power in the western Church eventually settled in, or was grasped by, the Bishop of Rome, who exercised it both very energetically and very extensively, and always to the increase of his own authority, so that, in process of time, the Pope, aiming at full and unlimited supremacy, claimed for himself the right, and had it conceded to him, of allowing and confirming, by his sole authority, the election of every bishop. This power of confirmation soon gave occasion for rejection in such cases as were displeasing to the papal ruler, and thus led to the still further usurpation of appointing other bishops instead of the elect. A very recent example of this has just occurred in Ireland, where the primacy being vacant, and the Roman Catholic bishops having elected three of their number for the Pope to make his choice from, he passed by, unnoticed, the three thus selected; and sent, instead, one who was not a bishop of Ireland, but who was thus suddenly and unexpectedly elevated to this station. Thus, in fact, has the Pope been long accustomed to act, thus does he still act, and thus does he send into various countries creatures of his own, to serve his own purposes, and to extend his own usurpations and power. The effect of this before the Reformation was even worse than it is now. In those dark and superstitious times, when priestcraft was supreme, because its roots were buried deep in the ignorance of the people, the clergy was the only class capable by education of holding and exercising the chief offices of state in civil governments. The bishops, of course, amongst them, held and exercised the highest functions of the state but, as the Pope appointed these, the sovereigns of Christendom had too often reason to know, that they themselves were in the hands of ministers, who, while they nominally served them, and professed to exercise their authority, were, in fact, the slaves of a foreign spiritual despot, whose tyrannical power they wielded, and always for the benefit of the ruler whence their power came, and to the detriment of the prince they pretended to

serve. This state of things brought on frequent struggles between the Popedom and the princes of Christendom; and we in England, before the Reformation, had many such contentions; until at length the sovereigns possessed themselves of the powers which the Popes had exercised, and obtained the same authority in the appointment of bishops that had been previously employed by the sovereign Pontiff. At the time of the Reformation, and ever since, it has been regarded as part of our constitution, in Church and State, that the Crown is supreme in both, and thus, without reference to the primitive state and rights of the Church, in agreement with which all Churches ought, as nearly as possible to be framed, our sovereigns hold and exercise, as a royal prerogative, the power described by the present Prime Minister, as "the circumscription of bishoprics, and the appointment of bishops." And yet the very form of the appointment at once betrays the original right of election, and indicates the manner in which that right was primarily exercised, and is now superseded. The Crown grants its conge d'elire, its permission to elect; and this at once implies the original right of election, restrained at present until the permission to exercise it is granted; but no sooner is this done, than the permission thus granted is rendered a mere nullity, since the power of choice is limited to one individual, named by the authority that grants the permission, which leaves the electors in the well-known condition of the old Cambridge stableman's customers, so aptly described as "Hobson's choice, this or none." Thus, in effect, the appointment is in the Crown, that is, in the first minister of the Crown, although the right of election by the Church is at the same time acknowledged and recorded. In these appointments, however, as well as in all others effected in the same manner, that is, by the officers of state, who are always liable to party and political prejudices, there is the fruitful source of secularization in the clergy. The remedy for it is, the simple act of justice and equity in the

restoration to the Church, by the civil power, of its own inherent and indefeasible authority. All offices in the Church ought to be freely elective. All parochial ministers ought to be elected by the people; all bishops by the people and clergy jointly. Clergy and people would thus mutually have and feel more interest in each other than at present they do. The people, by having the choice of their minister, would be led to reflect more and more what a minister should be: the minister chosen by his people would have a stronger tie towards them: but, above all, worldly principles would cease to have their influence, and the clergy would be relieved of state secularization.

two

ii. A second principle of importance, in reforming and reviving the constitution of our Church, is the bringing out into active operation, and restoring to their proper place and office, THE LAITY OF THE CHURCH. Few are aware of what the proper office and place of the laity are, according to our ecclesiastical constitution, as developed in the canons of 1603. By the authority of these often misunderstood and much disregarded laws of our Church, every parish ought to have this body of officers, Churchwardens, two Sidesmen, two Questmen, and any number of Assistants that these may require. The Churchwardens apparently rank first, and are charged with providing all things necessary for public worship, the repairs of the church, the summoning and holding vestries, and the like. The Sidesmen are more properly, according to the derivation of their title, the Synod's-men, and their duty was to attend the synod of the clergy, and to report for their consideration the moral and spiritual condition of their parish. The Quest men, or inquest-men, were charged with the duty of inquiring into, and making themselves acquainted with, the moral and spiritual condition of the parish, evidently with the view of making it the subject of consideration and improvement in the vestry, when assembled with the clergy of the parish: and lastly, the Assistants were to be appointed to aid

the foregoing officers in any way that they might need, and desire their help. Thus, according to our canonical constitution, there should be, in every one of our parishes, this most useful body of working laymen, consulting together with the clergy for the spiritual benefit and welfare of the parish, and ready at all times to strengthen and to uphold the minister in his more arduous and respons ble duties. Were churchwardens always chosen because they were spiritual men, and necessarily therefore communicants; were sidesmen, questmen, and assistants like-minded to them, also selected; were their deliberations and engagements strictly confined to matters of morality and religion alone, such a body of spiritually-minded men, acting in concert for the benefit of their fellow-parishioners, could not fail to produce very great and effective improvement in our whole parochial system. But here, as in other cases, the secularizing influence of the state requires to be done away. The office of churchwarden has been grievously burthened with duties most injurious to it. Such useful members of the parish vestry as the sidesmen, questmen, and their assistants, have passed into desuetude. Parish vestries, instead of being ecclesiastical assemblies, consulting for the moral and spiritual welfare of the parishioners, in which the minister appropriately and profitably presided, have become instead political and secular meetings, where it is painful, not to say unbecoming, for a minister of religion to be present. How dif ferent, how useful, how beneficial, might such a body be, if charged with the oversight, not censorious and compulsory, but in a spirit of christian earnestness and love, of the moral and spiritual welfare of the parish;and of having to provide and superintend the education of the people. Should the scheme, lately propounded at Manchester, for extending education by the assistance of rates, and under the direction of school committees, be carried out,—and should it be made available for all parts of the kingdom, as it probably would; in such a parochial assembly as that we

have been speaking of, there would be found already existing the machinery for putting it into execution, and for effecting, in connexion with it, other edifying improvements amongst the people.

iii. We have thus shewn, in a degree, how deliberative action of the Church, in its simplest form, might be revived, by restoring to parochial vestries their proper duties and officers. We may, therefore, proceed a step further, and assert, as a principle, the necessity there is for reviving the Synodal action of the Church, whether diocesan or provincial. It may seem strange, indeed, to argue the necessity for, and the value of, such functions to a Church, when we have the form of it without any vitality; when every other religious community that exists has its deliberative assemblies in some form or other; when the nation at large has its parliament; when every town has its council; and every organization, of whatever kind, has its board of management, its directors, or its committees. Yet so it is for the Church of England stands alone in this respect unworthy, according to our rulers, to be entrusted with such functions; wisely restrained, according to the timid notions of too many of its ministers, from the exercise of any deliberative powers whatever. And yet such action, prudently regulated, properly directed, and faithfully employed, would tend largely to promote far greater unity than at present exists; and to give greater life and energy to the Church than as yet have been developed in it.

The objection constantly raised against any proposition for reviving synodal action in the Church is, that to restore the vital functions of Convocation would be to renew all the ecclesiastical clamours and controversies that formerly reigned in it. If, indeed, our proposal were to resuscitate convocation, with the same body and powers that it before had, then might such a fear, as that referred to, well exist. But there are two important changes that might be made in all our Church assemblies, and which would greatly check, if not

entirely disarm, all contentious virulence to which they might be liable. The first of these should be the full and efficient effusion of the laity into them; the second should be the State, wholly and entirely denying to the Church any use of the sword, and depriving it of all power to coerce and to enforce the bodies or the consciences of men. If the temporal wisdom, prudence, judgment, and discretion of the laity were blended with the spiritual wisdom, earnestness, zeal, and ardour of the ministry, the Church would be greatly served by both : and if, again, the State suffered not the Church to use any but persuasive means of carrying out its work, "not by might, nor by power, but by the Spirit of the Lord of Hosts," then would the Church, relying on the truth of God and His Christ, rather than on an arm of flesh, go forth, in its own purity and might, conquering and to conquer. These, then, are the principles upon which we would have deliberative action in the Church revived,-1, Free and full infusion of the laity in all Church assemblies :2, No power to be enjoyed by them of enforcing their conclusions or decisions upon any.

Be it observed that we have more than once spoken of "all Church assemblies," evidently implying thereby, that we contemplate more assemblies than the one existing convocation, and this is a point on which explanation is needed. There can be no doubt, that besides such a body as convocation is, representing in one the whole Church of England, there were formerly in England, as elsewhere, both diocesan and provincial assemblies. The value and excellency of such deliberative bodies are the distinguishing characteristics of all our civil polity, as that all our towns have their councils, and all our colonies their legislatures. In all of these it is proved that discussion generates development of energy and power, and that united action is productive of the greatest advantage. The same would necessarily occur in our Church, if the same modes of operation were made effective. Now, as has been already shewn, there should be in

every parish church, vestries, that is, primary assemblies, consulting for the spiritual, the moral, the educational benefit of the people. In the rural deaneries there should be regular meetings of clergy and laity united, to discuss, advise, and exhort one another, yet more and more. In each diocese there should be the synod, where again both clergy and laity should be mingled in the same blessed work of holy consultation. And, lastly, there should be the meetings of convocation, in which also clergy and laity should take sweet counsel together, and consider and provide for the welfare and extension of the Church.

2. Of LITURGICAL REFORMS.

In a letter addressed to Lord Ashley, and published at page 564 of the volume of this magazine for last year, I offered to the consideration of its readers some proposals for revising the liturgy of the Church of England. It might therefore be thought, that it would be unnecessary now to take up the same subject again. Yet, as I propose to treat it in an entirely different manner, and to present it to the reflection of the reader under a new aspect, I trust that what I offer will not be regarded as a work of supererogation, or as an overlooking of the case I have in hand, but a just and faithful examination of it, with a view to a full development of sound and safe principles, upon which such a work may be undertaken.

It cannot fail to be in the recollection of any who are interested in these matters, and who have observed and noted the remarkable events of the last twenty years, during which Tractarianism has arisen and attained its present success, that one of the most effective and edifying checks to its progress was the admirable pastoral letter which the late Archbishop of Canterbury addressed to all the clergy of England, and which, for the time at least, was like scattering oil upon the waters of controversy; softening much of its asperity, and allaying much of its virulence, though it failed entirely to heal the disease which then afflicted our Church, and which still rages within

it, and threatens it with such division and harm. It is upon this pastoral letter of the Archbishop that the observations I have now to make will be founded; and I feel sure, therefore, that they will meet with the more ready and earnest attention. I believe that the Archbishop well understood and described the difficulties of the whole question then raised as to doubts and ambiguities in our services, and that it is impossible to put these in a clearer light than he does, as I shall endeavour to shew.

In the first place the Archbishop admits that the ambiguity of the rubric renders difficult a settlement of several controverted points arising out of its directions, and writes, "It must be granted that the intention of the Church is not always clearly discoverable from the language of the rubric, nor determinable with absolute cer

tainty from the records of early practice." On the contrary he declares, "It has long been observed that, in the performance of Divine Service in the generality of our parochial churches, there has been a deviation, in certain particulars, from the express directions of the rubric, and that, in some cases, a difference in respect to the sense of the rubric has led to a diversity in practice. In regard to such points, in themselves non-essential, the most conscientious clergymen have felt themselves justified in treading in the steps of their predecessors, and hence the irregularity (for all departure from rule is irregular,) which seems, in some instances, at least, to have existed from the beginning, became inveterate." Again, he further advances in behalf of those who contend for the authority of usage, the following powerful plea. the same time I am sensible that those who object have much to allege in their justification. If the written law is against them, they plead an opposite usage, in parochial churches at least, reaching back, perhaps, to the time when the intention of the lawgiver was best understood, superseding its literal sense, and DETERMINING ITS REAL MEANING. Now here are very great and grave admissions. The Archbishop allows hoth the ambiguity

"At

of the rubric and the current of usage existing from the beginning, and reaching back to the time when the intention of the law-giver was best understood, and which usage is contrary to various requirements of the rubric. And yet while there is this ambiguity on the one hand, and this diversity of practice on the other, what is the position of the clergy themselves?

This the Archbishop has well described in the following passage, "There have, I apprehend, at all times been clergymen who have been distressed by this inconsistency, and of late years it has been regarded by many excellent men as irreconcilable with the obligations which they took upon themselves on their admission into holy orders. Under the influence of these scruples, they thought it right to adhere as closely as possible to the letter of the rubric in their ministration, whilst others of their brethren, not less conscientious, have been determined by considerations, in their estimation of great weight, to follow the usage which they found established in their respective churches." This is certainly a very just and true account of the position of the clergy. They are bound to a strict uniformity, but the rules of that uniformity are in some points ambiguous, in others are disturbed by usage. What are they to do in such a position, and how may matters be so adjusted that they may maintain a conscience void of offence both before God and man?

In

Now one remedy has already been proposed for this, and the Archbishop thus writes of it, "the most effectual mode of accomplishing the object, it has been thought, would be found in general conformity to the rubric." The application of this remedy has been tried in two dioceses, and failed. that of London it was first attempted in an able and judicious manner, but, being in itself objectionable, necessarily without effect. In that of Exeter it has been tried also, but there again has signally failed. Yes; thanks to the faithfulness of the laity; by their resistance, under God, this effort to coerce them has failed, and their spiritual subjugation has been successfully warded off. Nor has it

been in England alone that the laity have thus shewn themselves defenders of the faith, for the Bishop of Calcutta, in his published reply to the Address of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, states respecting India, "In our settled stations the spirit of the Protestant laity soon enables me to calm temporary agitations arising from this source-for they are thoroughly and most justly offended, and I honour them for it." The Archbishop of Canterbury, however, does not coincide on this point with the Bishop of Calcutta, and regrets the failure of the attempts that have been made to enforce a general and rigid conformity to the rubric, and yet upon his own shewing, nay upon his own assertion, this failure has been the conservation of the principles of the Reformation. For not only does he show the ambiguity of the rubric, and the contrariety of usage existing from the beginning, that is, of course, from the Reformation; but he also asserts that those who have from time to time been entrusted with the revisal of the liturgy, "did not see the necessity of giving directions so precise as to ensure a rigid conformity in every particular," and consequently no such rigid conformity was ever intended. To have forced it then upon the Church would have been an usurpation of authority by her ministers, and the laity therefore have done good service to the cause of religion in thus withstanding such usurpation. In fact we may safely say, that, since the period of the Reformation, there has not been a greater work done in the Church, than this justifiable resistance of the laity, to the attempt of exercising over them a more dominant authority, than that which of right is entrusted to the ministers of religion. Not only are the laity sanctioned in this by the Archbishop, who allows that the ambiguity of the rubrics and the contrariety of usage left the people this liberty, but he does so in a more essential point; for he is in "uncertainty with respect to the extent of the powers committed to the Archbishop of the Province, in the preface to the Book of Common Prayer," and if there be uncertainty