SURPLICE FEES.

SIR,-Perhaps Mr. Hull, or some other of your legal correspondents, will give his opinion on the above subject, should you think it worthy of notice in your Magazine. A few days ago, I married a couple, occasional residents in my parish. After the ceremony, upon the clerk's demanding the usual fee, it was refused; and, as no appeal was made to my forbearance on the score of poverty, and the parties behaved very improperly, I determined to see what redress the law would afford me. On turning to the "Clergyman's Companion," the Act, 7 and 8 William III. c. vi., for the recovery of small tithes, seemed to be to my purpose. And in this opinion I was confirmed by a remark of Johnson in his "Vade Mecum," vol. i. p. 264. For, speaking of this Act, he says, "The tithe only is mentioned in the title; yet, in the body of the Act, oblations, offerings, &c., are provided for. An admirable law, if well executed." Upon the strength of this, I obtained a summons against the man, by authority of 53 Geo. III. c. cxxvii. s. 4; which is an enlargement of the former Act. This was freely granted; but the magistrate, who is a friend of my own, candidly told me that he doubted whether I should obtain redress, as the Act, in his opinion, refers only to tithes. The matter never came to a decision, as the birds were flown on the day fixed for the hearing.

In the case of Weddings, a strict observance of the rubric, which enjoins that the fee shall be placed on the book with the ring, will secure its payment. But there is no such provision for burials. And I doubt whether we should be justified in refusing to inter a corpse until after our demands were satisfied. At any rate, it is what few clergymen would like to do. Now, although in country parishes the surplice fees are of so small amount as to be hardly worth contending for, yet in towns this is not the case. There they often form a large proportion of the scanty and hard-earned incomes of the worst paid of all the members of our profession-the ministers of country towns. Besides, whether in town or country, there are some fees-namely, those for vaults and monuments-which are not of contemptible amount. So that it is a point worth knowing, whether we have any legal redress as the law now stands in cases in which our dues are withheld from us. If we have not, the sooner the omission is supplied the better.* Your obedient servant, A KENTISH CURATE.

PREPARATION FOR ORDERS.

SIR, Your correspondent J. S., in a letter on "Preparation for Orders," which appeared in your number for October, has made some

The law is quite clear. The ceremony must take place, and then the fees, when the right to demand them can be clearly shewn, can be recovered in an Ecclesiastical Court.-ED.

CORRESPONDENCE.

very just observations on the defect of all professional clerical education in the church of England; and he remarks that the schools of theology established at our Universities are so imperfect, as a system of preparation for holy orders, that, properly speaking, "we have no system in England except that which is pursued upon a small scale at the clerical institution of St. Bees."

I know very little of the actual state of theological education at Oxford and Cambridge; but the University of Dublin, which is the only other University, I believe, at which the episcopal clergy are At Dublin, no educated, certainly does not merit the same censure. man can obtain the testimonium of the University, which the Irish Bishops require as a qualification for holy orders, without having attended four terms of Divinity Lectures in the thirty-nine articles, together with the lectures of the Regius Professor of Divinity,-and these lectures are conducted in such a manner as to render the knowledge requisite for barely passing, even at its minimum, very far from contemptible; while they hold out opportunities to the more diligent and laborious student to acquire a very high degree of theological information. The lectures on the articles are altogether catechetical, from Bishop Burnet's Exposition, as a text book; and the lectures of the Regius Professor are accompanied by examinations at the beginning of every term, which render it impossible for any man to obtain credit for his attendance without some degree of proficiency and diligence. The Professor also holds an annual examination at the beginning of the Michaelmas term, at which he distributes prizes of some value to the best answerers. This has been found to work very well, and is the means of sending annually into the church ten or twelve men, at least, of very superior attainments. The examination is divided into four parts: I. The Old Testament; 2. The New Testament; 3. Ecclesiastical History; and 4. The Articles and Liturgy of the church. The present Professor has appointed the following books as text books, to be read by candidates for the prizes given at this examination, it being understood at the same time that the examiner will not absolutely confine himself to those books; but these are named as determining the extent of the information required:Patrick, Lowth, and Whitby's Commentary; Gray's Key to the Old Testament; Percy's Key to the New Testament; Graves on the Pentateuch; Newton on the Prophecies; Townson on the Gospels; Paley's Evidences, and Hore Pauline; Bishop Butler's Analogy; Prideaux's Connection of the Old and New Testaments; Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History; Carwithen's History of the Church of England; Bishop Jewell's Apology; Bishop Pearson on the Creed; Bishop Burnet on the Thirty-nine Articles; Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, books iii. and v.; Archbishop Laurence's Bampton Lectures; and Bishop Mant on the Common Prayer.

I

Such is the plan of divinity education which has been pursued in the University of Dublin for some years; and the course is now, understand, to be enlarged both in time and in the subjects of study. By a series of regulations lately enacted by the Provost and Senior

Fellows of Trinity College, it appears, "that to become entitled to a divinity testimonium, the students must, in future, attend a course of two years, in which, added to the lectures of the assistants, they must attend Archbishop King's Lecturer in the first, and the Regius Professor in the second, year." EBLANENSIS.

NOTICES IN SERVICE TIME.

Mr. EDITOR, I have not perceived that your correspondent N. N., who (p. 687, vol. iii.) makes some inquiries relating to the proclamation of vestry meetings during Divine service in the church, has been answered. Every officiating minister will agree with him, that "the solemnity of public worship is repeatedly violated by the parish clerk giving notice of some rate about to be levied, or of some other business totally unconnected with that of the church." I fear there is no legal method at present of entirely obviating this; but the following extract from Dr. Prideaux's" Directions to Churchwardens" does, I think, furnish us with considerable relief. He is speaking of vestry meetings, and he says, "On the Sunday before, public proclamation is to be made, either in the church after Divine service is ended, or else at the church door as the parishioners come out of the same, both for the calling of the said meeting, and also for the appointing the time and place for the assembling of it." I may add, that Dr. Prideaux has been declared by Sir John Nichol to be good authority on ecclesiastical matters. I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

T. L.

CHURCH REFORM.

SIR,-I had hoped that some excellent observations that appeared in the September No. upon Church Reform, would be continued in the No. for October, or I would have ventured earlier to submit a few remarks upon them, mainly however in accordance with them.

But the subject may again be resumed; and as the writer will probably, in continuation, speak his sentiments, with even less reserve, and still more clearly, and with equal ability, point out the consequences that must almost inevitably ensue, from a rash or malignant meddling with the spiritualities and temporalities of the church, I shall make no further observation, at present, upon his letter, but turn to the letter of " H.," on Church Reform, which appeared in the No. for August, and to that passage of his letter where he says—" It behoves us all to consider well with ourselves how far we can go, and where we must stop."

The necessity of some determined rule of conduct is very manifest; but, speaking for myself, I should say, that I scarcely know what consideration is to effect: so many are the subjects for our consideration, and so little do we actually know of the nature and extent of those alterations, which are said to be projecting in the constitution and liturgy of the church. That they will have an evil tendency, is highly probable. That their object will be, directly or indirectly, to introduce great confusion in the church, to weaken its authority, and to diminish its usefulness, I make no question. But, from an entire ignorance of what may be our adversaries' first projects, or from what quarter they first purpose to assail us, I feel wholly at a loss to say where I must stop, since I know not yet where they propose to lead. Nor can I form an opinion as to what I shall do or say on the subject a twelvemonth hence, since the threatened measures are at present so imperfectly defined; nor can I now say where obedience is to end, and insubordination, as they would call it, to begin, since the whole measure is not yet before us, and we cannot consequently clearly see either its probable tendency, or its certain consequences.

This, however, is very clear, that when the subject is brought to the light-in perhaps all its flagrant injustice, we shall have no power whatever to control its provisions. The common privilege allowed to every prisoner at the bar will be denied to us. We shall neither be allowed to plead our own cause, to state our own case, nor to advance proofs of the injustice and iniquity of any law which may be made purposely to ruin or to injure us.

It is very certain that, mis-represented and un-represented as the clergy now are in the House of Commons, we shall not have the slightest influence in repressing the violence of its measures, or in procuring justice to be done to ourselves.

It certainly becomes a question what the clergy are to do under such circumstances as the present, when the power to make laws is in the hands of their adversaries, and when no secret is made that that power shall be exerted to effect their overthrow. Nor is it a trifling question we are to consider, when the question is where we are to be, and what we are to be, by the end of the coming year? And yet it must be reflected upon with all possible calmness, and meekness, and patience,-with patience under the insult, and calmness under the persecution. But we shall have subtilty and craft to encounter with, probably, as well as wrong to endure.

We see mixed up in the same bill matters exceedingly objectionable to one party, with others more palatable to the many so we may expect in the case of the church,-legislators will mix up spiritual matters with temporal, and, under the cloak of the one, will call for our obedience to the other; and thus endeavour to establish a right, in the Common's House, to legislate upon the doctrines and liturgy of the church, as well as upon the distribution of its revenues. We must hold ourselves, I judge, fully prepared for this snare.

But how to act when the ensnaring bill is proposed and carried, is a subject now for our consideration. The true question is, What

obedience do we owe to any decree of the Common's House, which is opposed in fact or in principle to our duty and to our spiritual superiors? and the answer that suggests itself to my mind is to obey, without reserve, whatever is enjoined upon me by my diocesan, and to disregard every other command or enactment, come from whom it may, King, Peers, or Commons, separately or conjointly, and let the nature and substance of the enactment be what it may, plausibly specious, or avowedly hostile. In my office, as a minister of the church, I hold myself irresponsible to any authority, civil or ecclesiastical, saving only the ordinary; and to him, having sworn obedience, I mean to pay it, and to acknowledge no other authority in spiritual matters whatever.

The House of Commons may pass any law they please, for good or for evil; the King may approve of it, through choice or necessity; and the Peers may consent to it, by constraint or of hearty good will. But not for this will any law, infringing in the slightest degree on the bishop's prerogative, receive the slightest notice or obedience from me unless I receive the bishop's directions to comply with its provisions, when, of course, instant compliance will become a bounden duty.

Even if the bill related to the most momentous doctrines of our faith, though it altered extensively the articles and liturgy of our church, yet if the bishop directed obedience to be paid to it, and that such services should be used, I should undoubtedly use them, making him responsible for the consequences. But though constrained to obey, not a Sunday should pass without a fearless and public exposure of whatever was unsound or unscriptural in the measure, until the entire congregation was equally convinced of it with myself, and equally resented the force put upon us, and were equally resolute, by petition and remonstrance, to have an end put to that abominable tyranny, which any ministry can, under existing circumstances, at present exercise over our yet sound and orthodox church, over its services, its ministers, and congregations.

It is a mistake to suppose that the members of our church are indifferent to either their rights or their privileges, or that they would not oppose with their united strength any tampering with the articles of their faith. The millions of our church have no intention, in matters of everlasting moment to their souls, to be subjected to the wanton caprice, or the mischievous plotting of reckless politicians, who might presume to lead us by the nose, and to make us the stepping stones to the attainment of their own selfish and unrighteous schemes. Upon the nature of this power which they are allowed now to exercise, and of the union, as it is called, of the church with the state, through which they derive it, I may offer a few observations

hereafter.

But my present purpose is to answer your correspondent's question, and to say how one very humble individual in the church purposes to act in the case "H." supposes-"As to the possible causes which have been surmised and considered by some as sufficient to induce them to resign their benefices rather than obey an iniquitous act of