ceive what kind of men will become tive influence of Christian principles the Ministers of Religion, and what ends they will be required to answer. We rejoice in the toleration allow. ed, or perhaps we might say in the establishment granted, to the Lutheran and Calvinistic Churches. Protestants are numerous in several parts of France, and were connived at of late; though, since the revocation of the edict of Nantz, they have not been publicly recognised. But the cold and jealous policy which every where watches them, and guards against them as foes, forbids us to hope much from the indulgence they are to receive. No doctrines are to be taught by them without being first authorized by Government. The Council of State is to take cognizance of the designs of their Ministers, and of all dissensions that may arise among them. The number of their Ministers is not to be increased without the authority of Government. No person can be elected a Minister without the approbation of the First Consul. No person can of ficiate as a Minister who has not a certificate of his having studied in the seminary appointed for his religion, under a Professor named by the First Consul; nor can a Minister even resign his charge without stating his reasons to Government, which shall approve or reject them. We know ..that many persons have entertained sanguine hopes that the Revolution would prove the means of widely diffusing vital Christianity through France, and that full liberty would be allowed in that land of freedom for religious discussions, and active exertions to propagate the Protestant faith. We confess we indulge no such hopes. Infidelity will never open the door for the Gospel, and take the Apostles of Christ by the hand to protect them, and forward their designs. The present religious constitution of France evidently does not permit religious discussions, nor allow a proselyting spirit. It is the object of the Chief Consul, in tolerating Religion at all, to tolerate it only as an instrument of promoting tranquillity, and we are much mistaken if any attempts to increase the ac would not meet with as determined resistance from the present Catholic Chief Consul of France, as they did of old from the heathen Emperors of Rome. The Mahometan proclamation of Buonaparte, in Egypt, cannot fail to come to remembrance, while the edicts of the First Consul, in France, in favour of Christianity are promulgated. One remark on this subject will, we trust, force itself upon the mind of every Briton who reads this convention; a remark in the truth of which we are happy to believe our dissenting brethren will cordially unite with us. How much more extensive and complete the toleration, how much superior in all respects the religious liberty, granted under the English constitution. Happy state! thy Ministers are independent; thy worship is free. The sacred rights of conscience are respected, and even the fullest indulgence allowed to sectaries under thy mild dominion. What phrensy could so infatuate Britons as to expect a purer liberty from the violent and bloody hands of an infidel revolution. In the present re-establishment of the Catholic Religion in France, we cannot but observe with pleasure the humiliation of Popery-a severe blow is given to Antichrist even while his power is raised from annihilation. The sun of Popery rises again in France, shorn of its beams. The pomp of the Church, the wealth of its establishment, the numbers of its retinue, the extent of it power, are withdrawn. We behold in their room a poor Clergy, without splendour or influence, controlled and directed on every side by the secular powers. Babylon is fallen! We wonder and adore. It will be readily supposed, upon a survey of the whole, that there is no reason to augur well concerning the progress of real Religion in France, in consequence of the present re-establishment of Christianity. The salaries of the Clergy are said to be scarcely sufficient for a maintenance, and their degraded state will render them, it is to be feared, mean and selfish in their views, and dependent upon the opulent part of their flocks. It is the character of Popery to derive its influence, not from the exhibition of truth to the understanding, but from the magic of ceremonies, or the blind devotion of ignorance. The Clergy will labour to re-establish their power through the medium of religion. If we are not mistaken in our conjecture, there will soon be a struggle between infidelity and superstition, and France will again be divided between bigots and atheists. How the struggle may terminate we do not conjecture. But we fear that true Religion will gain little by the present change. When we call to mind the proofs of an Anti-Christian conspiracy adduced by Abbé Barruel, and reflect on the characters and past conduct of the individuals who are enabled by the present Concordat to direct and control the public instruction of France; we find it difficult to repress the rising apprehension, lest the re-establishment of religious forms in that country should only serve to give a greater facility to the execution of those purposes of inveterate hostility which, we may be assured, infidels will ever entertain against the Christian faith. ENGLAND. A bill has been introduced, during the present month, into the House of Commons, by Sir William Scott; the object of which is to amend and render more effectual the act of the 21st of Hen ry VIII. entituled, "Spiritual persons abridged from having pluralities of living, and from taking of farms, &c. The following is an outline of its principal provisions, viz. It repeals that part of the above act which restrained the Clergy from taking farms, or buying and selling cattle or corn for gain. It permits an Incumbent, when the house of residence is insufficient, to hire, with the Bishop's consent, some fit and sufficient house wherein to reside, either in his own or another parish. It appoints, that an incumbent absenting himself from his benefice, without such cause as is declared by former acts to be a sufficient excuse for absence, for three months or more, either together or at several times, in any one year, shall be liable to prosecution at common law; and shall be mulcted for an absence of not less than three, nor more than six months, in one-fourth of the yearly value of his bene fice; for an absence of not less than six, nor more than eight months, in one third; of not less than eight, nor more than twelve months, one half; and for a year three-fourths; part of the fine to go to the informer, and the remainder to be disposed of as the act directs. It confirms the former exemptions from the penalties of non-residence, and makes farther exemptions in favour of persons holding a variety of enumerated offices: it gives to the Bishop a power, in certain cases, of granting to any Incumbent, on application being made to that effect by petition, of the allegations in which the Bishops may require proof, a license of non-residence, which shall be a protection against all suits at law; and also a power of revoking the same at his discretion. These case cases are, 1st. The sickness or infirmity of the Incumbent himself, his wife, or child : 2d. The want of a sufficient house of residence, provided the same be not owing to the neglect of the Incumbent: 3d. The Incumbent having a house of his own, or of some relation within his parish, in which he may choose to reside: and 4th, When the Incumbent on a benefice of small value serves as curate elsewhere, providing at the same time to the Bishop's satisfaction for Bishop a further power of granting to any Inthe service of his own parish. It gives to the cumbent, in all cases not enumerated, a license of non-residence, provided the application for such license be recommended by the Archdeacon, and the license be allowed by the Archbishop. It directs, that the nature and circumstance of each case, and the reasons for granting the license, as well as every license and every revocation of a license, be entered in a book, which shall be open to any one's inspec tion on paying one shilling; and it orders a copy of them to be publicly read in the parish church. It gives also to the Bishop a power of requiring the residence of any non-resident Incumbent, and of sequestering, in case of noncompliance, the profits of his benefice; and if an Incumbent continue for three years under facto void. It allows to the Clergy a right of such sequestration, his benefice becomes ipso appeal to the Archbishop whenever they think themselves aggrieved by the Bishop's refusing or revoking a license, or compelling them to reside. And lastly, it requires all Incumbents to take an oath to reside on their livings, unless their residence shall be legally dispensed with. The magnitude of the change which the above Bill, if passed into a law, must necessarily produce in the relative situation of the Clergy and Laity of this country, and its consequent effect on the general state of Religion, will be a sufficient reason for our considering its provisions at some length. * The act of Henry VIII. imposed several harsh and unnecessary restrictions on the Clergy, and we therefore heard with satisfaction that measures were to be taken in Parliament for removing the punctual performance of his proper duinconvenience. But the evil of non-re- ties? The parish pays the Incumbent sidence, which, according to the Bishop his tithes; or if it refuses, the iron-hand of Rochester, has grown to a most gigan- of the law is very unceremoniously, tic size in the present day, seems no less though justly, extended to force its to require a legislative remedy, and we compliance; but, by the Bishop's lishould have rejoiced had the former cense, it is liable to be deprived of every object been combined with regulations means of obtaining from the Incumbent calculated to ensure the future resi- the performance of his engagements. dence of the great body of the Parochial Clergy. On perusing the present Bill, however, we have been led to doubt, not withstanding the advantages which through the laudable zeal of many of the present Bench of Bishops it may be fairly expected to produce; whether it may not ultimately tend to increase the evil of non-residence, (on all hands acknowledged to be one of the first magnitude) to an indefinite extent. The Bill, without attaching to the superior Clergy any distinct responsibility, or allowing of any appeal from their decision, grants them an unlimited power of dispensing with the residence of parochial Incumbents, and of placing them beyond the jurisdiction of lay courts. We should have rejoiced, indeed, to have seen the Bishops armed with a strong concurrent power of enforcing residence, because we feel a persuasion that, generally speaking it could not be placed in better hands; but we cannot contemplate, without some apprehension, the virtual transfer of the whole power of enforcement in this instance, from the courts of law, the natural guardians of the people against the malconduct of all persons discharging public offices, to the diocesans exclusively, and that under circumstances very uncongenial to the spirit of the constitution. The question of residence, or non-residence, involves the interests of another party besides the Incumbent; yet the Bill does not require that any one else should be heard, or even that previous notice of his application to the Bishop for a license should be given to the parish; but on his ex-parté evidence alone, the Bishop is authorized to decide. Is not this an unwarranted transfer into the hands of an individual of the guardianship of the interests of the parish by whom the Incumbent is paid, and to whom he owes, in return, the Were the Bishops by distinct provi. sions made duly responsible for the exercise of the discretionary power intrusted to them, many objections to the present Bill would be removed.* Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? We all know the force of the principle of esprit du corps. This principle generates in all men a more lively perception of the rights, and a less acute feeling of the duties of their particular profession; and the Clergy are certainly as open to its influence as other bodies. Besides, it never can be a wise policy to make men the ultimate judges in a case which may possibly be their own. A Bishop may himself be obnoxious to the charge of neglecting the duty of residence. With what propriety, then, can he refuse applications for a similar indulgence, or enforce, by his episcopal monitions, the residence of his Clergy? One Bishop, for instance, may possess a professorship at Cambridge, and a benefice in Leicestershire, and yet reside in Westmoreland. How shall he interpose to censure for neglect of residence the Clergy of his diocese ? Another Bishop may choose to visit foreign countries, perhaps from motives of curiosity. With what feelings would his chancellor set about exercising a discretional power of coercing the nonresident Clergy of his non-resident Bishop? It may appear invidious to instance cases which may be only the exceptions of a general rule; but we disclaim any intention of thereby implicating the present body of Bishops in a charge of inattention. It is not so much the immediate as the future and more remote consequences of the measure which we * In much of what follows we have availed ourselves of a very able pamphlet entitled "Observations on Dr. Sturges's Pamphlet respecting Non-residence, &c." for which we feel ourselves much indebted to the ingenious author. We have, in some places, given merely an abstract of his remarks. dread. In short, we fear, whatever degree of temporary vigour the present Bill may give to the discipline of the Church, that even in its common and ordinary operation, it may gradually and ultimately produce a system of general relaxation with respect to non-residence, which must prove of material detriment to the Church, and to the interests of Religion. For our part, we are of opinion, that the exemptions already existing, when modified with a view to the rectification of abuses, are as extensive as they ought to be made. We are far from feeling the force of those arguments for pluralities and non-residence, which are drawn from the very small value of a great proportion of our benefices; nor do we think they ought to weigh for one moment, with a British parliament, whose first and paramount obligation to the community is to employ the ample means they possess in making due provision for its spiritual interests by appointing adequate incomes for the Clergy. No one will deny that a laborious resident Clergy are an immense blessing to a country; and the effects produced by such a Clergy on the manners of the Scotch and of the cient grandeur, or forming a scale of the curiosity of modern art; collecting medals or collating manuscripts." To these pursuits we would allow their due commendation, and to those who engage in them, our due tribute of respect as public benefactors; but while we consider the scriptures as the only safe rule of practice, and the obligations of morality as binding on the consciences of men, we must be of opinion that a parish priest ought either to relinquish the awful charge and responsibility which he has taken upon himself, or make every other pursuit, however gratifying to his taste, or advantageous in point of emolument, subordinate to this great duty which he has solemnly undertaken to perform; viz. feeding the flock of Christ, whereof he professes the Holy Ghost to have made him overseer.* This is a pursuit in which his path is clearly marked out by the great shepherd of the sheep; and which is in itself more digBehold! ye are fellow workers with nified and important than any other. Christ; ye are ambassadors for God; ye are the ministers of reconciliation beSwiss furnish a strong proof of this. It tween God and man. Blessed are they, cannot be alleged, that our poverty is who, feeling the importance of their such as not to admit of a competent-selves to the right discharge of its duhigh and holy calling, devote themprovision to the ministers of Religion; ties! made instruments of diffusing neither can it be alleged, that the gene- the knowledge of God and of Christ, ral state of manners does not require extraordinary legislative interference in they shall have many for their crown of removing every real obstacle to the uni- joy and rejoicing in the great day of acversal residence of the parochial Clergy. count. Having turned many to rightWe cannot concur with some indi- eousness, they shall shine as the brightviduals in regarding the promotion of ness of the firmament and as the stars, And even if their science, or the gratification of curiosity, for ever and ever. as grounds on which a parish priest can be vindicated in neglecting the most important of all human duties, the care of the souls of his parishioners-interests which ought to be far dearer to him than those of science or literature. The neglect of those interests, no degree of literary or philosophical attainments can compensate, and their promotion is a far more ennobling pursuit than "surveying the sumptuousness of palaces, or the stateliness of temples, making accurate measurements of the remains of an labours of love should have failed of Ye have not inquired for that which was lost. Wherefore as I live, I will require my sheep at their hands, nor shall the shepherds feed themselves any more, for I will deliver my sheep from their mouths, They shall no more devour them. There are some who have maintained the impropriety of subjecting the Clergy to the "unbending rigour,"to the "iron hand" of the law. But what, may we not ask, forms not only our security in this country, but enables both the Clergy and the Laity to indulge the friendly sympathies of social life; to pursue either recondite science or elegent literature; to acquire, retain, and enjoy property? what is it that places Britons beyond the reach of the arbitrary power of a tyrant, or the unjust caprice of a judge? What is it that diffuses happiness over this land, and softens the distinctions which separate the different orders of our well graduated community? It is the known and undeviating nature, and the universal and undistinguishing application of those rules of law which some have characterized as unbending and rigorous. Supposing, however, that what is in this land our privilege and our boast, were in some instances a hardship; why should the Clergy be exempted from the common lot? It pays no compliment to our institutions, or to our Clergy, to suppose such an exemption necessary. But may it not be questioned, whether it be for the interest of the Clergy themselves that they should possess such an immunity as this, coupled as it will be with a dependance on the varying opinions and humours of an individual; a circumstance more likely to lead to an abridge. ment of freedom, and to peculiar hardships in particular cases, than subjection to known and precise regulations would be. But to employ one more argument drawn from experience; When was it, may we not ask, that the Clergy were most ignorant, immoral and fanatical? It was when the order was most highly privileged, and when they were wholly exempted from lay jurisdiction. We cannot, therefore, view without jealousy the introduction of the principle we have been combating; because, feeling that similar causes, while human nature continues the same, will not fail to produce more or less similar effects, we see, in the present measure, the seeds of the future corruption of our Clergy, and of the declension of our Church. Let it never be forgotten, that the stability of our ecclesiastical establishment must depend, in a great degree, on the conduct and the consequent character of its ministers. If they be negligent of their charge, they will necessarily lose ground inthe public estimation; and as men in general will not discriminate nicely between the man and his functions, the character of the Church and of that Religion which the Church has been established to inculcate, will be proportionably injured. In this age of fearless innovation and licentious inquiry, it is worse than infantine dotage to expect that the minds of men can be retained in a state of submissive reverence for the mere name and office of the priesthood. If instead, therefore, of enforcing the residence of the parochial Clergy by precise and clearly defined regulations, every restraint is made to give way to the will of an individual, and a door is thus opened for extensive and aggravated abuses, what may we not in time expect? We may expect, that while on one side infidelity is rapidly advancing, and on the other Dissenters are making active, and under such circumstances, perhaps, seasonable efforts; (for we must still regard the religious instruction of the community as a point to which every other must be subordinate, and partial light as preferable to total darkness) there will be left to us only the skeleton of a Church, the mouldering memorial of life and power and energy, now no more. We shall only make one more remark. We do not particularly object to the permission to farm, which by this bill is granted to clergymen; but we conceive that parliament ought to affix a narrow limit to its extent. The judicious Hooker approved of those restrictions which the present Bill pro- |