nienced, and fociety will fuftain a pofitive lofs. Let us fuppose a cafe which will undoubtedly occur, if the act should ever be inforced. A rector of a country living is abfent on a literary undertaking, is fpreading through the kingdom, by means of the press, the pureft principles of religion, principles which tend to counteract the defigns of the enemies of the Church. Books have many advantages over vivâ voce inftruction, they fpeak the boldest truths without giving offence, they oppofe us without contradiction, and they have access to us at all times. Is not this man doing good in his generation? Let us look to his parish; there we find a laborious pains-taking prieft, who on this account may often be more ferviceable in the parish than the rector, as he has no difputes or bickerings with the parishioners about tythes; they regard him as a friend, they look upon him as one more on a level with themselves, and his words have often more weight upon them for this very reafon. This is a pleasant prospect, but it will ceafe to be fo, if we call in the influence of this blighting act of parliament. The rector muft give up his useful labours, because he cannot afford to remain where they can alone be carried on with effect. He muft refide on his living, and the curate must be dismissed, however unwillingly, to feek his fubfiftence elfew here. Many of your readers will fmile perhaps, that I have made the rector the grand literary undertaker, but it will readily occur to your mind, Mr. Editor, that we are indebted for the most valuable works on theology, to the higher orders of the clergy. Your readers will readily collect from the pages of your valuable mifcellany, a long lift of archbishops and bifhops, to whose pious labours we owe fo much, and efpecially from the interefting account of archbishop Secker in your laft number, they will learn that these excellent men have made the highest dignities, not a cushion of ease, but a motive for fresh exertions. Not, as you have juftly observed, that they liked ease lefs, and labour more than other men, for no man ever yet applied for the mere pleasure of application, but that they imagined that more was expected from them in proportion to their exaltation, and that both God and man would look for much where much had been given. A propofal for giving to each individual an equal fhare of church property, would have no good effect on the profperity of the church, it would introduce every where a frigid mediocrity of talent. Such men as Daubeny, Nott, and many more, would not be found in the fucceeding generation. Every approach to this, muft bring with it its proportion

proportion of evil. The Curate's bill does approach to this; it amalgamates the orders of rector and curate; it deftroys one entire link in the chain. We may add to the evils likely to be produced by it another probable cafe. A man with a wife and a fmall family, is poffeffed of two livings, which from illness he is unable to ferve. They are distant from each other, and neither of them fufficiently large to furnish the proposed income to the curate. There can be no regulation which will oblige the curate in this cafe, to rest fatisfied with less than the ufual emolument, that is, to give up part of his income for the relief of another. The law, indeed, allows a clergyman to give up one or both of his livings, a miserable refource to one who has no other dependance, and who perhaps from the unavoidable expences of ill-health, has already anticipated his income.

Such are the advantages likely to accrue to individuals; let us confider what religion can expect. Is it likely that a man who neglects his duty with 50l. a year, will perform it with 250l. when he may enjoy this income, and be as inattentive as before, with greater temptations of tranfgreffing? If indeed, which is impoffible, the curate could be paid in proportion to his labours, the additional 2001, would prove a very useful ftimulus to the languid piety of many. But a man does not perform his duty better because his income is larger; the matter refts with his own confcience, the law he goes by tells him he can never do enough, and he knows that the eye of his Mafter is always upon him. But it is faid that it will make him more refpectable; this must either be to the rich or to the poor,-but will the overgrown farmer who has retired into seats which once witneffed the decent elegance of ancient and respectable families-will this man pay more reverence to the additional 200l. or will his neighbour of 6000l. a year, who has hitherto refpected him for the punctual difcharge of his duty, efteem him more for his increased income? I truft not. But the poor, the poor, it may be faid, will certainly refpect him. Yes, they may pay a little more obeifance to the neat gig, than to the afhen ftick, and the thread-bare coat, but will an admonition defcend with more weight from the new vehicle? or will a text be more likely to produce conviction from one dreffed. in a more gloffy coat, or a blacker pair of filk ftockings? God forbid it fhould! fo far from it, that I think the cause of religion would receive but little improvement, if every curate in his majefty's dominions were enabled to drink claret every day after dinner, or to take the air in his own

coach.

coach. Your readers will not, I hope, fo far misunderstand me as to conclude that I think the income of the curate needs no augmentation. I obje&t not to the increase of income, but to the fource from which it is to be derived. The income of the curare fhould be enough to enable him to live as a fingle man at least, in a plain and decent manner in the parfonage houfe. Otherwife I am inclined to think, that in the country his labours would lofe half their effect. If he live at the neighbouring market town, much time will be loft by his journies to his parishes, which in bad weather he may not be able to vifit. If he board at the farmer's, he must expect many interruptions by the expectations of the family, that an inmate fhould give up a confiderable fhare of his time to their fociety and converfation. If, however, he should prefer his duties and his fludies, he will hear many reflexions on pride and unfociable manners, and will often find the effects of his labours among the poor impeded by their infinuations. The curate's income therefore fhould furnish him with a plain and decent refidence in the parfonage-house, where no one can interfere with his engagements, and where his influence may be in fome degree increased by his having the difpofal of his income among the tradefmen in the village. His income may poffibly be increased in a less objectionable way than that propofed, by enabling every curate properly qualified, to have fome chance of increasing his income by eftablishing schools, &c. This might be done, by enacting that no fchools, excepting what are generally termed the great fchools, fhould confift of more than 20 or 30 boys, that is such a number as the mafter himself could instruct without an assistant: this number would be fufficient for every purpose of emulation, and would prevent the fatal effects on the morals of youth too often attendant on larger fchools, and would, if properly conducted, unite in a great measure, the advantages of public and private education. There is in a neighbouring county a school of above 200 boys, continued after the death of the mafter on the worst of all poffible pleas, that of charity for the widow. Now if this and fimilar inftitutions were reduced, it would furnish a refpectable and easy income to a great part of the clergy. If the attention of parliament were turned to this fubject, which has been confidered by the wifeft nations, as of the highest importance, if they should examine into the details of these inftitutions, many improvements would be probably fuggefted, the ends of education would in general be better answered, and a more favourable turn would be

given

But to return tą

given to the rifing manners of the age. the first consideration.-Another means of increasing the income of the lower orders of the clergy, would be to establish a prefs for printing the Fathers, the Claffics, &c. the whole to be conducted by the clergy. The public might in this way be put in poffeffion of many valuable works, which from the flownefs of the fale, the bookfellers are unwilling to engage in. A prefs of this kind would be of the highest value, as it would direct its views more to useful, than merely popular productions, and as the directors would be orthodox men, and men of judgment, a certain degree of popularity would foon make the undertaking answer in a pecuniary point of view, and a general correctnefs and elegance would be encouraged, as the publishing of any writings would be regarded by the world as the teft of merit in the work, and as paffing a compliment on the author.

On the whole, it fhould be confidered, that only a part of the curates can ever think themselves ultimately benefited by the act, that part who have no certain profpect of preferment, or who imagine themfelves precluded from it. How fmall this number is, every parent will tell you, who has fuffered his fon to enter into orders with the hope, nay, even with the conviction, that he may fucceed, though hundreds around him fail, and that he will not for ever draw a blank in the great lottery of life. If however, fuch an increase of income, as that proposed in parliament, fhould be judged expedient, it fhould be gradually proportioned to the exigencies of the times. The curate, in this cafe, will be better able to economize and adapt his income to his fituation, than by so sudden an increase, and the rector will be more prepared to meet it, by drawing more largely, as the preffure of the times increases, on the landed intereft.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient fervant,
IRCASTRENSIS.

CELEBRATION OF THE EUCHARIST ON GOOD

FRIDAY.

I

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S

SIR,

MAGAZINE.

HAVE read with great fatisfaction, the "Lectures on the Occurrences of the Paffion Week, by Dr. Mant;" and I have no doubt but they will be productive of great good, in promoting a more ferious attention to that holy feafon, than has for many years prevailed even among the regular members of our church; but there was one paffage which ftruck me very much, and upon which I beg leave to offer a remark or two through the medium of your magazine, for the confideration of the clergy. In the fifth Lecture the Doctor fays, "And now having mentioned the Lord's Supper, I am called upon by my duty, to remind you of the notice which has been given, that it will be administered to all fuch as fhall be religiously and devoutly disposed, on Good Friday and on Sunday next, being Easter. Day."

Now, Mr. Editor, the information I wish for is this, whether the adminiftration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, being an Euchariftic Feaft upon a Sacrifice, be ftrictly proper on a day always confidered as the most folemn Faft in the Chriftian Church ?"

I have no doubt but that equal benefit may be received from this holy ordinance, on that day as on all others; ftill, to my mind, there is an inconfiftency in blending a religious faft and feaft together.

I know indeed that on the ftationary faft-days, that is Wednesday and Friday, the church, even in Tertullian's time, celebrated the Communion, but it is also certain that in Lent the Eucharift was never confecrated except on the Sabbath and Lord's Day. Now of that feafon, Good Friday, called peculiarly nox tenebrofa, was always, as it fill is, confidered as the most folemn day.

Having mentioned the Sabbath and the Lord's Day, it may be proper to remark, that the reafon why they were exempted during Lent was, that both were regarded as Fef

tivals