tutes the bulwark which preserves it in existence, which puts it in harmony with terrestrial things, by which otherwise, supernatural interposition apart, it would soon be extinguished from the earth. These establishments, therefore, whether national or confined to narrower circles, are, when they can be regarded as the citadels of divine truth, certainly the most precious of human institutions. But for human objects, it has never been denied by any but the quakers that man may contend even by physical force; and why the most precious of human objects should be exempted from this permission it is impossible to discover. If it be meant that by policy or by force no individual heart can be converted, and that, consequently, conversion to God being the end aimed at by the church, the church should never resort to a political or material instrument of defence for success, the premises urged will be by all adopted, whilst the conclusion will be denied: for in order to preach the gospel, to proclaim the message of God to men, human establishments have been found essential, have been providentially formed; and these must be upheld by human means. By these means encroachment, violence, and every sort of injustice and tyranny, should be equally repelled. It is extremely deceptive to represent religion as purely in every sense of a spiritual nature, as related exclusively to God and the conscience, as having no legitimate affinities with civil society. On the contrary, the Christian religion is a civil institution as well as a divine revelation. By reason of the mingling of heavenward and earthward qualities in man, men cannot retain the two aspects of their being in separation; these necessarily affect interchangeably each other; and, in strict analogy with this constitution of human nature, we find that spiritual truths have everywhere, having been first miraculously announced from heaven, their counterpart, their investment, in earthly tabernacles. When, then, men contend in a religious cause, they have high worldly ground on which to stand. The things of God, it is true, should be maintained by the word of God; and the things of Cæsar by the power of Cæsar. It has, however, pleased God in his wisdom to connect these two orders of things together, so that in defending a social institution belonging to Cæsar, in which religion is, as it were, incorporated, by the weapons of Cæsar, we may at the same time defend the gospel from its enemies, and preserve its teachers and its friends free to use those spiritual weapons by which alone its real triumphs can be achieved.

You will see by the foregoing observations that I conceive an appeal to physical force in defence of religious institutions to be sometimes justifiable; and I think the Zurichois have given a noble example to protestant communities of attachment to their creed, and of resolute manfulness in resisting the insidious encroachments of its foes. You have already published the details of the events to which I allude, and must have observed that the spirit which animated the Swiss peasants was admirable; that no excess was committed; that by them even no blood was shed; that they were as calm as they were firm; that a courageous sense of duty seems solely to have moved them; and that no act or sentiment of theirs, which has hitherto transpired, has cast a shade over the Christian patriotism of their whole proceeding-a proceeding which, though it forms a dangerous precedent, and is in most cases of very doubtful complexion, appears to have been called for by circumstances of sufficient gravity to justify it.

The reflections which this event has provoked from me I should not have thought it suitable to send you, if I had not observed that many Christians, especially in this country, have been completely mystified by the arguments of those who insist that religion should abjure all worldly sources of strength and security. This also is a favourite argument of infidels, who are of course greatly interested that it should be adopted by believers, as it would leave the church exposed naked to their assaults. In my opinion it is completely delusive. Far from giving it the least countenance, I think that pious protestants, all over the world, should inscribe on their banner the text which the

Zurichois took for their rallying word, "Be strong, and quit yourselves like men;" and that with reference as much to infidel governments as to sin and Satan. The time seems to be approaching when protestants will have to oppose the combined attacks of many foes, who are now gathering from many quarters round them. To every civil, political, and mundane means, which the Christian citizen may avail himself of, they will have to recur in order to hold their ground. It is good, therefore, at this juncture, to disembarrass the conscience of false scruples; at least, to provoke an examination as to whether they be false or not, cannot fail to produce excellent effects."

A LETTER TO WILLIAM NICOL, ESQ., PALL MALL, FROM THE RECTOR OF ST. JAMES'S, WESTMINSTER.

St. James's Rectory-house, Nov. 1839.

DEAR SIR,-Having, at Christmas last, given notice to you, and to certain other occupiers of pews similarly situated with yours in the parish church, not to pay rent for the same to the churchwardens, nor to any but myself or my agent, and having afterwards withdrawn the said notice, I am desirous of explaining to you the circumstances which have taken place respecting the pews in question. I think it due to myself to give you evidence of the reasonableness and equity of my claim; and, at the same time, I consider it desirable that other friends and parishioners who feel an interest in the church and clergy should be made acquainted with the extraordinary nature of the proceedings by which the rectory of St. James's has been despoiled of its just and ancient rights.

I will give the statement as briefly as I can

From the first formation of the parish of St. James, Westminster, the pews in the chancel of the church (which is accurately defined in the deed of consecration) were always in possession of the rector, to be by him disposed of. The vestry minutes not only shew the fact, which is not denied even at this day, but they prove also, by a variety of entries at different periods, the recognition of the rector's absolute control over those pews, without the shadow of an objection raised at any time.

In 1803, a plan was adopted for new-pewing the church; and it being then considered that, for the more advantageous arrangement of the pews, the pulpit and reading-desk (which up to that period stood in the middle aisle out of the chancel) might be more conveniently placed where they now stand, -one on each side within the chancel,-it was proposed that, for the sake of such arrangement, the rector should take an equivalent in pews without the chancel for his own within it, which would thus be disturbed. On this consideration, the late rector (Dr. Andrewes) waived any objection to the obtaining of the necessary faculty for the purpose from Doctors' Commons, and the church was accordingly new-pewed on the plan proposed in 1803, 1804. The rector's chancel pews interfered with contained forty-eight sittings. The pews allotted to him in exchange contain precisely the same number. Here, then, was a just and equitable agreement. From that time the rector has demised the pews coming to him under this agreement to the churchwardens and vestry as his lessees, they paying over to him the rents received from the occupiers-viz., to the late rector (as originally settled) the annual sum of 571. 128., and to the present rector, (the pew-rents in the church in general having been raised,) the annual sum of 647. 16s. All the particulars abovestated are as clear as day in the vestry minute-books.

In 1837, the vestry began to call in question the rector's rights. On the 10th of November in that year, the vestry resolved (as they had a perfect right to do) that they would no longer hold under the rector the pews in question,

and that the agreement should be determined at Lady-day of the following year, 1838. It remained therefore for them to pay over to the rector the rents received by them in advance while they continued to be his lessees, and to surrender to him the pews. But no-they would neither pay him what they had received of the occupiers in advance, nor surrender the pews to him at all. From that period to the present the churchwardens have continued to hold them, exacting rents, which they put to the account of the parish funds.

I (the rector) naturally felt aggrieved at being thus stripped of what had come into the possession of my predecessor by fair exchange, being debarred at the same time from reclaiming what he had given in exchange for the purpose of enabling the churchwardens to place the pulpit and reading-desk where they now stand.

After remonstrating in vain with the churchwardens and vestry, I took, separately, the opinions of two very eminent ecclesiastical lawyers, (Sir John Dodson, the Queen's Advocate, and Dr. Nicholl,) from whose opinions, which are subjoined to this letter,* I learned that (though every rector of this parish had a clear and perfect right to all pews in the chancel) I could not now remove the pulpit and reading-desk so as to recover my own chancel pews; nor would they recommend me to take legal proceedings to establish a title to those out of the chancel, the exchange between Dr. Andrewes and the vestry appearing to have been effected by a simple agreement entered in the vestry minute-book without the authority of a strictly binding legal instrument.

I was now to try whether the churchwardens and vestry would do me justice, as bound in honour, since it appeared probable that I should be precluded from a remedy in strictness of law.

On the 27th of March last, I sent both opinions of counsel to the churchwarden, to be communicated to the vestry, and I wrote as follows:—

SIR,-I forward to you the accompanying documents, as the best reply which I can give to your invitation that I should prosecute by law my claim to the pews Nos. 53, 52, 51, 50, 55, 56, 57, 58, 27, and 81, in the parish church. The case submitted to two of the most eminent counsel in the Ecclesiastical Court was founded on the minutes of vestry from the beginning of the parish, and on the local acts. From the separate and independent opinions of those counsel it will appear

"1. That I am debarred from a remedy at law in consequence of a formal objection, caused through the inadvertence of the late rector, Dr. Andrewes, on the occasion of his giving up, without sufficient security, forty-eight sittings in the chancel, absolutely belonging to all rectors by clear, perfect, and indefeasible right, in exchange for the like number of sittings in the pews in question.

"2. That to take advantage of Dr. Andrewes' successors for ever, on the ground of such an oversight on his part, would be directly contrary to the plainest principles of equity, justice, and honour, and consequently that the disposal of the said pews ought undoubtedly to be conceded to the rector.

3. That the necessity of abiding by strict law (especially where it is so decidedly opposed to equity) would be pleaded with a bad grace and most inconsistently as a pretext for dispossessing the present and future rectors of these pews by the very parties who are raising every year above 1100/. from pew-rents, such rents (except only to the amount of 30l. per annum) being altogether and absolutely illegal.

"As the invasion of my equitable right appears to have been a joint act of the churchwardens and vestry, I request that you will to-morrow communicate

* The opinions above referred to are given in the Appendix, for which we cannot

find room.

VOL. XVII.-Jan. 1840.

Ο

to the vestry the documents now handed to you; and I trust that the light which they will throw upon the question will be instrumental towards the admission on your part of my just and fair claims.

"I am, Sir, your obedient, humble servant,

"To Mr. J. Branscombe, Senior Churchwarden."

"J. G. WARD, Rector.

Having waited for an answer from the 27th of March to this present date, (Nov. 1839,) and having received none, I have inspected the vestry minutebook. By this book it appears that, my letter having been received together with the two opinions of counsel, a committee of vestry was appointed to consider the subject. At the recommendation of their committee, the vestry submitted a case, drawn up on their own behalf, to a third eminent ecclesiastical lawyer, Dr. Addams, whose opinion, in answer to their questions put to him, is also here subjoined.* Dr. Addams agrees entirely with Sir John Dodson and Dr. Nicholl as to the rector's indefeasible right to all pews in the chancel. And in reference to the question as to what the rector is entitled to "in honesty and fairness," Dr. Addams says, "Whatever privileges former rectors had in and to the pews formerly standing in the chancel, but now removed to make way for the pulpit and reading-desk, the same privileges (in fairness and equity, at least, if not in strict law) has the present rector in and to the pews, in fact, at least assigned to the present rector's immediate predecessor, as in exchange for those pews in the chancel; and this appears to me so clearly to be the case, that I shall be surprised at finding any question raised about it."

What their own counsel (on their own statement of the case) thus declares to be due to the rector "in fairness and equity, if not in strict law," the vestry and churchwardens of this parish will not concede. With this last opinion (though not the opinions obtained by the rector) recorded on their minutes, the minutes of vestry most strangely record also, that, on the 22nd of August, 1839, a motion having been made to the effect that "as it now clearly appears that the rectors of this parish had an indefeasible right to the pews containing forty-eight sittings, which, prior to the new-pewing of the church, were standing within the chancel, it is not expedient to rescind that portion of the proceedings of the vestry of the 23rd of May, 1804, by which certain pews, containing the same number of sittings, were appropriated to the rector and his successors for ever, as a satisfaction for, and in lieu of, such chancel-pews;" this motion was met by a motion that the faculty for newpewing the church in 1803 be read. The faculty (of course, as the vestry very well know) made no reference at all to the exchange of pews, and the motion to abide fairly by the exchange was negatived. The churchwardens, in consequence, hold possession of the pews against me.

Thus has the rectory of St. James been stripped of its just rights through advantage taken of a flaw, occasioned by the unsuspecting inadvertence of a good man, (the late rector, Dr. Andrewes,) who consented to make a fair exchange, without looking sufficiently to the title of what was nominally given him in return for his own.

I think, my dear Sir, you will feel, with every reasonable man and man of honour, that my resistance to such unjustifiable spoliation was absolutely called for, and ought to have prevailed.

I am, dear Sir, yours very faithfully,

To W. Nicol, Esq., Pall Mall.

J. G. WARD, Rector.

*The opinion above referred to is given in the Appendix, for which we cannot find room.

INCORPORATED SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING THE ENLARGEMENT, BUILDING, AND REPAIRING OF CHURCHES AND CHAPELS.

A MEETING of the committee of this society was held at their chambers, St. Martin's Place, on Monday, the 16th of December, 1839,-the Lord Bishop of London in the chair. There were present, the Lord Bishop of Llandaff, the Revs. Dr. Shepherd, H. H. Norris, and B. Harrison, H. J. Barchard, J. S. Salt, Joshua Watson, E. H. Locker, N. Connop, jun., J. Cocks, W. Cotton, and Benjamin Harrison, Esqrs.

Among other business transacted, grants were voted towards repewing and building a gallery in the church at Rye, Sussex; enlarging the chapel at Harrow Weald, Middlesex; repewing and building a gallery in the church at Bottisham, Cambridgeshire; repewing and extending galleries in the church at Basingstoke, Southampton; enlarging gallery and rearrangement of pews in. the church at Maiden Newton, Dorset; building a church at the Birchills, in the parish of Walsall, Stafford; enlarging the church at Whittingham.

Name.

Bishop of Lincoln, Lincoln Cathedral.............

Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, Cathedral Church of Gloucester,

Bishop of Chester, Chester Cathedral ....

Archbishop of York, Bishopthorp

Bishop of Rochester, acting for the Bishop of Worcester............

Degree. College.

DEACONS.

University.

Ordaining Bishop.

Abbot, C.................