'tract has found its way into several of the Provincial Papers, and in some form or other, is probably, by this time, in the hands of the majority of the reading population of this kingdom. Upon my first perusal of the Extract' in this Magazine, I had deter mined to address you, briefly, upon the danger of admitting into your pages a paper which seemed to bear on its face the aspect of an attack upon the Bible Society, drawn up with a very small portion of delicacy for the character of its members, and with still less for the character of the Right Reverend Prelate whose name I apprehended to have been unjustifiably nade free with for the particular purposes of the writer. But it is with very different language, and with very different sentiments, that I have to address you, Mr. Urban, since general report has instructed me to believe that, so far from being a libel equally hostile to the Bible Society and the Bishop of Lincoln, that Extract' is, in fact, either the words or the substance of sentiments which were publicly declared by his Lordship before the 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 has yet witnessed, for the propagation of Christ

janity, and the consequent increase of its blessings.

Unconnected with the Bible Society myself, and to the best of my knowledge with any of its acting members, I shall not be accused of having mingled any personal feelings with my sensations on this subject; but, when I contemplate that Institution-when I consider the immense mass of talent, of virtue, of respectability, of piety, and of rank, which is comprehended within its designation, I confess there does appear to me a rashness-a want of consideration, I had almost said an indecency, in the application to that Society of the opprobrium contained in the paper alluded to; which seems to justify itself only in the existence of distinct evidence that this vast body of persons, regardless of their character and responsibility in the world, and inconsistently with their general professions of piety, of order, and of integrity, are actuated by some diabolical influence, to the advancement of an object of the most mischievous and reprehensible nature.

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, 1 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 staLions 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 had been accustomed, Mr. Urban, to cousider, 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 side, was a circumstance equally honourable to the liberality and the magnanimity of both parties. I have never heard soldiers accused of disloyalty, who have for a time forgot their enmity in affording aid to the wounded, or burying the dead. I 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, otherwise 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 hope of their both meet ing iu another place, so should I say to an Unitarian, "I am going this way, you are going that. It is imGENT. MAG. July, 1815.

possible!" But here, in my apprehension, the distinction ends. If such a person would assist me in administering to the 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 primâ facie evidence of the safe state of the person holding communion, while they regard Dissent as a prima facie ground of suspicion against every person dissenting. 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 consi der 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 instrument 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 religious 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 happiness, or eternal perdition, whether he was a Member of the Church of England, of the Church of Scotland, of the Church of Switzerland, or of neither of those Churches.

I shall not trouble you, Mr. Urban, with any observations upon the distinct merits of the question between the Bible Society and its opposers; nor need you have any apprehensions that the insertion of this paper will ever have the effect of introducing a controversy in your pages, so far as that depends upon me. In a general Miscellany like yours, the controversy would be unacceptable to the majority of your readers; and, besides that this is not the place for conducting it with any advantage, the subject is already fully before the publick; and, particularly in the late publications of Mr. Norris and Mr. Dealtry, is pretty pearly concentrated. J. J. P.

YOUR

June 28:

Mr. URBAN, YOUR Correspondent D. B. in your Mag. for May, p. 413, having made some observations on a Letter -signed "A Friend of the Church of England;" I request to be permitted to offer a few words in 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 accept 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 usul 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,

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 Eidon, 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 name alone your Correspondent thinks a sufficient guarantee to the Country of a salutary enactment. Your Correspondent ought not, therefore, to find fault with me for calling those informations vexatious, when the very preamble to Sir William Scott's Bill assigus as one of the reasons for enacting it," and for protecting spiritual persons from vexatious prosecutions." It does not appear that the publication of the Returns is ordered by the Act of Parliament; and therefore the department into which the Return is made is the more to blame in permitting it, as many illiberal remarks are made in consequence thereof. By the middle rank of Clergy are meant those persons who have been in orders twenty, thirty, or more years, and who, though incumbents themselves of small livings, yet act as Curates in the neighbouring parishes where they live; and not those who have just gone into orders and are only Curates, who (without attaching any disgrace to the term) 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 last 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 Parliament during the next Session for correcting 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
ENGLAND.

Mr. URBAN,

THE

June 29. HE question concerning the expediency of the Curates' Bill, I find, has been agitated in your Maga zine, 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, I 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 50%. a 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. The system now pursued is injurious to the best interests of the Church and Religion. “I speak only that

which I do know." I am aware of literate 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. Remunerate 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 Bilis 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 favourable 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.

Mr. URBAN,

WH

CLERICUS.

Leicester, June 12. WITH respect to the inquiry proposed by your Clerical Correspondent, p. 421, I 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 Clergy, but because I cannot see of what utility it could be under present circumstances. If some legal preceedings, as your Correspondent

asserts,