plication of the system, to the good purposes it is adapted to work in the Church. At these I merely hint; and, after a few more observations on Lord HENLEY'S Tract, I will conclude; meaning, however, shortly, to resume my communication with you, if I find that what I now observe is so far within your favourable view as to be admitted into your Miscellany.

Lord HENLEY, very properly, considers that the Church property is a trust to accomplish the purposes of religious instruction, which, if it be now in an improper, must be turned into a productive, channel.

If the Church property has been in such a channel as to have produced, according to his Lordship's estimate, as we have seen, in the HIGH OFFICES in the Church, learning, zeal, activity, and munificence; and, in the lower ranks of the Clergy, that extraordinary purity and holiness of life and morals, that sincere setting-forth of evangelical truth, that strenuous desire to perform the works of a laborious watchful ministry, so justifying the anticipation of a great national revival of religion, might it not, in homely phraseology, be inquired, Why, then, not leave well alone?

Lord HENLEY, doubtless, means well in all he has written. The purity of his motives is acknowledged, and the beneficial character of some of his suggestions must be admitted; but his Lordship appears to partake too much of the narrow, restrictive temper of the day, and not to treat his great subject with sufficient regard to the generous spirit by which the affairs of this world, under DIVINE PROVIDENCE, are ordinarily conducted. The mere quantum meruit as little conduces to the good of the Church, as to that of the world, or any of its institutions; and means must be contrived, freeing them, of course, from all abuses; and, as much as can be, from those weaknesses attaching to all that is of human contrivance, for the lure of birth, of talent, of fortune, and of the flower of our youth,—that youth so endowed may wish for, and parents be induced to direct them to, the sacred profession of the Church.

Lord HENLEY's views, be it repeated, are sometimes good. But does not his Lordship manifest a narrow, incomprehensive, ungenerous, spirit? Is he not, in his dislike of the Deans and Chapters, under the same unhappy influences as was the parliament, during Cromwell's usurpation? It is thought by many, not inferior to his Lordship in wisdom or piety, that, considering the average poor remuneration supplied by the revenues of our ecclesiastical benefices, the existence of sinecures in our prebendal stalls, to say nothing of their beneficial operation as lures of those, likely to do honour to the sacred profession, into the Church, is salutary. But what says Lord HENLEY? Designating it a "vicious system," the invitation to the Church, he writes, "will neither be effectually nor creditably attained by the institution of sinecures. If the object of a candidate for holy orders be to vegetate upon a sinecure, whatever be his rank or condition, he will at least be nothing more than a dead weight upon the Church," &c. But this his Lordship might know is a petitio principii of a very illiberal character. Men of family, it is believed, do not go into the Church to vegetate upon a sinecure, nor with any such disgracefully

low object, though the hope or probability of obtaining the good things of the Church may, allowably, direct their views to the sacred profession, and may stimulate them to acquire that learning, and to exercise those good qualities, which may be recommendatory to the higher stations. A stall, one of Lord HENLEY's sinecures, in addition to a moderate or poor living, given as opportunity shall offer, and as merit shall require, (though, perhaps, it should be given, not always as the beholder should expect or could wish), and not affixed to any particular Church, may often make up an income, than which no income is expended more beneficially to the Church or society. Might not Lord HENLEY have derived a better spirit, on this part of his subject, from the quotations which he gives, especially from Dr. Chalmers? viz:

"There are many who look with an evil eye to the endowments of the English Church, and to the indolence of her dignitaries. But to that Church, the theological literature of our nation stands indebted for her best acquisitions; and we hold it a refreshing spectacle at any time that meagre Socinianism pours forth a new supply of flippancies and errors, when we behold, as we have often done, an armed champion come forth in full equipment, from some high and lettered retreat of that noble heirarchy; nor can we grudge her the wealth of all her endowments, when we think how well, under her venerable auspices, the battles of orthodoxy have been fought-that, in this holy warfare, they are her sons and her scholars, who are ever foremost in the field; ready at all times to face the threatening mischief, and by the weight of their ponderous erudition to overturn it."

I will not, at present, further trespass on your pages by remarking on other particulars of Lord HENLEY'S reform, some of which merit the closest attention, especially that of immediately putting an end to translations, and so disengaging the hierarchy from the dangers of parliamentary influence.

But with respect to his Lordship's unqualified objections to plurality of benefices, and then his inconsistently fixing the minimum at which they are to be allowed, at a sum far beyond the average of our parochial preferments, it need only be observed that he appears actuated as little by sound policy as by a generous spirit. What is wanting, and, perhaps, all that is wanting, in the way of legislative coercion, in this respect, is,-that there be, leaving it with the incumbent, whether he personally reside, or provide, to the approbation of his bishop, the personal ministration of a curate; that there be a resident Clergyman, in every parish in the kingdom, including those wherein it may be, comparatively, least desirable, in order to establish the one good, general, and salutary rule; that there be, in every parish Church in the kingdom, a full service, morning and afternoon, with a sermon, on each part of the day; that multiplication of high-sounding dignities in our character, however small in value,-be absolutely prohibited for the future; since these, often, while they do little good, or may be even attended with expense to the possessor, afford a powerful handle for evil to the enemies of the church, while, certainly, their accumulation in any individual does not allow the feather in the cap to wave so frequently as it might do in favour of the Church; for, however

valueless some dignities may be in income, still, if judiciously and properly bestowed, as honourable distinctions, stalls, archdeaconries, deaneries, &c., might be rendered more beneficial than they are. There should also be a prohibition of commendams. According to the good and liberal discipline, hitherto prevailing in the Church, there are sufficient men of talent, of piety, and of fortune, united in the Church, to whom a bishopric, however slenderly endowed, would always be acceptable and well bestowed; and, if so bestowed, without parliamentary influence, would serve to allure into the Church more of like commanding pretensions. Let these things be done; especially, let there be, without any exception, in every parish in the kingdom, a resident Clergyman, and duty twice every Sunday, not at the discretion of the chief officer or any officers of the Church, but by the commanding authority of the legislature enforced by the bishop; and more would be actually accomplished towards the residence of the incumbents themselves, even than can be done by any legislative enactment whatever, of discretionary character. What shall be done in this way, will be done without bringing into collision, as is now often done, and never without injury to the Church, the bishops, and the incumbents. Thus would the interests of our Zion be best preserved; and thus would the most prudent means be put into play, to Silence THE CHARGES OF ABUSE IN THE CHURCH.

I am, Sir, Your's respectfully,

MELANCTHON.

COLLECTANEA.

ANCIENT PRACTICE IN CHURCHES.-The following extract from Bishop Grindall's Episcopal Injunction, will shew, at least, what had been the practice in churches. "That no pedlar should be permitted to sell his wares in the church-porch in the time of service. That parish clerks should be able to read. That no lords of misrule, or mummer lords and ladies, or any disguised persons, morrice-dancers, or others, should come irreverently into the church, or play any unseemly parts with scoffs, jests, or ribald talk, in time of divine service."

"The parliamentary return of 1815, states the annual amount of livings, under the value of 1501. per annum, to be 4361. Of these, some are under 121. per annum, and no less a number than 1350 are below 707. per annum.'

The writer takes the above statement from Lord Henley's Tract, page 14. If, to extinguish the inequality of benefices, (as appears, also, from his Lordship's statement) the revenues of all the parochial Clergy were equally divided, there would not be more than 1857. per annum for each; it is plain that the Church cannot, out of her own revenues, supply the deficiency of the smaller benefices. Would it not, therefore, be most politic for the government of the country to grant, from the national purse, a sum to raise the numerous benefices that do not amount to 100%. per annum, up to that value? Then, without interfering with existing arrangements, which have been long sanctioned by the diocesan, let the rule, in future, be invariably enforced of constant residence of curate or incumbent, and duty twice every Sunday. The remuneration proposed is, indeed, scanty; but more, perhaps, could not be granted in the present state of the public purse; while, with this, and the chance of a second living, or some well-endowed dignity, there would not be found a lack of Clergy to engage in the residence and duty required.

TIMIDITY. Dr. Westfield, the Bishop of Bristol, in the reign of Charles the First, was so excellent a preacher, that Bishop King said he was "born an orator;" and yet he was of such extreme modesty that he never ascended the pulpit, even when he had been fifty years a preacher, but he trembled. Preaching once before the King at Oxford, he fainted away; but his Majesty awaited his recovery, and then had from him such a sermon as abundantly rewarded the royal condescension.

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.-A late number of the Biblical Repertory contains an article, understood to be from the pen of Dr. Alexander, on a proposed new organization of the Presbyterian Church of the United States, which justly excites great attention. The following are the most important of the proposed changes :

1. The Synods, as now constituted, to be dissolved; and the whole Church to be divided into six Synods, constituted by an equal representation from the Presbyteries. The Synods to meet annually, and to be the tribunals of ultimate appeal in all judicial matters.

2. The General Assembly to be no longer a judicial body, but only a Board of Union and an Advisory Council for the whole Church. The Assembly to consist of delegates from the Synods.

No change in the Church Sessions or Presbyteries is proposed. The two most prominent reasons for the new organization suggested, are, "the unwieldly size" of the General Assembly, and "the existing and increasing spirit of party."

DISPERSION OF THE JEWS.-The Jews are seldom found in poor countries. The Russian government, from a desire, we presume, still farther to enforce the scriptural curse against this people, has gradually removed 304 Jewish families, consisting of 2002 individuals, to the wilds of Siberia; thus compelling them to spread themselves in regions which have no temptation to voluntary settlers.

SONNET.

THOUGHTS ON CHOLERA, BY A NORTH COUNTRY CLERGYMAN.

"The pestilence that walketh in darkness."

In all thy judgments, God, all good, all wise,
Righteous art thou, and righteously hast sent
On this too guilty land the punishment

Of an insatiate pestilence, which cries

In our dispeopled streets, and testifies

Of guilt's just retribution.—Spare, yet spare
Thy servants that are left. O hear our prayer,

And answer it in mercy; nor despise

The hearts thy love hath wounded. We are thine :
Thy will be done in us :—yet let the sin
Be stricken ere the prostrate sinner pine.
Let the destroying angel smite within
Our deadlier vices-giving hope thereby
In peace
with thee to live-with resignation die.

Thornton Vicarage.

T. B. P.

LAW REPORT.

INNN

No. VIII. ON THE BURIAL OF A DISSENTER BY A CLERGYMAN,
AND ON LAY BAPTISM.

ARCHES COURT OF CANTERBURY, MICHAELMAS TERM, 1809.
KEMP v. WICKES.-(Continued from p. 644.)

IN construing all laws, it is proper to enquire how the law previously stood; for it will require more express and distinct terms to abrogate and to change an old established law, than to provide for a new case upon which the former law has been wholly silent. Private baptism by Laymen had always been held valid, and almost enjoined as regular. The Rubric having now introduced the order that it shall be administered by the lawful Minister,what would be the obvious construction of this alteration? That in the regular and ordinary and decent administration of private baptism, it became the duty of the lawful Minister to perform the office. But if the old law was meant to be completely changed; if it had been intended to invalidate the old law in this respect, and that all other baptism, except that by a lawful Minister, should be considered as absolutely null and void; the new law would most expressly and distinctly have declared it.

Upon this rule of construction, the case of marriage has been referred to as strongly analogous. Marriages are by the Rubric enjoined to be solemnized by a minister: there is to be a previous publication of banns, and other ceremonies are to be observed; the laws of the Church, and the state, by several acts of Parliament, prohibited marriage to be performed in any other way it punished the parties concerned in clandestine marriages, both the minister who solemnized them, and the parties between whom they were solemnized. But, notwithstanding all these laws enjoining how a marriage was to be solemnized, and punishing those who solemnized it in any other way,-what was the consequence?-did the marriage become void? By no means. A marriage, in a private house, between minors, was a perfectly valid marriage, (notwithstanding it was an irregular, and, so far, an unlawful marriage) till the

Marriage Act by direct and positive terms expressly declared that such a marriage should be null and void to all intents and purposes. So baptism in a house, to be regular after this Rubric, could only be administered upon occasions of urgency, and by a minister of the Church: but if it was performed by a Layman, and without necessity, (though it was an irregular baptism, though the parties might be punished for violating the injunctions of the Rubric,) still it was not an invalid baptism, and the party could not be re-baptized.

The Rubric itself, as published by King James, leads to the very same conclusion. Certain questions are directed to be asked for the purpose of ascertaining whether the child has been already baptized; and the questions run in this order and form:"If the child were baptized by any other lawful minister, then the minister of the parish where the child was born or christened shall examine and try whether the child be lawfully baptized or no. In which case, if those that bring any child to the church do answer that the same child is already baptized, then shall the minister examine them further, saying, - By whom was this child baptized? Who was present when this child was baptized? Because some things essential to this sacrament may happen to be omitted through fear or haste in such times of extremity; therefore I demand further of you, With what matter was this child baptized? With what words was this child baptized? And if the minister shall find by the answers of such as bring the child that all things were done as they ought to be, then shall not he christen the child again, but shall receive him as one of the flock of true Christian people."

Now it by no means follows, from asking "by whom was this child baptized?" or "who was present when