leisurly, and comprehensive, and complete view of all the parts of a subject; withal open to sudden impulses, and to be overborne by the influence of candidates and the friends of candidates, are exceedingly apt to make a wrong outset, and irrecoverably commit themselves to an unfortunate choice."

We can add nothing to this. We have seen enough of the folly, trickery, and outrages of popular elections, where they occur in English parishes, to make us dread and deprecate the system. We wish to see patronage better controlled than at present; but not by universal, or even household, suffrage. Trial sermons are too often deplorable exhibitions; and ecclesiastical electioneering is the worst of all canvassing. Parishes would soon become far more venal in choosing pastors, than the most profligate borough towns in electing members, because there would be no restraint of law to prevent bribery; and even where there was not bribery, there would too often be other evils not less flagrant. A mode of election by a more restricted suffrage than that of all the people, or even the heads of families, namely, by the heritors and elders, was in use from 1690 to 1712; and how did it work? The preamble of the Bill of 1712, (10 Anne, c. 12), sets forth, that "whereas that way of calling ministers has proved inconvenient, and has not only occasioned great heats and divisions among those who by the aforesaid Act were entitled and authorized to call ministers: but likewise has been a great hardship on the patrons, whose predecessors had founded and endowed these churches, and who have not received payment and satisfaction for their right of patronage from the aforesaid heritors or life-renters of the respective parishes, nor have granted renunciations of their said right: on that account be it enacted," &c.-It seems then that this new mode not only deprived the patrons of their hereditary indefeasible rights, but bred "great heats and divisions" among the electors ofthe various parishes and that all the angry passions and clashing interests which are displayed at a contested political election, were transferred to the Church of the meek and lowly Jesus.

With regard to the new Secession Church, it is in vain that Dr. Chalmers protests against further changes and democratical influences. He has embarked upon the rapids, and must either quit the vessel, or rush on with the torrent. The Veto Act was itself a significant proof of this. All we ask for, said the nonintrusionists, is the restoration of our Church to what she was at the epoch of the union of England and Scotland, and

before the Patronage Act of Queen Anne had overset the ecclesiastical constitution of 1690. Yet that very Veto Act began with overstepping the ancient landmarks. The utmost that the Established Church of Scotland had ever enjoyed or demanded was, that the election of pastors should be confided to the landowners and elders; the squirarchy were its patrons; but the Veto Act extended the power of rejection to the whole of the male heads of families, being communicants. But if this enlargement of patronage is of right, it must be enlarged further in the same direction. Will Dr. Chalmers tell those of his colleagues, who, according to Horne Tooke's illustration on another subject, "wish to go to Windsor though he intends to stop at Hounslow," that the squires of a parish, or even the male heads of families, are "the Church?" If not, his argument stops short; and having taken up the principle of popular ecclesiastical suffrage, he must either follow it out, as Independents, Baptists, Quakers, and most other Dissenters do, and as some of his friends demand, to the full extent of giving a vote to every man and woman, every youth and maid, who is a communicant; or else he must have another division, in which he will be left stranded as an unscriptural intrusionist.

And here intervenes the difficulty of doing anything legislatively to satisfy the more moderate non-intrusionists; for if the justice of their principle be granted, their more violent-let us rather say their more consistent-brethren will demand that it be carried out to its legitimate extent. The Veto finality scheme, any well-judging man must see, could only be a step towards ulterior

measures.

The late proceedings are the more to be deplored because the Church of Scotland was in a spiritually prosperous condition. There was no real impediment opposed by the law of patronage to its most faithful ministrations. It was under the present system that the very men who passed the Veto Act entered upon their ministry and were chosen to parishes. The patron could only select one whom the Church had already made a licentiate and a preacher; the parish, or any portion of them, might object to him, only assigning their reasons; and for those reasons, or any others, the Presbytery might refuse him; just as an English Bishop may reject any candidate for ordination. This method worked well; and setting aside the imperfections inseparable from any human system, all parties were satisfied, till certain members of the Assembly who were optimists-perfectionists

66

conceived the idea of a new ordeal for the unhappy candidate. He had passed the preliminary stages of his course in safety; he was a probationer, licentiate, and preacher; he had been thought worthy by the patron, who inherited the right of presentation from those who had erected and endowed the church; and he was still to be thoroughly examined by the Presbytery; but these optimists bethought them that popular suffrage was necessary to complete his eligibility, and they gave the electors power to issue their veto without the slightest responsibility, not even specifying their objections. Against this unEnglish, and we should have hoped un-Scottish, plan of stabbing men's characters in the dark, we cannot but protest. It did not prevail when Dr. Chalmers, or any other minister of ten years' standing, entered the Scottish Church. They were not ignorant of the way in which they were themselves ordained; and if ordination, without a call from the parish, was, or is, criminal, how did they themselves become ministers? It is preposterous therefore to exclaim, as many are doing, that our common Christianity is endangered." To endanger our Christianity is to put in jeopardy all that is most dear, precious, and best worth preserving; and in its defence no Christian should refuse to exert himself to the uttermost. But does such a question endanger its vitality? Christ is truly the head of his universal, spiritual Church, and all Christians may worship him in spirit and in truth, and live and die in faith on him, without the smallest impediment from even greater matters than this. The devout Episcopalian, the pious Presbyterian, and holy men of all sects, can alike meet on the common ground of things necessary to salvation; such as justification, sanctification, and faith evidencing its fruit by good works. They may differ as to the right method of Church government; and churches may not agree as to the nature of their connexion with the different secular governments under which they are placed; but until it is shown that the essentials of Christianity are frittered away by, and smothered under, an extraordinary attention and conformity to the outward forms and ceremonies of Church discipline; or outraged and invaded by such aggressions of the civil power as a prescription of "Articles of Faith," or a prohibition of private or public worship, or reading the Scriptures-or by some attack on the essentials of our holy religion; no man is justified in raising the cry "Christianity in danger!" Nothing is easier than to awaken religious strifes

for objects of little moment; but it is impossible to say when or by whom they shall be charmed or laid to rest.

The extraordinary excitement caused by the Education Clauses in the Factory Bill, has continued and increased; and Sir J. Graham's modifying clauses, instead of quenching the flame, seem only to have added new fuel to it. We stated in substance, last month, those general principles and considerations which appear to us to apply to the question; and we know not that it would be of much utility to undertake a minute investigation of the many clauses of the bill, either as presented, or as amended. The amendments cannot obviate all the objections of those who disapprove of the whole character of the bill; while some of them detract from its value in the eyes of those who consider, as we do, that the Legislature is bound to recognise, and make due use of, the agency of the Established Church for the religious education of the infant part of the population, as well as for the spiritual instruction of adults. The evil is enormous; all the efforts of voluntary benevolence, even with desultory grants from the Legislature, cannot meet it; multitudes of children are perishing in our streets, ruined in body and soul, for lack of knowledge; the State is called upon to interpose its powerful aid; and it must call for parochial grants to aid its just and benevolent design. Further, the special knowledge which it is bound to endeavour to impart is religious knowledge; nor knowledge alone, but spiritual training. To this end the nation, in sanctioning a Church Establishment, provides means for promoting the desired object. It is not to oppress the conscience of any man; and we have ever opposed, as strongly as any Dissenter can do, the Prussian system, which some zealous liberals wished to force upon the nation. We repeated last month our full conviction that there ought to be nothing of a coercive kind in the proposed measure. Give a boon; make education cheap, valuable, and laudably popular; but use no legislative force to extend it. The coercive parts of Sir James Graham's bill, are only a continuation of a system already in operation; but we doubted the soundness of the principle when it was originally introduced, and its working has not added to its credit. We would indeed coerce the employer to work his tender labourers only a moderate number of hours, so as to allow them time and spirits to avail themselves of the means of education: and these means we would provide; but we would not force a parent

to send his child to school even for its advantage.

Then if education is to be provided, and religious training is to be its basis, difficulties arise from discrepancies of opinion upon questions of theology and Church government. The current reply to this is, "Introduce a neutral system; use the Holy Scriptures, but no Creed, no Catechism, no Liturgy; and let the schoolmaster be a man of anti-sectarian spirit." Now even if it were lawful to divest religious instruction of all distinctive doctrines, it would be impracticable; for if the master have any opinion at all, and be an honest man, he must unavoidably convey it; he cannot explain the Holy Scriptures without doing so; nay, he cannot even use them without violating the neutrality; for the Romanist, the Deist, and the Socialist object-though for very different reasons -to the use of the Bible in schools; and thus even negatives become virtually positive. Why then should not the Established Church endeavour to discharge its bounden duty? and why should not the Legislature employ its agency? If it be an ungodly usurpation, it should be abolished; but if a Scriptural and a National Church, it should be recognized, and also made to work. True it will tinge education; for all instruction professing to be religious must tinge it; if, therefore, religion is not to be discarded, the question is what tinge does the nation, in its legislative capacity, deem the right one? It replies by the fact that it upholds an Established Church; and to this it is bound to look for special aid in the education of its neglected population in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. It must not persecute or coerce dissentients, but its own duty is positive and plain.

It is rumoured that her Majesty's ministers will withdraw the Education clauses of the Bill, on the ground that it might be difficult to obtain such an enactment as they can conscientiously approve; and that even if a tolerably good measure were carried through Parliament, it would not, under present circumstances, meet with fair usage in the working, so that little or no benefit would result from it. The rumour is only conjectural; but if the measure be frustrated, no reasonable hope remains of any really Scriptural system of national education being at present agreed upon by the Legislature; and sure we are, that the right-thinking members of the Church of England will not consent to a merely secular system of popular training; a system which must not only reject creeds, catechisms, and prayers,

but the Bible itself. We regret, indeed, that the Bill was not more judiciously devised in some of its parts, particularly in regard to its bearing upon Sundayschools, and its coercive character; but a heavy weight of responsibility rests upon those who, instead of endeavouring to improve it, have allowed their ecclesiastical jealousies to raise a popular outcry against it as a bigotted, intolerant Church-of-England measure. So far from this being the fact, the Church of England yielded much for the sake of effecting an important and urgent national object; and as to the charge of the scheme being of Tractarian concoction or complexion, the Tractarians are bitter against it, as an undue concession to sectarianism.

Should the plan be abandoned, there remains indeed something to fall back upon in the device of annual grants to be claimed by the National Education Society, and the British and Foreign School Society, in aid of voluntary efforts;-a device which the activity of the Church has caused to work better than some hoped and others feared; though it is in principle opposed to the system of a recognized Church Establishment. But these partial grants cannot meet the case; they encourage the building of school-houses, but they do not provide an income for the master; and in those numerous instances in which "voluntaryism," as it is called, is not awake, or is unable to meet the demand, nothing is effected. A general, adequate, and efficient scheme of National Education cannot be carried into full operation without local assessment; and the introduction of this system into the proposed measure, with a view to its future extension, is a most important feature of the Bill.

Sir Robert Peel has proposed a measure for encouraging the building and endowment of churches, by enabling the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to borrow £600,000 from Queen Anne's Bounty fund, of which they are to devote £30,000 annually for endowing churches; it being calculated that the savings which will fall into their hands, from the operation of the Cathedral and Episcopal Revenues Act, will enable them to repay the interest and capital of the loan. The measure is excellent, so far as it goes, and it will probably call out much private liberality to meet grants from the fund; but it only enables the Church to borrow from itself, and to make the best use of its resources: it adds nothing to its revenues; which, however managed, are quite inadequate to the spiritual wants of the people.

The legislature ought to take this matter into its serious consideration, with a view to aid Church extension by pecuniary grants; but we cannot say that the present moment is auspicious for that purpose. The Church was rapidly gaining, or regaining, strength in public opinion; but the lamentable and mischievous Tractarian schism has operated fearfully to its disadvantage. The opposition to the factory Education measure has been exasperated by the wide extension of the new opinions and practices, which are opposed not less to civil and religious liberty, than to the Bible and the principles of the Anglican Reformation. The Wesleyan Methodists have concurred with the political Dissenters in expressing their opinion that the proposed factory schools would before long be under the sway of Tractarian clergymen. We do not ourselves believe it; for we feel assured that the great majority of churchmen, lay and clerical, hold Tractarianism in just abhorrence; and that many who were at first seduced by the speciousness of the system, are now beginning to discern its real character. It is the dread of Tractarianism which has inflamed the mournful heats now rife in the metropolitan diocese, and extending throughout the land. The Bishop of London, in his late Charge, expressed strong disapprobation of that system, as opposed both to Scripture and the Church of England; and he is said to have stated that it was with a view to promote strict ritual uniformity, both for its own sake, and in order to leave no pretext to the Tractarians to go beyond the rubric in search of what they call Catholic practices, that he recommended, enjoined, or forbad various observances, as he deemed meet or necessary. The Archbishop of Canterbury had with great wisdom remarked, in his last Charge, that, "In the celebration of Divine service, the introduction of novelties is much to be deprecated; and even the revival of usages which, having grown obsolete, have the appearance of novelties to the ignorant, may occasion dissatisfaction, controversy, and dispute;" and that therefore they should not be resorted to without being sanctioned or enjoined by authority. The Bishop of London being applied to by many clergymen for direction, has interposed this

authority so far as his diocese is concerned; and his Right Reverend brother of Calcutta has republished his Charge, as being, in his view, of great service against the Tractarian errors and innovations. And yet what is practically the result? Assuredly not peace or uniformity. The clergy are perplexed and the laity jealous. And why? Because the proposed changes are popularly identified with Tractarianism. Ritualists may hold an argument with his Lordship upon this or that point; but the laity denounce every sup posed novelty as Tractarianism. There is no Tractarianism in not opening Divine service with a hymn or psalm; or in a clergyman's announcing the metrical psalms; or in having the singing after the third Collect; or in baptizing after the second lesson; or in using the prayer for the Church Militant; or in making collections at the Offertory; but in the present state of men's minds, no distinction is made between what is good and what is evil, what is clear and what is doubtful; and the Tractarians are adroit enough-witness the Times newspaper to claim his Lordship as a powerful ally; as the Cardinal of Lyons, in his recent extraordinary pastoral address, does the Bishop of Salisbury.

Under these circumstances, it appears to us to be the wisdom of the Church to take care that its good is not evil-spoken of, and to pursue its high aims with zeal, but with as little as possible that may disturb or perplex the minds of men in matters not of serious import. Even the revival of some unobjectionable customs at this particular moment, may be attended with more of inconvenience than benefit; and serve as a pretext for those who have evil will at our Zion, to do it much damage.

The length to which we have extended our remarks, induces us to forbear troubling our readers at present with some thoughts which we had penned upon the Oxford inquiry respecting Dr. Pusey's sermon; the St. Asaph and Bangor question; the state of Ireland; and last, not least, upon the recent anniversary meetings of religious and charitable Societies. We greatly rejoice at the prosperity of the chief of these invaluable institutions for promoting the glory of God and the salvation of man.