are the mere ravings of some headlong enthusiast. The Tractarian Monthly Magazine dispels the charitable delusion. With the thoughts,' it tells us, in a review of this work, we hold very sincere sympathy.' We have further indications in another journal, which may be called semi-official. The British Critic, in a long and elaborate article on Bishop Jewel, informs us that 'the only good Reformers have been asceticsElijah, St. John the Baptist; (why not St. Elijah ?) and again, the lights of the Church in the middle ages, Hildebrand, Becket, and Innocent.' An unsophisticated man, however unacquainted with Church history, may start to find a review, not professedly Roman Catholic, singling out from the Reformers of all past time three names from the worthies of the Church of Rome.' Astonishment will rise as those worthies are known. Of Hildebrand then, be it remembered, that he was the great champion of those false decretals,' by which the popes alleged that the sovereignty of the earth had been handed down to them from St. Peter. Brett, quoted as an authority in the Oxford Tracts, calls him that firebrand both of Church and State.' The learned Usher calls him, 'fatale portentum, prodigiumque ecclesiæ; and Bishop Patrick, the first great troubler of the Christian world.' Of Becket most Englishmen know something. Archbishop Bramhall, another authority with the Tractarians, says, 'We do abominate that murder as lawless and barbarous; but we do not believe that the cause of his suffering was sufficient to make him a martyr, viz. to help foreigners to pull the fairest flowers from his prince's diadem by violence, and to perjure himself, and violate his oath. All his own suffragan bishops were against him in the cause.' Bishop Bilson says, This quarrel was one of those in their own nature wicked and irreligious; his pride was intolerable; his contention with the king detestable; his end miserable. We conclude him to be a shameful defender of wickedness, an open breaker of his oath, and a proud impugner of the sword which God hath authorised.' Of Innocent it is enough to say, that his great principle was, that the Church owes no reverence to any person but the pope.' Consistently with this principle, he pronounced sentence of excommunication on two emperors in succession, put England under an interdict, and gave its crown to the king of France, His tender mercies, or I suppose his asceticism, for it was no doubt an act of self

sacrifice, called out a bloody crusade against the Albigenses.

"It is impossible to look on such a selection as a mere exhibition of bad taste. Such a review must not be left at the bar of criticism. Nor is it possible to doubt why, amongst the only good Old Testament Reformers, no note is taken of those kingly restorers of godliness, Hezekiah and Josiah. Nor can we misunderstand the selection of Elijah and John the Baptist. The prophet's name, at least, reminds us of other qualities besides asceticism, and other acts besides turning the hearts of the fathers to the children.' There is ‘a method in this madness;' and it is not peculiar to the semi-official journal. Another organ of the movement, the 'British Magazine,' speaks of this same Hildebrand, as that celebrated man who reigns in the Church without the vestige of a rival.' We ask not these men what they would have. If they know their own minds, they are not in a condition to put it in plain English; for they are under cogent orders to indeterminate statements.'

"I said that arms emulous of such power must needs feel themselves in bondage. We cannot wonder that it was not long since anxiously debated whether the movement party could conscientiously continue in a Church thus crampt and fettered by the State. Lord Stanley's bill for a better arrangement of the Irish dioceses was the immediate screw; but the question, once extorted, could not turn on that or any particular measure. What precise arguments prevailed in behalf of the Egyptian status quo, none but members of the conclave may surmise. Some have since lost patience, and are now at large within the liberties of Rome. The party works 'in chains;' but not without all possible efforts for this new Catholic emancipation. Attacks are daily making on the terrible connexion between Church and State. The most emphatic stress is laid on what is technically called the Visibility of the Church,' as of a body distinct, not in character only, but external features-a body having an external form, not as an accident, variable with time and place, but as an integral essential quality of its being-a body with as true an articulation of visible parts as any external thing can have— a body whose visibility consists not in its members being individually visible, but in its own corporate substantialitya body not spiritual, save by a misapplication of the word; not distinct, as our blessed Lord said His kingdom was,

from all other kingdoms, but of this world' and 'from hence,' possessing all the external development of any other kingdom; a horn' amongst other horns a little horn,' but that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.' This is the Tractarian view of the Visibility of the Church. The idea of a mystical body will not suffice. The word indeed is retained: but retained as the style and title of what is essentially visible; a sort of 'fifth monarchy,' whose rulers are to sit on thrones. The spiritual unity of a body will not suffice. They quote Christ's prayer, that all may be one :' but they have no notion of oneness, save of subordination to one government. The sublime unity of faith, hope, and love-of character, and object, and experience, and end, is all beyond them. The holding this unity of the faith in unity of spirit and the bond of peace,' by toleration amidst differences, and recognition of membership amidst varieties of outward form and action, is not so much as among the virtues of their decalogue.

The aspect such a unity would present to the world-the impressive grandeur of a thing so unearthly and so luminous

the moral force of so magnificent a triumph of a heaven-descended principle over the littlenesses and selfishnesses the world understands so well-the distinctness of the mark the Church's Head has established, 'By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another'-a mark lustrous as it is found on those who differ in external things, stamping unity_of the Spirit' on those who have no bond of union in the flesh-this is foreign to their system, and foreign to their hearts. It is not a unity of the Spirit they seek for. The ecclesiastical principle is

every thing; the religious is absorbed. Christ's prayer is for one government; Christ's test is for one rule. There is a groaning for communion with the darkest portions of episcopalianism; not a sigh, not a syllable for those other parts of Christendom, where, under diversities of administration,' there is one faith, one Lord, one baptism.'"

THIS Charge touches upon several matters of pressing duty and practical business; and as they are not peculiar in their application to the Archdeaconry of Surrey, we shall select a few particulars for the consideration of our readers, both lay and clerical. We have Archdeacon Wilberforce's sanction for this juxta-position; for he says:-

"No attempt at restoring discipline in any measure, can possibly succeed which proceeds upon the plan of committing its conduct and details to the clergy as a separate body. The laity are never let it be forgotten-as much the Church' as are the clergy; and the attempt to exalt the clerical order by committing to their hands exclusively the reins of discipline has only issued hitherto in the subversion of all healthful orders of correction. It is of the more moment to notice this, because there CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 61.

seems to be a rising persuasion that the Church cannot long maintain her ground unless some means are taken to give form and substance to the faint and still fading shadow of discipline which scarcely survives amongst us. That discipline, I hardly need remind you, est, civil infliction, but in her possessing must consist, not in any, the very smalland exercising the power of suspending or even excluding from her communion notorious and hardened offenders. To what extent our want of this power has injured us, it is impossible to calculate. Never certainly before since her foundation has the Church been without this outward mark of her spiritual authority; and even now she stands alone amidst the surrounding sects, each one of which claims for itself, and claims successfully, this power of self-purification, which is almost withheld from her. It is true that the repeal of the Test and Corporation Act has removed the civil penalties to which repelling an unworthy communicant before exposed the clergy. But the power of performing

I

As we introduced this passage only incidentally, at the mention of the laity as being authorised and bound to co-operate with the clergy for the general edification of Christ's body, the Church, we do not pause to conjecture what may be the exact measures of discipline which the Archdeacon wishes to see enforced. They, however, include something far above repulsion from the holy communion; but "not the very smallest civil infliction." We are not clear that the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts has had the effect of legally protecting a clergyman in rejecting an unworthy communicant, provided the applicant has given due notice of his intention to communicate. The rubric directs the minister to reject "open and notorious evil livers," and those who have done wrong to their neighbour, or are living in "malice and hatred ;" and the rubrics are a portion of the law of the land; but the courts of law most anomalously decided that aclergyman was not thereby protected; and though the qualification for office required by the Test and Corporation Acts specially raised the question, it does not follow that the courts would not decide in the same manner in the case of any other civil damage incurred by reason of such rejection. It is unjust and cruel to the clergy that they should be thus placed be

are not

tween the rubric on the one side and the penalties of the law on the other; but we sure that the difficulty did not arise, in part at least, from the rubric being only partially carried out. Every minister rejecting any person from the holy communion is directed "to give an account of the same to the ordinary within and the ordinary is enjoined to profourteen days after at the furthest;" ceed against the offending person according to the canon. If all this was not done;-first, if the minister did not duly inform the ordinary; secondly, if the ordinary did not proceed against the of fending person-whether thinking the offence not sufficient to justify the rejection; or not being satisfied that it could be legally brought home to the party by adequate proof, so as to insure conviction; or not wishing to incur the trouble, odium, and expense of proceeding in the business; and thirdly, if, though the proceeding was instituted, the accused was not convicted;-in any of these cases the courts of law might infer, not unreasonably, that the minister had acted negligently, injudiciously, or perhaps maliciously. We are not aware that in any case in which the rubric had been fully carried out, and the offender been convicted, any court of law has interposed to punish the clergyman. A person complains to the court that he has sustained damage by his minister's rejecting him from the Lord's table; his character has been impugned, and thereby he has received injury in his affairs; he has failed, for instance, in obtaining some office, or has lost custom in business; which alleged wrongs we conceive might in some way be brought before the courts now as much as before the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. Is it, in such a case, unreasonable that the courts should say to the clergy

man, "If you plead half the rubric, you must be bound by the whole. Have you convicted the complainant of the crime laid to his charge? or at least is the ordinary diligently proceeding with the presentment according to the canon? If not, the court must consider that you rejected the applicant without due cause; if you had cause, you should have legally shewn it." Here, we apprehend, has really been the "hitch," if we use such a word; for we do not believe that if a man had brought an action against a clergyman, during the existence of the Test and Corporation Acts, for rejecting him from the Lord's Supper; and the defendant had replied that he rejected him for some cause assigned in the canons or rubrics, and had duly presented him, and that he had been found guilty, any court would have interposed in his favour. It may be replied that the clergyman may know what he cannot legally prove; and that now-a-days, even though the proofs be clear, it is not customary "to proceed against the offending person according to the canon;" and that this part of the rubric cannot ordinarily be reduced to practice. The law courts may justly reply that they have nothing to do with this; the prosecutor complains of civil injury; the court must presume him innocent, as the defendant has not proved him guilty; and that he ought not to have rejected him under one part of the rubric, unless he was able and willing to carry out the remainder; which was intended to prevent any individual clergyman exercising the serious power of excommunicating his parishioners; except provisionally, upon his own responsibility, till the ordinary could be appealed to, whose duty it is by the rubric to bring the matter to a judicial

decision.

The Archdeacon's Charge con

tains much important monition respecting the duty of providing churches and sacred ordinances for the people, to the extent of the necessity; with some useful information to churchwardens, and others, respecting the care and arrangement of our ecclesiastical fabrics. We have So often protested against the abuses of pews, especially that which some of our correspondents denominated "the dog-in-the-manger" system, that we are glad to find the Archdeacon of Surrey, and others in authority, determining to bring about a reformation in this matter. The Archdeacon remarks:

"The change in the character of the seats has been the consequence of the private appropriation of what once were acknowledged as the common rights of the parishioners. It is wealth, or parish influence, or some other earthly power, which has enabled pretension, even in God's house, to seize upon benches which were freely occupied before by humble worshippers, and to appropriate their Christian birthright to the maintenance of its own barren grandeur. The degree to which this evil has risen can hardly be suspected without a detailed examination of our churches. In my progress through this archdeaconry I have found chancels, which, within these few years, contained benches free to all, wholly engulfed in two vast pews allotted to the squire; in other cases, I have found all the best parts of the nave entirely engrossed by private pews of similar dimensions and allotment, in each of which sit two or three straggling inmates, nursing their separate dignity. Whilst in others, a vast pew, raised up to the height of a low gallery, absolutely shuts out the whole chancel from the church, rendering even the rubrical performance of the service thenceforth impossible. And what has been the fruit of these en

croachments? Heartburnings without measure and without end are their first consequence; hardly any one is satisfied with his division of the spoil; whilst of the dispossessed, too many go henceforth to the meeting; too many no where at all; or if, from a better spirit, they still remain, being old perhaps, and (as the out-door labourers commonly become, at least in some de

gree) deaf also, they are thrust into the most distant, dark, and draughty corners of the church."

"From the necessity of raising stipends for our ministers by pew-rents,

and from other causes also, our new buildings are seldom what our parish churches used of old to be the equal home of the richest and the poorest. These are great practical evils, especially in a state of society like ours at present. The tendency of all things round us is to break our people into separate and unsympathizing classes, and thus to sow amongst us broadcast the deadly seeds of intestine discord. The unity of the Church's worship, in which the rich and poor might mix together freely, would be a blessed safeguard from this danger. Their separation there, is one of its greatest aggrava tions and to remove this, we must build largely, and endow new churches, and we must open our closed pews and give back the poor their rights."

:

Still there ought to be a proper degree of attention to convenience and comfort in churches for all classes; there is no merit in sitting on what the monks used to call misereres; our climate, and many other circumstances, may be lawfully considered ;* the habits of life of the rich and the poor greatly differ, and both are inconvenienced, and neither benefited, by unusual associations; English families are also accustomed to more of reserve and privacy in their intercourse with their neighbours, than most other nations; and if the Bishop's throne and the Archdeacon's stall are not unlawful, we do not think that absolute uniformity of arrangement is scripturally required in the accommodations of a parish church. The ferment which some are raising against pews, as such, is extravagant; or rather it is one of the many devices in progress for ". protestantizng England;" for more is meant than meets the eye or ear. We are thankful to Arch

un

deacon Wilberforce for the following discriminating remarks on this subject.

"In a mere clamour against pews, if by pews are meant fixed seats of convenient construction and just allotment, I am not disposed to join. I have no sympathy with views recently put forthis subject, who would remove from ward with great ability by a writer on

our churches all facilities for sitting. That our fixed seats were one conse

quence of that Reformation for which we can never be too deeply grateful to Almighty God, is with me no discredit the 17th century, did resist their novel to them. With the great men who, in formation, we shall do well to object to their abuse, and not to their existence. Wholly unsuitable as they no doubt are for a worship which consists chiefly in gazing upon the official devotion of another, they may assist the common prayer of our Reformed Church, they they tend to foster habits of family religion, and, by preventing the inconvenient confusion of different classes, they may, whilst they protect his rights, be the poor man than of the rich." even more welcome to the feelings of

are suitable to our national character,

We are glad to find the Archdeacon of Surrey, and many others in stations of ecclesiastical authority, expressing a determination to prevent unwarranted alterations in parish churches. False taste, parochial stinginess, and of late, still worse, pragmatical fancies, and an affectation of imitating what our Reformers called "mass-houses," have sadly injured many of our churches. The late Dr. Adam Clarke, during an excursion in Ireland, in visiting the parish church of the place of his nativity, found that the tomb of his relatives, which was formerly within the church, was now in the churchyard; the reason of which was, that the building needing repair, the parish had decided that it would be the cheapest course to cut off a part of it by a cross wall. We could mention instances not less preposterous in England. The due exercise of episcopal and archidiaconal power will, we hope, in future prevent all improper alterations;