acquaintance among the clergy of his archdeaconry, are considered, it will not be thought very likely, that he will be forward to be so employed. As clergymen will be concerned in all the cases respecting residence, and as the question will be one, in which they may be said to be interested on one side, and the laity on the other, the bishop will be subjected to all the danger of bias arising from esprit du corps; a bias to which all professions, not excepting the clerical profession, are known to be subject. And this danger will not unfrequently be greatly aggravated by the bishop's personal acquaintance naturally lying chiefly among the clergy; so that a considerable proportion of those, who are nonresidents, or wish to become so, will either be his friends, or will be able to apply to him through the medium of his friends. Add to this, that the bishop himself may, perhaps, have possessed a living, and been a non-resident, before his elevation to the mitre; nay, it is not impossible, but that, as a bishop, he may not be so uniformly a resident in his diocese, when parliamentary duties do not call him to London, as he ought to be.

But it may be said, these are theoretic objections; at least try the bishops, before you pronounce them ill-qualified for the exercise of the powers in question. Mr. Editor, we have tried them. They have been, and now are, invested with powers to enforce residence by a process in the ecclesiastical courts. It is true, they could not exert those powers without a degree of trouble and expence, which would not admit of their proceeding at once against all the non-residents, who ought to reside. But have they proceeded against any? Has any bishop, in any diocese, chosen out two or three flagrant cases, and prosecuted the defaulters? Surely this ought to have been done, especially by the more opulent bishops; and a few examples of this sort might have produced a great reformation among us as to clerical residence. But can one instance of this kind be adduced? I believe not. If then not one of the bishops has used the means of securing clerical residence, with which he has been intrusted, what encouragement have we to invest him with discretional powers so extensive, and so extremely liable to abuse, as those which have been described?

I forbear to paint in as dark colours as the case would warrant, what might be the consequences to the prelacy and to the Church, were such powers granted. At present, when a clergyman is blamed for not residing, the person who censures him may be asked, why, with such sentiments on the subject, he does not commence a prosecution against him. This I have often found an effectual method of allaying the heat of invec tive, if not of stopping it altogether. But how is the tongue of censure to be quieted, should Sir William Scott's plan be adopted? It would attack the non-resident clergyman; and attack the bishop also for sanctioning his non-residence; and if facts will not warrant a defence of both, no argu mentum ad hominem could be opposed, as at present, to the assault: all the blame would appear to rest with churchmen, and those who do not wish well to the Church would take care, that she should bear its whole weight.

Should the censurer be one of the non-resident clergyman's parishioners, he would add to his attack on the Church a complaint of personal injury. He would allege, that he was obliged to pay for what he did not receive; that the parishioners, according to the able pamphlet of Dr. Napelton, had originally joined the bishop in granting a revenue to the living, for the express purpose of having a resident clergyman: that they still continued to pay the clergyman; but, through his own fault and the bishop's, he was not a resident among them; and they were deprived of all means of redress for this injury by course of law. I will not repeat the invidious names which would be given to this procedure on the part of the Church. It is too well known, that the profane and the violent would not be sparing of them; and that no small part of those who dissent from the Church would not be displeased to hear them used, and would be ready to fan the flame of discontent in the parish.

This flame would shew itself in almost every case, where the clergyman had not an obvious and valid plea for non-residence. But how greatly would it spread, and how fatal would it be to the fair fame of the Church, and to true religion, when the clergyman, shielded by the bishop's licence from prosecutions for

non-residence, raised his tithes to their full value. It is painful to contemplate the scene which must ensue in the parish. But it behoves those who love the Church of England, and the Gospel of Christ, well to consider it before they give their approbation to such a measure as Sir William Scott's.

There is another circumstance which would tend not a little to aggravate the discontent of parishes, and of the community at large, when an improper use was made of the power of licensing non-residence; and would even subject a bishop to animadversion, who made a proper use of this power. I mean the very different courses which would be held in different dioceses, and even in the same diocese under different bishops. When men, invested with judicial power, act according to their discretion, and not according to fixed rules of law, their decisions will take the colour of their respective characters, humours, and circumstances, and no uniformity of proceeding can be expected among them: and this want of uniformity will evidently be proportionate to the want of legal checks and guards on the exercise of their discretion. Sup pose then that the bishops of two contiguous dioceses are, one of them strict, and the other lax, in enforcing residence; would not the contrast between the conduct of these prelates aggravate the discontents of those, who thought they had cause to find fault with either? And would it not tend to place the proceedings of him who was culpable, or most culpable, in a very odious light: The same thing would take place in a still greater degree, when two successive bishops, in the same diocese, differed very much from each other in their conduct on the subject of clerical residence.

I will hasten, Sir, to conclude a letter already too long. Many of the preceding observations are powerful dissuasives against investing the bishops with discretional powers in any form, on the subject of clerical residence, instead of leaving the common courts of law open, as they have hitherto been, to those who wish to enforce it. But it is not in this way that I apply them. I have confined myself, as much as possible, to a consideration of the peculiar nature and character of those discretional

powers, with which the bishops were to be entrusted. I hope I have shewn them to be such, as do not accord with the spirit or practice of the British Constitution; and such as the friends of the bishops, the clergy, the Church, and the Gospel of Christ, cannot, after due investigation, contemplate with out apprehension and aversion. P.M.

Nov. 23rd, 1802.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. Βουλευομενος, παραδειγματα ποιο τα παρελή λυθοτα τῶν μελλονίων.-150€.

THE temperate defence of the doc.. trine and constitution of the Church of England, and the general attention to the practical influence of Christianity, which distinguish the Christian Observer, have, it seems, to some persons occasioned considerable alarm. Whatever you may profess, Dr. Kipling, in particular, has discovered " design of overturning the Established Church, and plunging the nation in anarchy and blood." A little caution of imputing so much malice even to publications, in some respects excep. tionable, might not be improper; because we know who hath said, “With what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." But a certain class of writers are so devoid of this caution, that they are at present labouring hard to render odious to the world, and obnox ious to the state, all persons whose zeal and piety they dislike; and whose doctrine they seem determined to misrepresent or misunderstand. This is not, indeed, a new device. Some of the best friends of the Church and Monarchy have, in former times, been treated in the same manner. At present I wish to call the attention of your readers to the case of the venerable Bishop Hall.

The hard measure, which that bishop received at Norwich from the republicans, is generally known. How he was treated, by men of a different description, when Bishop of Exeter, is not, I believe, so generally understood. Let us hear then his own account, as stated by himself, in the "Observations on some Specialities in his Life, written with his own hand." "I entered, (saith he), upon this place," (the Bishopric of Exeter), not "without much prejudice and suspi

cion on some hands; for some that sate at the stern of the Church, bad me in great jealousie for too much favour of puritanism. I soon had intelligence who were set over me for espialls; my ways were curiously observed and scanned. However I took the resolution to follow those courses which might most conduce to the peace and happiness of my new and weighty charge. Finding, therefore, some factious spirits very busy in that diocese, I used all fair and gentle means to win them to good order, and therein so happily prevailed, that (saving two of that numerous clergy, who, continuing in their refractoriness, fled away from censure), they were all perfectly reclaimed; so that I had not one minister professedly opposite to the anciently received orders (for I was never guilty of urging any new impositions) of the Church in that large diocese. Thus we went on comfortably together*, till some persons of note in the clergy, being guilty of their own negligence, and disorderly courses, began to envy our success, and finding me ever ready to encourage those whom I found conscionably forward, and painful in their places, and willingly giving way to orthodox and peaceable lectures in several parts of my diocese, opened their mouths against me, both obliquely in the pulpit, and directly at the court, complaining of my too much indulgence to persons disaffected, and my too much liberty of frequent lecturings within my charge. The billows went so high, that I was three several times upon my knee to his majesty, to answer these great criminations, and what contestation I had with some great lords concerning these particulars, it would be too long to report; only this, under how dark a cloud I was hereupon, I was so sensible, that I plainly told the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, that rather than I would be obnoxious to those slanderous tongues of his misinformers, I would cast up my rochet: I knew I went right ways, and would not endure to live under undeserved suspicionst."

*He was Bishop of Exeter certainly as early as 1628, He was removed to Nor

wich in 1641.

+ Sec some specialities, &c. prefixed to the volume of Bishop Hall's works, entitled Divers Treatises, &c. printed at London 1662; also to The shaking of the Olive Tree, London 1660.

Here. then we may observe the causes which brought Bishop Hall under suspicion of puritanism. He encouraged those clergymen who were painful, i. e. laborious in their places, He gave way to peaceable and orthodox lectures in his diocese. Those who were guilty of their own negligence observed with envy and disgust the countenance given to so much diligence and piety; and they excited against the bishop the prejudices of the archbishop and of his party at the court. To similar causes, it is conceived, may be referred the outcry which is at present raised against certain clergymen as Methodists, as Gospel-preachers, as threatening danger to the Church, by men who are little disposed to emulate their zeal and diligence. If a clergyman state with perspicuity the first principles of our holy religion, and urge them with effect on the consciences of his hearers; the success attending his ministry affords a pretence for the most unfounded calumny, and the most disingenuous insinuations of mischief either designed, or to be apprehended. However warmly such clergyman may be attached to our happy government and constitution, both in Church and State; however exactly observant of every rite of the one, and zealous in the hour of danger to defend the other, still he must be accounted a secret enemy to both. The violent and intolerant maxims, which distinguished the enemies of Bishop Hall, are adopted as infallible axioms; and those who adopt them are loud in their clamours against any clergyman, whose ministry may excite attention, while they appear little concerned at the total neglect of the public worship of God by thousands, in almost every part of the kingdom. Certain modern appellations are as convenient and undefined terms of reproach now, as puritanism was when said to be favoured by Bishop Hall. Amongst the ignorant and inconsiderate of all classes, many give easy credit to calumny when piety is the object of it. Contempt is excited which precludes examination, and the want of evidence of guilt is There are, however, instances, some supplied by determined prejudice. known to the present writer, where, upon a candid examination of the men and the doctrine traduced, the

Archbishop Laud.

CHARACTER OF EUSEBIA CONTINUED.

I PROPOSE now to describe the manner in which Eusebia is accustomed to interpret Scripture. It has pleased God to reveal to us his will, through the medium of his word; but we are apt to defeat the ends of revelation by giving erroneous interpretations to the book of God. How endless are the varieties of opinion, even among those who profess to derive their religious sentiments from this source. Is then the Bible vague in its expression, as unbelievers, reasoning from the multitude of our controversies, are ready to assert; or is it, as the Papists say, so obscure and mysterious, that only the ministers of religion ought to presume that they can explain it?

I have already intimated, that Eusebia understands her Bible in the popular and unlearned sense. She considers it as treating, not of curious or abstruse questions which exercise the faculties of a few, but of religious truths, which demand the attention of all; and as aiming to give a warm impression of these truths, by some times adopting a seemingly negligent boldness of stile, rather than as speaking with an uniformity of verbal precision. She applies to the Scriptures the same rules of interpretation, which she would use in the case of another book. She marks the circumstances under which each part was written, attends to the context, frequently compares one passage with another, which the extent of her biblical knowledge makes it easy for her to do, and adding earnest prayer for the divine assistance,

she experiences encreasing edification and pleasure, and less and less difficulty in the perusal.

She

Theodosia misunderstands her Bible, by aiming to be too deep. deems it a "sealed book" to those who are not accustomed to spiritualize every part of it; and being in quest of the less obvious sense, she not unfrequently loses the benefit of a plain practical precept of which she stands in need. She views, for example, the parable of the good Samaritan only in the light of a doctrinal illustration of the subject of redemption. He that has fallen among thieves is assumed to be human nature, or man in general. The Levite is the law which cannot save us; the good Samaritan is our Saviour. She is perplexed to know what is meant by the priest, who, as well as the Levite, passes by the other way; and on the subject of the two-pence she is at some loss. When I reflect how minute is her system of interpretation, I wonder that she is not staggered at observing, that the man who has fallen among thieves, is said to be only "half dead;" a very unsound term, as she must admit, when applied to human nature. She considers not that the parable is related by Christ in answer to a Jew, who was apt to hate men of another sect, and asked, "who is my neighbour?" and that it was meant to correct this practical error. Theodosia in like manner too much confines her charity to persons of exactly her own persuasion; and the passage therefore, if justly interpreted, might contribute to correct in her this fault. I mean not to deny that our Saviour may, in some general manner, be likened to the good Samaritan. My objection is to Theodosia's adopting this as the only true mode of interpre

tation, and to her regarding the passage as a clear testimony in favour of the chief doctrines of Christianity. The Scriptures, if all persons are allowed to interpret them on this plan, may have a thousand different significations, and may be made to convey any meaning which a fertile imagination is able to deduce from them.

Amanda errs after a very different manner. Her complaint of not being able to comprehend the doctrinal parts of the New Testament, arises from her taking too little interest in them, and from a general defect of piety. She mistakes even the practical passages. Her favourite sermon on the mount, is far more strict than she supposes it to be; and will never be well interpreted by her until her stand ard of practice is greatly raised. With her present views, it is impossible, for instance, that she should understand what it is to "hunger and thirst after righteousness," to enter in at the straight gate," to "cut off the right hand and pluck out the right eye;" neither can she have an adequate conception of "that purity of heart," to which is annexed the promise of "seeing God;" or be aiming to be "perfect even as our heavenly father is perfect."

The advantage which Eusebia possesses in the interpretation of Scripture, is to be traced to more fervent piety, to greater simplicity, and to a fuller acquaintance with the Bible, rather than to superior powers of understanding. She has been taught, that "the meek will he guide in judgment, the meek will he teach his way." She possesses, it is true, more than ordinary talents, but these, tho' useful, are by no means to be considered as necessary for the object in question. She also possesses some natural wit, but for this endowment she has no use when she reads the Bible. Theodosia summons up her wit for the very occasion on which Eusebia dismisses it. There is a quaint humour in her construction of dark texts of the Old Testament, which extremely diverts the imagination of those who listen to her, and does not even allow the muscles of their face to be perfectly at rest. If Amanda should hear some of these ludicrous interpretations, and should talk of them among her circle, there would unquestionably be no bounds to the general laughter, and the evil might

be the more serious, inasmuch as the truths deduced are often as solemn and important, as the mode of inferring them from the text is extravagant and ridiculous.

There is another difference in Eusebia's mode of interpreting Scripture, which must be explained. Eusebia first considers the meaning of each passage, as applied to those to whom it was immediately addressed. She, therefore, takes into her contemplation the circumstances of antient times, and then deduces the instruction applicable to herself. Theodosia proceeds in a shorter manner; she makes no allowance whatever, for difference of times. Amanda is in the opposite extreme: she considers the epistles as so exclusively written to the antient Churches, that they can be of little or no use to us.

Theodosia once fell into the company of Amanda, whose character she very ill understands, and whom she considers as a perfect heathen. Being desirous of awakening her to some sense of her danger, she took occasion to speak of the sad state of the unconverted, and to represent how strongly their wickedness was described in the word of truth. They were foolish," she observed, "disobedient, deceived" here Amanda suspected that she herself was alluded to-" serving divers lusts and pleasures," she now doubted whether she were the object of the remark-"living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. " Amanda upon this felt extremely comforted; for she was sure that she was not "living in malice and envy, hateful and hating" her fellow-creatures, and she proceeded to infer, that not being of the number of the unconverted she must of course be a true Christian. Theodosia not finding Amanda's conscience to be sufficiently alarmed, conceived it necessary to call a still stronger quotation to her aid. She stumbled on that passage of the Epistle to the Romans, in which it is said respecting the wicked of those more violent days, "their feet are swift to shed blood." Amanda was now most satisfactorily persuaded, that neither she nor any of her friends were intended to be reflected on, and she suspected that the remark was pointed at the French.

I think that I know exactly how Eusebia, half of whose difliculties, in