Happily no new and independent exploration of the Fathers is required on the contrary, the citation is best (!) limited to the beaten path of our own theology. It is not what the private judgment of learned men may now find in antiquity, but which the Church of England has taken from it as Catholic truth, that her children require to be told"!! The italics are our own.

Just so. And in this case Canon Trevor and the late Archdeacon Freeman are, of course, the "Church of England!" But to return to his special heresy of the "Dead Christ Theory." The Body and Blood of Christ, we are informed, are exhibited by the force of Consecration (whatever this may mean), but our Lord Himself is not there, and therefore the "Body and Blood" is not to be worshipped (p. 237)-for it is not the Living but the Dead Body and Blood of Christ which are present, disjointed from the soul, and the Divinity. The whole theory simply strikes at the very root of Catholic Doctrine, not only of the Eucharist, but of the Incarnation itself. It obviously contradicts the great dogma of the Hypostatic Union. The Body of Christ, from the moment of His Conception, was inseparably and for ever united to His Divinity. At His death on the Cross His Human Soul was indeed separated from His Sacred Body- | until the First Easter morning-but the Divinity was, nevertheless joined to Both. There can be no further separation. Where His Body and Blood are, there is IIe, whole Christ. So that if the Body of Christ be present now it must be His Living Body, for He has no other. But we are further told that it is not our Lord's Real Body, but a Mystical Eody, and that the substitution of "whole Christ, in the place of His Body and Blood," was a "grand error" (p. 283). We have already said that according to our Author the “Dead Body" becomes the Living Body only on passing into the mouths of the communicants, so that while Consecration represents the Crucifixion, Communion represents the Resur

rection!

Can such "theories "-such contradictions and absurdities -need serious refutation? It would be an insult to our readers to attempt any. We are content to point out the fact that even after forty years of Catholic Revival in our midst in an age when men have literally no excuse for accepting cut-and-dried statements from the Fathers and Councils in lieu of a study of Antiquity at first hand-there still exists a small knot of "Divines" who are so thoroughly "Anglican to the backbone as to walk contentedly along the "beaten path of" an effete "theology;" and to remain in happy ignorance of Catholic Doctrine, solacing themselves, like the ostrich with its head in the sand, with the comforting reflection that "no new and independent exploration of the Fathers is required!"

At p. 12 we read :

""

It seems that his article was written for the Church Quarterly Review, a sober and heavy publication of Liberal principles, but that, when written and printed, it was declined by Canon Ashwell the Editor-a decision at which we are not surprised. We have read Mr. James's article, and we confess that its plethora of expletives and long adjectives do not throw much light on present difficulties. Unless conapply it at all bazards, " Home Re-union" is only a sentiment reposing on a cloud. What common principle, for example, is there between the anti-Sacramental and Calvinistic blasphemy of Spurgeon's Tabernacle and the Church of England? Where is the bond of union between the scarcely-veiled Rationalism of modern Congregationalism and the Book of Common Prayer? All such schemes as that of the Home Re-union Society are mere bursting bubbles. The divisions every day increasing between Catholicism on the one hand and Infidelity on the other, will compel people to take their sides. All the vulgar sects of England-beginning with the Brownists and ending with the Peculiar People-åre infallibly and obviously "of the earth earthy." There can be nothing Divine about them, or any of them. Soon, people who believe in the Incarnation will be called on to range themselves on the side either of Christ or anti-Christ. A religion without Authority, where people teach and do just what they please, is only a comic farce. In England Church authority is now in the hands of the British public. Babble as we likethere's the fact. Lord Penzance has been specially set up in order to gather up Public Opinion, and (written laws notwithstanding) to expound its variable judgments. Rotten to the core is our odious system of Erastianism, re-furbished by Dr. Tait, which cannot and will not last, and which no Christian (who was not either inebriated or mad) could venture for one moment to think of recommending to any pious Dissenter. When such people as Dissenters respect themselvesthough their principles may be rotten, and their logic ridiculous (always the case), -we can respect them; but when, professing to be. Dissenters, they become lax, undogmatic, Latitudinarian, and nebulous, they only make themselves ridiculous and contemptible. What Mr. James means by the "great Lutheran and Reformed Churches of the Continent" (p. 26) we know not. The Lutherans have notoriously become Unitarians; i.e., they are no longer Christians at all, while the Calvinists of Geneva have rejected all revelation, and the German Evangelicals are honeycombed with infidelity. Mr. James is not a theologian; nor is he an accurate thinker or writer. The crotchet here discussed is not worth two minutes' consideration, being totally impracticable. To test it. Gather together representatives of all the 129 English sects. Eliminate all Articles of Faith on which they each disagree, and what would remain? Nil. Mr. James might as well try to build a cathedral of laughing-gas as to carry out his moon-shiny scheme. The Home Re-union Society, at best, is a pretty idea to chatter about, for those who love to hear their own sweet voices at Congresses, or to write about in flabby pamphlets, but-cui bono?

ARCHDEACON WOOLLCOMBE'S Notes on St. John's Gospel (Exeter: Eland) are worthy of general notice by all students of theology and Biblical criticism. Thoroughly sound and orthodox, they are at once lucid and scholarly displaying a wide range of reading, and a reverent mind. Mr. Woollcombe would do well to continue the work and complete his Notes on the whole of St. John's Gospel.

:

DISHOP MOBERLY has published two Sermons, entitled

Infant Baptism and Confirmation (London: Rivingtons), which are, of course, plain, dogmatic and forcible; in truth exactly the kind of sermons needed in this unbelieving age. There can be little doubt, however, that, owing to the misafter or regarded than it used to be. We hear this complaint chievous Registration Act, baptism is now far less sought made, on all hands, by Clergy, who assert that it is becoming more and more difficult to induce people to have their children christened. As to compelling young girls and boys to go to school to be catechized, the thing is too often impossible. Parents are losing their authority: imps of both sexes are maintaining their independence and claiming their 'liberty." This, and such as this, comes of the casting out of Christianity. Dr. Tait's new Established Religion is not

ciples upon which their sect is built, and would cease to profess them if they did. Yet their fundamental opposition to the Divine scheme of the Christian Church, and to the maxims of the Councils and Saints, is evident to every soul not steeped in the delusions of heresy. The theory of independent Patriarchs, independent Metropolitans, independent Bishops, independent national Churches, and of a fictitious and nerveless authority equally diffused among all, so that nobody has either the right to command or the obligation to obey, and everybody is free to differ from everybody else to the end of time-which is the Anglican conception of the Church-is a complete reversal of the whole order and structure of the kingdom of Christ, a diabolical artifice for the perpetuation of discord and schism, the ruin of humility and obedience which have no place or sphere of action in such a system, and a device of the enemy to frustrate the adorable work and counsel of God. Persistent and incurable division springs out of Anglicanism and Photianism, and their denial of any central authority or common bond of union, as surely as evil deeds proceed from evil thoughts. Take away the very provision by which the loving wisdom of God designed to secure the unity of the Church in spite of the passions and infirmities of men, which alone has been effectual in every age, and never more than in our own, and you take service with Satan, whose project you make your own, according to that saying of St. Jerome of all who dare to resist the Apostolic See: "He that is not of Christ," by communion with His appointed Vicar, "is of Antichrist."

made by the author of the work quoted:-"On the contrary, they (the Ritualists) teach that the authority of the Church is, and always will be, complete and infallible; but they say that that authority decided centuries ago, and decided once for all, every particle of necessary truth; so that new decisions would be either useless or wrong." It is really difficult to reply with gravity to such singular mis-statements. If the authority of the Church is "infallible," then what authority or what Church has that privilege? If it was the authority of the Early Church which was infallible, at what period did the Church cease to be Early? On what day of what year did the Church that was "infallible" suddenly commence to be "fallible?" Seeing that "infallibility" is the highest gift of God to His own Teaching Church upon earth-a gift which makes the Teaching Divine-the withdrawal of that gift amounts to this-that the Divine suddenly ceased to be Divine. But this is an absolute impossibility. If at any moment God withdrew Himself from His Church, and suffered her to teach a single lie, He would both break His own promises, which is impossible, and mislead all baptized Christians, which is equally so. In plain language, if there ever was a Church, there is a Church, and there will be one to the end; and that Church was, is, and always will be instructed by the Holy Spirit of God. If the Church were not infallible, she could not possibly, at any time, pronounce judgment on schismatics and heretics; on the other hand, the Church being Divine, she can tell Anglicans and Old Catholics what they are. The idea of a Church which goes "wobbling about " between the Divine and the deplorably human; which is infallible in one

OF THE BISHOPS.

(From the Morning Post of July 24, 1876.)

The creation of a new appellate tribunal for other causes naturally led to an effort to provide a better court for causes ecclesiastical. Accordingly the thirteenth clause of the Bill now before the House of Commons, after enacting that all appeals should be to the Queen in Parliament, proposes that Her Majesty may by Order in Council, with the advice of the "Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council or any five of them, of whom the Lord Chancellor shall be one, and of the Archbishops and Bishops being members of Her Majesty's Privy Council, or any two of them, make rules for the attendance on the hearing of ecclesiastical causes as assessors of the said Committee of such number of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England as may be determined by such rules. The rules may provide for the assessors being appointed for one or more years, or by rotation, or otherwise, and for filling up any temporary or other vacancies in the office of a-sessor." The rules so made are to lie on the table of both Houses of Parliament for forty days, after which, if unopposed, they are to take effect. Such being the proposed new court, one would have thought that all who had a stake in the wisdom of the proposal, and especially the Bishops, who ought to lead rather than follow Church opinion, would at once have taken this question into their most serious consideration. Yet, strange to say, the Church gives no sign. On this crucial matter of the ultimate determination of spiritual causes-a misunderstanding of which led to the secession to Rome, five-and-twenty years ago, of nearly four hundred clergymen-the Church has been as quiescent as if not a single stake depended upon it. The Archbishop of Canterbury did not convoke his Suffragans about it, nor the Archbishop of York; the Diocesan and other Church Conferences preserved an unaccountable silence; and not till the eleventh hour, when the Bill is on the point of becoming law, does Convocation, and especially the Bishops, awake to the consciousness that the Church is passing through a crisis of overwhelming importance, and that yet another revolution is taking place in our ecclesiastical courts. In future years it will scarcely be credible that, with twenty-six Bishops in the House of Lords, this grave measure was allowed to pass that House without a single attempt on their part to raise an adequate discussion on this important portion of it. It was, indeed, discussed on Wednesday, the whole day long, but in a forlorn way, with the conviction that it was all too late, and that it was hopeless now to do more than to leave the Bill as it is, and to go down in a body, if need be, to disagree with the amendments to be proposed by Mr. Beresford-Hope and others. If anything were required to prove the importance of increasing the Episcopate, we have it here. If the Bishops are so preoccupied that they cannot attend to questions like this at the right time, the best thing is to relieve them of a considerable part of that preoccupation. If they are numerically too few to have any weight with Government, we cannot do better than give them the strength of augmented numbers. Anyhow, let us have some security that they will be able to see a crisis, and take action in regard to it, in time to prevent legislation from dealing with great Church interests in a rough-and-ready way, without a due regard to ecclesiastical polity. The new court will probably be better than the old, because it cannot possibly be worse, but how much better it might have been, if the Bishops had done their duty to it, we hardly like to think. It is painful to contemplate them standing aghast on Wednesday, and asking, What are we to do? when it was just too late to do anything.

THE WEEKLY REGISTER IN REPLY TO THE CHURCH 11MES.

(From the Weekly Register of July 22, 1876.)

One gets perfectly weary of referring over and over again to the absence of authority in the Church of England. There is no persuading Anglicans to ask themselves the question-"What is that authority which they obey?" Directly we put the question, they take a jump of a thousand years, or rather, of sixteen or eighteen hundred years, and tell us that the only authority they are bound to obey is the authority which has been dead all that time. Thus we read in the Church Times of last week a quotation from the "Threshold of the Catholic Church," which runs thus:-"As a necessary result of this theory of branches, the Ritualists must teach that the authority of the Church is in abeyance." Upon which the Church Times has the following commentscomments which really prove the truthfulness of the assertion which is

..

say in the year 325, but whom it is for heretics to judge in the year 1876; a Church which is one day in the position of a supreme judge, and the next day in the position of a culprit; at one moment ruling the whole world, and at the next moment being ruled by everyProtestant," is so infinitely comic, and so wildly absurd, that no man in a state of gravity could conceive it. It is perfectly certain that no one ever believed it. The position of Anglicans may oblige them to invent theories which soothe them by "fictitious appeal;" but as to any man believing in a dead and buried Church, the thing is absolutely impossible. The second statement, already quoted, in the Church Times is equally without ground or rationale: "That authority [the Church] decided centuries ago, and decided once for all, every particle of necessary truth." If this be so, may we ask in what particular century the Church ceased to decide upon truth? Who was the recipient of the special revelation as to the moment of arrest of Divine teaching? Every particle of necessary truth" has been revealed, or rather has been dogmatically denied (so says the writer in the Church Times): but there was just one particular moment in the Church's life when the very last particle of truth was defined, and at that precise moment the Holy Spirit left the Church, and ceased, evermore, to instruct her. It seems a little unfortunate that we are not in possession of information as to when this particular moment actually was, for it would have saved the Catholic Church the trouble of calling Councils, as well as the duty and the odium of condemning heretics. For example, if "every particle of necessary truth" was decided at the Council of Nice, why call the first Council of Constantinople? If at Ephesus, in 481, the whole range of Catholic teaching was completed, why supplement Ephesus, only twenty years later, by the superfluous Council of Chalcedon ? Or why have a second, third, and fourth Council of Constantinople, when the first had done the whole business completely? In the same spirit, we may observe that the Waldenses and Albigenses might seriously object to the fourth Council of Lateran, on the ground that it was high time that every particle of necessary truth" had been finally ruled and disposed of.

66

THE CHAPLAIN OF THE "LONDON."-The "Brother of the Chaplain of the London has written to the Times in correction of some misstatements which had occurred in the article of that journal on the late debate in the House of Commons. He says that the ship London sailed from England early in July, 1874; and that the chaplain, who had volunteered his services for the trying station of Zanzibar, proceeded to conduct the services exactly as he had always conducted them on board every ship in which he had hitherto sailed; nor did he know until August 1st captain ordered Mr. Penny to omit the Apostles' Creed from the daily that Captain Sulivan was a Nonconformist. On the 21st of July the prayers. On the 23rd of August he told him to discontinue the chanting of the Te Deum; and on the 20th of September to discontinue the chanting of the other Canticles at Morning Prayer on Sundays. All these orders were at once obeyed. On the 29th of September he ordered him to discontinue the use before his sermon of the ejaculation, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." The chaplain instantly ceased from the use of it, but on the 10th of October he appealed to the Lords of the Admiralty for protection from the undue interference with his functions as chaplain. Shortly after the London arrived at Zanzibar the only resident English clergyman died.

The chaplain volunteered two services to the English residents in addition to his own services on board the London. It is hardly credible, but it is a fact, that Captain Sulivan ordered the chaplain to remain on board his ship, and all the English residents, including Her Majesty's Acting-Consul, were debarred from any Church of England services in consequence. And it was only at the expostulation of the Acting-Consul that Captain Sulivan recalled his order. This fact speaks volumes. Mr. Ward Hunt states that unemployed chaplains are few. They are likely to be fewer. It is convenient for Mr. Evelyn Ashley and Sir A. Gordon to represent the quarrel as a contest between Ritualism and Nonconformity. But it is no such thing. What Ritualism is there in reciting the Apostles' Creed, in chanting the Canticles on Sunday, in invoking the blessing of the Trinity, in whose name all Christians, of whatever sect, are baptized; in wearing a faded stole, so worn and ragged that the Court of Inquiry quite laughed when, in obedience to their order, it was produced? The real question is, what clergyman, possessing one grain of self-respect, is likely to put himself into the false position of a naval chaplain, if captains may persecute them cruelly and without mercy?

NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS.

some families who had settled there. The children came The Servian who was in his company

6

clapped his hands and called out Turski.' To hear the screams of those little children, to see the way in which they rushed to hide themselves, showed the degradation and

thus:

When Alma Mater her kind heart enlarges.
Charges her graduates, graduates her charges,
What safer rule can guide th' accountant's pen
Than that of doubling fees to Dublin men?

As a rule, we must decline to insert both personal attacks of every sort and kind, and anonymous letters. If people want to ventilate their opinions (and a news

lives. He warned his hearers not to believe what they were told about the savagery of these people. He knew the Archimandrite who was now in arms, and no more learned man had led the armies of England or France. He exhorted nations the tokens of English injustice." There can be no denying the fact that a very influential minority of thoughtful

Mr. J. H. BATTY, Publisher, at the same address.

THE

PILOT.

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1876. Published on Every Alternate Wednesday.

Fortnightly Notes.

THE Servians are showing great pluck, and it is evident that their generals own more military ability than they have hitherto been credited with. The latest telegram received from Prince Nikita only three days ago is dated from Urbiza, and runs as follows:-Mukhtar Pasha's army is completely annihilated. Of the sixteen battalions under his command four only succeeded with great difficulty in saving themselves by flight. The Montenegrins have captured, in addition to Osman Pasha, 300 Nizams, five guns, and several flags." Philip Petrovitch, a relative of the Prince of Montenegro, has been seriously wounded. Our sympathies-notwithstanding the fact that so many European Christians are with the children of the False Prophet-are with the noble races who are fighting for freedom, home and

hearth.

WI WITH regard to this War in the East our own convictions and hopes were so well expressed by Mr. Denton at the recent Meeting on the subject, that we reprint them here in the most prominent portion of our paper:-"The English Government had made the mistake of cultivating, not the friendship of the people in Servia, but the friendship of a small governing caste. But even if we thought we should check the growth of Russian influence by such means, that object would hardly justify us in keeping these people exposed to wholesale vivisection. Russian intrigues were spoken of, but Russian intrigues would not make the people believe they were ill-used, if they were, in fact, well governed. The Turks were dying out. They slaughtered their children; and there were other reasons for the decay of the race. Christian population must be dominant on the Danube, and Russia had only such influence among them as British impolicy gave her. Every defeat of Russia in her attitude of friend of the Christian populations of Turkey was a great victory for Russian influence there. The speaker went on to describe unfriendly relations which had existed between English Consuls and the Prince of Servia, and asserted, that English Consuls were notoriously instructed to shut their eyes to atrocities, and not to report them, so that Ministers might say they had no information upon the subject. He said that an official who had insulted the Prince of Servia was now the Consul who reported from Salonica. Travelling between Saitschar and Alexinatz he (Mr. Denton) came upon

The

when in other words, steam is being rapidly generated and there is no outlet for it-but an explosion? These hideous and absurd vessels-hideous and absurd to every sensible

person not a scientist (as the Yankees write)-are only commodious and highly-expensive iron coffins, in which, no doubt, in war the whole crew, from Admiral to Stoker's Boy, put in alive and scientifically shut down, will, without any fighting, be first scalded, burnt, suffocated, or baked alive, and then speedily sent to the bottom of the ocean. Having banished the Almighty we now put our whole trust and confidence in Iron-clads, the English Funds and the fooleries of "Science." Perhaps one day we may be mercifully and sharply rewarded for our national insanity. God grant it! The sooner the better.

E print in another column a Correspondence which has taken place between Mr. Owen Lewis, M.P., and Mr. Gladstone, in which the latter shifts the blame of a bad report on to the shoulders of the Editor of the Guardian. It will be read with interest. For Mr. Lewis writes with vigour, pluck and dignity; and efficiently makes his points. If an Anglican parson were to marry two wives, and appear one on each arm upon a public platform, advocating such a policy for the order in general, it would not be more incongruous than the public exhibition of themselves by M. and Madame Loyson on a platform. surrounded by admiring friends "of all denominations." Two wives for a parson could not be more out of place than one for a monk.

66

That

THE Record is, as usual, very angry with Convocation, because the representatives there of a decayed Protestantism are getting small by degrees and beautifully less." The Lower House is the Record's special black-beetle. newspaper's admissions, however, are very damaging. Read what is admitted:" Parties are so balanced that the High Church party and the Ritualistic party combined can just out-vote the Evangelical party-just out-vote it, but no more. If, therefore, majorities only were to be represented, the result would be that the Proctors returned to Convocation would be much of the same class as they are now. But the representation of minorities is now an established principle of legislation, and is based alike on the clearest justice and on the soundest policy." This is something to admit-for the true position of Protestant affairs was sharply denied by the Record in August, 1868, in March of 1870, in September of 1871, and again in the March of 1873. Our contemporary, pleading that minorities should be represented, sings in a somewhat lower key than of old. In truth, Protestantism is dying out: and the great struggle will be between Catholicism and Infidelity, in other words, between Christ and Antichrist. At a recent clerical meeting in the Diocese of Cork and Cloyne, Mr. Morrison, an English Clergyman, Incumbent of a London parish, said "he was altogether of opinion, judging from many years' personal experience, that unless the Clergy improved intellectually we should lose the educated classes. That such loss is going on rapidly in England; and that, speaking from