We mentioned on a former occasion that Mr. Robertson's work, "How to Conform to the Rubric," (Parker) had cruel injustice done it by the commendatory notice of the Quarterly reviewer. In truth it is written in a catholic tone, very unlike that of the article where it is praised; and it is full of information and acuteness. The view of rubrical obligation which it takes would require to be considered at greater length than we can bestow on it at present, but it is, beyond all doubt, an important one, which deserves much thought, even on the part of such as may be unable to adopt it.

"A Short History of Ireland" (Souter and Law, Fleet Street). This little work contains in a few pages, and for the price of two shillings, a very careful summary of the principal events in the history of Ireland. It is evidently the production of a young and inexperienced writer; and there are many matters, both of style and sentiment, with which we could find fault; but there are a cleverness, a naturalness, and a naïveté in it, which make it very agreeable and pleasant reading.

"A Beneficed Clergyman" has put forth a pamphlet, entitled "Mesmerism the Gift of God," (Painter,) in reply to the " Satanic Agency and Mesmerism" of Mr. M'Neile. We have never fallen in with the latter; but we cannot help thinking that, on the ground taken by the combatants, the Beneficed Clergyman has the best of it. Of Mesmerism itself we say nothing, because we know nothing.

The author's name must ensure readers of Mr. Maurice's Letter to Lord Ashley, "on Right and Wrong Methods of Supporting Protestantism," (Parker.) It is full of all the careful, reverent, and generous thought which we always find in Mr. Maurice's writings, and is, we think, calculated to do much good. We trust that the excellent nobleman to whom it is addressed will give it his serious attention, and so be delivered out of the temptation which besets him at present. Our only complaint against Mr. Maurice is, that he seems too much to represent the different classes of society as having been living all this while under totally different religious systems, the harmony of which remains yet to be manifested. Now, though there be much truth in our author's views of the tendencies of the different classes of the community, we think he seems to underrate, (we do not say more than seems, for we are speaking only of the impression which he accidently produces,) the extent to which they have even now, and in times past been harmonized, the number of Catholics, of the upper orders, who have been Protestants in his sense of cherishing a constant sense of personal religion, and the number of the middling orders who, along with such sense, have been Catholics. When people fall to talking of Catholicism in the English Church, they are much too apt to speak of it as a thing yet future: its full development undoubtedly is so, but we must not deceive ourselves by exaggerating the work which we have to do.

"The Doctrine of Regeneration Considered," by the Rev. G. B. Sandford, (Parker, Oxford; Rivingtons, London,) is an intelligent treatise by a gentleman of industry, research, and sound principle.

Mr. Maitland, Dr. Todd, and one or two other recent writers on Prophecy, have found an opponent in the Rev. T. R. Birks, fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, who has just published a volume, entitled "First Elements of Sacred Prophecy, &c." (Painter,) directed very mainly against the authors in question: whom he designates not inaptly by the title of Futurists, reserving for those who adhere generally to the Medean scheme, that of Protestant commentators. Mr. Birks is a striking and pious writer, and a man of no ordinary powers and attainments; but we think he would have come better prepared to meet such antagonists as Mr. Maitland and Dr. Todd, had he disabused himself of certain absurd suspicions regarding the tendency of their writings, and an inclination to view their opinions and reasonings in the light of consequences which he thinks must issue from their adoption.

We are indebted to Mr. Darling, of Little Queen-street, for a reprint of a very curious work, "An Humble, Earnest, and Affectionate Address to the Clergy," by William Law, A.M. This was the last publication of that remarkable man, and a strange contrast it is to his earlier ones. We were aware that in his later years he had become enamoured of Behmen and Mysticisim in general, but we did not know how completely he abandoned his Church principles. The pamphlet before us is entirely Quaker in its tone, but it nevertheless contains many true, deep, and sublime things.

We have never seen the Rev. J. Sutcliffe's pamphlet, "accusing the Bishop of London of Heresy and Popery," and therefore much of the force of the Rev. H. Berkeley Jones's "Reply" to it (Rivingtons) is lost on us. We think it can hardly be worth a Reply. We wish Mr. Jones would not mar his good cause by making untenable assertions. It is not true "that the Clergy are learned" as a body, and it is most important that they should learn to know and lament their fault in this respect.

We must own to great disappointment in the Charge of the Lord Bishop of Ossory, Ferns, and Leighlin (Seeley and Burnside). Whatever side his lordship might have taken in the controversies of the day, we looked, from a theologian like him, for information less accessible to all than the contents of the British Critic or the Tracts for the Times, and for something like a positive counter view to that taken by writers whom he might oppose. We have not, however, found such in the Charge, though the notes promise something like it.

The Archdeacon of Chichester's recent Charge (Murray) is, like everything else from his pen, full of beauty and interest. We are glad to find him addressing churchwardens so warmly and persuasively, and also to see the whole Charge so pervaded by a spirit of hope for England and her Church.

The Archdeacon of Colchester, Sir Herbert Oakeley, has just published his primary Charge (Rivingtons), and an excellent one it is. It contains a luminous exposition of the present condition of the church-rate question, which should be carefully read by all the Clergy, and shown to their churchwardens. The remarks on other subjects, particularly the present divisions in the Church, are in an admirable spirit, and calculated to do much good.

Contrary to our usual practice, we are induced to say something, beyond a mere announcement, of single sermons. We select two:

The first shall be "The Eucharistic Presence Real, not Corporal, by Dr. Biber," (Rivington,) which we do not like, because it seems to us to aim at the very worst possible thing-a Via Media, which shall be middle only because it is not any principle, whose essence is mediety as such rather than Catholic doctrine. Of course it is difficult to express ourselves accurately in the narrow limits of these brief notices; but here is a sermon, the title of which is unexceptionable, and (as far as we can understand, a loose, rambling, and very uncongregational style,) the main doctrine of which is not unorthodox: and yet which gives the unpleasant impression, to us at least, that, from the time and circumstances under which it was preached, it was meant to pass off in some quarters as a protest against what it did not in fact mean to protest against; that, though one in doctrine with Dr. Pusey, Dr. Biber had no o jection to be thought also by those who knew nothing about it, other than one with the same most respected theologian; and that the Incumbent of Roehampton went out of his way to proclaim a verbal disagreement with a certain sermon, or rather to be thought to hint it very obliquely, when, in point of fact, all the time, he knew that he did not intend theoretically the slightest difference in doctrine, and that he sought rather to convey an impression on his congregation than to commit himself as a writer against what he knew to be the orthodox doctrine. We are as sensitively alive as any can be to the evils of party; we yield not to Mr. Sewell himself in this respect; but we do say emphatically that beyond its due

measure to be afraid of what ignorant people choose to call party, is shallow selfopinionativeness, and a thing utterly to be avoided and despised. If the Church Catholic, for instance, had chosen to affect to draw some subtle distinction which never existed between its dogmas and the doctrine of St. Athanasius, and this for fear of being called Athanasians, (which, by the bye, was a nickname bestowed upon the Catholics,) such conduct would have been weak and delusive, and partaking of party-spirit, too, of the worst kinds: and so—and we trust not intentionally to misrepresent Dr. Biber, if we do, his unhappy style or our stupidity are to be blamed-we think that it was ill-judged and perhaps unkind to an individual, if not undutiful to the Church, to select a recent crisis as the very moment to preach a sermon quotable both ways, which had one sound and another meaning.

The second shall be "A Sermon in behalf of the Special Fund for Providing National Schools for the Manufacturing and Mining Districts, by the Hon. and Rev. John Grey, Vicar of Wooler," (Burns,) which is a very good sermon, and we select it, not for its special merits, which are, however, very considerable, but for other reasons. First, because it gives us an opportunity to urge the necessity of contributing to this Fund, raised by the National Society as a sort of humble confession of our frightful neglects towards our baptized brethren. If the rejection of the ill-judged government scheme of education had only produced this offering, of what in about three weeks amounted to some 60,000l., we should have been content to believe that the worse than heathen state of our manufacturing districts, in exposing which we have borne our part, was beginning to be known, and, far better, to be repented of by those who have the means to remedy it, and we cannot but think well of the National Society for permitting the rich, at this crisis of our fate, the privilege, by selfdenial, of expressing something like national humiliation for national sin, unparalleled in the annals of a christian country. But, secondly, we are bound, with whatever pain, to record our unqualified disapprobation of the mode in which this subscription is conducted. Subscription-lists are at the best but suspicious things, and, somehow, inconsistent with certain gospel precepts; but to rank ladies and gentlemen, peers and right honourables, as thousand-pound men, and five-hundred-pound men, down in due gradation of ranks to guineamen; to say to the one order "Sit thou here," proud, pompous, and admirable; and to the other order, "Stand thou there," poor, poverty-stricken, and crowded with the ignoble herd; this is unusually and significantly offensive. In good deeds, where perhaps the balance of self-denial is, like the widow's mite, in favour of the curate's guinea as compared with the rich man's thousands; the one, if they must be published and placarded, ought to rank with the other. The Church, as it recognises neither high nor low, rich nor poor, but only as in God's sight the dutiful and willing heart, the " cheerful" rather than the large giver, ought never to have permitted itself this unchristian classification.

We have been too long, by some unaccountable accident, in noticing a very admirable Sermon, entitled, "Christ's Ministers to give attendance to Reading, Exhortation, and Doctrine," by Leicester Darwall, M.A. (Rivingtons). Both the text and the notes of this pamphlet are very valuable.

66

Unity and Love Essential to the Increase of the Body of Christ," is the title given by the Rev. J. M. Wilkins, A.M. Rector of Southwell, to a very excellent and orthodox Sermon preached by him at the Bishop of Lincoln's last Visitation, and "published in obedience to the desire of the Bishop and Clergy," (Rivingtons).

MISCELLANEOUS.

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

A FEW QUESTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS ON THE ARTICLE ON THE "RUBRICS AND RITUAL OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND," IN THE QUARTERLY REVIEW FOR MAY, 1843.

P.243." It is, for example, not seemly, if the matter be at all worthy of episcopal interference, as we think it certainly is-that a preacher should be enjoined to wear a white gown at one end of London Bridge, and a black gown on the other,-which must be the case till the Bishop of Winchester shall have adopted the Bishop of London's views, or," &c.

The Bishop of London has not enjoined preachers to wear a white gown. He says in his Charge, that he is hardly prepared to give any positive direction on this point. He states his opinion (which seems also to be that of the Reviewer) that it is certainly desirable that uniformity of practice should prevail in the Church at large.

Is it the case that the Bishop of Winchester has " "enjoined preachers to wear a black gown?"

Pp. 243, 244.-" All Christians using the Apostles' Creed acknowledge themselves to be members of one holy Catholic or Universal Church, and so all who profess and call themselves Christians are, in this view of the matter, and according to the interpretation of our Liturgy, Catholics."

But do "all who profess and call themselves Christians" use the Apostles' Creed?-Do not many reject all forms whatever?

It is said in the next page, "that the Church of England uses it " (the word Catholic) "as it was used in the earliest ages of the Christian Church-as nearly synonymous with orthodox."

Is it meant by the Reviewer, that "all who profess and call them. selves Christians are . according to the interpretation of our Liturgy," "orthodox?" Heretics call themselves Christians. The Church teaches us to pray for heretics. Does she mean, then, by heretics" Catholics' i. e. as the Reviewer shows, "orthodox" persons?

If the Romanists have used as an argument in favour of their corrupt communion the common application to it of the word "Catholic"-surely the name is even on this account "worth disputing about." If Archbishop Secker had lived now when we have to contend with Popery, it is probable that he would have claimed the title as the heritage of his own Church.

By this time we ought to know that words are not trifles.

P. 248. The Reviewer criticizes the expressions of the Bishop of London's Charge, and in the course of his criticism says, or seems to say, that "a venial transgression" "might indeed be justified, or . . . something more than justified."

"

That an exact and conscientious performance of a prescribed duty" might be "justified," or even "more than justified," i. e. might

be commended, appears to me quite true, but I do not see how this can be said of a transgression.

The Reviewer thinks it inconsistent with "Common Prayer" that minister and people should all look one way in prayer, for his argument comes to this. He devotes some pages to this subject in the latter part of the Review. He has failed to make me see that the circumstance of the minister and people facing the same way, interferes with "common prayer." He advocates the custom of all turning towards the Communion Table while repeating the Creeds, but he should have shown how this docs not interfere with a proper repetition of our "Common faith."

While the Reviewer is upon this subject, he says that the frontispiece to Bishop Sparrow's "Rationale" has been appealed to as authority." He cannot here refer to the Bishop of London's Charge, for though he says that the Bishop treats the practice of worshipping towards the East" with a kind of indulgent countenance," (p. 278,) yet the Bishop does really say that he does not consider it to be the intention of our Church, that the officiating minister, when reading prayers, should turn to the East, with his back to the congregation. And when the Bishop speaks of Sparrow, he refers to his words, and not to the frontispiece to his book.

P. 258. -The Reviewer places a Rubric, which he says (though I see it not) seems to imply one practice, in opposition to another Rubric which positively enjoins another. If the former Rubric only implies, we must take the clearer guidance of a positive injunction.

It seems to me to be a conclusive argument for the original practice with regard to the Church Militant Prayer, that its use is assumed in all the State Services. Besides, the direction that certain words are to be left out, "if there be no alms or oblations," implies that the prayer is to be used on such occasions.

The Reviewer argues against the "innovation" of using the first part of the Marriage Service in the body of the Church.

He says (p. 271), "We talk of leading a lady to the ALTAR." So we do; and I suppose this expression must have originated in times when the bridegroom really did lead the bride to the altar, which, according to the custom which has generally prevailed of late, he does She is generally brought to the altar by some one else. cording to the practice reprobated by the Reviewer, she is "led to the altar" by the bridegroom.

not.

Ac

Has not the practice of reading the first part of the service always continued in some parts of the west of England?

The Bishop of London does not refer to this matter in his Charge. The following note is in p. 264, in which the Reviewer is speaking of the use of the gown in preaching:

"It may be worth remarking, that in the Roman Catholic church a like principle prevails: when the same priest performs the service and preaches, he takes off, before he ascends the pulpit, the peculiar vestment, (chasuble or cope,) in which he performs the rites, and assumes it again when he returns to the altar."

The use then of the same vestment during the whole of the morning service is not to be traced to popery. S. C.