it is now when the advowson was bought-as you know very well, by the difference in your rent-we will say nothing (that is, we will make no calculation) about such trifles as these. We will assume, too, that your landlord could not have invested the money better than in your farm; but does it not stand to reason, that there ought to be another column in the book, in which there should be entered the rent, which you are annually paying to him, and which you would be paying to your rector, if his father had purchased the farm which you hold, instead of purchasing the presentation? Must we not, at least, deduct that from the net receipt of £670 ?"

It will be observed that, in thus speaking to the farmer, I put the case of an advowson, and an investment in land; but the case is much stronger if we suppose a presentation and a life annuity. What annuity, to commence after the decease of the then rector, and to continue during the life of his son, could the father have bought for the sum which the presentation cost him? Or supposing a father to have presented his own son, must we not deduct the interest of that sum for which he might have sold the presentation, and which he would have employed in some other way for his son's advancement? In short, must we not take into account all actual sacrifices of property? I am not speaking of sacrifices in respect of locality, or labour, or anything but mere money. It is altogether a money calculation, and without such an additional column as I suggest, how are we to come at the truth?

I may be told that it would be horribly indelicate to go into such matters. If so, however, it would have been better to say nothing about them; but I confess that I see nothing so very shocking in it. It is, as I have said, a mere money calculation. It may be very indecent that Lord A, and Squire B, and Mrs. C, should have such things to sell; but there is a column for that; and while the incumbent is bound to set forth how many pounds, shillings, and pence, he gets from the living, I see nothing more indecent in his telling what pounds, shillings, and pence, he has lost by it. Of course, I do not mean that such a column can be actually added to the returns; but I mean that, whenever we look at them, and whatever calculations we ground on them, we must remember that such a column is wanting. As the case stands, the clergy have been obliged to furnish imperfect data, which have misled many of their friends, and given their enemies occasion and colour for plausible falsehood. Every rogue who hates them can, with some pretence of fair dealing, add up the columns, and make averages, and tell us that "the clergy admit that they receive £, which amounts to £, per head;" and, in order to make out this average, hundreds of thousands (I suppose I might say millions) of pounds, which lords and ladies, and all sorts of lay-folks, have procured by the sale of advowsons and presentations, which they are living on, in the form of stock, rents, &c., and with which they are perhaps supporting few institutions better than the opera, the race-course, and the gaming-table, are to be called church property; and this horrible misstatement is to go forth apparently based on unquestionable documents on the account which the clergy themselves give of their own incomes. I am, my dear Sir, yours very truly, Iota. VOL. XI.-Feb. 1837.

Y

THE ANGLICAN CHURCH AT PARIS AND THE "RECORD." SIR,-An instance of the manner in which the editor of the "Record” newspaper persists in misstatements he has circulated, and insults instead of thanking any one who desires to set him right, has just occurred, so characteristic of the man, and so nearly affecting the interests of an important cause, that I trust, for the sake of the cause, as well as for the interests of truth, you will allow insertion to the following notice of it.

On the 5th of December there appeared in that paper the following article (I have omitted some passages, indicated by the dots, merely for the sake of brevity):

"FRANCE.

RELIGIOUS PARTIES.-(From our own Correspondent.)—The cause of protestantism begins to be exposed in France to NEW TRIALS, arising from the variety of its professed supporters. Left to herself, or aided only by Scotland and Burgundian Switzerland, France would doubtless have remained in the exclusive possession of the Pope, Calvin, and Voltaire. . . . . Protestantism would in this case have had the advantage of being concentrated in opinions which nobody could misunderstand. Popery would have lost its most powerful weapon of attack.... Mr. Robert Haldane [an independent], whose labours for the spiritual good of these countries were so wide and well directed, was, in the whole character of his mind and opinions, exactly adapted to promote the revival of religion among the French, without disturbing this natural order of things; but he has long since left the country. Meanwhile, Wesleyans and Baptists from England and America press their operations; and, more lately, a NEW SECT has arisen under the patronage of members of the church of England. FIRST, an advocate from the South, supported by subscriptions in England, and ordained by Bishop Luscombe, is seeking for a chapel in which to conduct divine worship in French, according to the liturgy of the Anglican church. Then the Abbé Anzon [sic], one of the abbes who left the Roman-catholic church after the July revolution, and who separated from the Abbé Chatel on the latter rejecting our Lord's divinity, has of late renounced the worship of the Virgin, and agrees to hold the thirty-nine articles, except in so far as they are of national and restricted import. Another of these abbés professes to be preaching the doctrines of the church of England, and is waiting for the coming out of the French translation of its liturgy now in progress; others it is expected will soon follow."

....

Now this article not only contains sentiments inconsistent with the editor's professed attachment to the church of England, but advances a charge against the association in connexion with which the "Advocate from the South," as he is here called, is acting, that its proceedings are mixed up with those of certain abbés, who are said to be "under its patronage;" of whom it is unnecessary to say more here than that the association has no more connexion with them than has the correspondent of the "Record," a fact of which it is difficult to conceive that correspondent, living as he does upon the spot, to have been ignorant. But both he and the editor well know what must be the effect of such a statement, where it is believed, upon the interests of an association which it seems they have both determined to oppose. Seeing the article a few days after its publication, I wrote to the editor, (under the signature of " Vigil,") drawing his attention to the grossly inconsistent nature of the sentiments here expressed with his professed opinions, and also to the injurious misstatement he had circulated that the work to which his correspondent alluded had any connexion with the proceedings of the abbes whom he had associated with it.

The effect produced was a notice addressed to "Vigil," as if it was a matter between him and me, and not between him and his readers, and thrust into a corner among his answers to correspondents, that he did not subscribe to the statement made by his correspondent relative to the operations of the church of England in France, but omitting all explanation that could make such of his readers as happened to see it understand the allusion, and leaving the misstatement complained of wholly unnoticed. Such a notice, as it was quite inefficient to obviate the injury that might arise to the cause from the article in question, was of course unsatisfactory; and another letter, temperate and respectful throughout, was sent, merely asking for a more distinct notice, addressed to his readers, of his disapprobation of the sentiments contained in the article in question, and more particularly a notice of the incorrectness of his Parisian correspondent's statement as to the work in question being mixed up with the proceedings of certain abbés; both of which might have been given in a few lines. I added " You will probably see, upon reflection, that unless this be done as publicly and prominently as the attack was made, it will become the duty of those who feel interested in the matter to set the public mind right upon the subject through some other channel."

In the place of a performance of this obvious duty, we have the following sneer at "Vigil" and the whole matter:

·

"Our correspondent Vigil' seems quite an adept in the art of making much ado about nothing;' and, from the character of his last communication, we think he would make a mountain out of a mole-hill as fast as any man."

Such is the spirit with which the editor of the "Record" receives a communication of the most temperate kind, calling his attention to a grievous misstatement, to which he had given circulation, affecting the interests of an important cause. He sneers at his informant, represents it as a thing of no moment, carefully conceals from his readers the fact that an important part of the statement he had published is false; and after referring to what he had said before, concludes with a flourish of defiance," He is most welcome, as he proposes, to set the public mind right upon the subject through some other channel.".

After this conduct, to which I need add no comment, fair dealing, for its own sake, was hardly to be expected from him; but still it was hoped that a few lines, merely contradicting the misstatement he had circulated, would hardly be refused admittance; and accordingly a statement was sent, which, after giving an extract from the article in question, added only these words :

"In reply I beg to inform you, that almost the only part of the latter portion of this statement (beginning with and lately') which is true, is that in which it is stated that an advocate from the South, supported by subscriptions in England, and ordained by Bishop Luscombe, is seeking for a chapel in which to conduct divine worship in French, according to the liturgy of the Anglican church;' and that the implied union between him and his supporters, and the abbes there mentioned, is wholly unfounded on fact. The sentiments expressed in the accompanying observations, and the temper and spirit of the whole article, I leave, without fear, to the consideration and judgment of your readers."

This statement was accompanied by a private letter to "the editor,"

animadverting, of course, upon the unfairness of his conduct, but only in terms which the occasion called for and justified; and which, had it been tenfold stronger than it was, would not, for a moment, have prevented an honest man from rectifying a misstatement which he had circulated. Indeed, the only passage to which I can conceive him to allude in his reply, was one in which I used the expression " editorial trickery," for his sneering at me for making a mountain out of nothing, when it was so evident that, even had the matter been of so little importance, the mountain was all of his own making, by his attempts to avoid the performance of an unpleasant duty, and evade the retractation of a misstatement he had circulated in a few lines. But the reason for his persisting is obvious. Having before evaded a further explanation by sneering at the whole matter, he now takes refuge in abuse and fresh misstatements. Thus he meets the request to insert the above brief statement in correction of one of his own misstatements:

"Had Vigil's' last letter to us been couched in the language of a gentleman, still it is improbable that we should have gratified him by the insertion of the statement which accompanies it. We should probably have declined it, because we have already said enough on the subject, [having, in fact, not said one word upon the subject of that statement,] and it is endless to attempt to satisfy the fancies of unreasonable men. The style he has assumed in his last letter puts the insertion of his communication out of the question," &c.

It is painful to contemplate such conduct, especially in one who is assuming the highest tone of religious feeling; but I do feel it to be important for the interests of truth, and for the sake of the object of his present attack, that such shameless conduct should be exposed. VIGIL. Jan. 10, 1837.

EXTEMPORE PRAYER.-ADDRESS TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF

DUBLIN.*

SIR, You have no doubt taken notice of an address which has lately been sent to the Archbishop of Dublin by several respected clergy of his diocese, in reply to a letter which his grace circulated among them, with a view to discourage the use of extempore prayer in public.

* The document referred to in this communication will be found in another part of this Magazine. The subject is one of so much importance, that it is a matter of great regret to the Editor, that many other documents relative to it, which have been printed in various newspapers, &c., cannot, from the press of other matter, be inserted here. One in particular, a circular letter from his Grace the Archbishop of Dublin, it would have been most desirable to reprint, for, on this occasion, his Grace's letter well deserves preservation, as a remarkably clear summary of the arguments for the use of precomposed set forms of prayer. To any one desirous of entering into this subject very fully, there is scarcely any work which merits a more attentive perusal than the three treatises of Bennet on the Use of Precomposed Set Forms of Prayer, his Essay on the Gift of Prayer, and on Joint Prayer, which are usually found together.-ED.

CORRESPONDENCE.-EXTEMPORE PRAYER.

The address contains some arguments against the opinions which the archbishop had advanced on the subject, and also a plain intimation that they could not but act in opposition to his injunction. I do not allude to the address of these clergymen in order to call in question the propriety of their determination, or to consider the expediency of it, though, certainly, at a time when episcopal authority is so much set at nought, and in a city where the archbishop's letter was made the subject of public animadversion in the pulpit of a dissenting minister, the seasonableness of such a remonstrance on the part of the clergy may be very fairly questioned. But these are points which I leave to others; I merely wish to draw your attention to a paragraph in the address, of the accuracy of which I think there is great reason to doubt:-"In providing a form of prayer for general use in public worship, that our reformers did not thereby intend to exclude all extemporaneous prayer in the congregation (much less in more private social worship) is evident from the fifty-fifth English canon, which marks out the subject on which the ministers are to call on the people to join them in prayer previously to commencing the sermon ; but the ministers are to furnish the words (the canon adds) as briefly and as conveniently as they can;' and, accordingly, in the early period of our church, it appears to have been uniformly the custom of the minister to use in the pulpit his own conceived prayer."

Is not this view of the meaning and intention of the canon altogether a mistaken one? and is not the assertion respecting the practice of our earlier divines incorrect? The canon does not set forth a form of prayer (properly so called) as a model according to which the preacher is to compose his own prayer in the pulpit, suggesting to him the subjects of petition, and allowing him to use his own expressions; but it sets forth a form of exhortation, according to which (not strictly, but with some latitude granted to the ministers,) they are "to move the people to join with them in prayer." Wheatley, in his tract called "Bidding of Prayers before Sermon no mark of Disaffection," has very clearly proved this. One fact which he adduces should place it, I think, beyond dispute. (pp. 54-56.) He mentions that the nonconformists (at the Savoy conference) requested liberty to use their own conceived prayers in the pulpit; and what answer they received from the episcopalian commissioners is evident from their rejoinder :"You are so far from countenancing the use of conceived prayer in the public worship of God, as that you seem to dislike the use of it even in the pulpit, and heartily desire a total restraint of it in the church." Shortly after the subject was discussed in convocation (1661), and a proposal was then made to exchange the canon for a direct form of prayer. This proposal, however, was not carried into effect; but it plainly proves that the canon was not then understood as some understand it now, as containing a form of supplication addressed to God, but one of exhortation addressed to the congregation; and the previous petition of the nonconformists as plainly proves that the interpretation which some of the Irish clergy have put on the canon is wholly incorrect-viz., that it is intended merely to mark out the subjects on