of so great a burden, had yet maintained a high character among Christian churches.

It is not my object to enter upon a discussion respecting the origin or the abuse of pluralities, for which I must refer those who are anxious for such investigations to writers on the subject. Many curious facts relating to them are recorded in the History of the Council of Trent; where may be found some account of their introduction, with certain arguments as to whether residence were of Divine appointment, or only by ecclesiastical law. In the Reformed Church of England, when pluralities were attacked by the House of Commons in the time of Whitgift, they were defended by that prelate, as necessary to the existing state of our Church. A speech is given in Strype (vol. ii. p. 444, A.D. 1601. Oxford, 1822), by Dr. James, a civilian, the arguments of which the author supposes to have been supplied by Whitgift himself. The reasoning is to this effect: That corruption is the result of under-payment; that equality in preferment is inequitable from the disparity of attainments in individuals; that if a competency were taken away there would soon be a great deficiency in preachers, and a discouragement to learning; and that, were the clergy lowered, they would preach things that please the people rather than those that profit them. It is evident that the foundation of all these arguments is the poverty of many of the livings in England; and the legitimate remedy is to increase them so as to afford a competent provision for the clergyman. There might still be, and would be, great disparities of emolument; so that the argument of one man's merits entitling him to a better provision than another, giving it all its weight, would not interfere with the question of pluralities. The objection, generally speaking, is not so much against the amount of income gained by pluralities (though often this is too great), as to the impossibility of the incumbent performing the pastoral offices in two or more distant parishes.

The grounds on which the advocates of the present system rest their argument require a little more consideration. The duties to be performed by clergymen of the Church of England are two-fold; namely, those which devolve upon them as members of the Church Establishment viewed in its civil arrangements, and those which belong to them as spiritual pastors of Christ's flock. Under the first, I comprehend such matters as attention to the repairs of the buildings, outward decency in the administration of the services, and the regulation of parochial charities: under the latter, preaching, visiting the sick, catechising children, and conversation on subjects connected with the eternal interests of their flock. With regard to the performance of ecclesiastical duties, it may be urged that the incumbent of two livings has increased means of keeping up the buildings attached to his preferments. But, in point of fact, it is notorious that the church and glebe-house are seldom in good repair, unless the incumbent be resident. In country parishes, where the proprietor of the land is not resident, it requires all the influence of an active incumbent to enforce even moderate attention to the decent appearance of the church buildings. Where neither the proprietor of the land nor the incumbent resides, we scarcely ever find them respectable. Nor, with regard to the charities, will the extra subscription of an absent rector, even if his subscription should be increased on account of absence, be equivalent to his influence in making others subscribe, and in keeping up an interest among his parishioners. Even in this respect, then, I should say that our present system has failed of attaining its object.

But the most favourite argument of the advocates for pluralities is the influence of the wealthier clergy in society, and the impossibility of preserving that class of men in our church, without the inducement of pluralities to

bring them into the ministry. Were it not for such rewards, men of learning and talent, it is said, would not enter our Establishment; and if no men of family were to be found in our ranks, the clergy would soon lose that respectability which as a body they at present enjoy. Their talents and education give them influence; their wealth affords them the power of exercising that influence; and their writings, it is added, have been the bulwark of Protestantism. Would you, then, it is asked, reduce our Establishment to a level with those churches whose best productions have fallen far short of those of the writers of the Church of England; whose pastors are too poor to bear the rank of gentleman, and who are therefore incapable of exercising beneficially even that parochial influence which has been so great a blessing to our country? Now, with regard to that portion of the above argument which connects pluralities with the introduction of men of rank and family into the church, and this with Christian literature, I need only say, in reference to the latter part of the connexion, that it is merely an assumption, as it is rather to its poor scholarship than to its aristocracy that the Church owes its literary wealth; and that, with our many collegiate and other endowments, and with a decent competency in our incumbencies, there was never any reason to fear that the church would be deficient in valuable writings, even though it should not tempt avarice by its wealth, or rank by its splendour. But the other part of the argument is doubtless true, that the system of pluralities has caused the higher classes of society to look to the church as a provision for members of their families, who would not have undertaken the sacred office but for such inducements. But is this, or is it not, a benefit? Reasoning politically, or upon merely human principles, no doubt we should say that it is: nay, and I will go farther; for as God is often pleased in his providence to make use of divers gradations in society for the accomplishment of his will, and to cause kings to be nursing fathers and queens nursing mothers to his church, it cannot be doubted but that He may, if he see fit, consecrate and overrule to his own glory that natural influence which arises from wealth and station; so that it is not to be overlooked as a means of Christian utility. But at the same time, viewing the Christian church in its true character, as a spiritual institution depending entirely upon the blessing of God for its efficacy, and remembering that our Saviour's kingdom is not of this world, we may be assured that it is not to secular dignity, but to higher qualities, that we are to look for its extension. It is urged, that the work is done more acceptably by men of wealth and family than by men of less agreeable manners, however well educated; and that the Church Establishment is looked on more favourably, and its power for doing good rendered more considerable, than in countries where an equality of preferment throws all the benefices into the hands of men who are not calculated, from manner or habits, to influence the sentiments of the higher classes of society. But these alleged benefits can only arise where the man of family or fortune is attached to his spiritual duties, and not where he undertakes them for mere secular convenience. Whatever supposed advantages may arise from having men of gentle birth, it is infinitely more important to have men of piety. The manner in which many writers have argued this matter, tends directly to secularize the mind, and to make the Church a mere civil machine; though, even in this light, a plain clergyman of piety and zeal would carry greater weight than a man of higher birth but of no solidity of character. To a mistaken notion of the benefit of enticing men of family by temporal lures, may we trace much of the secular spirit that has pervaded our Church, and the evils of which are incalculable. Men speak of the benefit of rank and family to a church; but if the possessors of these distinctions are attracted

not by spiritual motives, not by love to Christ or to the souls of men, but only by pluralities, dignities, or the wealth or power of bishoprics, they become a curse instead of a blessing, and the wages which tempted them are a snare and an evil. To the abuse of preferment we owe much of the want of Christian spirit in our Establishment, and the grievous neglect in not providing for the increasing spiritual wants of the country. The great body of Protestant Dissenters have been increased by the want of accommodation in our churches; but surely their power and consequence are principally to be attributed to the inattention of the clergy of the Church of England, in the discharge of the duties of the pastoral office. In some cases, this has arisen from their ignorance of the leading truths of Christianity, or a life inconsistent with their character, though such examples are, I trust, daily less frequent. The regulations of our Establishment had not raised up, or brought into activity, an efficient body of men throughout the country, equal to the work imposed upon them, when the exigencies of the times required peculiar exertion; and, what is more, they do not do so at present. I am not excusing the unchristian spirit of schism, which, I fear, often pervades Dissenting congregations; but I assert that our Establishment did not, and could not, supply the increasing demands for religious instruction, when some few years ago the very rapid increase of Dissent warned us of the evil, and of the then negligence of our Establishment. And I would even go further, and give it as my conviction, that if at this moment all the Dissenting meetings were closed, we should neither have room in our churches for our congregations (this, however, we are endeavouring to correct); nor, in many districts over which the Church of England extends its jurisdiction, should we be able to supply the population with that Christian instruction which an enlightened and improving people ought to receive; and thus our Establishment, which might be the best and most efficient in Christendom, has not, from some latent cause, some under-current, which has impeded its course, adequately provided for the spiritual wants of the people. I speak it with reluctance, but I believe it to be the truth: Our regulations had rendered our clergy too secular; and pluralities, which are defended on the ground of encouraging a learned and upper class of clergymen, have introduced into the Church a temper directly contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and thus rendered her members unequal to the task of leading their flocks in the paths of Christian holiness.

Again, according to our present system, many large towns, many populous districts, are left almost entirely to the superintendence of curates, and often young curates. Let it not be supposed that any slight is intended to be cast on a conscientious curate, who is, with small stipend, and even smaller prospect of advancement, labouring in the discharge of his duties. Such men are above praise; but at the same time, from their situation, they are not so likely to be useful as they might be, and would be, if their appointments were permanent. In the first place, the dependence of a curate on his flock makes him likely to flatter, rather than oppose their faults. It is customary, in what is, by a strange misnomer, called the religious world-(I do not quarrel with the term, for it well characterizes many who are of the world, and would be thought religious)—to idolize certain clergymen : so that a clever young man can seldom fail, if he be a fluent talker, and lay himself out for it, to raise a certain party around him, who will flatter and be flattered mutually; and thus his own usefulness and the real good of his congregation are sacrificed at the shrine of vanity. This evil undoubtedly is to be traced to the corruption of our nature; but we may encourage or discourage evil inclinations; and have we not, by making the clergymen of many of

our large towns dependent on their congregation, or on the will of a nonresident incumbent, who is often more anxious for the good-will of his people than their spiritual advancement, exposed the ministers of the Church to great temptations? This dependence on their flocks appears to me one of the worst features of Dissent. Have we sufficiently guarded against it?

The graces of the ministerial character are, generally speaking, slow in their growth; by casual observers often mistaken, and continually misrepresented by those whom they offend. Surely, then, it is of the greatest consequence that clergymen should be more stationary, at least more independent of their congregations, than they are by our present system. Our largest parishes are very frequently left to the care of curates, and the consequence has been, that till of late years they have been dreadfully neglected.

The cure of souls, if we may judge from the conversation which we not uncommonly hear among the higher classes of society, seems not to impose any spiritual duties; but the possession of a living is merely considered as the means of supporting a certain rank in life, and enabling the holder to educate his children, and advance them in the world. I am not blind to these advantages, and should think any church establishment inefficient which did not endeavour to place its members, not only above want, but on a level with the educated classes of society; but if, in order to effect this purpose, a system is adopted the tendency of which is to make clergymen consider spiritual duties of secondary importance, and personal rank or convenience of the first, the church holds up the establishment not as the means but as the end. Even if a man may enter the ministry with right feelings, he will not long maintain them unimpaired if he daily draw from funds appropriated to the performance of duties which he neglects; and although it is far from being the case that every pluralist neglects one living, yet many evidently do—and some both; and the law which permits clergymen to hold two livings, forty or even thirty miles apart, sanctions, or at least connives at, that neglect. I am not bringing any charge against those who hold church property under the present system. In many cases, two benefices scarcely eke out one decent maintenance; in others, a clergyman hopes to do more good by holding both than by relinquishing either; and many, who blame the system, do not think that they ought personally to relinquish its customary emoluments while it continues. But as a system nothing can be worse; and especially in these days, when, in addition to those who oppose our external forms, there are many who are ready to undermine every scriptural doctrine. Can the ministers of the church safely neglect the superintendence of their flocks, when they behold on every side error and heresy, divisions, wild imaginations, opposition to authority, a spirit of separatism in church government, and empiricism in theology? Can they conscientiously leave their charge to others, while their example encourages persons to enter the church solely as a temporal provision? Can they, with all these evils wound around them, remain contentedly absent from their cures? Yet our system permits and encourages, nay, forces those who are entangled in it, to leave their flocks to the care of another. This to my

mind is the greatest blot on our Establishment; and though I can see no way in which the evil can be entirely removed during the present incumbencies, we are surely bound to use all the means in our power to prepare the way for its removal, and, as far as we can, immediately to prevent the recurrence of those flagrant cases which are a peculiar stain on our national church.

I now turn to another topic. A clergyman, it is said, in a certain dio

cese, applied to his bishop to know how he ought to proceed in enforcing church discipline among his parishioners; and the answer given was, "That church discipline does not exist in the Church of England." The object of the answer was evidently to check an indiscreet exercise of ecclesiastical authority—though, perhaps, begging his lordship's pardon, the answer was not very judicious; but with this we have nothing to do at present. The question is, has church discipline ceased? And if so, ought it not to be renewed?

That church discipline has practically ceased, is notorious; and in most instances the vacuum is not attempted to be filled, though in others is substituted the influence of religious opinion. Before, however, this last restraint can be even attempted, with any prospect of success, there must have been a certain advancement in religion in the community among whom it is exercised. If the public standard be high, the effect will be considerable, in restraining those who regard the opinions of men, for the voice of popularity is the food of the worldly; if not, the beneficial effects are destroyed, and ridicule prevails over truth. But even if religious feeling be high, the exercise of this restraint must rest on the judgment of the clergyman himself, and the activeness of the individual over whom the discipline is exercised. If the clergyman possess influence, the silent reproof of Christian disapprobation, of sorrow for the sin of the offender, and a desire for his conversion, is often the most effectual means of doing good. But, then, it must be remembered, that much as this discipline is to be desired, and much as it is still exercised in many of our parishes, its whole efficacy is dependent on the character of the individual: the act cannot, therefore, be considered as directly an act of the church; nor is it so mediately, except in as much as the regulations of the church may have encouraged a body of clergymen capable of exercising such discipline; and this is by no means universally the case. Sometimes the minister is placed too much above his people to know when he can exert his influence with advantage; at others, too much below the wealthy for it to be effectual. Still I feel no hesitation in asserting, that, where this Christian discipline is exercised, the results have been most beneficial to the interests of religion.

It may, however, be doubted, whether under present circumstances the influence of our clergy is sufficient. The state of the Church of England, at the present moment, presents some peculiar difficulties. As being established, and as comprehending among its friends and clergy many men of family and influence, the great body of the wealthier population profess to belong to its communion: many undoubtedly conscientiously; but many, only because their fathers did so before them, being really indifferent to vital Christianity, and not giving themselves the trouble of inquiring whether the claims of the Church of England are scriptural, and whether the Dissenters act consistently with their Christian profession in separating. The members of the Church of England vary in their feelings towards the Establishment: some clergymen are popular, some unpopular; but diligence and devotion to the cause of religion are not the criterion on which their standard of clerical merit is founded: but, on the whole, they are generally to be found giving weight to the church as a state machine, for the preservation of good order and morality.

Now there can be no doubt that the admission of such persons into the privileges of church union gives an appearance of indifference to vital Christianity on the part of the church herself, in the eyes of a great portion of the population. There are many friends of the Church of England who have been so strongly impressed with the weight of this objection, and have felt so forcibly the evil of permitting their congregations to entertain the