act upon such recommendations? "The system of translation was also a matter of trying temptation," and made them "dependent on ministerial favour." But why, and with bishops how selected for consecration ? Again, "the tendency of every church connected with the state must be to oppose political innovations." Can the country, can we individually, ever be thankful enough to God first, and to our ancestors next, for interposing this check (however insufficient, where men are determined to do "every man what is right in his own eyes,") against the "people, who so often imagine a vain thing," and are so seldom contented with the present, so seldom willing to "let well alone," so seldom humble, fearful, or grateful, under continued prosperity. The precept was from Him who knew what was in man: Meddle not with them that are given to changes." Success and every blessing, therefore, attend that church connected with the state, whose tendency it is to oppose political innovations. "It is unnecessary to refer to so recent a time as when the conduct of the bishops (!!) brought this country to the brink of a revolution." Alas! the Commons "had plunged in, and bade the Peers follow," before that swamped and crippled "second estate of the realm" were dragged in and hurried down the tide, protesting and aghast! "The bishops' conduct!" So, in a mutiny on board some ill-fated vessel, it is the conduct of the commanding officers, who have all to lose, and nothing to gain, that always brings the ship to the brink of ruin, justifies the mutineers, and consigns the vainlyprotesting culprits to the waters of expiation. "Every one," continues the Anti-Prelatist, "Every one acquainted with the fact, could form a judgment on the point, and determine whether the political power of the prelates in parliament had been employed in supporting pure and good measures, such as would increase the public welfare and content"-(Pilate, willing to content the people, &c.)-" or whether they had been mere partisans of their respective political predecessors." The church may truly congratulate herself that her bishops have not yet to learn what is pure and good from her bitterest enemies; and, indeed, Mr. Rippon's "beau ideal" of the pure and good is as yet somewhat in advance of even the " double-quick time" march of the majority of parliamentary intellects. The introduction, "neck and heels,” of the bishops' " political predecessors," is a fine illustration of the old lupine argument," if it was not you, it was your father." Instead, then, of resisting pure and good measures, Mr. Rippon would have them shew themselves, "not only in name, but in conduct, worthy successors of the apostles, and employ their time in the ministry of the word." "It was dangerous to the liberties of the people to place political power in the hands of those whose interest was adverse to the government." He had before told the house, that the appointment of bishops was in the hands of ministers, and that they were the creatures of political intrigues and courtly favour, and that " translations made them, to a certain degree, dependent on ministerial favours, and subjected them to trying temptations." Yet now they are to be converted either into honest men, who can think the interest of their country paramount to all other interest, or into silly profligates, who can imagine any INTEREST so good as that of government. If political power had never been placed in the hands of men adverse to the glorious institutions of the country, the House of Commons could never have been the arena for an attack on our bishops, nor could we have witnessed so formidable an array of enemies to the church of ENGLAND drawn forth by so thoroughly un-English a motion as that preferred by the member for Gateshead. In the close of this memorable speech, Mr. Rippon does think the establishment "proper," and, "being a temporality, it ought to be represented in Parliament,-but the bishops should not be taken from their proper cares, the first of which was to promote purity of worship." If, however, the bishops are not to represent the church in parliament, has Mr. Rippon yet decided who shall do it? He surely would not countenance non-residence, much less would he be the means of putting any of our poor rectors, vicars, or curates, in the way of " trying temptations," and stand the chance of rendering them "dependent on ministerial favour," or "mingling them," as he expresses it," in the plots and jobs of government intrigue." But I must leave these difficulties to Mr. Rippon and his anti-prelatist minority of sixty-seven. That they will do all that is kind and benevolent towards the church may be at once presumed from this intended " relief" of the bishops. Mr. Gillon followed Mr. Rippon in a strain equally philepiscopal. He tells us the bishops not only oppose religious liberty, but "actually grudge us even our spiritual freedom!" "Was it just," he asks," that one SECT, and one SECT alone, of the community should be represented, in the other branch of the legislature ?" How would Mr. Gillon have the Quakers represented in the House of Lords? The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not think any reasonable number (did the noble Lord intend a pun ?) of the members could agree in the motion, or he would discuss it with Mr. Rippon. He was convinced the house would not entertain such a motion. This was said in the midst of "immense cheering;' but I suspect that neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the "cheerers" could anticipate, on such a motion, a minority of sixty-three. No, no; they calculated wisely on the security provided for the church by the oath of admission into the House of Commons, to be taken and subscribed by the papists! One of these, with infinite pleasantry, observed, that "there was nothing of religion involved in the question before the house"! Sir W. Ingleby thought it a question which must be discussed in both houses of parliament, and the sooner it was done the better. Mr. Tennyson would allow the bishops to sit in the House of Lords long enough to vote upon their own expulsion-(most kind and considerate of men!)-" Besides, government might propose some equalization of the emoluments of the bishops, which might render the presence of some number of the bishops in the House of Lords less objectionable to the majority of the dissenters." Messrs. James, Buckingham, Ruthven, O'Reilly, and O'Connell, followed in the same friendly feeling towards the church. After them, Mr. Harvey told the house that "there was a principle and a cause AT WORK out of doors, which, at no distant time, would make it a question, not whether the bishops should continue to sit in the House of Lords, but whether the establishment should be maintained at all." He was also kind and generous enough to think, that, "if we were to disrobe the church to-morrow of its gorgeous array, and to deprive the bishops of their overgrown temporalities, the church, as a Christian church, would still not only stand, but flourish." It seems the bishops "belie the simplicity of the creed they profess, and arm infidelity by the gorgeousness of their worldly appearance." "He would send the bishops to those scenes of moral simplicity where the example of their lives might excite confidence in their flock and lead them to a due observance of the precepts of religion." In other words, he would make them parish priests, and live up to their religion. The suggestion is as ingenious as it is charitable! "All that the nonconformists required was, that religion should be let to stand upon its own inherent and imperishable pretensions;" i. e., voluntary contributions, or Franciscan beggary. Here is the clue to the whole outcry! Mr. Hume thought "the bishops had made themselves odious to three-fourths of the people of England, by the manner in which they had INTERFERED in the proceedings on the Reform Bill." Yet he adds, "they had a right to give their opinion;" but, as they were so wilful and wrong-headed as to use that right in opposition to persons so religious and conservative as Mr. Hume," they should be removed from a spot where their political functions interfered with their other duties." Mr. Shiel "could not help thinking that a great change had taken place in the sentiments entertained by the noble Lord, (the Chancellor of the Exchequer,) and those who sat near him, from a period not very far distant, when a simple but impressive admonition was addressed to the bishops, and they were urged to set their houses in order.'" "Let the government recollect what they had done in the case, not of the Irish church, for there was no such thing, but of the united church of England and Ireland. If they had annihilated twelve bishoprics at one blow, why should it be considered sacrilegious to suggest that some little incidents attached to the church of England might be taken off? There were nine millions of dissenters in these two islands, and their voice was worth attending to." Talk of "tumultuary instigation" indeed! Mr. Ewart also spoke in favour of the motion. Such was the marrow of the debate on Thursday, the 13th of March, upon a motion of Mr. Rippon, the member for Gateshead, for relieving the bishops from their parliamentary functions; and if any one can trace in it more than was said by the Puritans two centuries ago, through the same rankling envy too, he sees with sharper eyes than mine. But then it must be added, that this acrimony and envy, the "fel nigrum" of sectarian virulence, in proportion to the intervening time, "inarsit æstuosius." It has eaten deeply into the very organs that have secreted it, and would enter with deadlier venom and accumulated quantity into any bite which it may be suffered to make. Such are the precious fruits of a spurious liberality, which |