32 [July ianity, and the consequent increase of its blessings. The Principles of the Bible Society vindicated. tract has found its way into several of the Provincial Papers, and in some form or other, is probably, by this Unconnected with the Bible Sotime, in the hands of the majority of ciety myself, and to the best of my the reading population of this kingdom. knowledge with any of its acting Upon my first perusal of the Ex- members, I shall not be accused of tract' in this Magazine, I had deter- having mingled any personal feelmined to address you, briefly, upon ings with my sensations on this subthe danger of admitting into your ject; but, when I contemplate that pages a paper which seemed to bear Institution-when I consider the imon its face the aspect of an attack mense mass of talent, of virtue, of upon the Bible Society, drawn up with respectability, of piety, and of rank, a very small portion of delicacy for which is comprehended within its dethe character of its members, and with signation, I confess there does appear still less for the character of the Right to me a rashness-a want of consideReverend Prelate whose name I ap- ration, I had almost said an indecency, prehended to have been unjustifiably in the application to that Society of made free with for the particular pur- the opprobrium contained in the paper poses of the writer. But it is with very alluded to; which seems to justify itdifferent language, and with very dif- self only in the existence of distinct ferent sentiments, that I have to ad- evidence that this vast body of persons, dress you, Mr. Urban, since general regardless of their character and rereport has instructed me to believe sponsibility in the world, and inconthat, so far from being a libel equally sistently with their general professions hostile to the Bible Society and the of piety, of order, and of integrity, Bishop of Lincoln, that Extract' is, are actuated by some diabolical inin fact, either the words or the sub-fluence, to the advancement of an obstance of sentiments which were pub- ject of the most mischievous and relicly declared by his Lordship before the prehensible nature. Clergy of his Diocese, on the solemn occasion of his Episcopal Visitation. I feel the delicacy of the subject; I feel the danger of erring from propriety, and from a just appreciation of the weight which such a declaration properly carries with it; and I feel still more strongly, the certainty of being misapprehended, and censured by many for not retiring before such an over-awing presence. That I still persevere, Mr. Urban, is, I trust, owing not to any personal arrogance, or to the slightest want of respect for the source to which the sentiments in question are to be attributed; but to a feeling which does not lose any of its force from the lapse of several weeks since the first perusal of that paper, nor from the recurrence of frequent and calm consideration: a feeling that it is due to the spirit of the age-due to the independence of public opinion-due to the sacredness of truth-to enter a solemn and respectful protest against the public denunciation of an Institution, which a very large proportion of the enlightened and the virtuous of the present age have agreed to consider as one of the most stupendous and happy engines that the world bas yet witnessed, for the propagation of Christ The question immediately occurs what is there in the composition or transactions of the Bible Society which attaches to it such a character, and justifies the application of language appropriated to such objectionable purposes? The answer, I confess, staggers me. The Bible Society is a large body of men, dispersed all over the kingdom; unconnected by local interests; separated by civil and religious boundaries; opposed in the stations which they occupy in life, in their sentiments, in their interests; having no one secular or political object in common; and, therefore, no one which it is their common object to accomplish; but all uniting, heart and hand, in the advancement of one sole design-a design perfectly independent of all secular and political viewsand that one design, the dispersion of THE WORD OF GOD: the distribution of the same Bible which the Reformers and Founders of the Church of England took for their only guide; of the same Bible of which our Articles declare that Church to be " a witness and a keeper," and which it acknowledges to " contain all things necessary to salvation;" of the same Bible from whence the Ministers of that Church continue to instruct their congregations; congregations; of the same Bible which its Bishops and Pastors appeal to, as the evidence of their authority, and the seal of their mission. I bad been accustomed, Mr. Urban, to consider, and I conceived myself as thinking in unison with mankind at large, that the coalition of persons, separated by religious or civil boundaries, in the pursuit of any object which called for no sacrifices of conscientious obligations on either sue, was a circumstance equally honourable to the liberality and the magnanimity of hoth parties. I have never heard soldiers accused of disioyalty, who have for a time forgot their enmity in affording aid to the wounded, or burying the dead. 1 have never heard Churchmen condemned as favourers of schism, for contributing, in unison with Dissenters, to a public collection for the relief of some national distress, or the advancement of some national benefit: and the reason is obvious-no sacrifice of principle is made on either side. I do not diminish my respect for the Bishops and Pastors of my Church, because I go by the side of a Presbyterian to deposit my offering at the Banker's; or because I meet him in the public room where the subscription is opened, and the necessity and praiseworthiness of the undertaking enlarged upon. But I am to be taught a distinction which never yet existed in my imagination; that if I give my money for the purpose of providing for the spiritual, instead of the temporal wants of my fellow creatures; if I give my money to provide a BIBLE, I am to look around me before I take out my purse, lest some suspicious disciple of the Tabernacle should have come, with invidious steps, upon the same charitable errand. Mr. Urban, I am not one of those who confound creeds, or who hold the fashionable doctrine that sincerity will excuse error. While I profess to believe the doctrine of the Bible, that there is only one way to salvation, I never can regard, other wise than with pity and regret, those who have fallen out of that way. As I have heard a Romish Priest say to a Protestant, who expressed a trope of their both meeting in another place,-so should I say to an Unitarian, "I am going this way, you are going that. It is im***GENT. MAG, July, 1815. possible!" But here, in my apprehension, the distinction ends. If such a person would assist me in administer ing to o the w wounded, in relieving the distressed, in promoting the wellbeing of society, I should greet him as a friend; I should only regret that our friendship was temporary that the grave was its utmost limit. As a sincere member of the Church of England, and feeling, with much warmth, the necessity of its preservation, I should certainly have great hesitation in connecting myself with any public machine, which was distinctly ascertained to have an impulse hostile to the safety of that Church; but, having said thus much, 1 must deprecate most severely that secular spirit which would pare down the Church of Christ to the pale of the Church of England, and regard all who are not found within that pale as hypocrites or enthusiasts; as persons of dangerous and suspicious character. It seems to me one of the predominating errors of a large class of the community, to consider the Church of England as something more than a simply external institution, to attach a meritoriousness to the mere fact of Communion with that Church, and to look upon it as a prima facie evidence of the safe state of the person holding communion, while they regard Dissentas a prima facie ground of suspicion against every person dis senting. In other words, they set up the Church of England in the place of the Church of Christ. Now those who consider the Established Church (and I sincerely consider it so) as having been one of the most efficient means in the hands of Providence for preserving public veneration for the doctrines of the Gospel, and giving public estimation to the profession of Christianity, if they know how to value these great benefits, cannot possibly regard as other than dear and holy the instru ment by which we have been blessed with them. But here comes the distinction: It is forgotten that the purity of the mother does not necessarily sanctify the sons; and that our individual communion with the Church is, at farthest, a testimony of our regard for the preservation of those benefits, and a desire of adding our own support to the means of their preserva tion; tion; and not an evidence of our own sincerity in the application and reception of the hard rules of faith and practice which that Church teaches. It is forgotten that the criterion to which we shall be submitted, in that state which is the ultimate object of all re ligious professions, is quite independent of such considerations as these: that it will be of very little consequence to a man who is upon the point of being destined to eternal bappiness, or eternal perdition, whether he was a Member of the Church of England, of the Church of Scotland, of the Church of should be plagued and harassed by the schemes of projectors to make it so. The principal subject of regret in my former letter was, not that the Bill referred to had passed contrary to the opinions of Lord Eldon, Lord Ellenborough, and the greater part of the Bench of Bishops, but that it had ever passed at all. And surely the opinions of Lord Eldon, Lord Ellenborough, and the Bishops, might be expected to have as great weight with the Country as that of Lord Harrowby, or Sir William Scott, whose neither of those and, or of name alone your Correspondent thinks a sufficient guarantee to the Country I shall not trouble you, Mr. Urban, of a salutary enactment. Your Corwith any observations upon the dis respondent ought not, therefore, to tinct merits of the question between find fault with me for calling those the Bible Society and its opposers; informations vexatious, when the nor need you have any apprehensions very preamble to Sir William Scott's that the insertion of this paper will Bill assigns as one of the reasons for ever have the effect of introducing a enacting it," and for protecting spicontroversy in your pages, so far as ritual persons from vexatious prosethat depends upon me. In a general cutions." It does not appear that the Miscellany like yours, the controversy publication of the Returns is ordered would be unacceptable to the majo- by the Act of Parliament, and thererity of your readers; and, besides that fore the department into which the this is not the place for conducting it Return is made is the more to blame with any advantage, the subject is al-in permitting it, as many illiberal ready fully before the publick; and, remarks are made in consequence particularly in the late publications of thereof. By the middle rank of Mr. Norris and Mr. Dealtry, is pretty Clergy are meant those persons who nearly concentrated. J. J. P. have been in orders twenty, thirty, or more years, and who, though incumbents themselves of small livings, yet act as Curates in the neighbouring Mr. URBAN, June 28. YOUR Correspondent D. 3, in your Mag. for May, p. 413, having made some observations on a Letter signed "A Friend of the Church of to be parishes where they live; and not those who have just gone into orders and are only Curates, who (without to offer a few words in permitted attaching any disgrace to the term) answer. In the first place I have to remark, that when any well-known phrase is made use of in the way of argument, it ought to be taken in its usual accepts ation; or there can be no reasoning to any satisfactory conclusion: I shall therefore leave your Readers to understand the phrase Church of England in the usual way, without troubling myself to answer your Correspondent's questions as to its meaning. I certainly agree with him, that no Friend of the Church can regret that every parish should be provided with a resident Clergyman, were it practicable; but every sincere one must regret, that many of the Clergy, who have long laboured with assiduity and sincerity in the performance of their duties, may with propriety be called the lower rank of the Clergy. It would be going into too wide a field to explain how many hardships would be inflicted on this most respectable part of the Clergy, viz. the middle rank, were the provisions of these Acts to be as strictly enforced as your Correspondent seems to wish. And it is a happy circumstance for them, that the Bishops in general understand the interest of the Church, and the government of their Clergy, rather better than either Lord Harrowby, Sir William Scott, or your worthy Correspondent. The form of Petition mentioned in the former letter was a printed one, sent by the Bishop's Secretary to an Incumbent, and was filled up by him and returned for the purpose purpose of obtaining a licence; and is the one made use of in that Diocese. The object of your Correspondent's letter appears to have been, a defence of Lord Harrowby's Bill, in doing which he has not been sparing of illiberal remarks on the Clergy. But I believe Lord Harrowby's reception at the University of Oxford fast year has fully convinced his Lordship, that his Bill had not given that great and general satisfaction which your Correspondent asserts it had done. And as it has been publicly announced that a Bill will be brought into Parli ament during the next Session for cor recting and amending these Bills, I shall here take leave of the subject; still, however, sincerely lamenting the facility which is given persons, even of the lowest description, of becoming Dissenting Ministers. A FRIEND OF THE CHURCH OF Mr. URBAN, June 29. HE question concerning the expediency of the Curates Bill, I find, has been agitated in your Magazine, pp. 121, 413. As I am myself engaged in the Clerical office, perhaps you will allow me to say something on the subject. It will scarcely be denied, that never was there a time in which the Established Church required a support of talent, learning, and respectability, more than at the present moment. To induce men of talent and worth, therefore, to embrace the Clerical profession, some compensation must be proposed. But, 1 would ask, what man of ability would become a minister (without a prospect of preferment) to undertake the care of two parishes for the sum of 507. a year each. Lord Harrowby's Bill is certainly calculated to increase the respectability and comfort of the Clergy: it is founded; in my humble opinion, upon the equitable principle, that, where the principal does not discharge the duties of his office, his substitute should be adequately compensated. It is not surprizing that such a Bill should be displeasing to indolent pluralists, &c. who reap so much of their income from those who bear the heat and burden of the day. which I do know." I am aware of li terate p persons, little schoolmasters and such like, being admitted into holy orders, to take the labour off the hands of those who will not do their own duty. These pitiable objects (more fit to make a pulpit than to get into one) surrounded with large families, are obliged to serve three, four, and sometimes more Churches every Sunday: the natural consequence is, the service is gone through in a slovenly style; the poor creature. who must perform this drudgery is pitied by some, laughed at by others, and respected by none. Hence the prevalence of Sectarists. Legislative wisdom cannot be better employed than in abolishing such a system. Re munerate a Curate fairly for his exertions, you will then want no Bill to enforce the residence of the Clergy; You will have your pulpits ably filled and your Dissenters will come again to Church. If all these things are desirable, it would surely be well to adopt a conduct which would ensure them. I understand the Bills relating to Curates, Residence, &c. are put into the hands of three Bishops to be revised: I will hope for the best; but I confess I am by no means sanguine in expecting any very favourablé result. Attached as I am, by principle and duty, to the Established Church, I ardently desire its prosperity and respectability; and gladly should I hail the day, when the Bishops would determine to lay their hands upon those only who are adequate to their sacred duties, and when the Legislature should cordially concur in providing (as far as human wisdom can provide) a Priesthood which was able and willing to "adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things." Yours, &c. CLERICUS. Mr. URBAN, Leicester, June 12. W posed by your Clerical Corres 7ITH respect to the inquiry pro pondent, p. 421, 1 cannot help thinking that it would be better if a public discussion of the points in question were avoided. I am induced to be of this opinion, not because I am apprehensive that the discussion itself would prove eventually troublesome to The system now pursued is injurious the Clergy, but because I cannot of what utility it could be under to the best interests of the Church present circumstances. If some legal and Religion. I speak only that preceedings, as your Correspondent. GENERAL LIBRARY asserts, asserts, be in embryo, they will of course (if they take place) decide the points upon which he requests information; and should the decision be favourable to the Clergy, there will be an end of the subject; if, on the contrary, it should be unfavourable, the Clergy must then apply to the Legislature for redress and protection in a case where, I should fancy, it would be impossible, consistent with common justice and reason, to with of Parliament, he ought not to come as a supplicant; but is not invariable practice opposed to this idea? and would it not be the height of in insubor diuation in a Clergyman to demand that of his Bishop which the latter has a discretionary power whether to grant or not? I cannot conclude, Sir, without most sincerely congratulating the Clergy on the probability which there now is, of enactment of a mea hold them. I do firmly and sincerely sure, it will have the ef hope, Mr. Urban, that the time is not far distant, when Parliament will see the necessity of expunging from our legal code all those iotas, which, while they have no connexion with the sacred duties of the sacerdotal of fice, keep the Clergy in a state of continual anxiety, and tend, in the highest degree, to lessen that autho rity which ought ever to accompany the "Priests of the Temple." While I am before you, Sir, I may perhaps be allowed to advert to what has fallen from a "Friend to the Church of England," p. 121, relative to the form of application which is to be made to the Diocesan for a special licence of Non-residence. Your Cor respondent appears much displeased with this form; and argues, that the adoption of it is a studied insult to the feelings of the Clergy, and a proof of the degraded opinion in which the framers of it hold them. I must confess I cannot see the force of your Correspondent's remarks on the above head; and, to my mind, no mode of application can be more appropriate than the one which has incurred his displeasure. When a beneficed Clergyman (let him be who or what he may) approaches the Episcopal throne of his diocese on any on whatever, ought he not to his approach with a feeling of humility? ought he not to make it with that deference which is due to the divinely-constituted authority occupying that throne? ought he not to feel in its full force the consequence of that spiritual allegiance to his Bishop, which the Laws of the Catholic Church suppose him to feel when in the presence of his Ordinary? If these points be conceded (as I suppose they will), what possible objection can be urged against a Clergyman's "humble Petition" in the case referred to? Your Corre spondent seems to think, that when a person claims á privilege under an Act fect of procuring residence, will, at the same time, protect them from legal attacks where no fair ground of attack can be proved to exist. This measure will (as I should hope) go far towards restoring the antient canonical system amongst us-a restoration which would be hailed with delight. hy every Member of the Church which would place the Clergyman under the wing of his Diocesan, and so long as he attended to the sacred duties of his function, cover him" as with a shield" thus screening the praiseworthy, and exposing the indolent. All must be convinced that these most desirable objects have been had in view by those who have recently legislated on the subject; for the talents, conduct, and characters of those Legislators authorize the conviction; and we may now indulge the cheering hope, that the much-desired "consummation" will be brought about by a general and united effort, emanating (as it should do) from the Episcopal Bench, and supported by all that is great and noble in the Kingdom. Yours, &c. J. STOCKDALE HARDY. July 9. ACORRESPONDENT, who dates from Chapel Izod, having noticed I my last letter, and made some comments on those authentic passages which I took from writers of undisputed authority in order to balance the testimonies collected from the Epistles which pass under the name of Ignatius; and as the sense of a text and the propriety of a comment cannot be well understood, unless the text itself be produced, I beg leave to present the passages entire in the common translation, and to subjoin. the names of their respective Authors.. I wish to do this, partly for the sake of your Correspondent, and partly for that of your Readers, who will by this means be better enabled to judge of |