a custom which we should be the last to discourage-we have not the slightest objection to their buying silks and needles of Miss Lambert, only we wish that she had taken a more straightforward way of announcing what she is pleased to call her "avocation;" for her book is, on the whole, not a bad one, though it is full of blunders.

Next, as to the external aspect of these books. They are simply distressing. We think it was the Times which complained of the present Gothomania. It is perfectly frightful. Why half the children who are born are not crimped and jagged with tracery and foliation puzzles us not a little. We cannot draw a line but it shifts into stringcourse and mouldings: our dots become ball-flowers: our jelly-moulds are all but lanterns and pinnacles: our pies are encrusted with Tudor pannelling ribbons begin to look mediæval and severe and Westminster Abbey steals out in pipkins and pocket handkerchiefs. Flowing or solid, wet or dry, substance or accident, all shapes itself into some monstrous misapplication of diaper and quatre-foil. Thus; if Miss L. wishes to inscribe the tile of her book on its cover, it must be under a canopied tomb: if Mr. F. has the same object, he must "adopt" an angel with a background semée of stars-holding what? a shield with the emblems of the Sacred Passion? no-a dirty rag with some nonsense of a bookseller's title. We instinctively condemn, as shallow pretenders, each and all of these abominable and irreverent perversions, and the sooner we have done with mock frescoes, and mock illuminations, and mock brasses, and bits of finials for head-pieces, and distorted arcades and wheel windows for stamped bindings, the better.

Last of all neither of these books is to be trusted: with much of good, which their respective authors could scarcely have missed, with the Ecclesiologist, and Markland, and Bloxam, and Pugin at hand, there is much to object to. Miss Lambert, for example, blunders egregiously when she recommends any relief or shadow in embroidery, as she does in many of her borders and monograms. No. XII., for example, at p. 118, and those figured at p. 90: her evangelistic symbols-the Agnus Dei, the sacred Dove, the peacock, and others, are very bad. What suits stone, or even wood, where there is relief, does not suit embroidery where there is none-pendents and wheat-ears are not to be mixed up, except in that most detestable of pseudo-styles, the renaissance, as at p. 66. In a word, it must be with the greatest caution that our lady-readers attempt any of Miss Lambert's patterns. The most curious and valuable illustration in her volume, is that of a pall belonging to the Fishmongers' Company, which has been traced back to the fourteenth century. As to Mr. French, he meddles with so many things which he does not understand, that we can only wish him a little less business, and then he may become qualified, by study, for the work which he has taken up the linendraper and the ecclesiologist are at present incompatible. He thinks proper to suggest that the altar should not be placed against the east wall; he condemns Latin inscriptions; he introduces the "maniple" only of a shape and pattern and use totally different from any known ancient examples; he tells us that the Piscina, p. 125, is not now required; although he is right in objecting to our scarfs, he is wrong in the size which he gives to the ancient stole, p. 150; he is still more decidedly incorrect in saying that the

surplice should not be close up the front; and his patterns, both for linen and altar cloths, have no authority whatever. He has moved, however, in the right direction; and for this we thank him.

In a word, while we would thankfully see every church in England as beautiful as Solomon's temple, we are afraid of decoration without taste and knowledge; of attention to mere æsthetics apart from the "weightier matters of the law;" and above all, of mere speculations and adventurers in holy things.

Mr. E. C. Kemp is, in one respect, a remarkable person: he has delivered a "Lecture on Transubstantiation," (Bell,) before a Protestant Association, which, though unsound, is neither indecent nor abusive. And yet he is one of those to whom the good Dean of Hereford's rebuke, addressed to Mr. Venn, on his recent unseemly exhibition, would apply: viz., as neither qualified by his studies, nor called upon from his position as a Parish Priest to conduct so serious a dispute. The acme of wickedness in one of these lecturers, was once exhibited in a London church, where the preacher, on the segnius irritant plan, was shameless enough, to produce in the pulpit from his pocket what he said was the consecrated host in a bottle, and to display it with oratorical gestures and words, which we care not to repeat.

Mr. Kemp, also, has hit upon a novel mode of refuting Dissenters: he goes to "Mr. Kinghorn's Baptist Meeting-house" and then publishes his "Reflections on the Discourse," &c. (Bell,) which he heard on this occasion. Did he do this in the former case? Because we claim "equal justice" for Papist and

Puritan.

"The Churches of Yorkshire," (Green,)—and the "Churches of Cambridgeshire," (Stevenson,)-(the last under the auspices of the Camden Society,) are going on, we trust, in a satisfactory way. They are beautiful and authentic works. How very slow the Oxford Society is in its publications: some promises are better than performances.

Looking Westward, we find a second edition of Bishop Doane's Sermon on "Ancient Charity," (Burlington, U. S.) in which he first announced his intention of instituting the weekly offertory: as this took place three years since, we should be glad to know how it has worked. Appended is a Pastoral in behalf of Missions, ordering a general collection at the offertory: this wholesome practice is gradually making way. Here we have to thank the Bishop of London for an example which, if followed out, will, in the end, relieve the Church from the perplexities inseparable from Societies.

"A Pastoral for the season of Confirmation," (Burlington, U. S.) from the same quarter, is simple in the expository portion, and with something more than the good Bishop's warmth in the hortatory part. The glow of Transatlantic Sermons is so universal, that it is a question of national temper rather than literary taste. Worldly and Christian Education Compared" (Rivington,) we introduce here, because it is a Sermon preached by an American Divine, Dr. Jarvis of Connecticut, of high standing and reputation, who is at present in England, with the view we hear of publishing a learned work on New Testament Chronology. The Sermon was preached at South Hackney, and published by request: and a very interesting one it is. Dr. Jarvis it seems has been in England before; and his testimony to our improved state is very cheering. At the same time we suspect, what the Doctor is too good and gentle to tell us, that the recent act-one, let us say, of the most tardy and incomplete justice-which admits our American brethren to stand as priests at our common altar, has, it may be unconsciously, prejudiced him to take an over favourable view of our present ecclesiastical state. We welcome Dr. Jarvis heartily and respectfully, both as a stranger, and a writer. The English Church yet owes a long arrear of duties to America: and we are quite sure that we shall lose in self-respect, if we fail to pay some of them in the person of the Historiographer of the American Church: a more engaging and worthy representative our daughter could not have sent us.

66

Mariolatry," &c. by Mr. Hartwell Horne, has been dignified with an American reprint by Dr. Jarvis (Hartford, Parsons). This is an honour quite equal to its deserts: too much of the details which Mr. Horne has collected, is, we are afraid, undeniable: but this writer has a hard, technical, unloving way of stating faults and sins. He jots down with the cold precision of a catalogue-maker. We cannot understand how any Christian can quote Conyers Middleton with other feelings than loathing; and it is not a fact—we say nothing whether the phrase is or is not justifiable-that the Church of England refuses the title of "our Lady" to the B. V. M. (See the Lessons proper for Holy Days.)

Bibliotheca Sacra" and "Theological Review," No. 1., (Andover, W. S. Allen; London, Wiley and Putman,) completes our American list. Of its principles we shall not be expected to approve, conducted as it is by Dr. Robinson and Professor Stuart: it is of the German and Rationalizing school. But we are not sure that the plan, already very successful in Germany, of a Quarterly, composed entirely of original Dissertations and Essays, avowed by the Authors, and on other than subjects of local controversy, might not be tried among ourselves.

Speaking of new periodicals reminds us of the "Archaeological Journal," No. 1. (Longman,) published under the auspices of the British Archæological Association, for the preservation and illustration of ancient monuments, buildings, &c. As the Institution, which, with the Journal, promises exceedingly well, has special reference to Churches and all branches of Christian art, we recommend them unconditionally; only, let the conductors remember that reverence which is due to such subjects: we thought that we detected an over-spicing of mere Antiquarianism.

"Zoological Sketches" (S. P. C. K.,) is a beautiful book. It consists of reduced copies of the fine single prints of Animals, published with so much success by the Literature and Education Committee; accompanied by pleasing and rightminded anecdotes of the different creatures. Mr. Secretary Murray, the author, has shown himself a worthy follower of Derham and Gilbert White; higher praise we could not award; and it is well deserved. At present, the monthly meetings of the Society are anything but " the happy family" which all Londoners must have been delighted with in Trafalgar Square, and which Mr. Murray so genially describes, p. 52. We are quite sure that Mr. M.—at least we can answer for ourselves,-would be much more at home with the cats and rats, hawks, owls, and guinea-pigs, all lying down in peace and silence, in their "large cage" by the National Gallery, than with their theological congeners biting and tearing one another once a month in Lincoln'sInn-Fields.

"Percy's Reliques" (Washbourne,) is republishing in Numbers, in a pleasing form and guise. Never was so sweet a companion with which to

-loiter long days by Shawford brook," which to an Editor is rather matter of hope than anticipation.

The Cambridge Camden Society has published a very interesting account (Stevenson,) of the repairs of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Cambridgeinteresting both as a record of one of the most important restorations of the day, as well as an historical document. We regret to hear that the Society is in debt for the Restoration fund, and is in trouble from the ignorant puritanism of a non-resident incumbent: we trust that they will as readily get out of the former trouble as they will dispose of the mischievous folly of Mr. Faulkner. Is there not some blunder at p. 10, where the "Old Jewry in London" is said "to derive its name from the church of St. Sepulchre being in it?" St. Lawrence is the present church in the Old Jewry: was there a St. Sepulchre's before the Fire?

A most instructive and interesting collection of "Documents relative to the Erection and Endowment of Colonial Bishoprics" (Rivington, &c.) has appeared, enriched by the very best History of the several attempts to expand the Anglican Episcopate, which we possess. It is from the pen of one of the most useful men in England, the Secretary of the S. P. G.

MISCELLANEOUS.

[The Editor is not responsible for the opinions expressed in this department.]

MAURICE'S KINGDOM OF CHRIST.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER.

SIR,-The letter which appeared in your last number, on the subject of my "Kingdom of Christ," has released me from an obligation which I felt to be very painful. I was sure that the flattering opinion of me which was expressed in a former article in the CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER, could only have proceeded from the partiality of personal friendship. For this reason I valued it; on every other ground I much regretted it. I felt that it was, in itself, extravagant; that it must be disagreeable to nearly all the readers of your work who happened to be acquainted with what I have written; and that it far too kindly and liberally permitted me to take rank as the honorary or correspondent member of a school, the members of which would very eagerly disclaim my alliance, if I were ambitious to force it upon them. I must, therefore, at whatever sacrifice of feeling, have rejected compliments so undeserved, if your correspondent had not saved me the trouble of stripping off my own laurels, by taking the task upon himself.

I owe him still greater gratitude on another ground. I have heard many discussions lately on the subject of anonymous criticism upon books and persons. I am so far convinced by the arguments of those who denounce them, that I trust I shall never myself venture to speak of any man, or any body of men, without making myself formally responsible for my words. But this is entirely a rule for individual conduct. Persons of more self-government, more sure of always walking by a higher guidance, more confident, from past experience, that they will not be tempted to substitute personalities for principles, may, I doubt not, dispense with it. For my own sake, I should be very sorry if all conformed to my practice: one would miss many useful reproofs which, under other circumstances, would certainly not be heard. It would be a serious loss to me, for instance, if your correspondent had not told me that I was the most conceited man alive. I must needs bless the mask through which words so profitable, so helpful to my self-knowledge, could be spoken. There is only one correction which I wish to make upon your correspondent's statements on this point. He supposes that I have somewhere attempted to show that the charge is unfounded, and he remarks, (very sensibly, I think,) that my eager denial is a strong presumption of guilt. But he will find, I believe, if he will take the trouble to reconsider the passage which he has quoted, that my object in it was not in the least to show that self-conceit was not one of my most besetting sins. The more conscious any of us are of that sin, the more we feel how it has hindered all our struggles after truth, how it has led us to glorify our own opinion, how it has set us at war with the thoughts and opinions of other men, the more earnest shall we be to discover any help which

God may have provided for overcoming this tendency, for leading us, in spite of it, to a knowledge of Himself, to fellowship with our brethren. The object of my book was to show that such helps have been provided; that we can be led out of the conceits of our individual minds, from which conceits no one had ever suffered more than myself, into the knowledge of that which is fixed, and eternal, and true; and that if we will walk in the path which God has marked out for us, we shall, at last, obtain this victory, let the strife within and without be as hard and as long as it may. One means of obtaining the victory I believe to be the observance of the precept, "Judge not, that ye be not judged." A desire to sit in judgment upon the thoughts and feelings of other men, I have felt to be one of the greatest and sorest temptations which my self-conceit has presented to me. By resisting that temptation, by endeavouring to act upon the belief that there is something true and holy in the thoughts and feelings of all men, and that it is their pride which leads them to set up their own truth against that of other men, and so to become schismatics and heretics, I have found that I mortify my self-conceit more effectually than by any other method. In the preface, from which your correspondent has quoted, I maintained that this method was not a self-conceited method; that it was a humble method, and one which a more humble person than I am would understand and follow far more effectually than I have done. To this belief I still adhere; and the more of self-conceit I discover in myself, or others discover in me, the more necessary do I feel it. Again I thank your correspondent for his plain-spoken admonitions: I hope they will lead me to greater personal watchfulness. They certainly make me desire to act more strictly upon the principles which I have recommended to others.

I have dwelt somewhat too long upon this question about my selfconceit, which, interesting as it is to myself, cannot, I imagine, be very particularly so to your readers. A far graver subject is touched upon by your correspondent, when he quotes (with a few alterations) a passage from my book, in which I speak of the High-Church school amongst us as only maintaining a certain side or portion of truth, and thereupon grounds the charge, that I look upon the Catholic Church as upon a level with, or only raised a little above, the different sects and heresies, in each of which I have contended that some important principle is contained. In this statement the question between us is brought to a fair issue. I maintain, that to confound a school professing any doctrine whatsoever with the Church, is the very principle of heresy: he thinks that whatever is affirmed for or against a certain school professing Catholic opinions, must be affirmed for or against the Church. There is nothing new in his opinion. The sect of the Pharisees believed that adherence to it was identical to adherence to the Jewish Commonwealth. Because it held that opinion, it became the most contemptuous, godless, and wicked of all sects. The principle passed from the elect nation into the universal Church. There it has continually existed, and still exists, only in more direct and monstrous contradiction to the character of the body which it professes to glorify. The principle which is opposed to this-the principle which recognises the Church as a universal and living family,