tension of the meaning of Simony. She gladly accepts all the assistance the laws can give her to prevent even an approach to it. In whatsoever sense not only the Scripture, but the law considers Simony, she earnestly joins her efforts to suppress it. She speaks of it as detestable,' as ' execrable before God'; and before her bishops will admit any clergyman into a benefice, (whether on his own presentation or that of others,) they require of him the following solemn oath: 'I do swear, that I have made no Simoniacal payment, contract, or promise, directly or indirectly, by myself, or by any other, to my knowledge or with my consent, to any person or persons whatsoever for or encouraging the procuring or obtaining of this Ecclesiastical dignity, place, preferment, office, or living; nor will at any time hereafter perform or satisfy any such kind of payment, contract, or promise made by any other without my knowledge or consent; so help me God through Jesus Christ.' Moreover it is enacted that all such contracts and promises are null and void.

Now let us see the facts and arguments by which they attempt to establish such an infamous accusation. First, they produce an advertisement that an advowson with the next presentation is to be sold. They assume that the clergyman must be the buyer. They assume that if a clergyman were the buyer it would be an act of Simony. Second, they evidently expect it to be inferred, that if the clergy were guilty of such acts the hands of dissenters are quite clean. Let us examine each of these positions. First the advertisement is evidence that advowsons with the right of next presentation are bought and sold. This is not Simony in the scriptural nor even in the legal sense of the word. Advowson is the right of presenting a clerk, (that is a person already in Holy Orders,) to the Bishop, as a Church becomes vacant. It was gained originally by founders, benefactors, or maintainers of the Church. In giving the endowment for ever to the Church, they reserved a right which they might transfer under certain conditions to whom they pleased, and which right, therefore, could be inherited or assigned as any other property. There is no Simony in this. The benefactor is allowed a privilege very different from that of conferring Holy Orders. He may present to the bishop a person already in Holy Orders who may be maintained by his benefaction in this particular cure. But, before the clerk so presented can be admitted,

he must have already proved his fitness to receive Holy Orders, he must, moreover, at the time of his institution to the benefice, solemnly declare his faithful adherence to the discipline, doctrine, and liturgy of the Church,—and he must also take the awful oath, that he has not been, and will not be, guilty of any act of Simony for the procuring of it.

The proprietor of the advowson cannot introduce his presentee without these securities, as to both his doctrine, his fitness and his faithfulness. There is nothing like Simony, either spiritual or legal, there is no giving of money for Holy Orders; for the Bishop is not paid, or does the person presented then receive Holy Orders, he must be in Orders before he can be presented to the Bishop. Neither is there anything here which the law prohibits, for the law allows any person to purchase advowsons. And they are continually bought and sold by laymen and clergymen, but more commonly by the former.

But, if a clergyman buys an advowson with the next presentation, which these slanderers assume without a shadow of evidence, and indeed contrary to the fact to be generally the case, there is neither a giving of in money for Holy Orders, nor even Simony in the sense which the Statute law has attached to that word. The purchase of an advowson by a clergyman, while the living is full, is not, even in law, Simony, unless under peculiar circumstances which do not concern the present question.

Common Sense,' however, will not be satisfied with clearing the accused; we must next bring the accusers to the bar. We are to show not only that the Church does not encourage Simony, but that dissent does encourage simony in its worst form, and in the most flagrant manner. We will prove, not merely that, among dissenters, this or that individual may by dint of dreadful perjury be enabled to evade the law and commit the sin of Simony, in spite of every precaution taken to prevent it; but that the system of dissent itself does not provide any barrier against it; that it actually legalises and countenances it. This we will prove from facts found in the publications not of Churchmen, but of dissenters themselves. None but persons very ignorant even of dissenting principles and proceedings would have ventured upon ground on which their exposure is so sure and easy. We need no new facts such as may be requisite to our arguments; we shall extract from that masterly little book, 'Maitland on the Voluntary System,

which we recommend to everyone who likes facts and common sense. . . . Simony, as we said before, is according to the Bible giving money for Holy Orders, but we shall show that dissent not only does not guard against it but openly licenses it. . . .

The purchase of a dissenting conventicle gives a man for money at once an entrance into the functions of the ministry, against which no principle of dissent can present a bar, and which dissent does not, nay cannot, attempt either to prevent or condemn. Whether the person so entering be truly in Holy Orders or not does not affect the question of guilt, nor the system of dissent sanctioning the crime. The man claims to be a Minister;-he exercises the functions of a Minister, dissent, as a system, has no principle to set up against his claim; he is admitted to the functions of a Minister for nothing but the money that he gives for the conventicle of which he becomes the Minister. What is this but giving money for (supposed) Holy Orders? What does, or can, dissent as a system set up against this flagrant Simony? Between the selling an advowson of presentation (observes Maitland) and the sale of a meeting house there is this material difference besides those of which I have already spoken,-namely, that the Church must still remain what it was, and can only be used for those purposes for which it was built, endowed, and consecrated. It is impossible for a lay speculator to withdraw from the neighbourhood those means of grace to which the inhabitants have been accustomed, by converting the place of worship to any secular purpose; the seller cannot advertise in such terms as these:-"Chapel,-to be let or sold, terms moderate. A well-built neat Chapel, with ground for enlargement. No galleries. Will seat seat near near 230 persons. Situation, Stockwell, Surrey. Immediate possession. May be converted into anything else. Apply, if by letter, post paid, to Mr. Knott, Chichester Place, Wandsworth Road, Surrey. (May, 1830)."

"Hertford Street Chapel, Coventry. To be sold by auction by Joseph Johnson at the Craven Arms Hotel, Coventry, on Wednesday, the 15th day of April, 1829, . all that newly erected, substantially built freehold chapel situate in Hertford Street, elegantly fitted up with pews, galleries, and sittings for 800 persons, having a chancel, vestry, sacristy, with a room over the coal vault, and other accommodation, with gas for evening service. The

proceeds on a moderate calculation will amount to at least £200 per annum, making this property most desirable for the investment of capital. The premises being central, and also eligibly situated for a library, or any other public building, and may be converted thereto at a small expense. For further particulars apply to Mr. James Butler, etc. etc.'

A number of similar advertisements have also been given, some specifying in an improving neighbourhood'; another holding out the bait of the neighbourhood being already respectable and populous, will be much increased'; another, that it is at present occupied by a small church of moderate Calvinistic Independents, but is at present without a Pastor'; another that there is a small congregation much attached to the place who raised last year £60, and, were a lively, zealous, evangelical minister to purchase it, he would soon double that sum.'

To sum up the dissenting encouragement to Simony: First, dissent allows the sale of conventicles with no restrictions at all against Simony. Second, any purchaser, though a layman, may assume dissenting orders and make himself the Minister of the conventicle. Here the office

of the Ministry is bought. Third, the purchaser may appoint a chimney sweeper, if he please, to be the Minister. Fourth, congregations may be bought and sold with as little consideration for their religious opinions as a herd of swine. The buyer may be an Independent, the next an Irvingite, the next a Socinian, etc., etc. Any doctrines the buyer may choose may be preached from the pulpit; and if the preacher be the buyer, there is no principle in dissent which can call him to account for his doctrines or doings. Fifth, the most ignorant or profligate buyer of a conventicle may, without any other authority than his money, become Pastor of it. Sixth, there is no bar, no oath, nothing whatever, to prevent the whole being a barefaced and immediate matter of profit and loss. The system of dissent has not only no legal impediment to oppose, but not even a principle against this worst of Simony-Simony in the Scriptural as well as legal construction.

THE TENDER CONSCIENCE

THE Vicar's views on 'Tender Conscience' have been expressed in 'Common Sense' as follows:

It is perfectly well known that those who, upon the plea oftender conscience,' evade or oppose (contrary to St. Paul's express direction) the intent of the law on Church Rates are in the constant habit of collecting mobs in the Church, to put into the office of churchwarden, those who (instead of performing) will do all in their power to obstruct and defeat the purpose for which churchwardens are appointed. The churchwardens were required to make oath that they would faithfully and truly execute the office. For the man who deceives in such a case by a quibble, trick or secret reservation, is worse than the one who openly perjures himself and lies.

What shall we think of those who profess to be great sticklers for religion,-nay, who call themselves ministers of religion,-nay more, who actually use 'tender conscience as a pretence,-what shall we think of those who thus aid and abet, and vote for others to commit perjury? We say that the man who takes the office of churchwarden for the purpose of defeating the intention for which he is appointed, and that every man who votes for or supports him with that view is guilty of perjury and fraud. To prove the truth of our assertion we print the oath, or solemn declaration which a churchwarden is required to make, and usually in Church :

'You shall swear truly and faithfully to execute the office of a churchwarden within your parish, and, according to the best of your skill and knowledge, present such things and persons, as to your knowledge are presentable by the laws ecclesiastical of this realm; So help you God, and the contents of this book.'

Now these dissenters, who put a man into office known to be hostile to the Church, cannot mistake the plain intention of this oath, or solemn declaration.

The churchwarden is so called because he is to protect and take care of the Church, its fabric, the due performance of divine service, and to provide what is necessary, that all