have accordingly, bestowed upon it all the consideration in my power, and I trust that I have collected my conclusions from well-examined and sound principles

A persuasion has been for some time entertained, that every incumbent of a benefice, and, for the like reason, every curate, in the absence of the incumbent, possesses the dominion of his own pulpit so absolutely and exclusively, that the ordinary of the diocese, when he examines the book containing the names of the preachers, has a right only of inquiring whether they were all regularly ordained ministers of the Establislied Church. If this persuasion be well-authorized all discussion of the former part of the question is precluded, provided that the missionary should choose, as indeed is rarely done, to preach in the church. The preachers of the Home Mission, if they had obtained the consent of the incumbent or curate, might freely preach in his church, or any other regularly ordained ministers, whom he might choose to permit, might preach there, and could be required only to produce their letters of ordination in proof of qualification.

It was once deemed to belong to the freedom of the pulpit, that the minister should be allowed to address his admonitions personally to any individual of his congregation, reminding him particularly of his duties, and animadverting upon and censuring his actions. This notion of the freedom of the pulpit was however found to be in practice offensive and mischievous, and was gradually abandoned. We may say of it, as the Latin poet says on a different subject, grave virus munditiæ pepulere. It is now contended

only that the preacher may be changed, indefinitely, at the discretion of the incumbent or curate, without making any reference to his ecclesiastical superior, and with no other limitation than that the stranger should have been regularly ordained. It is obvious that such a liberty might be extended so far as to render the local charge of a particular congregation, and the license of a Bishop committing it to an individual, little more than empty forms. Yet, if it be a matter of strict and

absolute right, how can it be restrained? I freely admit, indeed, that the occasional assistance which Clergymen mutually afford in cases of necessity, and even an occasional interchange of duty for mere convenience, both which have been long practised without reprehension, are not only demanded for the accommodation of ministers, but even beneficial to their congregations, who, in the one case, might else be deprived of the benefit of divine service, and even in the other may derive some advantage from the opportunity of bearing a variety of preachers. This practice, as it has heretofore prevailed, I am far from wishing to abridge. But the present question does not relate to a practice restrained within the limits of necessity, or of occasional convenience. It concerns a claim of an abstract right, which if it exists at all, may be pushed to an extent excluding almost all subordination to ecclesiastical authority, because admitting an indefinite change of ministers, and thus even suspending altogether the express direction of the ninth of the Irish canons, which requires that an incumbent should personally discharge his duty, by preaching on every Sunday to his own congregation.

In support of this pretension, reliance appears to have been chiefly placed on the judgment pronounced by Sir John Nicholl, in the case of Gates v. Chambers, in the Arches Court of Canterbury, in the year 1824. But what was this case, as reported in 2. Addams? It was that of a single performance of duty by a curate of the diocese of Lichfield and Coventry, at the request of the rector of a parish in the neighbouring diocese of Peterborough, then absent in attendance upon a sick wife. The judge, in disposing of this case, said, " that occasional assistance so given is punishable as an ecclesiastical offence, merely because the minister so assistant, has not been licensed, as Curate, by the Bishop of the diocese, is more than, without further consideration, and other authorities being adduced, I am prepared to lay down as the rule of law: such a rule would be highly inconvenient to the Clergy, and might not unfrequently occasion

parishioners to be deprived altogether of the church service." The case, therefore, was one of urgent necessity, which appeared to have occurred only in a solitary instance; and the judge appears rather to have dismissed the complaint on a consideration of the inconvenience which the strict enforcement of the law would impose both upon the Clergy and upon their parishioners, than to have pronounced that it was adverse to the acknowledged law of the Church. He indeed added, speaking of general licenses to preach, "it is well known that such (separate) licenses to preach were in use both before and for some time after the Reformation: but, for the last century or two, in consequence of the Clergy being better educated, or for some other reason, they have fallen into desuetude, and are now included either in letters of orders, or in the licenses of ministers to particular cures." Of these licenses I shall speak presently, for they have been pressed into the service of the Home Mission. I shall now only remark, that Sir John Nicholl has left their actual bearing undecided, not having pronounced whether they are now included in letters of orders, or in the licenses of ministers to particular cures. All that he has positively pronounced is, which is notorious, that for the last century or two they have fallen into desuetude. What had been substituted for them, he appears to have been unable to satisfy himself.

Another authority has also been adduced in this case of the Home Mission, which is entitled to much respect, being understood to be an opinion given by Dr. Phillimore two years afterwards. "I apprehend," says this opinion, as reported in The Christian Observer for March, 1836, "that a Bishop has no authority to prevent any incumbent, within his diocese, from admitting into the pulpit of his church, any regularly ordained minister of the Establised Church not resident within his diocese, from preaching an occasional sermon in any church within his diocese, provided he has the sanction of the incumbent of that church for so doing." Nor am I disposed to dissent from

this opinion, if by an occasional sermon be understood only a sermon preached in the course of that reciprocal accommodation which the Parochial Clergy have long been in the habit of giving and receiving, and the Bishops of allowing. In this sense only the civilian appears to have used the words; and yet the opinion cannot be applied to the present question, unless they may be understood to have been used in a much larger acceptation. For his application of the words, the author of the opinion has not adduced any other authority than the past usage of the Church, and therefore they cannot be extended beyond that usage. "Undoubtedly," he adds," it appears from the canons of 1603, and other authorities, that in former times no person could preach, unless he had a specific license for that purpose but this regulation has long ago become obsolete. The letters of orders have been considered as superseding the necessity for such a license; and it is now the established usage (a usage which could not, in my judgment, be controverted with effect) that any Clergyman may be allowed to preach an occasional sermon, on exhibiting his letters of orders." is thus acknowledged that the alleged right has no foundation in the canons, or other orders of the Church, but rests wholly upon usage. So far, therefore, as that usage has been admitted, it may be considered as sanctioned; but this sanction extends no further than the claim of reciprocal convenience, or, as is stated in the opinion itself, than the act of preaching an occasional sermon. The opinion, indeed, is probably founded on the previous decision of Sir John Nicholl, and I have shown how far that may be considered as extending.

It

The true liberty of the pulpit, which I am far from impeaching, consists, I conceive, in something wholly distinct both from the offensive personality of the older preachers, and from the arbitrary and uncontrolled right of exchanging or transferring duty, claimed by those of the present time. My conception of it I cannot better illustrate than by comparing it with the liberty of the press; and I sup

pose that the most eager advocate of clerical freedom might be satisfied, if they should be shown to be strictly analogous, unless, indeed, he had some special reason in justifying his own conduct, for rejecting my description of it. The liberty of the press consists, I apprehend, in an entire exemption from control previous to publication, the work published becoming, however, then subject to the prescriptions of the known laws of the land. The liberty of the pulpit consists, I conceive, in a similar exemption from all control previous to the act of preaching; the sermon, however, when delivered, becoming then subject to the prescriptions of the known laws of the church. Attempts have been made, doubtless, from the best and purest motives, by individual Bishops of both countries, to impose on their Clergy some more specific restrictions in regard to doctrines which thought to be ambiguously, or at least indistinctly, determined in the Articles. These attempts have been successfully resisted, and it was right that they should be opposed as invasions of the liberty of the pulpit, because individual Bishops are not competent to narrow the limits of doctrine prescribed by the public authority of the Church. The preacher should go into the pulpit free to preach the Gospel of CHRIST, in correspondence only to the Articles to which he was bound at his ordination. This is the true independence of the pulpit; not a liberty which would almost supersede all superintendence, by an indefinite change of the individuals to be controlled.

are

Nor is the consideration of this liberty of indefinite change of ministers the only, or the principal one, belonging to the present question, for it is still to be considered how the discipline of the Church is affected, when the change of ministers, instead of being casual and arbitrary, is the result of the organized administration of a self-constituted society, which has distributed the whole country into numerous and formally arranged circuits, as if for the regular administration of the law of the land, and sends about its preachers according

to a systematic and orderly plan of operations. And here it is important to remark, that the very same action may bear a very different character, as it is the occasional act of an individual, or the result of a combined and organized system, insomuch that in the one case it might be wholly innocent, and even rightful or expedient, in the other mischievous and reprehensible. Of this remark a satisfactory illustration may be derived from the Convention Act, passed in this country, in the thirty-third year of George III., by which it was enacted, that the exercise of the unquestioned right of petitioning the King or the Parliament, should be deemed a misdemeanour, if it should be the act of an assembly affecting to represent the people, other than the Parliament or the Convocation. What was the principle of this enactment? That this mode of exercising an acknowledged right constituted an usurpation of a representative character, belonging only to the Parliament or to the Convocation. It appears, therefore, that, in the contemplation of the legislature, the character of an action might be so changed by circumstances, constituting it an usurpation of legitimate authority, as to render it deserving of punishment, however justifiable in different circumstances. By parity of reasoning, we may conclude that, however allowable and even beneficial may be the practice of interchanging ecclesiastical duty, or of affording assistance in the occasional discharge of ministerial offices, it may not afford any sanction to the proceedings of a self-constituted society, assuming the title of the committee of the Home Mission, and conducting its operations by a systematic and orderly organization. What we have in this case to consider is whether the connexion of the act of the impugnant with the organization and systematic arrangement of the Home Mission, as announced by the placard giving notice of his sermon, invested it with a character of usurped authority, which, by a fair analogy of construction, should except it from the general indulgence allowed to occasional interchanges of duty, and render