being allured into her communion through the enticement held out to us in her equally apostolical constitution.

Having sufficiently settled this point, and made their appeals to tradition in regard to a matter where tradition is of undoubted authority, the leaders of the movement went on to strengthen their argument by shewing that the Church, in her interpretation of important doctrines, is quite as far in advance of other sects as she is in her apostolical constitution, and her faithful regard to primitive order. And here it was that the writers of the Tracts for the Times first began to lose themselves. They had adventured upon ground so delicate, so unsafe, that to pass over it without damage was next to impossible. For the authority on which they had rested, and fairly, too, as sustaining their views of Church government and apostolical succession, was here of no avail. Unless we believe that St. Clement and St. Ignatius were both inspired, we are no more bound to accept their interpretation of the words of Scripture than any which may be offered by Thomas Aquinas, or John Calvin, or Daniel Melville, or John Wesley. And hence all the information which

Church of their fathers were, in
point of fact, leading them through
that Church, and carrying them,
blindfolded and misled, into com-
munion with the Church of Rome.

Of the anxiety of the leaders of
the movement to revive practices in
the Church which had fallen into
disuse we would not speak, except
respectfully. So long as they con-
fined their endeavours to a revival of
the observance of saints' days, and
the reopening of our places of wor-
ship for morning and evening prayer
daily throughout the year, no right-
thinking Churchman could blame
them. We might anticipate, as we
certainly did, that, except in particu-
lar districts, the endeavour would
fail. We might believe that to
make it at all, in parishes strictly
agricultural, was purely absurd.
And when we heard of zealous cu-
rates repairing morning after morn-
ing to their early churches, and
reading prayers to empty pews, and
persuading themselves that they were
doing their duty, there was some-
thing like a struggle within us be-
tween the sorrowful and the lu-
dicrous; for either these gentlemen
must have believed-as the Roman
Catholics do- that the prayers of
the priest, when offered up in the
church, avail for the whole parish,
even if he pray alone, or else their
notions of what the Church teaches in
regard to common prayer must be
very indistinct and unintelligible.
However, not by these things, nor by
others like to them, were we offended;
but when young clergymen took to
crossing themselves, and bowing to
the altar; when they made a Shibbo
leth of this word altar, and eschewed
the phrase which the Prayer-book
retains, and would have nothing to
do with the communion-table; when
they set up their credence-tables,
and offered reverence to the conse-
crated bread and wine, and walked
backwards in order that on it their
backs might not be turned; when
they covered the communion-table
with flowers, and burned candles at
noon-day, and prayed with their
backs to the people in order that
they might face the altar; then
were we both shocked and alarmed;
then did we feel, in common with all
good Churchmen, that the line which
separates zeal from knowledge had

they communicated to us, regarding the opinions which were held by the fathers with respect to the nature and purposes of the holy sacrament, tended only to startle and to alarm. For it is worthy of remark, that, from day to day, the list of the fathers became in their hands con

tinually greater. It was no more of those, concerning whom our own Cave has well written, that they made mention. Others, of more doubtful character, were placed side by side with these, till, in the end, both they and we became entangled in all the intricacies of the middle ages. Hence the avowal of a principle which the Reformed Church of England has uniformly denounced, and put from her, that in communicating to the people the counsel of God any reserve shall be practised. And, finally, the fatal Tract 90, with the sermons and pamphlets arising out of it, of which the issues were to excite our lively apprehension that they who undertook to keep the multitude within the pale of the

been overstepped; and that if the English people refused to go with self-appointed leaders farther than the principles of the Church will warrant, the chances were that a great reaction would take place, and that all the good which might have been gained in the earlier stage of the movement would be lost-never to be recovered again.

down into the arena, and we are
favoured from day to day with
charges, judgments, pastoral letters,
and so forth; not one of which agrees,
in the more important points at issue,
with another.

She

With the subjects in dispute between Dr. Pusey and Mr. Ward on the one hand, and the University of Oxford on the other, we are not now going to interfere. The university has a perfect right to call to account any of her sons who shall appear to the ruling body to teach doctrines at variance with those of the Church with which she is connected. silenced Dr. Pusey for a time, and will, we doubt not, visit Mr. Ward with such a punishment as the publication of his very mischievous book may seem to deserve. The third count or clause in their proposed decree will not, we should think, be sustained; for it would never do to entrust any vice-chancellor with power to determine in what sense the Thirty-nine Articles are to be accepted by him who signs them. Dr. Symonds, we are satisfied, would require no more than the Church requires in regard to this matter. But what security have we against the occupation hereafter of his chair by some reverend doctor, who, agreeing more with Mr. Ward than with the body which is to try him, shall refuse to confer degrees upon any who may be indisposed to speak of the Reformation as a great blot on the Church's escutcheon, and to sigh for a reunion with Rome, no matter at what sacrifice of principle purchased? However, this is a point with which we do not desire, at the

Up to the period of which we are speaking, the spirit of revival had not carried its votaries into any direct attack upon customs which, whether correctly or not, had arisen in the conduet of public worship. The gown was still universally worn during the preaching of the sermons, except in cathedral and collegiate churches, and in the chapels of halls and colleges. Nobody, except in cases where there was a sermon only in the afternoon, dreamed of reading, ere he dismissed the congregation, the "Prayer for the whole state of Christ's Church Militant here on earth." If a charity sermon were preached, or a collection made for any benevolent purpose, whether general or parochial, the churchwardens and other influential persons stood with plates in their hands to receive the contributions of the people as they departed. Sometimes, to be sure, when a king's or queen's letter came, the minister and churchwardens made a progress round the parish, and gathered from door to door the alms of those to whom they were sent: but of an offertory, save when the Communion was administered, no man, whether clergyman or layman, spoke; indeed, the whole Church seemed, as if by common consent, to have forgotten that any usage of the sort had ever prevailed, even in the primitive ages. Unfortunately, however, these were precisely the sort of matters which the successors of the movement party held to come strictly within their province; and a crusade was forthwith preached against the the black gown, against church-door collections, in favour of the surplice, of the prayer for the Church militant, and of a weekly offertory. And what has been the consequence?

A state of things on which the good cannot look without shame, and which the enemy and blasphemer behold with an unholy triumph. For the bishops themselves have been dragged

present moment, to entangle our

selves. Our business is with the Church, as she is seeking, in various parts of the empire, the accomplishment of the great object for which she has been called; and with those to whom the chief guidance, both of the clergy and laity, in spiritual things, has been committed. And we earnestly entreat the latter, by the faith and love which they bear to the former, to consider well how far they are, or are not, even in part, responsible for the melancholy spirit of

disunion and lack of trust which has arisen among us.

Something more than two years have elapsed since we took occasion,

posed to devote it. Now we ourselves have never entertained the shadow of a doubt in regard to this matter. We do not believe that the clergy have a right to exact an offertory unless when the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is administered; but, even if the case were otherwise, is it judicious to press a point against which the laity have declared themselves? Let us again refer to the work from which we have already quoted, where one, who views the matter somewhat differently from us, arrives, however, at the same conclusion; for we presume that the opinions of Mr. Jacobson, sen., are those of Mr. Gleig, and as such we quote them :

Not,

"For example, this very usage of which you speak, the weekly offertory, is gone; and, though I reverence the motive which has urged good men to think of reviving it, I am confident that they neither can nor will succeed. mind you, that I value the argument which turns upon its incompatibility with a compulsory collection for the poor one jot. Men pay their rates as they pay their taxes, not for charity's sake, but because the law requires it. And every learner in history knows that, long after the 43d of Queen Elizabeth had been passed, the weekly offerings of the rich were accepted for the poor by the clergy, in all the parishes throughout the kingdom. But, besides that both rich and poor were much fewer in number then than they are now, the former were well pleased to devolve upon the clergyman the care of finding out where assistance was wanted, and to supply it at his own discretion. Whether it be for better or for worse, the laity now claim the privilege of judging for themselves in such cases. The rightminded among them are, indeed, ready— at least I have uniformly found them so to accept the clergyman's recommendation of particular objects, and not unfrequently render him their almoner: but this is the result of private conferences; it were too much to expect that they should put themselves from week to week, blindfold, and without inquiry, into our hands. You will say, perhaps, that they ought to do so; and that these weekly offertories, being quiet and unostentatious, enable the really benevolent to do good by stealth. Be it so; but, on the other hand, are not we, the clergy, in this age of universal illumination and suspicion, placing ourselves towards the laity, through their operation, in a somewhat delicate light? May they not say, will not the less generous among them be

apt to say,We don't know what the clergyman means to do with our alms? he may apply them to his own uses, for aught we can tell; and therefore, if we do give, we give grudgingly.' And though it be true that we must not shrink from our Master's service, whether the report be good or evil that greets us, it it is equally certain that any practice, however praiseworthy in itself, which has a tendency to diminish our moral influence in our sphere, is best avoided. Moreover, the claims upon individual benevolence from day to day are now so numerous, and the public necessities of the Church so pressing, that, be the laity ever so well disposed, they cannot, in very many instances, keep pace with them. Are we acting judiciously when we call, over and above, for a weekly contribution from persons barely able, if able they are, to give their alms where they themselves know that they are needed; and to contribute their mite towards the diffusion of the Church's sanctify. ing influences over places, both at home and abroad, where it is not yet felt?'"

Had a view of the case similar to this been taken by the incumbents of Islington and Hurst, and their respective diocesans, we should have been spared the perusal in the public newspapers of a correspondence little calculated to allay the ferment in the Church, which was already violent enough. The diocese of Exeter, likewise, might possibly have escaped a judgment which will not, as regards its law, hold water for a moment, and an illtimed pastoral letter would have been withheld, of which the results are yet to be ascertained. But the most curious feature in the whole case is, that the individuals who began this offertory practice, and for awhile insisted upon its observance as necessary to the Church's existence, are now beginning to discover that they were wrong. Mr. Bennet of Knightsbridge, for example, than whom a more strenuous stickler for the revival lives not, has abandoned the offertory as uncanonical; and such of the faithful now calls upon as are moved to give alms out of their abundance, to dedicate the same to God, by laying it, with their own hands, upon the altar! At what are we to arrive next? for, unless our information be entirely at fault, Mr. Bennet by no means stands alone in this proceeding.

It is grievous to think that such things should be. It is sad to be aware that through the childish folly of some, and the lack of a little firmness and consistency in others, the excellent Church feeling, which times of danger and of difficulty had called into existence, should be erushed or driven away; for the people will not endure this state of things much longer. They say, and say truly, that they are as much a portion of the Church as the clergy; that their views and wishes, especially in regard to customs like these, deserve to be taken at least as much into account; that it is too late in the day for a body of men who " their servants for the Lord's sake," to think of lording it over their common Master's heritage; and that, sorely as they shall grieve over the alternative, they will rather quit the Church and seek elsewhere for salvation, than submit to be trampled upon, and have their honest prejudices outraged. Is it well in the heads of the Church to allow matters to come to this? Are they prepared to stand by and look on while the crisis shall occur?

are

the bishops and a due proportion of the inferior clergy, shall be open also to the laity, after some such fashion as that which prevails and has prevailed for a hundred and fifty years in the Established Church of Scotland. Doubtless many and grave objections may be offered to either scheme; and should one or the other be brought forward in high quarters, great will be the clamour, especially among the adherents of the movement. It seems to be admitted that no provincial synod of bishops has the power to make ordinances, much less to enforce them. The decision of convocation, summoned by the archbishops, authorised by the queen, and confirmed by parliament, can alone issue any uniform rule for the direction of the clergy, and, in the absence of such an authority, the Preface to the Book of Common Prayer is the only guide.

Our own idea is, that an act of parliament authorising the bishops to take the question of rites and ceremonies as observed in the Church into consideration, and to settle the same from time to time, as to their collective wisdom might appear expedient, would prove at once the most effectual and the least unpopular remedy for the serious evils under which the Church now labours. The very high among Churchmen would probably object to this, as an undue interference on the part of the State with things spiritual. And from the more ambitious among the clergy of all shades of opinion, we should probably hear of the wisdom of making an appeal to the regular Church courts, to the two houses of convocation called together for the despatch of business, and representing as they then would the whole body of the clergy. But, besides, that we are scarcely prepared to allow of the old convocation, that, as a body, it ever did, or ever could, speak the opinions of the whole Church, the state of feeling among the clergy themselves, and the unfortunate habit into which too many among them have fallen, of speaking out, as they term it, without respect to persons, scarcely prompts us to desire that it should again be brought into operation. Much more safely will affairs be left in the hands of that venerable body which, with here and

But what are we to do? If it be unwise in the bishops to charge their clergy on these subjects separately, it will be far more imprudent to meet and discuss the questions at issue in a body; for, in the first place, there is no ground whatever to expect that the meeting, if held, would arrive at a satisfactory conclusion; and if it did, where is the authority in a conclave of bishops, any more than in one particular bishop, to enforce obedience to its decree? This is too true; and in our knowledge of the truth lies our great difficulty. But we must take courage, and deal with this case as we should with any other under similar circumstances. Great occasions of danger require great remedies. The Church must again be invested with the power of selfgovernment; not as she was before, in her convocation of mere clergyfor to this the laity, the great body of the Church, would not, we suspect, agree-but either by conferring by act of parliament authority upon the bishops to decide collectively in all disputed points of usage and form, or else by the erection of some new Church-court, which, including all

there an exception, stands pre-eminent in Christendom for the piety, learning, and excellent sense of the individuals composing it. And as to the cry of Erastianism, we may very safely cast it to the winds. It is one of the conditions of the union between Church and State, that all matters of form and usage shall be confirmed by the legislature, though proposed by the Church, ere they become binding on the community. And such an act as we now propose would not only not interfere with the legitimate privileges of the hierarchy, but would, by placing in their hands enlarged powers, enlarge at the same time their means of usefulness. It would be a far easier, as well as a better

cure for the disease of the whole body, than the calling into existence a new institution; for the bishops, having settled the case before them, would separate, leaving the Church to find rest: whereas, a permanent body, empowered to legislate from year to year, would act up to the extent of its commission, and keep us in a state of continual change. Wherefore, our voice is for the act of par liament; and then shall we come with confidence to the bench of bishops for that of which we sorely experience the need, but which, till the legislature shall have invested them with sufficient authority, they have no power to give.