confine the troubled waves. Sometimes, at these meetings, language escapes from parochial legislators, as from others, offensive from its impiety or vulgarity, and which can scarcely fail to carry contamination to the minds of some unless there be some person present invested with authority to animadvert upon it. Whose presence is so likely to discountenance or repress such offence as that of the clergyman, and to whom, if needful, will the right of reproving, in the spirit of meekness, be so readily conceded?

But, besides these beneficial effects, which a conscientious and judicious clergyman may expect to arise to others from his attending the parish vestry, he will probably derive much valuable experience from it himself for the direction and guidance of his ministrations. He will obtain a clearer insight into the characters of his parishioners of every class by these means than by most others; he will understand better their habits of thinking, and their various interests. And he will himself become better known to them; they will be better able to estimate him and his motives; and it will be his own fault if this does not tend to conciliate esteem and to gain confidence; for he will be seen shewing a proper degree of sympathy with them in their secular interests, benefiting them by his information and advice, and exhibiting to them a temper and demeanour, becoming a gentleman, a friend, and a Christian.

I am quite prepared to admit that some discouragements will be experienced by a clergyman who pursues this course. He will often be disappointed in his hopes of witnessing the adoption of measures dictated by religion and morality; he will find others, more congenial to the corrupt heart, approved of in preference; but, at least, these cases will not be of so frequent occurrence if he is present at the parochial vestry as if he were absent; right principles are more likely to prevail by being stated and proposed than by their being kept wholly in the back ground; and, in time and by degrees, they may gain the ascendancy if prudence and patience do not fail. A clergyman, too, must be prepared to find that the vestry room is not the resort of good taste, good breeding, or intelligence; perverseness must be encountered, ignorance, wrong-headedness, and opposition to what is plainly reasonable and right; perhaps even, at times, personal incivility. But even these trials and annoyances may be made beneficial, both by the exercise of his Christian temper and principles, and by exhibiting him, if he acquits himself as he ought, in the most favourable light in which he can desire to be placed.

It may be thought by some that there is something inconsistent with the peculiar avocations and the dignity of a clergyman to take any part in the business of the vestry room. But since, as has been shewn, sound Christian principles are required for the adjudication of the matters which are there transacted (as indeed they are for some of the commonest concerns of life), it appears to me that there is, not only no inconsistency, but a peculiar propriety and fitness, in the clergyman taking a part in such discussions. He may be about his Master's business as much in the vestry as in the church itself; its deliberations will not desecrate or secularize him; but he will very greatly contri

bute to christianize them. Neither should a clergyman feel it any loss of time to give his attendance on the occasions referred to. If, by his attendance, charity is promoted, mercy and compassion are elicited, industry, prudence, sobriety, encouraged, religion recommended, irreligion discountenanced, as I contend they will almost necessarily be, if he is watchful, prudent, and conscientious, then the parish vestry room becomes one of the principal scenes of ministerial usefulness, and the time, which is occupied by attendance, then is probably more advantageously expended than it would have been if he had remained during the same period closed up in the solitude of his study.

On the whole, then, the advantages of the practice which I have ventured to recommend appear to me very great-far greater than any disadvantages which can be supposed to attach to it. And I hope I may, without presumption, request your clerical readers will give them an attentive consideration. The English law, as far as it touches on parochial matters, not only suffers the presence of the clergyman in the parish vestry, but, in general, assigns him the presidency. And it would have been an obvious incongruity in the parochial system, which constitutes the clergyman the persona ecclesiæ, if it had done otherwise. It is not any duty, therefore, in the clergyman to withdraw himself from that ground which the laws of his country-in other words, the providence of God-has allotted to him; rather let him think, then, it is my duty to be found.

I remain, Sir, respectfully yours, C. S.

ON CHURCH SOCIETIES.

DEAR SIR, I was much gratified in perusing a letter in your Number for September last, signed "T. T. P.," and having expected in vain that others, better qualified than myself, would express their sentiments on the interesting subject to which his communication refers, I am induced to offer some remarks and suggestions, which, through your widely circulated Journal, I would submit to the judgment of my clerical brethren.

The letter to which I have alluded proposes the institution of voluntary societies of churchmen, with a view to uphold and promote the ordinances and spiritual discipline of the church. A society is to be established in every parish, headed by the clergyman, open to every individual who has been, or is of age to be, confirmed. Each member is to bind himself to comply with the terms of the church, by receiving the sacrament four times a year at least. Any member absent from church without reason for two Sundays is to be separated from the society; any person suspended from the sacrament by the clergyman, to be also suspended from the society until re-admitted to that ordinance; members of the society to be special objects of pastoral

care.

That some such plan as this would be very advantageous to the interests of religion, I have very little doubt. Whatever unites Christians more closely with each other, on the grounds of their being memVOL. IV.-August, 1833. 2 A

bers of one spiritual body; whatever tends to the establishment of mutual confidence between man and man; is to be regarded as strictly accordant with the spirit of the religion we profess. This unity, this binding together of the brethren for the sake of our common faith, is strongly contrasted with the selfish and disorganizing system of the world. It has before now preserved religion and society amidst the most terrible trials and persecutions; and the present aspect of the world ought to excite us to give diligence that this sacred and salutary principle be not impaired.

It should be a matter of devout thankfulness, that, in the apostolical doctrines and government of the church, we are furnished with solid and effectual means of unity. We are subject to spiritual rulers whom we acknowledge as authorized by Christ himself to guide and feed his flock; we are directed by creeds whose doctrines have been handed down by the universal church from the beginning.

But, while these grand and strong foundations remain with us, and afford us advantages which cannot elsewhere be obtained, we are far from thinking that the results of our principles may not yet be more fully developed than at present. As long as the church consists of men subject to human infirmities and sins, so long will her discipline be capable of improvement. On the first day of Lent, she expresses her "wish" that the primitive discipline was restored again, so that "persons convicted of notorious sin should be put to open penance, and punished in this world that their souls might be saved in the day of the Lord; and that others, admonished by their example, might be the more afraid to offend." It were indeed much to be desired; but the temper of the times, and many difficulties, both internal and external, have as yet prevented the accomplishment of the good work. In the present day, and with the feelings and principles which seem to influence our temporal governors, the prospect of any aid from the legislature in this respect (if desirable) is apparently at a greater dis

tance than ever.

Under these circumstances, it seems to be the duty of those who truly love the church, and desire to promote religion by her means, to consider whether we may not ourselves do much to promote her desires and intentions, if not exactly in the form we should have preferred, yet in some way which may be nearly as efficient, and perhaps better adapted to the temper of the age.

I

On this account, I was happy to see the letter of " T. T. P.," which, agree with you, is worthy of" most serious consideration." It seems to me, however, that his plan is capable of improvement in one or two points. First, I would suggest, that in a matter so important to the church, nothing should be done without the consent and approbation of the Bishop. This rests on a principle which is essential to episcopacy, and should never be lost sight of. If the bishop recommended the institution of such a society, and authorized its rules, the clergyman would come before his parishioners with the greatest advantages; for then it would hardly be optional with them whether they joined the society or not, but, as faithful children of the church, they would feel morally bound to do so. It should be observed also, that if the system

were thought desirable, and if it were afterwards wished to extend it in the diocese, the bishop would probably have it in his power either to render it general, or else to discourage and suppress it. Secondly, in order to keep these societies together, and to render them efficient and orderly, it would be necessary that some pledge should be taken from each member on his admission, which would serve afterwards to keep him in his place, and prevent him from disturbing the society at pleasure. Suppose, then, that each member subscribes a declaration "that he will endeavour to obey the rules of the society, and be obedient to his bishop and clergy."

The rules of the society might be as follows:-
:-

I. The clergyman shall be the spiritual ruler of this society, under the bishop.

II. The society shall consist of members of the Church of England residing in the parish.

III. Any member who shall openly offend against religion, or the rules of the church, shall, after due trial, be removed from the society by the bishop or his deputy, unless he make amends for what he has done. And any one so removed shall, as much as possible, be avoided by the members of the society.

IV. The society shall occasionally meet in church, when convened by the clergyman, for prayer and exhortation, for the admission of new members, and exercise of discipline.

V. The members shall perform offices of benevolence and charity towards each other.

VI. Every member shall subscribe what follows, before he is admitted by the clergyman to the society :

Declaration.

"We, the undersigned, will endeavour to obey the rules of the Church Society, and be obedient to our bishop and clergy."

The clergyman himself would of course be the prime agent in the formation of these societies, but it would be highly advisable to make use of pious and judicious laity as well at the commencement as in the sequel. By the appointment of district visitors almost any degree of organization might be attained.

The advantages of such societies would seem to be these:-The principles of men would be better known in times of backsliding and uncertainty, and thus confidence would be increased between members of the church. A social influence would be excited in favour of goodness, and in opposition to vice and irreligion, only inferior in power to that which would arise from the complete revival of church discipline, from which, in fact, it would scarcely differ except in name. By their principles of obedience to their bishops and clergy and the rules of the church, these societies could scarcely be in any way irregular or prejudicial; while they would, of course, adopt any wise regulations which from time to time might be made by the governors of the church. Should it become expedient, at any future time, to call for funds for the promotion or support of religion, such societies might be found of the highest utility.

Much more might be added on the religious uses of these societies, and on the means of increasing their numbers and organization, and extending the system generally, if it was found to be useful; but I will not further intrude on the attention of your readers at present, except to remark that if these societies were not found to be beneficial, the bishop would have the power of dissolving them by the very declaration which the members had all made. I shall be happy if this letter should elicit some further observations from more experienced and competent judges, and remain Faithfully yours, PRESBYTER.

UNION OF PARISHES.

June 4th, 1833. MR. EDITOR,-In your Magazine for this month I have just seen, under the head of Yorkshire Intelligence, some notice of a plan there in agitation for the union of poor and small parishes. The proposed maximum of population in such parishes when united is stated to be 1000 souls, and that of income 500l. per annum. Now, without insisting on uncommon or extreme cases, let us suppose two adjoining livings, each with a population of upwards of 800 souls, and each with an income of more than 1001. a year, I would ask, is the union of such parishes upon the whole desirable? In the first place, would the people be benefited by having only one, instead of two, of Christ's ministers resident among them, and that one, almost necessarily, at a considerable distance from many of them?-by having among them two services instead of four on the Sunday, and one of those in a church, in all probability, remote from many of them? In the next place, would it be beneficial for the clergy, who, instead of being able (as, with a very moderate income, the pastor of 300 or 400 souls is able) to assist with donations of soup, clothing, medicine, &c., all their poor parishioners, would be forced (unless men of large fortune and great zeal) to do this but imperfectly, if they did it at all? Lastly, would such a measure benefit the church and the general cause of Christianity, (particularly in the too probable case of the spoliation of cathedrals,) that there should be no provision whatever for studious and talented men, no places with small parochial duty, where, without breaking their vows to "feed Christ's flock," such divines may have leisure to employ their abilities in the defence and elucidation of our holy faith? How many competent men, with private incomes of from 300l. to 10007. a year, are to be found who willingly accept such small livings! And, while such men can be found, why unite such livings to others? The number of clergy in the present day is certainly not too great for the population of this country; but how much less would it have

I here speak according to the practice of the diocese where I am-that of London.

The Editor must observe, that he doubts whether his correspondent represents the proposal correctly. As he (the Editor) understands it, it would place one incumbent and one curate where there are now two poor incumbents, and would leave the number of services the same.