obedience is due to that which the Rulers of the Church have tacitly permitted to become obsolete, and to which no oath, as in cases of Rubrical direction, binds him who enters into holy orders; yet the principle on which the Canon rests is not mutable, like the fashion of the garments which it prescribes; and therefore it deserves to meet with such attention as is paid to other canonical injunctions, where compliance with the spirit, if not with the letter, is plainly practicable. The Canon runs thus: "The true, ancient, and flourishing Churches of Christ, being ever desirous that their Prelacy and Clergy might be had as well in outward reverence, as otherwise regarded for the worthiness of their ministry, did think it fit by a prescript form of decent and comely apparel, to have them known to the people, and thereby to receive the honour and estimation due to the special messengers and ministers of Al. mighty God: we therefore following their grave judgement, and the ancient custom of the Church of England, and hoping that in time new. fangleness of apparel in some fac tious persons will die of itself, do constitute and appoint," &c. Then follow certain modes of attire for the different grades of clerical persous, to be worn in public and in private. With any such particular forms of dress I have nothing to do, because authority may most wisely dispense with, or custom conveniently change, things so indifferent as the quality and shape of garments, which were well adopted to the manners of the times in which they were prescribed, but would not now accord with the habits of society. The principle which the Canon affirms may, however, be respected without an adherence to any objec tionable style of dress; and need not therefore be abandoned. It is laid down as a thing desirable, that those who are set apart for the ser. vice of the sanctuary should be

4

readily recognized as the Ministers of God, and outwardly distinguished from members of the secular professions. This appears to me to be as obviously reasonable, as it has been universally acknowledged. But, it may be said, Halitus non facit Monachum, and a Clergyman is not the less a distinct character, because he does not wear a peculiar garb. He is equally responsible as a Minister of Christ, and as a person subject to ecclesiastical autho rity. How then can it be of any importance either to the public or to himself, that when he is not in. the act of officiating, he should be known to belong to any particular profession?

I should reply, that the advantages attending the practice of distinguishing from the Laity, not only all who have a cure of souls, but the Clergy in general, seem to me not a few, or of trifling magnitude. If the elder and the beneficed Clergy were always outwardly distinguished, they could not but feel conscious, at all seasons, of the great obligations which lie especially on them, of preserving the sanctity of manner and Christian dignity of demeanour becoming their conspicuous station. They would be constantly aware that all classes of their parishioners, looking upon the badge of their sacred profession, would expect from the wearer an uniform and consistent piety, and an exemplary course of con duct. They would take a pride in being personally known, as the shepherd of their flock, to all who might desire their assistance or advice; an honest pride which would lead them to the performance of many a good work, as the friend of the poor man, and the counsellor of the rich. Whatever tends to draw closer the bonds of union which do, or ought to, exist between the parish Priest and his parishioners must be deemed a va luable accessary at least to the cause of Religion, and highly beneficial

to both parties. Experience will, I think, convince us of the necessity of attention even to the prejudices, often well founded, of the lower ranks, if we seriously mean to be of use to them either spiritually or temporally. And the common people will generally respect their pastor in proportion as he respects his own office, and seems to be devoted to it. By distinguishing himself from the Laity he assuredly affords one evidence of regard to his calling, and, ac cording to the Canon, will" be had in outward reverence," an enviable advantage, which does not fall to the lot of every parish Priest, even though he may in most particulars deserve it.

To the younger Clergy it would surely be of incalculable advantage, that they should never be able to mix with the crowd, without being assured that they have the eyes of all men upon them, and that if they should be guilty of any indecorous levity, or join in any unfit pursuit, they cannot escape observation; and must injure not only their own character, but that of the Church to which they belong. The consciousness of being known might not, indeed, subdue an immoral propensity, which was not to be conquered by higher principle; but in outward deportment and association with the world, it would furnish an additional, and a very strong, motive to sobriety of manners and consistency of conduct.

No man, one should suppose, would object to wear something indicative of his holy profession, but he who needs concealment, and prefers darkness to light; he who has a dangerous wish to be as much at liberty in all things as the Laity, in order that he may freely participate in worldly pleasures and occupations, or he who indulges a false delicacy with regard to being exposed to public observation.

Eminently respectable, of unimpeached morality and sincere piety, as are the great majority of the Eng

lish Clergy, both old and young, a simple unostentatious distinction could hardly be in any way objectionable to them; more especially as it comes recommended to them by the Fathers of the Reformation, on the ground of its having always obtained in the Christian Church. In many cases it might defend them against that which they have now frequent cause to lament. It would serve as a check upon the licentious freedom of conversation, which they are sometimes constrained to endure; upon the liberal remarks prompted by a spirit of levelling all distinctions, which are sometimes introduced with malignant ingenuity when the utterer is not obliged to know that an object of them is in company.

As respects the community, the above-mentioned advantages of clcrical distinction would unquestionably be reciprocal. By whatever means the Ministers of the Gospel are raised in the estimation of the people, the latter cannot but be benefited; because they will be led to esteem more highly the ordinances of Religion, and to embrace more firmly the doctrines and precepts which they receive through the ministration of their Clergy, when they have a confidence in the sincere and holy character of their spiritual guides.

After all, it is by no means easy to discover the cause of the great apparent desire to get rid of clerical distinctions, for we cannot believe for a moment that any unworthy objection to their being known as a Clergyman can actuate many who do entirely lay aside all such distinctions. No one, I presume, will acknowledge that he is ashamed of being remarked upon as a Minister of Religion. This were, indeed, a most shameful desertion of a post of highest honour. Without attempting, then, to account for this new fashion, it may be permitted to point out some of the evils which arise from its prevalence.

Those who think lightly of our Establishment, and every body connected with it, must doubtless be confirmed in their prejudices when they see the elder Clergy giving up those outward tokens, which have ever since the, Reformation been considered as honourable signs of ecclesiastical dignity or parochial charge. If there be nothing to denote the Minister of the Church, however worthy he may be of reverence, the stranger can feel none for him. The old man in the black coat may be a very estimable man, but he receives no honour on account of his office, because he bears no certain mark of it; he may be, for aught the colour of his coat denotes, a respectable tradesman, or any thing not at all respectable.

If the younger Clergy will conform to all the absurd fashions of the day; if they will sedulously avoid every thing in outward appearance which may draw on them the dreaded remark, "there goes a Parson!" they surely subject themselves to many temptations, and to many improprieties to which they ought not, for the sake of their calling, ever to be liable.

To carry the vanities of dress into the desk or pulpit, is so grossly indecorous as always to excite disgust or ridicule. To indulge in them at any time is utterly unworthy of any one whose obligations are such as those which are embraced at ordination.

Amongst the higher classes, few will be found to express more respect or esteem for a young Clergyman, because he employs a fashionable tailor, or makes himself look as much like other men as possible. Amongst the lower, in whom much strong sense of propriety and keenness of discernment are called into action, whenever they observe on the persons who are their spiritual guides; amongst the lower ranks there is scarcely any one who is so generally despised as a fashionable Clergyman; for they well know

that he ought to have something better to do than to assimilate himself to the fopperies of fashion.

It will, I am aware, be urged, that English Clergymen are mostly English gentlemen, that they live in the best society, and that it is necessary for them to conform to the habits and appearance of other gentlemen. It will be said, that our Church is remarkably different in this respect from most others, that its Ministers are not separated from society in the same degree with those, for instance, of the Roman Catholic; whose Clergy having no domestic ties, are more secluded and less affected by temporal cares.

It is true, and happy is it, in many respects, for the country, that the Clergy are not taken out of society, but form a constituent part of it; that they are intimately connected with every rank, and that a large proportion belong to, and live amongst the highest: but this does not oblige them to make any concessions which can lessen the reverence due to their office, nor does it require them to assume the exterior of those with whom they associate, whenever they are not in actual duty. Why should the Clergy of the lower ranks, any more than their superiors, lay aside every distinction the instant they have finished the service of the Church? Why should they not, in their several stations, wish to sustain with propriety the character, of which they cannot dispossess themselves, of something more than that of gentlemen? Surely it would attach to the profession in general somewhat of greater sanctity in the minds of others, if we were constantly reminded by some visible token, that we are not only to conduct ourselves according to the rules of good breeding, but that we have another character to sustain, as Christian Ministers, of a more unpretending, modest, and sedate description, than is usually considered popular in society. Though the

Clergy are not called upon to refrain from innocent association with the world, or to live as if they were totally to differ from it, yet there is no occasion for their obliterating all the boundary lines which separate between the sacred and secular professions.

But admitting the fact that the Clergy of the present day are much less distinguished from the Laity than they were formerly, and that evil arises from this want of distinction to both parties; it will be asked, How is it to be remedied? How can the Clergy in general be induced to wear any thing which shall distinguish them? Will they not consider it as a matter altogether beneath their notice, and reject advice on such a subject, come from whom it may?

I am persuaded, Sir, that if the attention of the beneficed Clergy were once fairly directed to the probable effects, they would, without hesitation, returu to the good old way, and by universally adopting the same style of dress, which some old fashioned men, especially in the country, have never cast off, they would not only regain some of the respect from the lower ranks, the loss of which is justly deplored, but they would receive much more attention from the higher classes; and above all, they would set an example to their younger brethren, which would assuredly tend to make them dread less the imputation of singularity, and induce them to conform to the character of their profession in outward appearance; perhaps, to take as much pride in professional distinction as they might justly take without any discredit or disadvantage to themselves.

I do not presume to say that what may be deemed by some a very trivial matter, merits episcopal interference; but if it should happen to be regarded as involving some more important points, such as general habits of laxity and care

lessness of pastoral connection, there is no doubt, but that the smallest hint coming from autho. rity, would remove all difficulty. Or if any considerable body of the Clergy, such as the members of Sion College, the City Rectors, were to come to a resolution not to appear in common but in some such dress as might distinguish them from the merchants and shop. keepers who inhabit their respective parishes; and were to recommend the same object to their curates; if some such step were taken, there would be very little reluctance in the Clergy of London and Westminster to follow their example; and the change would soon be per. ceptible throughout the country.

Surely a better period for reviring a good old custom cannot be proposed, than this, when attempts are daily making to vilify the Clergy, and when the few who persevere in retaining the clerical appearance cannot walk the streets without being insulted. The very

rare

occurrence of a Clergyman being seen with any thing about him to attract notice gives occasion to impertinent remarks on any one who dares to be singular; but if the singularity were done away by the general adoption of a peculiar habit, so numerous are the Clergy in London that they would cease to be objects of observation.

Still, it may be said, that I have attached too much importance to a matter that is indifferent, and ought to be left to private judgment.

If I were proposing a novelty I should most willingly admit that I had formed an exaggerated opinion of its importance; but the novelty consists in the omission, not in the adoption, of a distinctive clerical habit; and as I am not aware of any positive objection to it, or any reason for its disuse that can be placed in competition with the reasons for its re-assumption, I am induced to beg that you will do me the favour to give this letter inser

"If there had been no lecturers which succeeded the friars in their way, the Church of England might have stood and flourished at this day."

"Lecturers do in a parish Church, what the friars did heretofore, get away not only the affections, but the bounty that should be bestowed upon the minister."

"Lecturers get a great deal of money, because they preach the people tame as a man watches a hawk, and then they do what they list with them." Selden's Table Talk. Title, Friars and Lecturers.

Such are the declarations of Selden. He was no friend to the Church of England, but lived to witness and to regret the triumph of its Puritanical enemies. Could Selden appear again on this busy stage, he would recognise many symptoms of the olden time, more especially that revival of the lecturing system, against which he has solemnly warned those who condescend to take a lesson from experience.

To give our country readers a little insight into the principles and practices of popular London Lecturers, we insert the following extracts from their various publications. The first is to be found in the New Times of Saturday, Dec. 16, 1820; being part of a Letter from the Rev. Isaac Saunders, to the Editor, in which that gentleman endeavours to vindicate himself from the charge of having fomented the riot in St. Margaret's Church, for which Mr. Hatchard has been subsequently punished by the Ecclesiastical Court.

The second forms the concluding
REMEMBRANCER, No. 48.

paragraph of a Sermon delivered in the Parish Churches of St. James's, Clerkenwell, and St. Antholin's, Watling-street, London, by the express Desire of Mr. G. J. Furneaux, who shot himself at White Conduithouse, Sept. 19, 1821. By the Rev. S. Piggott, A.M. of Oxford, Curate and Lecturer of St. James's, Clerkenwell, and St. Antholin's, Watlingstreet, &c. &c.

The third is reprinted from a handbill recently circulated in the Parish of St. Michael, Queenhithe, by the Rev. H. C. O'Donnoghue.

No. I.

"I say nothing in palliation of the crime committed by the persons alluded to. It was alike a violation of decency as of religion. It ought not, however, to be imputed to me, who had been honourably elected to the Lectureship, but to those who, in violation of my right, and the privileges of the parishioners, prevented me from taking possession of it."

"Upon his enquiry if I intended to attempt a forcible possession of the pulpit, &c. I replied, such a line of conduct was farthest from my thoughts: nay, I added, if you and all the officers were to request it, I would not enter the pulpit, because privilege. none but the Incumbent can grant me the

"To conclude: the Friend of the

Established Church' would have no Lectureships. To say nothing of the loss of people, what is to become of those who the only ecclesiastical privilege of the take holy orders, and are without patronage? Our country is celebrated for having its highest offices in Church and State open to merit. If this first step is annihilated, I do not know how any man is to reach the second.

"He wishes, also, that to prevent such shall be appointed by the Incumbent of horrible proceedings in future, Lecturers the parish. The Incumbent may appoint now: there is no law against it; only if the Incumbent appoint, he must pay. No, the better remedy will be to make the pulpits free, so that all licensed Clergymen elected to any Lectureship within their own diocese shall have the unobstructed be no confusion, and the Church will reuse of the pulpit. In that case there will tain its members."