prefer the interests of a part to the interests of the wholeor in other words, their own emolument to the good of the country. Still less is it true that they ought to be reckoned among the useless and unproductive members of society:-if we consider the term unproductive, not in the confined and wretched sense of the political economists, as regarding nothing more than the quantity of food, or the raw materials of manufacturing industry, but in its higher and more comprehensive meaning, with reference to moral as well as physical good-to the production of order, of happiness, and of virtue. Yet there are men-it is notorious-and their number is by no means inconsiderable-who studiously represent the English clergy as the drones and caterpillars of the land. They would abolish-not episcopacy-not the hierarchy—but the established church. In these latter days every thing must be changed. Englishmen, inflated with the pride of "philosophy and vain deceit," would follow the example of the French and the Spaniards. They would get rid, in the plenitude of their wisdom, not merely of every archbishop and every bishop, but of every beneficed clergyman, and every stipendiary curate in the kingdom. They forget the truth, which is not the less true because I, who say it, am a churchman, that there neither exists, nor ever did exist, in any country, a body of men, more conspicuous for their learning, their morals, or their general respectability, than the clergy of England-and that the clergy of England, on the whole, were never more learned, more moral, and more generally respectable, than at the present moment. I cannot, Gentlemen, read with patience the lucubrations of ignorant or designing writers, who affect to consider the spoliation of the church as no spoliation whatsoever-but a mere act of retributive justice. Can they be ignorant that any fundamental change or convulsion in the church will lead, in all human probability, to a revolution in the state? Can they be ignorant that the two establishments are inseparably connected; and that the one cannot be subverted without bringing the other into certain and immediate jeopardy? Are all the arguments of Burke forgotten? are all authorities to be despised? must all experience be in vain? Must not a single act of. injustice be the signal for a thousand? or if church property be invaded, will not the most formidable inroads almost inevitably follow upon property of every denomination, by whatever persons, and under whatever tenure it is held? What right, or what security have any proprietors in the kingdom, which is not possessed by the church, or the disposers of church benefices? These questions, Gentlemen, have been asked a hundred times, and they have never yet been answered-for the very simple reason, that no satisfactory answer can be given. To demonstrate the fact, that a spirit of hostility against the established church, and the regular clergy, is now in active operation, I shall refer, not to the stupid libels of a newspaper, or the intemperate and hungry invectives of the ultra-reformers, but to one of the most widely circulated and influential productions of the day; which is well known to be the organ of the Whigs-I mean, to the Edinburgh Review. Out of the ten articles, of which the last number (74) is composed, three are expressly devoted to attacks upon the church of England, either direct or implied. One of them is on the case of Mr. Williams, and the clergy of Durham; the second, like your own letter, has reference to the bishop of Peterborough and his questions; the third regards the charge of the bishop of London, delivered to the clergy of his diocese, in July, 1822. To extract the whole articles is obviously impossible :-to select detached parts, and draw from them a conclusion, as to the tenour of the whole, might be deemed unfair. I have, therefore, thought it the most convincing and honourable method of proceeding to send you, word for word, the index of contents, as appended to the Review itself. It is, in fact, a short synopsis of the doctrines, inculcated in the last two numbers, upon the subject of the liturgy, the discipline, and the members of the established church of England, and the established church of Ireland. I have transcribed, exactly as it stands, every thing in the general index, which bears upon these points :-there has been neither a syllable added, nor a syllable omitted. EXTRACTS FROM THE INDEX OF THE EDINBURGH REVIEW, No. 74. Articles, the thirty-nine, drawn up by Calvinists, 439-latitude in in- Bishops, in Ireland, five times the proper number, 70—receive enormous Bishop of Peterborough has devised eighty-seven interrogatories for Bishop of London, has entirely disappointed the expectations of his Brougham, Mr. M. P., speech of, a first-rate specimen of forensic elo- Church of England, not more established nor more protected than any Church establishment, Irish, the greatest obstacle to prosperity and Durham clergy take a forward part in electioneering, and all political English church, the people alienated from the chiefs of the, by pluralities, Church establishment, 69-number of clergy, excessive, 70-their sti- Liturgy of the English church, beauties and defects of the, 363-con- Queen, general indignation excited by the disgraceful proceedings against the, 113—this more than the Durham clergy could bear, 356—wilful falsehoods respecting her Majesty, by one of their number, 354. Right, divine, of kings and constibles, prelates and parish clerks, placed on the self-same grounds, 359. Tithe-system, in Ireland, inexhaustible source of contention and murder, 75-number of tithe cases in different counties-the expense ruinous, 77tithes, if not abolished, must, at all events, be commuted, 78. Surely, Gentlemen, a man must be blind indeed to mistake the spirit which actuated the composition of these articles. In the case of the Edinburgh reviewers, it is mixed up, I am aware, with many feelings of a nature purely political. It is mainly attributable, perhaps, to a dislike of a Tory administration; to disappointment in the struggle for place and power; and to a desire, not so much to revolutionize the church or demoralize the people, as to perplex the government. Yet still there is much which betrays a radical contempt and hatred of the ecclesiastical establishment. Now, Gentlemen, I would put to you, in conclusion, a plain and simple question :—do you, or do you not, partake such sentiments? I require a positive and explicit answer. I am compelled to state, that there appears to me, on your parts, when subjects connected with the church are brought before your notice, a sort of indecision and inconsistencyan evident desire to shirk the point-a something which bears a resemblance to subterfuge and evasion, altogether incompatible with your professions, and altogether unworthy your general candour and good sense. Believe me, Gentlemen, you must, sooner or later, take one side or the other. It is impossible to be neutral. "He who is not with us is against us.' If you insert this letter in your publication, I may perhaps trouble you again. But I must say once more, that myself and many other friends to your undertaking, expect you to deliver your opinions without studied mysteriousness, or barren generalities; and not to keep us in the dark upon topics intimately connected with the stability, and repose, and happiness of the empire. I am, Gentlemen, Your very obedient servant, SIR, ANSWER, FROM THE COUNCIL. In considering your letter, we have thought it worthy of being presented to our readers. You must, nevertheless, excuse us from giving a full answer to your demands, upon the many difficult and complicated matters relating to the church. We have no room, at present, to grasp the whole compass of the subject. Yet we pledge ourselves, at no distant period, to speak upon it with as much explicitness, as much earnestness, and as much courage, as either you, or the most devoted admirer of open and straight-forward conduct, can possibly desire. We have now very little to say. We agree with you in thinking that there is a spirit of hostility against the established church, and the established clergy; but we do not think that this spirit can be laid by refusing inquiry, or denying the very practicability of amendment. We do not assent to all the propositions of the Edinburgh reviewers; neither do we entirely coincide with the high church party in the state. We conceive, that there is a wide and obvious distinction between the church of England and the church of Ireland. The arguments, which are applicable to the one, are often totally inapplicable to the other. We shall consider them, therefore, in separate discussions. We deprecate, as warmly as yourself, any invasion of church property; but we are far from imagining that a commutation of tithes would necessarily constitute such invasion. We believe that the enmity which exists, and the outcry which has been raised, against the ecclesiastical establishment, and more especially against the hierarchy, proceed partly from ignorance, partly from infidelity, partly from schisms in points of faith, partly from a love of spoliation, and partly from party spirit. Political intrigue is at the bottom of religious animosities:-to strike the state through the church is a favourite object with faction. But the blow will be aggravated—not repelled-by illiberality and intolerance. For ourselves, we shall at least come to the consideration of our church establishment-its revenues-its discipline-its gradations and the character of its clergy, with minds uninfected with party, and unbiassed by prejudice. Our only |