THOMAS CLARE, M. A. CONSIDERING the operative importance of this Church (St. Bride's, in Fleet Street), together with the respectability and intelligence of its present Vicar, it may be regretted that he should have recently entered into the unhappy contention between evangelicism and episcopacy.-Page 47. Perhaps the subjoined reflections may explain this apparently mysterious subject. Amongst the evils still attending the elections of clergymen to lectureships, passing over minor defects, observation,' affirms the writer, is enabled to discover two evils of magnitude. There is an evil in the mode of thus choosing a preacher, and there is an evil in the choice so made. Both these evils, although but errors, are great. 'Clergyman becomes pitted against clergyman! What christian can say he is unapprised of this sad and shameful fact? Yes; preachers are brought before us, almost like players, soliciting our admiration, preaching on trial, if haply they may obtain votes. Thus are they made men of the day,-publicly degrading the clerical character!-thus are they made men of the mob. Is this as it should be? Considering the heat of rivalry, and the high jealousy of talents, and the uni form mortification, often hatred, engendered by disappointment, during public struggles, however moderated, between public persons,-considering this, assuredly christian preachers, subjected themselves to like passions with other men, should be excused this sort of competition. 'While such will commonly bé found the predicament of him who stands the proposed candidate for an established lectureship, equally unsatisfactory is the customary situation of those who are to determine as to his qualifications by their votes. Anxious to obtain such votes, the clerical candidate will naturally endeavour to do his best; he will be sure, at least, not to favour his hearers with one of his "rainy-day sermons:" if, therefore, these have never heard him preach before, while they hear him for once at his best, and it must frequently be the case, how are the congregation competent to judge of the general character of the candidate's discourses? Another kind of objection seems as obvious. Supposing the candidate to be young, trembling and diffident of his success, yet emulous of obtaining it, either his very efforts to excel will lead him to overdo his task of probation, or his want of confidence in himself will counteract the due exertion of his abilities. 'Sometimes these probation discourses are ridiculous. Imagine two clergymen out of five, putting up as candidates for the same lectureship; one of whom, as the curate of it, had, now and then, preached in the same church, whilst the other, from his lengthened officiating for the preceding lecturer, was more fully known there; and yet, although both are thus known as preachers through the whole of the parish, both are required to deliver "probationary sermons!!" This moreover is no imagined case. This strange case happened, some two years since, not beyond one halfmile east of Temple Bar; nor is the lot determined to this day. After five protracted weeks of rivalship, during which numerous congregations were collected every Sunday, (collected to decide the varied merits of candidates,) it is not known (by him who now writes) whether the reverend Messrs. Ss or Js (previously well known to the parishioners), or the reverend Messrs. W-bb, or F-ll, or D-r, are either of them chosen to supply "the vacant Evening Lectureship." One only can obtain it. How will the four rejected candidates feel as to him? Patriotism may teach them religion. Let us hope, therefore, that they will rejoice, as the heathen patriot once did, when the people's choice had not fallen on him, that his country could produce another individual who was deemed better qualified to promote the interests of the State. Since a Roman could so act, how ought a Christian to act?' W. B. COCKER, A. M. Extracted from "THERE is not,' &c. &c.-Page 53. HENRY FOSTER, A. M. HAPPY, if matters had ended so smoothly.'-Page 73. It appears that the Lord Chancellor, after hearing this cause, and allowing proper time to examine into it, refused (January 11, 1805) the application, made by the Rev. Richard Lendon, M. A. for an Injunction to the Bishop of London (Beilby Porteus) not to license Mr. Foster; and also confirmed the election, which the Bill prayed to make void. Though the Chancellor had given it as his opinion, that the Election for Clerkenwell ought not to be disturbed; yet the Rev. Mr. Lendon resolved to prosecute his cause in the Chancery Court. The accompanying anecdote shews the spirit in which this contest was so miserably persevered in. • After the close of the election, the churchwardens (to whom a sequestration had issued) appointed Mr. F. to officiate at St. James's church; and continued Mr. L. who had been assistant to the late curate, at Pentonville-chapel. It having been the custom, however, for the minister of St. James's to preach on the morning of every second Sunday in the month at Pentonville, a petition, signed by upwards of one hundred housekeepers in that vicinity, praying that the same usage might be observed in respect to Mr. F. the minister elect, was presented to the churchwardens. With this petition the churchwardens complied; and accordingly caused notice to be given on Sunday the 3d of April, 1805, both in the church and chapel, that Mr. F. would officiate at Pentonville-chapel on the Sunday following. Mr. Lendon having informed his ordinary (the Bishop of London).of this arrangement, the latter sent to the churchwardens to inform them that it was his desire that Mr. L. might continue to officiate at Pentonville-chapel until the decree in Chancery was pronounced. Upon this the churchwardens deemed it their duty to wait upon his Lordship, to explain to him the motives of their conduct, and to shew him the petition which they had received. The ordinary, nevertheless, still recommended that no alteration should |