FROM

THE

MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.

SERIES III.

VOL. IV.	B E T H A N Y, OCTOBER, 1847.	NO. X.

      My dear Clarinda--IN my last, from Oulton Retreat, I occupied your attention with the Palaces of England and a general view of London. My visits to the House of Lords and Commons shall be the burthen of my present letter. Before detailing these, I think it expedient to give a brief sketch of the English government.

      I need scarcely say, except for form's sake, that the government of England is monarchical, the succession to the throne hereditary, and the law-making power is vested in the Queen, Lords, and Commons. The assent of these three estates is essential to the enactment of a law.

      The Queen now is, by Magna Charta, the fountain of justice. She sends and receives Ambassadors, proclaims war and makes peace. She raises and regulates fleets and armies, and pardons crimes, &c.

      The House of Lords is composed of the Peers of the Realm, both temporal and spiritual and in the aggregate amount to four hundred and forty-two.

      The House of Commons is composed of six hundred and fifty-eight Knights of the Shire, and Burgesses--elected, once in seven [574] years, to represent the various interests of the counties, cities, towns, and boroughs.

      The electors of these six hundred and fifty-eight Knights and Burgesses are the freeholders and householders of the respective districts, and are supposed to be represented by these Knights and Burgesses in all their local and general interests, and to be protected from the encroachments of the Crown and the Aristocracy. England then has, in the aggregate, a Queen and eleven hundred Law-givers. They have, indeed, it is true, to legislate for much of Asia, Africa, and America; for on her empire the sun always shines.

      These three powers, acting in combination, constitute the Parliament or general assembly of the nation, for debating all matters touching the commonwealth, and the making and reforming the laws.

      The Privy Council is an honorable assembly, chosen by the Queen and sworn to advise her, to the best of their judgment; and to keep their councils secret.

      "By the advice of said Privy Council, the Queen appoints the time of the meetings of Parliament. She also prorogues or dissolves it, and issues a proclamation for a new election.

      The general times for meeting are between January and August each year. On opening session the Queen declares her reasons and wishes for calling them together. She occasionally visits the House for giving her assent to bills. On these occasions she goes in state, and on those days the Peers appear in their robes.

      The administration of this government consist of seventeen persons:--

      The Prime Minister is First Lord of the Treasury.

      Lord High Chancellor and Speaker of the House of Lords.

      Three Secretaries of State--one for the Home Department, one for Foreign Affairs, one for the Colonial Department.

      Chancellor of the Exchequer.

      First Lord of the Admiralty, President of the India Board, President of the Board of Trade, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Post-Master-General, Lord Steward of the Household, Her Majesty's Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Under Secretary of State for Ireland. These are members of the Privy Council, and constitute the Queen's administration." Such is an authorized miniature of the English government.

      You may remember that some time in October, 1834, a fire occurred which almost destroyed the two houses of Parliament, and this gave rise to the erection of new houses on a scale of superior magnificence [575] to that House of Lords under which, in a cellar, Guy Faux placed as many barrels of gunpowder as was supposed sufficient to blow them up. That same house and cellar have at length been supplanted by a new House of Lords, commensurate with the improvements of the age.

      The grand front of this new building, next the Thames, extends almost one thousand feet presenting the richest display of graceful mouldings, tracery, carving, and decorations, with innumerable heraldic devices, &c., carved from the solid rock of magnesia limestone. It covers an area of nine acres of ground, with eleven open courts. The Victoria Tower will be about 400 feet high. Towers of inferior stature will crown other portions of the building, comprising halls, galleries, vestibules, committee rooms, clerks' offices, lobbies. &c. &c. &c.

      The interior of the House of Lords is superbly grand. It is ninety feet long, forty-five wide, and forty-five high. At the south end is the royal throne, raised on a dais of three steps, under a superb Gothic canopy, in three parts; beneath which are emblazoned the royal arms, with other emblems and devices elegant in design and workmanship. The throne is solid oak, richly carved and superbly gilt, studded with enamels and crystals, covered with the richest velvet, and embroidered on the back with the arms of the United Kingdom. On the right is a chair for the Prince of Wales, and on the left sits the Prince' consort. A velvet piled carpet covers the floor. The ground is a deep red, with the emblematic ornaments of the Lion and the Rose. Over the throne is a frescoe representing the baptism of the first Christian king, usually styled Saint Ethelbert.

      Over my head, in the gallery for strangers, a splendid cove is emblazoned with the arms of the six royal lines of English kings. These are the Saxon, the Norman, the Plantagenet, the Tudor, the Stuart, and the Brunswick. These are glorified on each side with the archiepiscopal and episcopal arms, with their mitres and other ecclesiastic devices.

      I cannot describe the ceiling of this splendid apartment. I can only say it is the most dazzling and splendid thing in England.--There seem to be some eighteen compartments, with four surrounding panels and a rich centre. Its ground is the deepest blue, surrounded with gold and vermillion. The beams are either gilded or painted with golden colors. The projections are certainly richly gilded. In one place is inscribed "Dieu et mon Droit"--on another "Fear God and honor the Queen." [576]

      The seats for the Peers resemble long benches covered with red morocco leather. The wool-sacks are covered with red cloth. The chamber is lighted by twelve splendid Gothic windows, ranged on the east and west sides; but placed so high, and being double glazed, inner side painted or stained glass, admit but little light; and, therefore, the room is by no means brilliantly lighted. At night it is lighted by thirty branch lights, and by four splendid brass candelabra; and, therefore, it is better prepared for night sessions than for those held by day.

      But having visited the House of Lords rather to see and hear their Lordships, than to admire or to study its architecture, I will refer those who wish to appreciate its magnificence to Churchley's view of it, to which I am indebted for my comprehension of its general plan, and for a portion of what I have here noted, and will proceed to that which interests you and myself much more--the men that figure in it. I will only add, that, like almost all other superb halls, it is erected with much more respect to the eye than to the ear of its visitors. It is, next to the United States' Congress Hall, the most unphilosophic room for oratory that I have visited. Indeed, the churches and public rooms in London are greatly behind the age in their adaptation to the comfort and ease either of the speaker or hearer.

      More desirous to hear two men in that house than any other, I was very singularly fortunate in visiting it on occasions in which they both made speeches. One of these I have regarded as the greatest in his literary attainments--as the most intelligent Nobleman in England. The other is admitted to be the greatest military chieftain in the world. I need scarcely say to you that Lord Brougham is the first, and the second the Duke of Wellington.

      On my first visit Lord Brougham had a set speech to deliver on a project of his own for diminishing the business of Parliament and regulating the courts of law. He is one of the most intelligent looking men in the house; and, like all other men of good sense, is very plain, both in his appearance and in his manner as an orator. You soon forget the man in his argument. He is direct, perspicuous, unostentatious and unaffected in his manner. He speaks good sense, in a plain good style, and with a forcible convincing logic. He makes no effort. His utterance is distinct, deliberate, bold, and forcible. He has little use for his hands, but uses them occasionally with ease and gracefulness. He speaks to be heard, to convince, and to please. There was nothing at all brilliant, and nothing very [577] original in his address. I read it the next morning in the London Times, and saw that it was faithfully reported; and as I had conceived of it on hearing it, found it to be on reading it. It did not occupy more than three quarters of an hour. I heard several speeches from other Lords, in response; but in them there was not much to admire, nor much to interest. Indeed, the whole House of Lords, Bishops, and all, apart from their titles, contemplated as legislators and men as phrenologically indicated in their aspect, movements, general contour, are in no intellectual endowments superior to a Virginia House of Delegates, an Ohio Senate, or any other deliberative body elected by any sovereign State of the American Union. On another occasion I heard his Lordship in response to other speakers, and their responses to him. He is very prompt and very respectful, yet sometimes severe in repartee. Like the electric eel, he is soon dropped by all that violently assail his views or arguments. It is said, by those well informed in the proceedings of the House of Lords, that Lord Campbell is the only nobleman in that house from whom his Lordship gains no laurels in repartee or in debate. He has not, indeed, the influence he once had in England, because of his versatility of genius and instability in his opinions. While m the House of Commons, as the representative of Yorkshire, he was the most popular man in the kingdom, as a statesman; but after he got into the House of Lords, (I was going to say the House of LANDLORDS, as it is in fact,) he has waned rather than waxed greater in popular esteem. Still his intellectual superiority is always confessed; and, indeed, his countenance and movements are clearly indicative of both a felt and an acknowledged superiority.

      On my second visit to the House of Lords, I had the good fortune, as we say, to hear the Duke of Wellington make a speech on a case of military discipline; upon which subject he might be expected to be perfectly at home. While he spoke in rather a hesitating and feeble manner, from his age, he frequently cast an eye to Lord Brougham, who sat almost at his side, as it looking for his sanction and approbation; and his Lordship, as if there had been some understanding between them, always nodded to the Duke as assenting to the truth or propriety of his positions. Thus his Lordship was complimented, and the Duke was encouraged. Human nature is just as large as life amongst these grand Peers of England's proud realm as it is among the boys in the bowling-green, or the Indians in the chase. Each man wants a little honor or a little approbation from that quarter which gives it most consequence; and this, after [578] all, is sweeter and more acceptable to his vanity than the cloth which he wears, or the mere insignia of his rank. When men are born Lords and Dukes, as they are born fools or compos mentis, of course the title becomes unmeaning of personal dignity or superiority, and needs something more than the article a to make it peculiarly acceptable to its inheritor. Thus, "My learned and noble friend Lord B," or his "distinguished and illustrious friend his Grace the Duke," fall ineffably sweeter on the ear than the mere "My Lord," or "His Grace the Duke." It was with difficulty we heard the Duke; but we heard so much of his speech as to authorize the conclusion that, although the greatest military chieftain in the world, we have heard a hundred greater orators than he.

      Our visit to the House of Commons was more agreeable for the opportunity it gave us to become acquainted with the persons of distinguished men--such as Mr. M'Caully, Mr. Hume, Lord Morpeth, &c. &c.--than because of any thing we either heard or saw there. It was near the close of the session, and there were an evident languor and fatigue, with an anxiety to get through the unfinished business every where manifest. There was nothing said or done that was not very common during my visit. I did not think that there was that good order and decorum suitable to the gravity and dignity of the House, though there was full as much talent and capacity indicated in the House of Commons as in the House of Lords. The Commoners are more sensitive on the subjects of general enterprize, manufactures, and commerce, and the common interests of the community, than the Lords; while the Lords, in addition to these public interests, are peculiarly well informed on all questions touching the landed interest from the days of William I and the Norman conquest down to the present time, and are scrupulously conscientious on all questions that have any squinting whatever towards their vested rights, as owners of the country.

      But of all the incongruities that I have seen in the whole developments of legislation, that of Bishops sitting in lawn, or in their white sleeves, and legislating as ecclesiastico-political Peers of the realm, with the Lords temporal, under the character of Lord's SPIRITUAL, caps the climax. In their courts ecclesiastical they have the souls of men for their cure, but here they have their own lands and tenths to secure, or to augment, as the case may be. Spiritual and temporal are not legitimate antitheses. Spiritual and carnal, or temporal and eternal, are lawful antitheses. But they could not command their own muscles had they called the two kinds of Lords the temporal and the eternal Lords, or the carnal and the spiritual [579] Lords. Therefore, they concluded to violate the laws of antithesis, and, to save this ridicule, denominated themselves Lords spiritual and Lords temporal. Despite of the power of custom, however, if appeared to me that all faces were not always grave when the Lords spiritual were alluded to; for despite of epithets, the Lords temporal are sometimes more spiritual than the Lords spiritual, and sometimes the Lords spiritual are more carnal than the Lords temporal. While I found the Lords spiritual in the House of Peers, I found some of the Lords temporal out in the country could not find in London, for the reason, as I afterwards learned, he had gone out to Wales on a tour of preaching the gospel! Now the question, and the only question I propose to their prelatic Lordships is, Was not the Lord C------, who had gone out to preach the gospel, more worthy of the title 'Lord spiritual' than any of those Bishops in the House of Lords who were engrossed in the temporalities of their temporal estates in England or Ireland.

      Having found that some of my writings had made their way into the actual Carlton House, in London, (for the conversations in the Carlton House, written at Bethany, have been read in the Carlton House in London,) and that they have even been introduced into the Queen's household. I am, therefore, the more disposed to notice some of these incongruities, not knowing into whose hands they may fall. I was not a little surprized the other evening, at a party in London, when asked by a noble lady, an intimate and favorite with the Queen--"What, Mr C., are your peculiarities of religious faith? I wish to hear from yourself." Of course a door was opened, and I did not fail to draw, at least, some of the lines of difference between original Christianity and that of London in the best circles. I elicited a long conversation, the bearings of which I cannot anticipate.

      I may give you, in my next, some accounts of matters more interesting than these. But I will not promise. My time is so much engrossed in preaching and teaching, publicly and privately, that I have only occasionally a fragment of time to devote to my pen. I have forgotten what places you visited in London. I heard you speak of several I have visited. The places in which I was most interested in London were the Royal Academy of the Fine Arts, the Colosseum, the British Museum, the British Library, Westminster Abbey, the Zoological Gardens, Bank of England, St. Paul's Church, General Post-Office, Thames Tunnel, Polytechnic Institution, Tower of London, with the Palaces already named, and all the parks, [580] promenades, monuments, &c. My visit to Cambridge, call at Oxford, and my tour to Paris, and matters and things in France, may some or all of them demand a notice hereafter.

      Since I left London I have visited Bambury. I enjoyed there the Christian hospitalities of the excellent sister Stuttard, in company with brother and sister Wallis. I delivered three discourses in the Baptist church of that place. Thence I went, via Lemmington, one of the most beautiful towns and finest watering places in England, of recent origin, to Oulton Retreat, where I spent a very pleasant day, it being the residence of Samuel G. Bakewell, M.D., your mother's cousin--one of the most delightful of country residences. Thence I proceeded to Manchester, where I delivered two discourses to large and much interested audiences; and brother Henshall one. Prospects of usefulness in this place are very flattering. Thence I repaired to Wigan, twenty miles distant; delivered one discourse, brother Henshall having spoken there before me. Enjoyed there the hospitalities of brother Coop, a very zealous and intelligent brother. Some additions to the church of that place were expected as the results of the efforts there. Thence we returned to Manchester, and thence to Huddersfield, whence I mail this communication. On my arrival here, at the residence of our truly excellent brother Shaw, I went to Halifax in the morning, seven miles distant and addressed some fifteen hundred persons; returned to Huddersfield in the evening, and addressed as many more; thus addressing in one day at least three thousand persons. Prospects of usefulness here also are promising. It is, however, election week, and as this comes but once in 7 years, it greatly agitates the public mind and dissipates attention from the great election of God. I have thrice spoken here to very attentive and interested auditors. I will speak but once more, and proceed to Scotland, speaking at New Castle and Sunderland on my way.

      We have had a good hearing from the ministry of this country, especially from the Baptists, Congregationalists, and Methodists; occasionally also from others. Our writings have had a much more general diffusion and reading in England than I had any idea of. Our brethren have been liberal, active--indeed, indefatigable in reprinting and scattering them through this country.--They are, under the divine blessing, effecting a gradual change in the minds of those that read them. Our Baptist brethren generally are much more favorably disposed and much more candid in their avowals than I had expected. They open their houses, attend our [581] meetings, occasionally take part with us in public worship. They also sometimes commend our preaching and our views to the public. One of their most learned and valuable ministers, Professor of Hebrew and Greek in one of their schools, presented me the other day with the enclosed Tract on Baptism as indicative of his mind and that of many of his brethren, as the fact of its being published by the "Baptist Tract Society" fully indicates. You will hand it to my Assistant Editors and let them insert it.

"No. 48.--DIRECTIONS FROM GOD'S INFALLIBLE WORD.

      When the convinced Jailor asked what he must do to be saved, the answer was, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." And when the multitude, on the day of Pentecost, cried out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" the Apostle replied, "Repent, and be baptized, EVERY ONE OF YOU, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins." Acts xvi. 21; ii. 38.

      The way to receive salvation is, by means of Faith, Repentance, and Baptism.

      FAITH looks to Christ alone for righteousness and for strength; believing him to be truly the Son of God, and that he died for our sins, and rose for our justification, and ascended into heaven, having obtained eternal redemption for us. "Lord, unto whom shall we go? THOU hast the words of eternal life."

      REPENTANCE is manifested by hating sinful ways, by turning to the Lord, and by cleaving to him with full purpose of heart. "Except ye repent, ye shall ALL likewise perish." Luke xiii. 3.

      BAPTISM is the way Christ has appointed for all that love him to confess his name, and show regard to his will. "He that BELIEVETH and is BAPTIZED shall be saved." Mark xvi. 16.

      There cannot be Faith unto salvation without Repentance; neither can there be true Repentance without Faith;--nor any right and true Christian Baptism, without both FAITH and REPENTANCE.

      Therefore, every one that seeks salvation is directed to repent--to believe--and to be baptized. It is thus he will enjoy the blessings of SALVATION BY GRACE.

      "GOD commandeth ALL men, EVERY WHERE, to repent." Christ is become "the author of eternal salvation to all that obey him." "And now, why tarriest THOU? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the LORD." Acts xvii. 30; xxii. 16; Heb. v. 9.

      READER, the JUDGE of all worlds has declared, "If a man love me he will keep my words." And again, "Ye are my friends, if ye DO WHATSOEVER I have commanded you." John 14:23; and 15:14.--And again--

      "Whosoever will come after me, let him DENY HIMSELF, and take up his CROSS, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it; but whosoever WILL LOSE HIS LIFE for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall SAVE IT. For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world, and LOSE HIS OWN SOUL? Whosoever, therefore, shall be [582] ASHAMED OF ME, and of MY WORDS, in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him shall the SON OF MAN BE ASHAMED when he cometh in the glory of his Father, with the holy angels." Mark 8:34-38; Luke 9:23-36. THESE ARE THE TRUE SAYINGS OF GOD!

Look at that great, tremendous judgment day: Not what will man--but what will JESUS say.

      Many of the Congregationalists are reforming. Weekly communion is becoming common amongst their most spintually minded ministers and congregations. I am pressed by letters from Scotland to address some Baptist churches there, so that a great and an effectual door has been opened to us in the land of our fathers; "yet there are some adverseries." I hope to be in Edinburg next week. My health is tolerably good for so much labor. I am a wonder to myself when I think of my incessant labors, public and private, by the tongue and by the pen, both of which instruments keep the mind in perpetual excitement. Still I often feel very weak, and sigh for "a lodge in some vast wilderness." Already have I travelled in England and France some fifteen hundred miles, and delivered since my landing between fifty and sixty long discourses. I seldom transcend two hours--often speak but one hour and a half. Brother Henshall also labors in different places, both with me and in places which I cannot visit. His health is very good, and he enjoys himself much in his own "good Old England." Having become hoarse here because of an open window in the hall which I occupy, I have failed to visit Hull. He has gone on to fill my appointment there. To-morrow we hope to meet in the ancient city of York. My love to all the brethren in the United States.

      P. S. I enclose another Tract for the Harbinger--"The Church in Danger." From this Tract our readers will see the spirit that is rising and magnifying itself every day in the bosom of this great empire. I pretend to no gift of prophecy; but one of two events appears probable--many of the English clergy will go over to Popery, or the Church and State will be separated. Nothing can save the Protestantism of England but the disseverance of Church and State. Of coarse this is but an opinion; but I have, as I conceive, good reasons for it. I feel neither disposition nor ability, to obtrude them on the public.

THE CHURCH IN DANGER.

      We often hear the cry, "THE CHURCH IS IN DANGER." These are the watchwords of bigots, state priests, and the tithe proprietors. [583] How can the Church of England be in danger? Is she not built on the King, Lords, and Commons, with the PRAYER-BOOK as her chief corner-stone? Is she not supported by the aristocracy and the titled gentry--by the lords spiritual and temporal? Has she not an income more than all other state churches? Has she not the greatest monarch in Europe for her head and protector! Has she not, in the opinion of her bishops and clergy, all the learning, wisdom, piety, and religion of the country? How, then, can such a church as this is be in danger? There is no church in Europe, or in the world, that cries out danger, except the Church of England. The Catholic Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Independent Church, the Wesleyan Church, the Baptist Church fear no danger, and these churches have no earthly head--no compulsory payments for their support; they are constantly increasing in numbers, and extending their influence; while the Church of England, with all her wealth, titles, and sovereign authority, is diminishing. We never hear the priests of the State Church cry, "The Church of CHRIST is in danger." Oh no!--it is only the Church of England. What avail her immense wealth--her monarchical head--her spiritual lords--her mitred thrones--her stately palaces--her acts of Parliament, if she is still in danger! Why should the country be burthened with her support, as churches that have no such aid are safe, and gaining the affections of the people, while she is for ever in danger, and losing her influence? Her danger arises from her union with the State. This union has produced the luxury and corruption which pollute the system of the State Church. The clergy and the bishops cry, "The church is in danger,"--and they understand gain rather than the gospel--the church more than Christianity--they mean that tithes are in danger--that pluralities are in danger--that their priest-craft is in danger--but be the danger of the Church of England what it may, we know and rejoice that the Church of CHRIST is safe; built upon a rock, she cannot be shaken; she will rise in splendor--in beauty--in glory, as State Churches fall; secure she stands, not on an earthly foundation, but on the "Prophets and Apostles, JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF being the chief corner stone."

      Churchmen cry, "No Popery." This is unjust and ungrateful in them. From whom did the Church of England get her tithes, her titles, and her ceremonies, but from the Popish church? What church did she plunder to enrich herself, but the Popish church? If the ecclesiastical property belongs not to the state, it belongs, by every principle of justice, to the Roman Catholics, and not to the Episcopaliaus; tithes were first granted to the Catholic Church--the parish churches and cathedrals were built by the Catholics--church property was bequeathed by Roman Catholics--the Universities were founded and endowed by Roman Catholics; so that the Episcopalians can have no more right or title to these things than any other sect of Christians. Wherein is the difference betwixt the Church of Rome and the Church of England as state churches? Have not both shed human blood to propagate their creeds? Do not both acknowledge an earthly head! Is not the Prayer-Book principally taken from the Mass-Book, and do not both churches condemn as heretics, and exclude from salvation, all who differ from them? The [584] chief difference is, that the Church of England is a much more expensive establishment than the Catholic Church ever was. The Church of Rome gave one-third of her income to the poor, one-third for repairing the churches, &c., and one-third to support the clergy. This was the original design of tithes; but the clergy of the Church of England pocket the whole: they have robbed the poor of their right, they have thrown the repairs of the churches on the country, and this they call a reformation from Popery.

      Look at the Church of Ireland--wallowing in riches, while the people are perishing for bread. Was there ever such an instance of monstrous iniquity presented to the world as that church exhibits? An overfed and pampered hierarchy, with only seven hundred thousand worshippers, compel seven millions of dissenters to contribute, by tithes and taxes, to their support! Another such instance of injustice is not to be found in the world; no nation would bear such treatment but the Irish. No wonder we have to pay thirty thousand soldiers to keep down the Irish in order to keep up the church, and to collect tithes for the state priests. This they call religion--the religion of the New Testament. It has nothing to do with Christianity, or the church of CHRIST; it is the religion of a state church, and no other.

      It is high time for men of principle to make a stand against the State Church. To the most superficial mind, it must be evident that it is the design of the leading Whigs and Tories to appropriate the people's money to the priesthood of the Church of England and the Church of Rome. Mark well the following statements of Lord John Russell and Earl Grey, the Colonial Secretary, and you will perceive that Charles Wood is in bad company, and you may infer therefrom the character of his future actions:--

      Lord John Russell.--"I now say, that I retain my opinion with respect to the Protestant Church, and with respect to Roman Catholic endowments; but I do not think that it is necessary that I should urge these opinions at the present moment; for I should be attempting that which is, at the moment, impracticable."--July 16, 1846.

      Earl Grey, 1846.--"I, for one, am no admirer of the voluntary system. I believe it to be a bad one. You must give the Catholic clergy equality, also, in social rank and position. I carry my views on this subject so far as to wish to see the Prelates of the Roman Catholic Church take their places in this House on the Episcopal Bench."--Hansard, vol. 84, pp. 1375 and 1378.

[The Millennial Harbinger, Third Series, 4 (October 1847): 574-585.]