published. The first work I would mention is that of Ponet, or Poynet, for the name is spelt both ways, the Bishop of Winchester in the time of King Edward VI. It was printed in 1553, in Latin and English, having been first submitted to Archbishop Cranmer, and revised by that distinguished prelate. It was also submitted to both Houses of Convocation, and by them publicly set forth. It is usually known in English history by the name and title of King Edward's Liturgy, and may be found in the edition of the Fathers published by the late Legh Richmond. I mention it on this account; it is a most valuable commentary on the Church Catechism, which forms a portion of the Common Prayer-book. The next work is the 'Apology' of Bishop Jewel, which has been already printed by the Society. This is a work of the utmost importance, for the author enters fully into all those points upon which the Church of England and the Church of Rome are at issue. I would merely suggest that it should be printed, not from the edition of 1585, but of 1564, which latter edition was put forth by Lady Anne Bacon, and is the best text, much better than that of 1585; for in the revision it was altered materially for the worse. Another powerful reason why the edition of 1564 should be preferred is, that it was revised by Archbishop Parker, and then by Bishop Jewell himself, so that it may be regarded as almost his own translation; and then there is a stronger and more powerful reason still::-in his reply to his antagonist Harding, Bishop Jewel adopted this very translation of 1564 as his own: The next book to which I would direct attention is another work of Bishop Jewell, his Defence of his previous work, the Apology. In 1565, Harding, the Jesuit, the great antagonist of Jewell, published what he called A Confutation of the Apology.' And here, again, opposition was overruled for good, for it called forth Jewell's Defence. In 1567 he published that great, learned, and elaborate work, and it is one of the most important works in the English language. It was set forth by Royal order, and Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, did all he possibly could to get that work circulated in every part of the country; and by the order of the Queen in Council, it was ordered to be set up in every parish church, from one end of the kingdom to the other. The difference of the authority of the Apology from that of the Defence is this,-the Apology was set forth by Convocation, and therefore possessed the highest

authority, and not only was it set forth by the Convocation of 1562, but it was recognised and mentioned in one of the canons of the Church of England of 1603, those canons by which the Church of England is at present governed. But the authority for the Defence is not the same; it is that of the order of the Sovereign in Council, that it should be set up in the parish churches; and I have frequently seen this book, together with the Homilies, the Paraphrase of Erasmus, and Foxe's Book of Martyrs, in various parish churches in different parts of the country. The next book of authority is the Catechism of Nowell: this was also set forth by authority of Convocation, in the same year as the Apology of Jewell, namely, in 1562, but from some cause or other, never fully explained, it was not printed until 1570; and a translation was published in 1574 by Norton, who translated many Latin works of the foreign Reformers. I am of opinion that this translation might be adopted by the Committee, because it possesses the highest degree of authority, namely, that of both Houses of Convocation. An abridgment was published in 1574, and also an English translation in 1587. The Society might adopt either the new or the old translation.

I come now to the great work of Foxe, which has been already alluded to. The first English edition made its appearance in 1563, the second in 1570, the third in 1576. The edition usually found in churches is that of 1576. I have never seen a perfect copy in a church, but having one in my possession, I have compared the mutilated portions found in churches with it, and have invariably found them to be of the edition of 1576. The fourth edition was published in the life-time of the author, in 1583. Now, though Foxe wrote this great work, one of our own archbishops, Grindall, had a material hand in the compilation of it; he it was who from time to time furnished those interesting details of the lives and deaths of the martyrs found in it. It has been charged with incorrectness and inaccuracy, but the more the work is examined, the more accurate it will be found. This has been the case hitherto, and will be so in future. As to its authority, the grant point in dispute, in the first place, it was ordered by the Queen in Council to be set up in all parish churches throughout the kingdom, just in the same way as the Apology of Bishop Jewel was. Then by the Convocation of 1571, it was ordered to be set up in all cathedral

churches, and the Deans of that Convocation were ordered to chain a copy of both books in their halls, for public inspection; and the same order was binding on all archdeacons, that all persons might resort to these public places, to read in the pages of Foxe the narratives of the martyrs. Here we are met by our opponents, and those who wish to depreciate the authority of Foxe, with the objection, that his work was never authorized by the Lower House of Convocation. True, it never was; but then it is equally true that the Lower House of Convocation did not offer any opposition to the order of the Upper House; and the reason was, that it was not submitted to the Lower House, for it was thought by the Upper House, and the Lower House, and the Sovereign, that the Queen had sufficient authority to set forth the book. It was therefore, an oversight merely. The force of the sanction of the Convocation is just the same ecclesiastically, as that of an Act of Parliament politically. Every one knows that the Acts passed in the reign of Elizabeth are binding on us if they are not repealed. So with those ecclesiastical laws and canons; they are in force now, if they have not been set aside by subsequent canons of convocation. But as they have not been set aside, Foxe's work possesses a very high degree of authority in the English church. I come next to the Visitation Articles and orders of the bishops, particularly those of the archbishops during the time of Elizabeth. These would settle many of those disputes as to certain doctrines and practices, now going on between members of our own church. Another class of works to which I would direct your attention is, those occasional prayers which have from time to time been set forth by authority in this country, from the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth down to the time of William and Mary. Taking the reigns of Elizabeth, and James I, and Charles I, down to the breaking out of the great rebellion, scarcely a single year passed away without producing some one or more of such occasional forms. It appears from those I have examined, that in the first place those prayers were set forth separately, but afterwards they were printed with the whole morning and evening services, adapted to various special occasions, either of thanksgiving or fasting. I would recommend the Society to make a collection, or perhaps only a selection of these forms, in order to publish them as companions to the Liturgy and other formularies of our church. I can assure you that those portions beginning with the time of

Elizabeth, and coming down to the reign of William and Mary, breathe the true spirit of the Reformation; the very same spirit that animated the martyrs at the stake, may be discovered in these productions: and I think the Committee could not furnish to the world a more illustrative comment on the Articles and Liturgy of the Church of England than the publication of those prayers for days of thanksgiving, or of fasting and humiliation. I possess many of them, and I have seen many more. In 1628 a form was set forth, entitled, A Form of Prayer for all the Reformed Churches in Christendom." This shows the friendly feeling which existed at that period between our own church and the churches on the Continent, though they differed in matters of discipline. I do not conceive that the churchmen of that day approved of the discipline of the foreign churches, but they viewed them as Reformed and Protestant churches. The reason I mention this particular prayer is, that it was put forth at a time when the influence of Archbishop Abbott was on the wane, and that of Bishop Laud was on the increase-when Laud's influence was almost all-powerful in the council of his Sovereign. We may infer, therefore, that it was written by Laud; at all events, it was submitted to his inspection before it was set forth by authority. Therefore even Laud himself did not, in 1628, entertain any unfriendly feelings towards those foreign churches in which episcopacy could not, from necessity, be maintained. The Resolution says, these works may 66 do much to bring men to one mind, and keep the members of the Church of England stedfast in the sound scriptural doctrines of our venerable Establishment.' This important end would be secured by the publication of those works which I have just now specified. Let it be remembered that these works, at least the earlier ones, were set forth by the very same men who composed our admirable Liturgy, therefore you may thus furnish to the public a most illustrative comment on that Liturgy. Another reason why these works should be set forth at this particular juncture is found in the many divisions at this moment within the pale of our own beloved church. Some are disposed to say that our Reformers went too far, being under the influence of foreign Protestants. Others, even amongst the members of our own church, on the other hand, think that they did not go far enough. I conceive both parties to be equally in the wrong, and that the Reformers went just as far as they ought to have

gone, and stopped just where they ought to have stopped. I cannot concur in the opinion that each succeeding generation gets wiser and wiser; this doctrine may hold good in matters of science, but not in religion. I am convinced that the wisest age in spiritual matters is that upon which God is pleased to pour out the largest portion of Divine illumination; and that the age of the Reformation was one in

which God was pleased to pour out the largest influences of his Holy Spirit. I was told yesterday that some persons, and even clergymen, designate this Society, a Dissenting Society. I cannot conceive how a Society, the object of which is to set forth the book of Common-Prayer, can be designated a Dissenting Society. I beg to conclude, therefore, by moving the Resolution which I have just read.

THE Thirty-fourth Annual Meeting of the above Society was held at Exeter Hall, on Thursday the 7th of May.

The Report stated the income of the Society for the past year amounted to £10,377 17s. 4d. being less than that of the year before by upwards of £1,300. The expenditure amounted to £10,188 5s. 54d. leaving, at the closing of the accounts on the 31st of March, a balance against the Society of £1,430 12s. Of this £470 8s. 5d. had been paid off, but the finances were still burdened with a debt to the Treasurer of £960 3s. 7d. The number of day-schools now upon the list was 1,140, containing 88,388 scholars, of whom 55,168 were Protestants, and 33,220 Roman Catholics. It appeared from the foregoing account, that the Society's dayschools, as compared with those of last year, had experienced a decrease of 17, and the total number of scholars a decrease of about 3,000. The schools were inspected every quarter, and inspectors of approved piety and ability, over whose conduct a vigilant superintendence was exercised, were constantly employed. The average attendance of scholars, at each of the quarterly inspections during the year, had been 59,955; and the average approved by the inspector, 41,151. Of the superintendents of schools, 686 had been clergymen of the Established Church, 58 ministers of other denominations, and 382 noblemen, ladies, and gentlemen. Fourteen schools had been without superintendents. The Society had distributed last year, by means of the munificent grants of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 4,750 Bibles, and 18,421 Testaments, making a total of 23,181 copies. The whole number circulated since the first foundation of the Society in 1806, had been 468,672.

The Rev. HUGH STOWELL Said, that the question of Christian education, whether in England or Ireland, was one, of the vital importance of which the great mass of the community were now deeply impressed. It had been

observed by a distinguished statesman (would that he were as much distinguished for his consistency as for his talents,) that the battle of the Constitution was to be fought in the registration courts. If he might be permitted to make an amendment to that observation, it would be, That the battle of the Constitution was to be fought in our National Schools,' for as we educate the rising generation, so should we give a complexion to the future character of the people. If we educated them for this world, we should make them a worldly-minded race; but if we nurtured them in the great truths of the sacred word of God, we might hope to make them a heavenly minded one. If we educated them in false principles, we should produce false practices; but if sound principles were inculcated, we might hope that holy practices would be the result. We lived in strange times, and among the strange features of those times, there was no one more strange than that presented in the advocates for general education. Among such advocates are now found the Papists. But who ever heard of their advocating general education in days gone by? Such, however, was now the policy of the Church of Rome, that she had turned round and become the advocate of education, when she found she could no longer stop its progress, and she was now endeavouring to hide the light of divine truth under a bushel. The very advocacy of Popery in behalf of general education should itself be sufficient to make a right-minded Protestant suspect that the wooden horse she was so desirous of introducing among us, carried within it the instruments of destruction. He did not speak in loose and vague language, but in language that a recent visit to Ireland enabled him to justify. There was much in the model and trainingschools in Dublin, that commanded his admiration, and he begged to say, that in going through them, he met with every possible attention from one of

Are

the professors, who frankly explained everything; indeed there was no desire to conceal any thing. So far as their secular education went, they were formed after the schools at Glasgow, which indeed presented a model for education throughout the country. It might be asked, then, what fault had he to find with such a system? He would lay before the meeting three points on which he rested his charge against these model schools of Dublin. His conductor, to whom he had referred, took him into one of the lecture-rooms, where there was a number of intelligent little teachers who attended from different parts of Ireland for instruction. He was just in time to hear the close of the lecture, and when it was over, he was shown a variety of lecture books, some of them on Optics, Hydraulics, Hydrostatics, &c. He said to his conductor, not many of these themes beyond the reach of these boys' calibre?' The answer was, 'Yes, but we think they exercise their understandings and elevate their minds.' He said, 'Are there not themes more on a level with their understandings? Could there be any theme more fitted to enlarge the understanding than natural theology, or the great truths of our common Christianity?'. With some slight_embarrassment his conductor said, ‘I did once begin a course of lectures on those subjects, but we are so exposed to misrepresentations, SO closely watched, and there are so many conflicting sentiments about the matter, that I found it better to discontinue the course, and I have not since resumed the lectures.' Now, what was the inference from this fact? The inference was, that an amalgamated system of education must terminate in an absolute rejection even of natural religion, and the great truths of Christianity. He would that those who so advocated a universal amalgamation in a common system of education, would contemplate the issue of so unhallowed a sytem. The next fact that struck him in his visit to the schools he had adverted to was, the ceaseless encroachments of the Church of Rome. Give Popery liberty to set one foot within the inclosure, and she would take many steps, and every fresh concession was made the vantage ground from which she urged her onward way.

In these schools the Ten Commandments were suspended, but in every instance they were given, not from the authorised version, but from the Douay version. In common fairness, the two versions should have been given together, and . the scho

66

lars allowed to see which of the two was according to the word of God. The second commandment was rendered with the exclusion of the important clause, "Thou shalt not bow down to them. Why this subtle distinction? The Papist, if he were told that he worshipped his graven image, would reply, that the imputation was most uncharitable, and perhaps we had no right to say that he did actually worship; but when we saw the Papist bow down his body there could be no uncharitableness in saying he did bow down. Popery was aware that she might, in the opinion of some, escape from the charge of disobeying the command, "Thou shalt not worship;" but there was no possibility of escaping the other charge. Thou shalt not bow down" was a command that could not be avoided by equivocation. Let them recollect that Jehovah said, "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God;" and was not God jealous of the mutilation of his commandments? He could not but feel that we were partakers in the sin, so long as we suffered the Ten Commandments to be mutilated in this way. He would now mention the third point in these schools that had arrested his attention, and which he considered to be pregnant with meaning. His kind conductor took him to a beautiful little training-school, where the most select boys, intended for monitors, were receiving special instruction. The boys were being examined in history when he entered, and their replies were certainly admirable. The examiner, as if he had received an intimation so to do, suddenly passed from secular to scriptural history, in which the boys displayed great proficiency. Indeed, they answered quickly and faultlessly, but whenever the teacher seemed to come near the angle of a really religious or moral question on the word of God, he turned the corner so adroitly that he never grazed it with the chariot wheel. Now what was the fair and legitimate inference of such a system of education? Was not the Bible taken from the pedestal of inspiration, and put on an equality with Thucydides, Tacitus, Gibbon, or Hume? It was taught as an historical record, and not as the revelation of God, in whom we lived and moved and had our being. The man who did not or would not perceive the distinction, must have a dark understanding, or obtuse moral sense indeed. He must have little reflected on the effect of moral causes on the tender mind. These boys would not view the Bible with a higher regard than they did Goldsmith's History of England, or any other class-book. He would far