upon application to the committee, may have, for a limited time, any book which has circulated. 9. If a book be damaged, lent out, or lost, the offending party shall pay the prime cost. 10. The forfeit money shall be laid out in purchasing books, which shall belong to the school, and may be circulated among the scholars. 11. Candidates for admission into this school must be recommended by a subscriber, and proposed upon one Sunday evening, and, if approved, admitted the next. 12. If a member be expelled for non-attendance, he may again offer himself as a candidate, and, if approved, re-admitted, but shall not be entitled to the money which he had paid previous to his expulsion. 13. Bibles and prayer-books shall be delivered to the members as soon as they have paid their value. The other books at Midsummer, and at Christmas, or oftener, if thought advisable by the committee. 14. These rules shall be read to the scholars the first Sunday in every month.

Should you, Gentlemen, think proper to publish this account, proba bly some of your correspondents may suggest useful hints, to which we shall be very willing to attend. At the time that this school, and the book society were established, I did not know that there were similar institutions. But I have been informed, that there were such in two neighbouring towns, among the Methodists and the Presbyterians.

I intended to have mentioned the mode of teaching, &c. in this school; but perhaps I have said enough. If required, further information will, with pleasure, be communicated *.

AN ABSTRACT OF THE LAW ON RESIDENCE, FROM A CHARGE OF BISHOP SHERLOCK.

THE

HE Provincial Constitutions of the Church, and the laws of the realm, consider residence as a perpetual duty; and every non-resident rector, or vicar of a parish, is, prima facie, criminal in the eye of both laws, till he shows a legal dispensation to justify or excuse himself.

These dispensations create the whole difficulty of this case, and therefore I shall consider them particularly.

That the obligation to residence may be dissolved in some cases, there is no doubt all infirmities, either of body or of mind, which totally disable an incumbent from performing his duty, are cases of this kind: for as residence is of no value, but for the sake of performing the duty, it is of no consequence to the church and religion where the man resides, who is under an utter incapacity of doing any part of the parochial duty; cases of this kind speak for themselves. But there are dispensations introduced and admitted by law, and which are supposed to be founded in the general consideration of the good of the church. I wish these dispensations had not, many of them, outlived the reasons upon which they were introduced. Wherever that happens to be the case, it is a matter for every clergyman to consider, Whether he can, in good conscience, make use of a mere legal exemption to discharge himself of a duty to which he is bound by the strongest obligations? But this judgment must be left to yourselves, and the Bishop's authority in the case must be considered as bounded by the rules of law. I will inquire therefore, 1. In what cases dispensations are grantable, and by whom. II. Upon what conditions they are grantable.

* To the question fubjoined we shall reply in our next. EDITORS.

The canon law has mentioned some cases, in which the Bishop may dispense with residence; and it supposes others, referring them to the judgment and discretion of the Bishop.

1. It allows of a dispensation for such as abide in some approved university for the study of divinity or canon law. This dispensation is limited in point of time, and not allowed to exceed five or six years: and the reason of granting it is, a presumption that it will be for the benefit of the church and people to have the minister himself well instructed; and that his absence from his cure for a few years will be compensated by the ability he will then acquire to execute his office to the better edification of the people.

This being the reason on which this dispensation is grantable, it follows that no incumbent can, with a good conscience, make use of this exemption, unless he docs bona fide pursue the end for which it is granted, by a close application to the study of his profession in the university where he resides.

This reason, introduced at first by the canon law, has been approved by the legislature of this kingdom; and "scholars conversant and abiding for study, without fraud or covin, at any university within this realm, or without," are excepted from the penalties of the 21 H. VIII. cap. 13.

This exception, so generally expressed, was soon abused; which occasioned the restrictions laid on it by the 28th of Hen. VIII. cap. 13. By which act the privilege was confined to those that were under the age of forty years.

So that with respect to this point the statute has made no alteration at all, except restraining the grant to persons under forty years of age. For the statute 21 H. VIII. c. 13. enacts nothing new with respect to students in the university: and that of 28 H. VIII. c. 13. having limited the general licences for studying in the university, has a clause to except all heads of houses, and public officers, &c. from the said limitation. So that the persons thus excepted stand clear of the statutes, which leave them just where they found them, and subject to be called to residence, unless they have the ordinary's dispensation.

Upon both these statutes therefore it must be observed, and ought to be remembered, That they grant no licence of non-residence to any person on any occasion: they were made to enforce residence, and are introductive of a new penalty upon non-residence; from which new penalty certain persons, in the circumstances therein described, are exempted; but those persons, in the circumstances there described, are liable still to ecclesiastical censures, unless they are dispensed with in the manner the law, before and since the statutes, requires. And this is a point in which many have been mistaken, or willingly ignorant.

2. The canon law allows the service of the Bishop to be a sufficient licence for non-residence. The necessary care and business of a diocese require that the Bishop should have the assistance of one or more discreet clergymen: and since it is much easier to find a proper curate to serve a parish, than a proper person to advise and assist the bishop in the general care of the diocese, the law considers the person, who abides with the Bishop for these purposes, as more usefully employed than if he were confined to the care of one parish only. In this case, therefore, the good of the church is made the foundation of the dispensation.

This reason also is admitted in the statutes beforementioned; and chaplains of archbishops and bishops, daily attending in their housholds, are exempted from the penalty of the act.

The statute has extended this exemption to other cases not expressly mentioned in the canon law, as to the chaplains of the nobility and great officers of the crown; though cases of this kind had usually been dispensed with before the act; which dispensations were founded upon the general power, reserved to the Bishop by the canon law, to dispense where there appeared to him to be justa & rationabilis causa: and since the virtue and example of great and potent families will necessarily have a great influence upon the manners and religion of any country, it was thought reasonable to dispense with the personal attendance of an incumbent in his parish, whilst he was employed in teaching and instructing the younger parts of great families, and performing the offices of his functions daily to all parts of it. So that these dispensations had for their end the general interest and good of religion in the kingdom.

That the exemption in the statute, granted to the chaplains of the nobility, proceeds upon the same views, is evident from the restriction under which the exemption is granted: For it extends not to all chaplains of the nobility in general, but to such only as "are daily attending, abiding, and remaining in their honourable households;" and for so long time only, as "such chaplains shall abide and dwell, without fraud and covin, in any of the said honourable households."

The statute considers the service of the chaplain in the household of his lord, as the only ground of the exemption; and it cannot be doubted, but that such service only is meant as is proper and peculiar to the office of a chaplain. And therefore a mere retainer of a clergyman to be chaplain to a nobleman, unless he actually abides and dwells in the household, is no title to the exemption of the statute; and if one retained and titled chaplain abides in the household to do any other service, and not the service of a chaplain, it is not such an abiding as the statute intends, but is fraudulent and covinous.

I have spoken to this case more particularly, because it is a common case; and I hope, all who plead this title to an exemption from residence, will consider whether they pursue the reason and meaning of the law. It will be but little comfort to screen themselves under the letter of the law, if they are condemned by the reason of the law and their own conscience.

3. The service of the church is another reason taken notice of by the canon law; as attendance, for instance, in convocation. The statute does not mention this, neither has it, I conceive, condemned it; for he is. not wilfully absent from his cure, (as the statute speaks) who is absent in obedience to the King's writ.

4. The service of the crown is, by the common law, a dispensation of residence; but it is so only during the time a clerk is actually in the King's service and the statute before-mentioned has exempted even the King's chaplains from the penalty of non-residence, so long only as they shall be attending in the household.

These are the principal cases in which non-residence is excusable by the canon law and the laws of this realm; and it is manifest from the reason of these cases, that a dispensation for residence is by no law

3

permitted

permitted to be granted as a favour to any person, and that it is only to be justified when the service of the church or the commonwealth make it reasonable.

This general observation upon the cases which the law has expressly provided for, will enable us to judge of the cases not expressly provided for by the law, but reserved to the discretion of the bishop.

(To be continued.)

CORRECTION OF THEOLOGICAL MISTAKES.

TO THE EDITORS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZINE.

GENTLEMEN,

I HAVE just been reading, with great pleasure, a work lately published by Dr. Kipling, the Deputy Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, entitled "The Articles of the Church of England proved not to be Calvinistic." Dr. Kipling has so fully and clearly made good his point, that it cannot, one should think, ever again become a subject of dispute. Whether it will be considered as a satisfactory answer to Mr. Overton's "True Churchman ascertained," and to "The Church of England vindicated, by a Presbyter, &c.", the two works which gave rise to it, and to which it is designed as an answer, I cannot say; but it certainly well deserves the attentive perusal of the authors of those works, and indeed of every abettor and favourer of Calvinistic opinions.

In the course of this work, Dr. Kipling observes (see p. 69) that Mr. Overton, in order to prove the very general desertion of our parish churches, which he imagines has taken place, and which he attributes to what he calls "the present plan of teaching in the church," has brought forward the following passage of an episcopal charge :-"On one half of the Lord's day good inclinations carry the more pious part of our parishioners to the conventicle; and the devil invites those of another cast to the ale-house." Dr. Kipling understands Mr. Overton to refer for this passage to Bishop Prety man's charge, delivered in the year 1800; in which charge, he says, the passage is not to be found; nor can it, he thinks, be found in any other episcopal charge. It cannot be denied, however, that the passage is to be found in Bishop Horsley's charge, delivered in the same year; and to this charge Mr. Overton, in the second edition of his work, and probably in the first, has rightly referred. But, though Mr. Overton is right in his reference of this quotation, he is far from being so in his application of it. The whole sentence, as it stands in Bishop Horsley's charge, is this:" On that half of the day, on which there is no admission at the parish church, good inclinations carry the more pious part of your parishioners to the conventicle; and the devil invites those of another cast to the ale-house." It hence evidently appears, that the bishop is referring, not to "the present plan of teaching in the Church," as Mr. Overton would have us understand, but to the fact, that, in many of our churches, service is performed, only on one part of the Lord's day. This fact, it must be acknowledged, is an evil much to be lamented; but, in many instances, it arises from circumstances, over which the clergy have little or no control. The clergy, as

well

well as the church in general, would be greatly indebted to any one, who should contribute to the measures, by which this evil may be removed or diminished.

In the charge, to which I have referred, occurs this passage :-" When I speak of Calvinism and Arminianism as capable of uniting in one com munion, and that one, the communion of the church of England, I look only to Calvinism, such as the venerable Calvin would himself have owned, not enriched and embellished with the extravagances of later visionaries." If, however, Bishop Horsley, for whose talents and zeal I entertain a sincere respect, would condescend to look into the works of Calvin, and especially into those parts of them, which are brought forward by Dr. Kipling, he would see reason to think, that the opinions of Calvin need not be enriched and embellished with the extravagances of later visionaries, in order to be rendered entirely incompatible with the doctrines of our excellent church, or to become highly reprehensible. To show this, I need only transcribe the following sentence from Inst. L. 3. C. 23. "Multi quidem, ac si invidiam a Deo repellere vellent, electionem ita fatentur, ut negent quenquam reprobari: sed inscite nimis et pueriliter quando ipsa electio, nisi reprobationi opposita, non staret." I am, Sir, yours, &c.

Rempstone, July 12, 1802.

READING THE DECLARATION.

E. P.

TO THE EDITORS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMan's Magazine. GENTLEMEN,

PERMIT me, through the medium of your Magazine, to return thanks

to my good and most intelligent friend Mr. Comber, for the publication of Dr. Hickes's letter relative to reading of THE DECLARATION, as it is styled, in the time of Jas. II. The clergy at that momentous crisis steadily followed the noble example which the Bishops set them. I do not recollect any bishop who did not stand firm in the Protestant cause, excepting the temporizing Bishops Crewe, of Durham, and Cartwright of Chester; unless we may add the name of Sprat, Bishop of Rochester, who sat with Crewe in the High Commission Court, when the affair of the Fellows of Magdalen College, Oxford, came on. (See "Memoirs of the Life of Dean Comber, p. 237, 240.)"

Of the Seven Bishops committed to the tower, and tried in the Court of King's Bench in June, 1688, for a Libel against the King, (the petition stating their reasons for not distributing THE DECLARATION in their dioceses being so termed,) five suffered deprivation rather than take the oaths at the Revolution. For conscience sake they would not acknowledge a power in the King to dispense with the law of the land; for conscience sake deeming the person of the King inviolable, and his counsellors alone responsible, they would not take the oaths to William III. James II, their anointed Sovereign, yet living. The names of these five martyrs in the cause of an uninterrupted succession to the crown, were 1. ŠANCROFT, Archbishop of Canterbury; 2. LAKE, Bishop of Chichester;