small degree affects the character and prospects of our establishment, perhaps you will not object to its being brought forward in the pages of the British Magazine. The views which I have formed respecting it, and stated in the following observations, may very possibly prove to be erroneous; but if you, Mr. Editor, or some of your correspondents, will be at the trouble to put the question in its proper light, you will be rendering a service, not to me only, but to the church at large. The traffic in ecclesiastical preferments has long struck me as highly exceptionable, nor have my impressions been at all weakened since my acquaintance with the oath enjoined in the fortieth canon. This oath engages, on the part of the person who takes it, that no simoniacal payment nor contract has been made, directly or indirectly, for the obtaining of his benefice, and that no such kind of contract will ever hereafter be performed. The meaning attached to the word simoniacal by the framers of the oath seems to be determined by the preamble, which denounces simony as a detestable sin and execrable before God, and defines it as the buying and selling of spiritual and ecclesiastical functions, offices, promotions, dignities, and livings. From conversations which I have had with laymen, I know that they consider it a mere quibble and evasion to allege that it is not actually the living which is bought, but only the right of presentation, which right is afterwards exercised by the purchaser in his own favour. It seems like saying to the original patron, "I must not give you anything to present me to this benefice, for the church says it is execrable and detestable; but I may give you something to transfer your right to me, and then I can obtain the benefice without incurring the censures of the church." The sum which passes between the two parties is undoubtedly given directly and immediately for the right of presentation; but is it not indirectly and prospectively for the property of the living? Let us suppose a clergyman possessing a rich benefice, the advowson of which he purchased for the purpose of making himself the incumbent. Let us suppose this clergyman discussing the propriety of taxing the larger benefices for the augmentation of the smaller ones. On the justice or expediency of this proposition I offer no opinion, but merely bring it forward for the sake of illustration. The clergyman would probably say, that he and many others had invested their private fortunes in their benefices, and therefore could not equitably be taxed. Would not this be an acknowledgment that they had been guilty of perjury in swearing that they had given nothing, directly or indirectly, for their preferment? I believe that this inference would be drawn by most indifferent persons, of plain and unsophisticated sense, upon having their attention directed to the oath and its accompanying preamble. Whether the inference would be correct or not I shall not presume to decide, but certainly it is much to be deplored that there should be any handle for making it. Hitherto the effect upon the public mind has not been very observable, because few among the laity are aware of the oath, but these things are now acquiring daily more and more publicity; and when we consider the bad consequences likely to result from a pastor being regarded by his

flock as a perjured person, it forms a strong reason either for discontinuing the practice or abolishing the oath.

But, apart from the oath, the traffic in advowsons is extremely injurious to the church, as presenting one of the greatest obstacles to any general measure for augmenting the poorer benefices. If you increase the value of a small living in the gift of a lay patron, you add to his property rather than to that of the church, and perhaps introduce one more advowson into the market, which before had not been saleable. I look upon the patron of a living as a trustee for the church, to see that a particular district is provided with a spiritual guide; and I consider that, for the faithful discharge of this trust, he is at least as much responsible to God as though his trust had been in things of an earthly nature. Now the interest of the church requires, that he should not only look out for a clergyman whose character is morally unobjectionable, but whose abilities and attainments are adapted to the population whom he will have to superintend. Is it not, then, a criminal abandonment of their duty as trustees, when patrons leave the qualifications of a minister to chance, that they may consult their own private emolument ?

In these remarks I wish to speak with great distrust of my own judgment. I am sensible that my ideas respecting church property may be incorrect, and I should be truly thankful if some abler head could be induced to give a more lucid view of the question. To me it appears, that ecclesiastical property is materially different from other property. It appears to have a sort of sacredness about it, which requires that it should be spent more immediately and entirely for the glory of God and the edification and enlargement of his church. I remember to have seen it somewhere stated, as an argument of the Romanists against the marriage of the clergy, that the wealth which was given them to promote the cause of religion would be diverted into another channel, to provide for their wives and families. Without allowing the conclusiveness of this argument, there certainly seem to be stronger claims upon a man to be liberal and munificent when his income is derived from clerical endowments, than when it is drawn from private sources. It is evident that the traffic in advowsons causes this distinction to be lost sight of between the possessions of the church and ordinary property. When the purchase of an advowson is regarded as an appropriate investment of money, it ceases to be supposed that the possessor of ecclesiastical revenues is under greater obligations to abound in works of charity than any other person.

I confess that I think it wrong in principle for a clergyman to procure a sphere of labour for himself by purchase. It seems to me, that if the Great Head of the Church has work for us to do, he will inevitably direct us to it by the leadings of his Providence. Ministers should consider themselves particularly called upon to cast all their care on Him who careth for them, and to walk by faith and not by sight. They should consider themselves called upon to set an example to the laity of a holy and happy confidence in God their Heavenly Father; and in the exercise of this confidence they may surely leave it to him to appoint them their place in his vineyard, without resort

ing to a practice which is so strongly reprobated by the canons of the church, and which is viewed by numbers as one of the greatest blemishes on our national establishment. V. G. M.*

SEE OF ST. DAVID'S IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY.

SIR,-After the letter on St. David's Cathedral in the September number, perhaps the following account of the attempt to despoil the see of St. David's of the same district which the church commissioners take from it, which was made about 660 years ago, (from the Life of Giraldus Cambrensis, by Sir R. C. Hoare,) may not be altogether uninteresting:

"In discharging the duties of his new dignity of archdeacon, he [Giraldus] had an early opportunity of asserting, in a very singular manner, the dignity of his own archdeaconry, as well as that of the metropolitan see of St. David's. Having been settled only a few days in his residence at Llanden, near Brecknock, after a very laborious journey he had taken, to correct the abuses that prevailed in the provinces of Melyenith and Elven, he was surprised by the appearance of two clergymen, sent in a great hurry by the dean and chapter of that district to inform him that Adam, Bishop of St. Asaph, was coming to dedicate the church at Kerri, (which was situated on the confines of the two bishoprics, but of old had appertained to that of St. David's,) and that, unless the archdeacon appeared there in person, nothing would prevent his taking possession of that church, or even the entire province. However harassed by his late expeditions, and dissuaded by his former companions and followers, who, more through fear of danger than fatigue, refused to accompany him, he nevertheless immediately proceeded on his journey towards the church of Kerri. On the Saturday he dispatched messengers to two princes of that country, requesting them to send some trusty men of their families, provided with horses and arms, to assist him (if necessity required) in asserting the rights of the church of St. David, as the Bishop of St. Asaph was reported to be attended by a strong body of men. On coming to Kerri early on Sunday morning, he found that two of the clergy, and partisans of the bishop, had concealed the keys of the church; these being at length found, the archdeacon entered the church, and having ordered the bells to be rung, as a token of possession, he celebrated mass with great solemnity. In the mean time

This subject well deserves discussion. The Editor will only make one observation, which indeed does not touch the higher parts of the question, but may rescue the character of many innocent persons from the charge of perjury. He would ask, simply, whether the oath alluded to in Canon 40 was meant by those who framed it to apply to the purchase of advowsons, or only to that of presentations? Whether they were right in making the distinction, if they did make it, is another matter, not inquired into here. But as the "animus imponentis" is the material point for consideration in all cases, he who sincerely believes that this oath refers to presentations only, is not to be accused of simony or perjury for purchasing an advowson.-ED.

messengers arrived from the bishop, ordering preparations to be made for the dedication of the church. Mass being concluded, the archdeacon sent some of his clergy, attended by the dean of the province, to inform the bishop, "That if he came to Kerri as a neighbour and friend, he would receive him with every mark of hospitality; but if otherwise, he desired him not to proceed." The bishop returned for answer, "That he was coming in his professional capacity, as bishop of the diocese, to perform his duty, in the dedication of the church." The archdeacon and his clergy met the bishop at the entrance to the churchyard, where a long dispute arose about the matter in question, and each asserted their respective rights to the church of Kerri. To enforce his claims the more, the bishop dismounted from his horse, placed his mitre on his head, and, taking up his pastoral staff, walked with his attendants towards the church. The archdeacon proceeded to meet him, accompanied by his clergy, dressed in their surplices and sacerdotal robes, who, with lighted tapers and up-raised crucifix, came forth from the church in processional form. At length each began to excommunicate the other; but the archdeacon having ordered the bells to be rung three times, as the usual confirmation of the sentence, the bishop and his train mounted their horses, and made a precipitate retreat."

"The king, [Henry II.] who was then at Northampton, commended the archdeacon's conduct."

Long ago the poet sung

"Menevia plorat

Curtatos mitræ titulos."

But St. David's patrimony is to be curtailed again, and unfortunate Wales to be deprived of half its bishops: a country which, with her humbled sister, sheltered Christianity when driven out of pagan England, and whose seven bishops, in after times, refused submission to Augustin and the church of Rome.

I am, Sir, your most humble servant,

MILES.

CLERICAL ATTENDANCE AT BALLS.

Mr. Editor, Will you allow me to propose a query to " AngloCambrensis," or any other of your readers who consider the attendance of the clergy at balls as at all defensible? If it be, indeed, a matter of indifference,-which I confess I very much question,-— still the consideration mentioned by "W. N.," in the close of his letter in your last number, ought to have very great weight. I think there can be but little doubt whether a clergyman does not sink in the estimation of the more serious and thoughtful of his parishioners by his attendance at such places; is sure to give a handle to the malignants of his neighbourhood, and to be disadvantageously contrasted with the dissenting minister and the Roman-catholic priest. I say so, because I imagine of dissenting ministers, nene, excepting here and there a Socinian, are ever seen in the ball-room; and, in this country,

the Roman-catholic priest is careful to give the impression of separatedness from the world. But I proceed to my query. We have recently had a confirmation held in our vicinity, and in examining the candidates in my parish, I had to inquire of them what things were promised to be renounced in the baptismal vow, and which promise they were about to renew in their own names. They had to fix the meaning, or I had to define it for them, of the words" the pomps and vanity of this wicked world." The expressions could not be understood to point at sins generally, for all sins are renounced under the term "works of the devil;" nor at sins of a particular class, for "the sinful lusts of the flesh" are afterwards especially renounced. What, then, are we to understand by them? Surely, they denote what are not, strictly speaking, sins, but some practices of the world, from which the Christian, who is not of the world, is pledged to abstain. Wishing to give my instructions, in all respects, a practical bearing, was I wrong in stating "pomps and vanity of this wicked world" to be, pleasure-fairs, wakes, the dance at the public-house, revellings, and such like? If so, would it have been possible for me to lead my young people so to see the distinction between the publichouse dance in our village, and the infirmary ball at our county town, (if I had attended it,) as not to appear to condemn myself as doing that which I urge on them that they are bound by their baptismal vow to renounce? I am, Sir, yours, &c.

S. S. S.

GRASSINGTON IN CRAVEN.*

SIR,-I would wish, through the medium of your work, to direct the attention of the public to the state of ecclesiastical matters in Grassington in Craven. This little town is in the parish of Linton, and contains about 1000 inhabitants, without taking into consideration numerous farm-houses and straggling cottages situate on the hills around it. We have no church in the place, but the independents and methodists have each a chapel, and the ranters have purchased a large piece of ground, and are about to erect another. By the carriage-road we are at least a mile and a half from the parish church, and by the footroad (which is one by sufferance only), at least a mile and a quarter. Grassington is situate on a hill side, in a very mountainous district: the quantity of rain that falls here is very considerable, from which and other causes it is quite impossible for the inhabitants to be regular attendants at the parish church. Indeed, with the aged portion, an attendance at so distant a place of worship, to say nothing of the dampness and want of repair of the ancient edifice, is altogether impossible.

Dissent may be thought to flourish here, but I assure you it does not; necessity compels many of us to attend the worship of the dis

* "S. D." will find that, though long delayed, his letter was not forgotten.-ED.