frenzy of the French mob; marched through the country, scattering firebrands lighted at the funeral pile of that unhappy monarchy; exulted in the havoc, as a proof of popular capability; and pressed on the popular lip the draught drawn, as the celebrated Burke termed it, from that "alembic of hell which was then so furiously boiling over in France." And for what was all this course of iniquity run? Simply to transfer a few loungers from the streets to the Treasury; to provide a few well-born paupers with Government bread, to give places to a few cumberers of the earth, and embellish a few far-nientes of Brookes's with the privilege of being paid for doing nothing.

The peril of Fox's day was Republicanism; the peril of our day is Popery. Both perils so easily united, that both equally demand the unceasing vigilance of the nation. Either would be ruin; with the single distinction, that from Democracy, we might finally recover, as we had done before, but from Popery, restoration would be only by a miracle. Democracy, in a sanguine country like England, may seize upon the frame, like a fever, from the mere superabundance of blood: but Popery is the chronic disease; its existence wastes the vital functions; every hour of that existence assails some vital organ-the national blood grows stagnant -the eye grows blind-the fears and follies of superstition engross the understanding-the heart is a stone, and the patient, degenerated into the last stage of loathsome decay, "sans eyes, sans teeth, sans taste, sans every thing," corrupts into the grave. Again and again we warn our fellow-Protestants to keep their eyes fixed on the workings of Popery. This is the true enemy. The intrigues of politicians may be matters as transient as themselves. The existence of the Russells and Melbournes is not worth the regard of any man of understanding. They are the gnats and insects that buzz and bite for the hour. But the true object of alarm and precaution is the source from which such things are procreated the great and rankling corruption which sends up the swarm from the bosom of the soil-the pestilence which, like Homer's plague, first carried about by dogs and mules, prepares death for the nobler strength of man.

342

General Literature.

NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS.

A Letter addressed to the Rev. H. W. Plumptre, M. A. Rector of Eastwood, Nottinghamshire, on the Subject of his projected Church at Nottingham. By ARCHDEACON WILKINS, D.D. Vicar of St. Mary's. Second Edition: with Additions. Nottingham Hicklin. 1838.

:

66

A Second Letter addressed to the Same, on the same Subject. By ARCHDEACON WILKINS, D. D. Nottingham: Hicklin. 1838. THIS letter discloses to us, among the many which it is our misfortune to witness, another attempt to break down the bulwarks which have hitherto fortified our Church, and by dividing it, as a house against itself, to achieve its fall. For the aggressions of our open enemies we are prepared; against the treachery and assaults of our own familiar friends," we cannot be expected to be equally on our guard. We have long known, that dissenters in heart, to whom a certain rank, and those worldly inducements which are commonly called the loaves and fishes, have been incentives to seek a place among us, like jays among peacocks, or, as the Scriptures more emphatically say, like wolves in sheep-clothing, are enumerated among those on whom episcopal ordination has been conferred, and that in many cases the certificate of previous academical studies has not been required; but these we have watched with a careful eye, and endeavoured by zeal to counteract any evil that might result from their ministry in the Church. When, however, we discover clergy, against whom these objections cannot be maintained, abetting, either by overt act or otherwise, proceedings, which in the natural course of things must produce schism, and array the Church in hostile parties, whose feuds must sap its strength and endanger its existence; and when we perceive this state promoted by a cunning legislature, which is opposed to its best interests, we are bound to express our opinions in strong language, and point out, without delicacy, the object which we imagine to be contemplated by those who pull the strings of the puppets set in action.

Archdeacon Wilkins shews, that the Act for building additional churches in over-populated towns has been perverted; that according to the Act the consent of the incumbent and patron was necessary where a new church was intended to be erected in a parish. But now, it would seem that this salutary principle has been abandoned in wanton defiance of the Act; and that in some few instances proprietary places of worship have been erected by a body of trustees, for the mere purpose of no

minating ministers to them, whose acts are consequently usurped, illegal, and predatory, because they are in opposition to the incumbent in whom the cure of souls is exclusively vested. should have imagined it to have been scarcely possible, that any body of trustees calling themselves Churchmen, or any clergyman well-affected to the unity of the Church, could have encouraged such an act, which is self-evidently allied to sectarianism; and we do not scruple to assert, that if that clergyman were also the rector of a parish, and another opposed to him in opinions were by interest to procure the erection of a church in his parish, exactly as he had procured the erection of one in that of his fellow-clergyman, he would be ready to launch into invective, and by his acerbity in this instance display a curious contrast to the puritanical meekness which he would affect in his proprietary spoil. This unjust invasion of a neighbour's rights, in almost every case, proceeds from the love of gain, and predominant conceit, on the part of the clergyman accepting the ministry without the incumbent's consent; and on the part of the trustees, it proceeds from sectarian principles expressed or concealed; nor does it follow, that these may not be imputed to the minister. These remarks, be it understood, are exclusively confined to the wanton invasion of parishes without the consent of their patrons and incumbents. But we would inquire,-Is not the bishop (unless indeed he be legally compelled) who under these circumstances grants his license and consecrates the church, by far the most to blame? And really we cannot see, if this innovation must be tolerated in private parishes, why the legislature should not extend the principle to the sees and cathedrals of those bishops who support it. Some are indeed so wilfully dense, as only to be convinced by an argumentum ad hominem.

The trustees of the projected church at Nottingham appear to be very like to the persons whom we have described. First stands the Archdeacon of Ely, who has no delicacy to prevent him from presiding at religious meetings in Archdeacon Wilkins's parish, and therefore can have no objection to carry the impertinent intrusion further. Then comes a relation and namesake of Mr. Plumptre, who has exhibited himself as the "Chairman of the Methodist meetings at Exeter-hall;" then a Mr. Ramsden, who has proved his competency to become a trustee for the Church, by having built a school and school-house in opposition to the Church of his parish, and placed a Moravian teacher (since removed) over it; and last of all, a Mr. Wellford, whose fame liveth in his patronage of itinerant preachers. Such are the trustees of the projected church, among the largest contributors to which is "an individual, whose private residence is, at this moment, licensed as a Dissenting place of worship, in which ministers of various denominations officiate, in opposition to one of the most kind, sincere, and pains-taking among our

clergy." Can any thing more be wanting to show the indecent schismatic object of this projected church? Can any thing more be required to detect the latent cause? Mr. Plumptre, indeed, is not so void of shame as to accept the duty of the church it may be sufficient for him to know that the pulpit will ever be at his command. Yet, if he be so exuberant in zeal, we think that his own parish would have afforded scope for its overflowings, which should not have burst, like a torrent, on that of his neighbour. Ever since Jezebel coveted Naboth's vineyard we have had a horror of encroachments.

We have a great objection to those who would force upon us the glimmerings of their farthing-rushlights, and call them the light of Christianity set upon a hill; more particularly, when they are occasionally obscured by a dark lanthorn. But when such paltry glimmerings are intended to lead the flock of such a man as Archdeacon Wilkins, of a man of such tried orthodoxy, and in every way so well deserving of the Church, we scarcely know whether we be more disgusted with the arrogance than with the incompetency of these spiritual luminaries. The arguments, which Archdeacon Wilkins has quoted from Dr. Pusey's pamphlet on churches in London, in which he has referred to our review of it in our fourth number, are unanswerable with respect to the evils arising from irresponsible trustees, which Dr. Pusey has verified by a most stringent example. From these arguments, it is clear that the trustees may, in process of time, be Socinians, or men of latitudinarian principles; and that, even if they may not have the power of converting the churches in their gift into conventicles, they will take care to appoint to them only those whose religious sentiments will accord the most closely with their own. In those of Mr. Plumptre's projected church we seem at least to have semi-Dissenters already.

pro

But Mr. Plumptre appears by no means disinclined to these intrusions; doubtless, saving and except such as might be jected in his own parish. In exemplification, let us quote the Archdeacon's words: "Now, Sir, you were, I believe, a party concerned lately in building an additional church at Newark, which was projected and, commenced upon the moment it was ascertained that the minister for whom it was designed had failed in being appointed by Lord Melbourne as the vicar, and afterwards by the incumbent, as the curate of the parish. Had he been either one or the other, Newark would not have been in possession of this church. The determination, therefore, to erect it, was the result of disappointment, and was commenced and completed in an unhappy spirit of opposition to the vicar, whose consent and co-operation were not even invited; yet who would readily have conceded every privilege and right in his power to have made it a District Church, that so it might have been consecrated for the due administration of both sacraments,

and for all other services of the Church, and thus made a distinct parish."

Here, in our own opinion, we derive an insight into the origin of the project at Nottingham; for as Dr. Wilkins was subsequently appointed an arbitrator between the parties, and was compelled to censure the hostile feelings and conduct manifested towards the vicar, our knowledge of the particular mode of action which this party commonly adopts convinces us that this aggression on Dr. Wilkins may be traced to that arbitration. Latet sub pectore vulnus. The same principle which occasioned the church at Newark, has, we think, occasioned the project at Nottingham. We trust that the Herald's College will confer on these worthies a vulture's claw for their crest, and Vivitur ex rapto for their motto.

Nevertheless, it seems that Mr. Plumptre is satisfied with the power of nominating the minister to this projected church, and that Mr. Magee, well known at Exeter-hall, or some other person of like power, and sentiments, and feelings, is contemplated to discharge the duty. Mr. Plumptre is doubtless a very modest man; but his modesty is strangely exhibited in his invasion of the Archdeacon's prerogative: where pecuniary aid was wanted, he perseveringly addressed the various noblemen and gentlemen of the county, detailing to them his designs, but observed a very different conduct with respect to Dr. Wilkins, the vicar of the parish and archdeacon of the district. Did he forget that he was bound to give honour to whom honour was due?

The christian and mild tone of the Archdeacon's letter renders the conduct of his aggressors the more contemptible; and although at the first sight the letter may seem to relate to a private affair, it will be found one which concerns churchmen in general. If by a perversion of the Act, any fanatical or splenetic set of men, when the doctrines preached in a church suit not their heated fancies, or when they imagine themselves to be aggrieved, are empowered to levy subscriptions, build churches, and appoint ministers to them in defiance of the lawful parochial incumbents, no time should be lost in rectifying this monstrous abuse. That these men's conceit, frenzy, or boisterousness, may be consulted, is the church of Christ to be divided under the denominations of Paul, Apollos, or Cephas? Is the Establishment to be split into factions, that scarcely-concealed private ends may be obtained? Is it fit, that unconnected trustees should be appointed to a church not having the cure of souls? is it decent, that one Archdeacon should step out of his district to intermeddle and impertinently interfere with the district and parish of another ? Is it not a still greater outrage, when that Archdeacon belongs to another diocese? The selection of a spot, in preference to others, where a church was really wanted, as

..