gers of a system of priestcraft; and for the same reason, if a bishop be the sole ruler of his diocese, he must be so shackled, to prevent him from becoming a tyrant, as to be actually divested of the powers essential to government. And so from a superstition about what men fancy to be the divine right of Episcopacy, the Church has practically all but gone to pieces, from the want of any government at all.

This want of government or of social organization in the Church, has been one main cause of the multiplication of Dissenters. Men's social wants have not been satisfied; and a Christian church which fails in this particular, neglects one of the most important ends of Christianity. Consider the case of one of the parishes in a large manufacturing town ;-there is a population of several thousand souls often comprised nominally within the same subdivision of the whole Christian society of the nation; but what is their organization and bond of union? Perhaps one parish church, utterly unable to contain a fourth part of their numbers ;-and one minister, who must be physically incapable of becoming personally acquainted with even so much as a smaller proportion of them. The other officers of the parochial society are the parish clerk, the church-wardens, the overseers of the poor-how little like the deacons of old-the beadle, and the constable! What an organization for a religious society! And how natural was it that men should form distinct societies for themselves, when that to which they nominally belonged performed none of the functions of a society. And even in those cases where, by the exertions of the incumbent in providing one or more curates to assist him in his duty, by the endowment of chapels of ease, or the institution of lectureships, the visitation of the sick in the parish is tolerably provided for; still the want of a social organization remains the same. The parishioners, except in questions about rates, never act as a body, nor feel as a body. They have no part in keeping up any religious discipline; those amongst them who are qualified for instructing or exhorting their neighbours can do it only as individuals. The very church itself, closed during the greater part of the day, perhaps of the week, is opened only for the performance of one uniform service, never to be added to, never to be varied. Even the singing, where alone some degree of liberty has been left to the congregation, is in some dioceses brought down to the same uniformity, and nothing may be sung but the old and new versions of the Psalms of David. Thus the people are, as the members of the Church, wholly passive; the love of selfgovernment, one of the best instincts in our nature, and one most opposite to the spirit of lawlessness, finds no place for its exercise; they neither govern themselves, nor is there any one else to govern them." pp. 46-48.

The next thing proposed by Dr. Arnold is to divide the existing dioceses, and to make every large town the seat of a bishop, giving him no seat in parliament. To each of the bishops he would assign a Council, consisting of lay and clerical members, without whose concurrence he should be incapable of acting. To this court he would refer all matters of discipline and clerical controul. He suggests, further, a General Assembly of the church, clerics and laics, to meet yearly, under the presidency of the bishop, to enact such regulations as may be necessary. He would in many cases allow the parishioners the election of their ministers; and give them in all cases a greater check over their appointment than they at present possess. He would have in every parish church, officers, lay as well as clerical, who should share with the principal minister in his superintendence. But chiefly, as before mentioned, "by rendering the Articles more comprehensive than at present,' Dissenting ministers, he says, "might at once become ministers of the Establishment, and as such would of course have their share in its government." He thinks the Dissenters would yield to Episcopalians the form of episcopacy, provided, as he recommends, "episcopalians will be satisfied if the mere name of a bishop is preserved." We do not believe that this, or any other scheme of a national church, would "satisfy" modern Dissenters; but as we consider that we have already got far into the regions of Utopia, we forbear to discuss what might or might not satisfy any class of its inhabitants.

But there is still a further advance in those regions, in the extraordinary proposal of throwing open our churches, not only to all sorts of ministers, but to all sorts of services. We must state the matter in the proposer's own words :

"Now, considering that some persons would like nothing but the Liturgy, that others, on the contrary, can endure no prayers but such as are extemporaneous; that

many more have a preference for one practice or the other, but not so as to wish to be confined to the exclusive use of it; there seems to be no reason why the National Church should not enjoy a sufficient variety in its ritual to satisfy the opinions and feelings of all. In a parish where there was but one minister, he might read the Liturgy on Sunday mornings, while on Sunday evenings, and on week days, he might vary the service according to his discretion and the circumstances of the case. But where there were several ministers, as there would be wherever there are now ministers of different denominations, the church might be kept open nearly the whole of the Sunday, and we may hope, during some part at least of every week-day; the different services being fixed at different hours, and performed by different ministers. And he judges untruly of human nature, who does not see that the peculiarities which men now cling to, and even exaggerate, as the badge and mark of their own sect, would soon sink into their proper insignificance when nothing was to be gained by dwelling on them. Good men, feeling that they might express their opinions freely, and that their silence could not be misconstrued into fear or insincerity, would gladly listen to their better nature, which would teach them how much they had in common with one another, and how infinitely their points of agreement surpassed in importance their points of difference. And instead of an unseemly scene of one minister preaching against another, we should probably have an earnest union in great matters, and a manly and delicate forbearance as to points of controversy, such as would indeed become the disciples of Him who is in equal perfection the God of truth, and the God of love.

"It may appear to some a point of small importance, but I believe that it would go a long way towards producing a kindly and united feeling amongst all the inhabitants of the parish, that the parish church should, if possible, be the only place of public worship; and that the different services required should rather be performed at different times in the same spot, than at the same time in different places. In this respect, the spirit of the Mosaic law may be most usefully followed, which forbade the multiplication of temples and altars, but fixed on one spot to become endeared and hallowed to the whole people as the scene of their common worship." pp. 68-70.

We can only add, that though this pamphlet contains many valuable suggestions, and is written with a Christian candour and boldness which do honour to the author, some of its leading proposals appear to us at once so extravagant and so exceptionable, that we greatly lament its publication. X. "A Letter to the King, on the necessary_Preliminary to a sound constitutional Church Reformation; by S. Perry, of St. John's College, Cambridge."

A brief, rambling, scolding pamphlet, the exact object of which we cannot comprehend, except that the author points out the inconvenience of Lord Henley's proposed board of Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and states, in one sentence, that "to adopt the wisdom of Cranmer's Committee of Thirty-two, and Pole's Convocation, by abolishing pluralities and nonresidence altogether, to make it imperative by law on all beneficed clergymen to take their divinity degree, and to give a divinity statute to Oxford and Dublin similar to that at Cambridge University, appear to me all the enactments really necessary to secure a sound and efficient Academical and Church Reformation.'

XI. "A Letter to the Bishop of London on Church Reform; by the Rev. G. R. Gleig."

Mr. Gleig says there are five principal accusations brought against the Church, besides a whole host of minor, though still serious charges. First, the mode of remunerating the clergy by the payment of tithe is objected to; secondly, the great inequality that prevails in the value of ecclesiastical benefices is condemned; thirdly, an outcry is raised against the system of pluralities and commendams; fourthly, the maintenance of chapters is pronounced unscriptural and unwise; and, fifthly, the enjoyment by the bishops of their privileges as peers of parliament, is said to bring evil both upon church and state.

Mr. Gleig sees no great evil in any of these things, but great hazard in attempting to amend them. He fears tithes cannot be commuted; that

the abolition of pluralities would furnish an alarming precedent for confiscation; and that pluralism and non-residence are attended with considerable benefits, which " perhaps" overbalance their evils. He does not, however, object to a tax on the richer livings to augment the poorer. XII. "Cui Bono; a Letter to the Right Hon. E. Stanley; by the Rev. H. Cotton, LL. D."

Archdeacon Cotton's remarks apply chiefly to the Established Church of Ireland, but he includes the United Church in general; objecting strongly to the plans of Lord Henley, and similar reformers; and asking Mr. Stanley the cui-bono of making innovations in the Church of Ireland. He considers that the Irish Church is not too wealthy, and that its bishops have not too much influence; and he shews very justly that the grievances, or supposed grievances, of the Irish peasant, are not to be traced to the Protestant Establishment. He is, however, less successful in defending the inordinate disproportion which exists in the incomes of the clergy; many having a plurality of rich preferments; and others, fully their equals, or superiors, in education, talent, piety, and good conduct, starving on a wretched pittance-less, perhaps, than is enjoyed by some well-patronized brother's butler. The Archdeacon must have sadly lacked syllogisms when he proceeded to analogies in the following fashion:

In the vegetable kingdom do we not see every gradation, between the humble lichen and the Norfolk Island pine? In the animal, have we not the mite as well as the elephant-the humming-bird, as the ostrich-the minnow, as the whale? Among birds, are all equal in note, or plumage? Among beasts, in speed or sagacity? Among flowers, in hue or fragrance? In the human race itself, do we discern any thing resembling equality; either in bodily power or mental capacity? Is not all society founded upon subordination, which necessarily implies inequality? And is not this an arrangement of primitive and Divine ordinance, since at the time when our whole race consisted but of two persons, one of these two was by Unerring Wisdom expressly made subservient to the other?" p. 65.

The Archdeacon fortifies his opinion by a reference to an old number of the British Critic. The Critic asks :

"What provident father of the middle rank would be at great expense to educate a brilliant youth, who was never, in the calling to which he destined him, to emerge from the lowest class of mediocrity? One great stimulus to emulation, in science and manners, would be extinguished..... The inequality of incomes secures the dignity of the Church, at the least expence to the State."

Perhaps both Dr. Cotton and the British Critic will be shocked by our reply to the affecting appeal about "the brilliant youth" who would never have gone into the church but as an affair of inordinate moneymaking,―That we could well spare his services and his brilliancy, and be contented with men who, if not as "brilliant" as a Sydney Smith, are yet men of fair talents and adequate learning, and mighty in the Scriptures, and zealous for the glory of God, and to save themselves and them that hear them. But, in truth, the whole argument about inveigling brilliant youths to serve God in the ministry of his word by the attraction of golden sinecures and a constellation of pluralities, is utterly absurd, and we need not add, is wholly unscriptural. But, after all, it is not of necessity the brilliant youth who gets these "good things;" for many a dolt and mar-text, who has powerful interest, gets the rich donative of Lackwit cum Muckle-pudding, eked out by a golden prebend and a sinecure rectory, that he may the more pleasantly and profitably recreate himself and depasture his horses; while men of far greater talents, to say nothing of virtues, are picking up his crumbs for doing his "duty.' Who would have thought that this "whale and minnow system of church government, this "ostrich and humming-bird" plan of saving souls, was the appointed order of Divine Providence, if the Archdeacon of Cashel had not told us so?

XIII. "On Clerical Education; a Letter addressed to the Bishop of Llandaff, by a Clergyman."

The Clergyman in this brief pamphlet has touched upon one of the most important-in fact, the most important-object of Church Reform, The education of the Clergy. "A clergyman," he remarks, "is the only member of any of the learned professions who has strictly no regular professional education suited to the office to which he aspires." He thinks, however, that it would be unreasonable to expect the universities to furnish a complete system of instruction for the pastoral office: their business, he says, is to afford liberal education, suited to the youth of all classes in the land; and it would be undesirable, he adds, to give to their system a professional character. The thing to be wished, he says, is, that the degree of Bachelor of Arts should be a public testimonial, not of a person's fitness for any particular profession, but of his having made such acquirements as may prepare him to study for any. Specific clerical education, he therefore infers, should be sought for elsewhere: and his plan for supplying it is, that the bishop should require from every candidate for holy orders, in addition to the certificate of a degree, a further certificate of his having passed a year, subsequent to his graduation, in the house of some clergyman, engaged in the active discharge of parochial duty.

"If that practice were once established, there are many exemplary clergymen whose circumstances and situation would render such an accession to their family very desirable, though they might not be able, consistently with their ministerial engagements, or even though they might not be properly qualified, to take pupils for other purposes. Competition would produce the same effect in this, as in other cases. Parents would become nice in their choice; bishops would distinguish some clergymen by their patronage; and others would acquire a name by their personal excellence and industry. There would be no impropriety in these probationers reading the appointed Lessons in the desk for the clergyman with whom they reside; and they might also accompany him in his pastoral visits, or even, if the cure were a large one, undertake some portion of that duty, under his superintendence, and by his direction, in his stead. They would practise themselves in writing sermons; form acquaintance with the mode of thinking and speaking which prevails among the poor and ignorant; accustom themselves to converse with the sick and the dying; and, in short, acquire some experimental knowledge of the nature of the pastoral charge. Besides this, they would of course have leisure for direct theological study, in which they would receive instruction and advice; and if it should happen that some individuals should, during the interval, discover beforehand that the clerical office is one for which they have neither taste nor ability, it would be some advantage to themselves to be spared the pain of a fruitless, because late repentance, as well as to the Church itself, to be preserved from the addition of one member who is unsuited to the work." pp. 9, 10.

There can be no doubt that a year thus spent would, by the blessing of God, be a great advantage through life to a clergyman, and through him to his flock and the church at large; and we are so deeply anxious to see the want of clerical training supplied, that we are grateful to the author for his suggestion, which deserves to be weighed with serious attention: but, at the same time, it is necessary to add, that the proposed plan would not obviate the common objections urged against a plan of specific education-namely, the additional expense of time and money. A year's training is little enough we think far too little, if more can be reasonably attained-but, little as it is, it is so much added to the expense of education, and so much, in many cases, to the usual period of taking holy orders: besides which, the plan partakes of no system, and would, on a national scale, probably soon degenerate into a mere form-the candidate entering his name on a clerical friend's book, and residing with or near him, just to gain his certificate. It is absolutely necessary, we think, to make some public provision for the purpose: whether that provision should be connected with the universities, or with each diocese, or in theological insti

tutions open to all, would require mature consideration. In any case, however, Mr. Raikes's suggestion would probably be desirable, at least in the present state of public opinion-namely, to deduct a year from the usual college course for a degree. To this the heads of the universities object; not only as interfering with the plan of study, but as cutting off one-fourth of academical life, and thus, in a pecuniary view, injuring the univerities (that is to say, the receivers of emolument in them) to the extent in which the undergraduate saves his expenses; unless, which would not be fair, he should be obliged to pay for the year which he did not spend within their precincts. If any plan of clerical education should be of a public character, the deduction might be insisted upon with more confidence than under the private system proposed by our author; for though the universities might be made to yield to a national regulation and recognised theological seminaries, they could hardly be expected to give up a year of their course for the chance of the time being suitably employed with a private clergyman. If they did, it would soon become the practice for every young man, who should see fit, to take the boon for the sake of getting his degree a year sooner, and at less expense; while his year's theological study would, in many cases, be merely nominal.

But, our author not purposing to curtail the academical period, his suggestion for pastoral training may be made use of, by the direction of any parent, or at the wish of any candidate, where time and expense are not considered impediments; and in some cases, even at present, young men are thus placed for a time, after taking their degree, with a clerical friend, to prepare for Holy Orders. We do not, however, think that any particular bishop could insist upon the proposed qualification, without an understanding with his brethren that they would do the same, which would be in effect to augment the period of education for the Church by the space of a year. We see no serious hardship in this; for physicians, barristers, and young men designed for other avocations, learn their profession after taking their degree; but, if insisted upon by one bishop, it ought in fairness to be so by all; otherwise what is clerical education in one see, is not in another, or even in the same under a new bishop.

We concur in our author's general statement, that the Universities are not, and ought not to be, places for exclusively clerical training; but then it should be remembered that in point of fact they have come to be so considered; they owe a large, if not the larger, part of their business to the church; the bishops do not demand, as the officers of law or medicine do, other certificates of qualification; to have graduated is currently viewed as a sufficient passport to holy orders, provided the candidate can answer a few ordinary questions, even though he should be by no means accurately or extensively read in theology, and may be utterly unqualified for pastoral duties. Now this being he case, our author's abstract statement of University obligations does not exonerate the Church in its collective capacity, nor even the Universities themselves, from blame. It might indeed be best, for many reasons, that theological training should be kept distinct from the Universities; and we certainly think that the bishops, assisted by their clergy, are the proper persons to direct it; but then the Universities might greatly aid the object; they might possibly institute a theological and pastoral class; they might allow the last year, as proposed by Mr. Raikes, to students for holy orders; and they might make a new and stricter arrangement in the bestowing of testimonials upon candidates for presentation to bishops with a view to ordination; or, better perhaps than all, laying aside all local interests and predilections, they might heartily concur with the Bishops and the Legislature in devising a general plan for the attainment of this great object. We do not say that a suitable plan of education for the sacred