a question might arise, whether the prayer should be written or unpremeditated-who should be called upon to offer it-&c. &c. &c. Nay, further still, many of the Society's warmest supporters belong to the denomination of Friends, who object to set prayer altogether. So that, in fact, there are such numerous difficulties, that the measure is of necessity prevented, not from any dislike to it, but from the nature of the case.'

Now, if objections are to be urged as a reason for not having prayer, I know not how far the principle might not carry us. There are objections to prayer at all times. Such is the peculiar nature of this exercise. Prayer, as believers know, is such a suspension; such a shock to the power of Satan, that to provide obstacles to prayer the devil makes his peculiar business. It is, accordingly, a constant rule of Christian experience to expect obstacles to prayer: and it is a constant principle of our Christian warfare, that, if we would maintain uninterrupted the habit of prayer, we must make it a practice, in the strength of the Lord God, to set at nought those obstacles; to neglect and despise those obstacles; to break through those obstacles; to trample upon those obstacles: yea, and ever to bear in mind the true nature of those obstacles; as barriers, placed by Satan, between our souls and the heavenly mercy-seat. The Lord Jesus, by a dying effort, made a way of access for our prayers; and Satan does all he can to close it up again. I am on a journey, and therefore cannot pray: I am in company, and therefore cannot pray: I have not a room to myself, and therefore cannot pray. Don't you see, Mr. Editor, that the case is precisely the same? The principle which keeps me from saying grace, when sitting down to dinner with the company in a steam-packet, or a stage-coach, and the principle which excludes prayer from the meetings of the Committee in Earl Street, though differently modified, are one and the same. That is, there is in each case an obstacle, and the obstacle serves as a hindrance. St. Paul, on the contrary, went on, in a ship crowded with Pagans and felons, in the regular and open observance of prayer to God-" whose I am," he says, "and whom I serve" (Acts xxvii. 23); or, in other words, Whom you see me serving-whom, as you perceive, in spite of every inconvenience, I go on serving regularly. And I do not serve him in vain : For there stood by me this night"though we are now in the midst of darkness, storm, and trouble, tossed on a tempestuous ocean without a star to guide us, and far off from the holy temple at Jerusalem-" there stood by me this night the Angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, saying, Fear not, Paul." Nor would this Apostle be turned aside from the regular observance of grace before meat, as we

find by reading a few verses farther on, though on the point of being shipwrecked; and standing, with more than two hundred and seventy souls, before break of day, on the deck of the devoted vessel, with the winds howling around, and the ocean yawning as if to devour them beneath. Obstacles, then, go for nothing. Or, if they are to be noticed at all, it should only be as tokens that there is something in the case, which makes it particularly Satan's object to throw obstacles in the way. Let the very sight, then, of the obstacles, only excite us to a more settled purpose of advancing to our object. When, in our approach to the Throne of Grace, we see obstacles in the way, we see the lines thrown up by the enemy to prevent our advance: and such a sight should only have the same effect on us, as the sight of the enemies' lines has upon British troops advancing to the attack-namely, that of making us press forward to our mark with ten-fold ardour.

If

But prayer, it will be said, is offered at the Society's house already. In a private room, belonging to one of the officers of the Institution, prayer is already made, previous to every meeting of the Committee. Be it so. I am willing to suppose the fact, though whether this be really the case I know not. And then I say, As you acknowledge God, so will God acknowledge you. you acknowledge him in public, he will acknowledge you in public; but if only in private, in private. This is what we must look for, in the Committee meetings of the Bible Society. The Lord is there acknowledged, in private, but not in public. All you can reasonably expect, then, is, that in private, not in public, he will acknowledge you. In regard to the successes and usefulness of the Society, you will still perhaps have the happiness of knowing, among yourselves, that they continue very great; but, at the same time, before the eye of the world you will constantly be put to shame. The great machine, it may be, will still go on performing its complicated work, with tolerable regularity. But you will still have dissensions in your Committee you will still have debate upon debate: you will still incur scandal and reproach: you will still afford matter of triumph to your enemies, who have long been watching your proceedings with joy and surprise; and, though you may wonder at their doing nothing, are even now, depend upon it, only. coiling themselves up for a spring: you will still go on losing precious time you will still go on in a situation, highly painful to every friend of the Institution; but especially so, I should think, to the Society's agents and officers.

I am the more in earnest upon this subject, however, as I know, the proposition for prayer has come before the Committee,

and has been rejected. Hence the present has much more of the character of an urgent and extreme case, than if no such attempt had been made. The matter has been brought to issue. The necessity for prayer has been urged unsuccessfully. And believe me, sir, when I once saw a good man, after having made the suggestion without success, button up his coat, put on his hat, and walk out of the room, like a prophet that had delivered his message, I felt forebodings which I will not attempt to describe, but which have since, alas, been fully realized. Well, then, the matter is now come to a crisis. made a question, to be tried before the whole world, WHETHER the Lord will allow us to have peace, and all the other tokens of his blessing visibly resting upon us, while we are not visibly rendering to him the tribute of our gratitude and allegiance. As I said before, so say I now again, that, so far from venturing to expect this, I question whether it is even to be desired.

It is

What, then, is to be done? Why, lend me your ear, Mr. Editor, and I will tell you. There should be an act of Christian decision there should be something of gentle violence in this matter. Let the thing be done, if none will do it besides, by ministers of the Established Church. Who so fit to go through with such a measure as they? And, if they set the example, I trust there will not be wanting others to follow it with godly emulation. All that is required at first is, to break the ice. Let a body of them enter the Committee, on an early occasion, determined to carry the measure into effect. Let them-begin to talk and argue the matter, move and second resolutions, &c.?-No: we have had quite enough of that. Let them call on one of their number to pray. Let him begin: and, when he has begun, I should like to see, Mr. Editor, who will dare to interrupt him. In fact, I verily believe there will be no great wish to do so. I think it by no means impossible that there may be some who would inwardly rejoice, though they may have officially objected to such a measure. any one should feel disposed to resist, I say again, Let him do it at his peril. I should be sorry to be that man, who, when matters came to the point, was found opposing so suitable, so necessary, so indispensable, so godly a proceeding.

But if

But the "Friends"-how will they like this? how will they approve of such a measure?-Really, sir, this is carrying matters rather too far. I am willing to go as far as I can, in meeting the peculiar feelings of any man. But the concession, in this case, is all on one side. Here is the general church giving up an essential point, to meet the feelings of a class of men who differ from her; and, by this concession, bringing

upon herself very painful, very serious consequences. Ought this to be? Is this true liberality? No. For good men to meet together, to act together, to labour together, in spite of minor difficulties, is liberality, I allow. But for the many to give way, in what they know to be a matter of duty, to the few; for principle to be sacrificed to peculiarity; for Christians to neglect, under a plea of waiting for the Spirit's extraordinary influences, to seek the Spirit's influence at all;-I see no liberality in this: I see nothing but unworthy concession and compromise; such as the one party ought to be ashamed to ask, and the other doubly ashamed to grant.

But, after all, I think too well of our "Friends," to believe that they are so unreasonable. Not that I am now going to argue the point with them. That might answer no good purpose. But I do think, if the thing were to be begun, they themselves would see and feel the benefit; and rejoice in a measure, as forced upon them, to which in point of argument, perhaps, they might feel disposed to object. Believe me, sir, before the troubles of the Bible Society can cease, before we can go so far as even to wish them to cease, ALL ITS COMMITTEES AND SUB-COMMITTEES MUST BEGIN AND END WITH PRAYER.

With best wishes, I remain, Mr. Editor,

Your sincere friend and humble servant,

T.

BONDS FOR RESIGNATION OF BENEFICES.

The important case of Fletcher versus Lord Sondes received its final decision in the House of Lords on the 9th of April.

The circumstances attending it are as follows: - Lord Sondes being the patron of the rectory of Kettering, in the county of Northampton, presented the Rev. Mr. Fletcher (the appellant) to that living, some years ago, on the latter entering into a bond, in the penalty of 12,000l., to resign the said rectory, upon request, when any of the younger brothers of Lord Sondes should be capable of taking an ecclesiastical benefice. In the year 1820, the Hon. Henry Watson, one of his Lordship's brothers, being in the condition above mentioned, Lord Sondes requested of the appellant to resign the rectory, that he might present his brother thereto, but Mr. Fletcher refused to comply; whereupon Lord Sondes commenced an action in debt on the bond. The appellant suffered judgment to go against him by default, and a writ of inquiry was executed before the Chief Justice and a special jury, who assessed the damages at 10,000l. Judgment was signed; upon which the appellant brought a writ of error, in the Exchequer Chamber, where the judgment was affirmed; against which decision an appeal was lodged in the House of Lords. Counsel

having been heard on both sides, their Lordships directed that it should be submitted for the opinion of the twelve Judges, who, after twelve months' deliberation, delivered their opinions seriatim (with the exception of Mr. Justice Bailey and Mr. Justice Littledale, who could not make up their minds on the subject), in the House of Lords, in the last session; seven of them being opposed to the judgment below, and three of them (Chief-Justice Best, Mr. Justice Gazalee, and Mr. Justice Burrough) being in favour of it.

The Lord Chancellor, having gone through all the circumstances of the case as above detailed, observed, that the appellant, on bringing the case into the Court of Exchequer Chamber, had set forth the errors, and the respondent pleaded in nullo est erratum. The court, perceiving that there were none of these errors on record, which could warrant them to enter into the merits of the case, affirm the judgment, without hearing the arguments of counsel. The question now for the consideration of their Lordships was, whether this was a bond on which the parties were entitled to sue; and in coming to a conclusion on this subject, their Lordships should consider themselves as judges in a court of justice, and his (the Lord Chancellor's) duty was not to state the case on any other grounds than that which was warranted by law. His Lordship had not the slightest hesitation in saying, that, before the decision given in the case of the Bishop of London against Ffysche, this bond would be held legal; but he was of opinion that it came within the same principle which governed that decision. It was argued by counsel at the bar, that this bond could not be considered simoniacal, as the condition of the resignation was the presentation of a particular person; and that the obligee might see, and the Bishop should take care, that on his resignation no other person should be presented but the Rev. Henry Watson, the brother of Lord Sondes. Now, if the resignation were conditional, it would cease to be a resignation at all; and after an incumbent had resigned, he (the Lord Chancellor) would ask any man, conversant in law or equity, was there any law upon earth which could compel a patron to present any particular person? It had already been decided, in several instances, that a resignation, to be good, must be pura et absque conditione, otherwise the law said it was no resignation, or it was void. True it was, that two or three eminent and distinguished leading characters were adverse to the decision in the case of the Bishop of London and Ffysche; among whom was Lord Kenyon, to whose opinion in legal matters he paid the highest respect; and it was consequently urged, that that decision should govern no other case except that which was strictly in point; but his Lordship thought that there was nothing in this case which should take it out of the rule by which that decision was governed. The Bishop of London and Ffysche was a bond of general resignation; and if the incumbent resigned in this case, could not the patron present whom he pleased? and how then did it differ from a general resignation? It had been urged, that if this bond should be judged simoniacal, the incumbent and the patron