they cannot conveniently with their own safety attempt such a thing, then it is best, in such a case, to be quiet, lest upon opposition made by the heretics, the Catholics should be worsted." De Laicis, lib. 3. c. 22.

It is the merest folly, then, that can well be conceived, to deal with the Romish power in Ireland as one which can be "conciliated." If the term can ever be applicable to the case of Romanists, it is only in such cases as that of England, where (at present at least,) ascendancy seems quite impossible, and quiet toleration all that can be hoped for. In such cases, indeed, the subjects of the pope may be conciliated." But wherever their position is one of power, whether it be aristocratic or democratic power, there that power is unhesitatingly and remorselessly exerted. Have they the power of the government and the landlords on their side, as in France in the seventeenth century, or in Navarre, in the sixteenth, or in Savoy at the present moment, that power is exerted to harass and undermine, and thus to diminish Protestantism. Have they only the majority of the people, numerically told; and that in opposition to the government and the aristocracy, as in Ireland at this moment, then the Church becomes democratic, the priests are at the head of every popular movement, and the whole power of the democracy is exerted to intimidate the governing powers, and to extort concessions from them.

The character of the Romish church is quite unchangeable. Fixedly and unrelentingly inimical to Protestant rule, and even to the very existence of Protestantism itself, it ever is, and will always remain. Nothing else than war, either silent and secret, smooth and plausible; or open and threatening, ever can be expected from that quarter. Submission is an idea that will be scorned; friendship is a thing impossible.

Rome, indeed, can be content to "bide her time." She is not accustomed to exhibit any hurry. Her predicted and permitted part was, "to wear out the saints;" and a rule and dominion which in apostolic days did "already work," and which is not to see its close till the second Advent itself, when "the Lord shall consume it with the spirit of his mouth, and destroy it with the brightness of his coming,"-can well afford to wait and observe opportunities.

And these opportunities are chiefly afforded her by the lamentable deficiency of any solid perception of the nature of the controversy, among statesmen called "Protestant!" We can well remember hearing, some few years back, a public defence made, on a remarkable occasion, of the Conservative policy touching the Appropriation clause. It was made by no less a person than the

present Lord President of the Council, Lord Wharncliffe. In company with a multitude of other persons, we hung upon his accents with the deepest interest; for it was just at the moment of the fiercest agitation of that question: when how were we disappointed in hearing him enunciate, as the great Conservative principle of action! this resolve: "We determined that we would never permit the endowments of one institution to be devoted to the purposes of another."

This was the highest, the largest declaration of principle that he would make. The whole affair was reduced to a mere Court-ofChancery question, as to the legal rights to certain rents and profits. Truth or falsehood,-sound or mischievous doctrine, was wholly cast out of sight. The Church of Ireland had got possession of certain tithes, and therefore,-and for no other reason,she should continue to possess them! Who could help seeing at a glance, that to the constant Romish allegations, that the Church of a small minority had got wrongful possession of the endowments which belonged to the Church of the nation, this doctrine of Lord Wharncliffe's furnished no answer whatever.

Your mere politician, then, is unable to grapple with this question. The later and better school, (better as dealing with higher and nobler views) is almost equally incompetent. These have a bias towards Romanism which perverts their judgment. We have already quoted the language of Lord John Manners and Mr. Monckton Milnes, two of this class, who would at once treat with the Pope, and conciliate the priesthood. We deeply regret to have to add, that on a late occasion, a rising member of the Cabinet, distinguished for his advocacy of what are termed "Church Prinples," used, in the house of Commons, not in debate, it is true, but in conversation, openly and without concealment,—such language as this,-"What they say " (Mr. Ward and Mr. Roebuck,) "is quite true. It is not to be denied, that the position of the Church of Ireland is utterly indefensible."

Is not this most lamentable? Is it not quite disheartening, to find, after making great efforts to place in power a Conservative government, that there is scarcely a chance of obtaining for truth, in that government, even the shadow of a hearing? Is it not enough to inspire despair for the country, to find, that it is hardly possible to force upon our rulers, even the faintest perception of the great truths upon which everything depends?

In what light is the nation,-the constitution,-the government to be regarded? Is neutrality, an uncertainty as to all the fundamentals of religious belief,--professed by either the legislative or the executive ? We believe not. We apprehend that neither

the government or the legislature has yet thrown the slightest doubt upon the fact, that they profess to be both CHRISTIAN and PROTESTANT. No single session of Parliament can ever pass over, without divers things being done, which severally proceed upon the same understood basis,-that Christianity is the truth, and that Protestantism is the pure form of Christianity.

Now Protestantism declares Popery to be a LIE: to be full of "blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." It is a first principle, then, still holding a fundamental place in our constitution, that the existence of Popery,-much more its ascendancy, as in Ireland, is a great and lamentable evil.

And surely no earnest and sincere Christian can hesitate to assert this ! In fact, until the recent rise of a sect in our Church, which declaredly admires much in Romanism,-the degree of a man's detestation in Popery was ever in proportion to his attachment to real religion. Those who hated to hear Rome anathematized, were (until of late) just those who held all religions to be equally valuable, and who doubted not that an honest Mahometan was quite as safe as an honest Christian.

Romanism is a great evil; in fact, it is the great evil in Ireland; eclipsing if not absorbing, every other. And we have no expectation of beholding a safe and hopeful system of government, until men who believe this, shall have courage enough to rise in their places in Parliament, and say it.

Romanism ought to be dealt with as the great and central mischief of that land. Plans ought to be publicly propounded and adopted, for rooting it out. Not by persecution,-God forbid,not by penal inflictions of any kind; but by the sedulous spread of Scriptural instruction; by encouragement to English and Scotch emigrants to settle in Ireland; and by the greatest facility afforded to the Romanists to go out of it.

But

We cannot, however, expect with any confidence to behold a government in England, in our own times, that shall venture thus to adhere to a definite set of principles, and to act upon them. Private effort, individual and associated, is all that remains. this is capable of great things, if it were properly called forth. Were every person who gives a guinea to the Church Missionary Society, for instance, to give 10s. 6d. to Ireland, we should have a fund of £50,000 a year. And were this efficiently employed, not by half a dozen societies, as at present, but by one central body, sitting and acting simultaneously in London and Dublin, it would be impossible that considerable results should not flow from it.

A FEW THOUGHTS ON CHURCH SUBJECTS:-viz. Uniformity; Daily Service; Gown and Surplice; Private Dress; Pews; Preaching. By the Rev. EDWARD SCOBELL, M.A. 1843.

London: Hatchards.

"HOW SHALL WE CONFORM TO THE LITURGY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?" By J. C. ROBERTSON, M.A., Curate of Boxley. London: Pickering. 1843. A CHARGE delivered to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of London, May 18, 1843. By W. HALE HALE, M.A., Archdeacon of London. Rivingtons. 1843.

A FEW weeks back, it happened that a clergyman of the old highchurch school was called on to preach an occasional sermon, in the church of one of the suburban parishes of the metropolis. He was not previously informed, that the incumbent was one of the new high-church school,-alias, a Tractarian. In the vestry, before the service, he was told, "We preach in our surplices, here." His reply was merely, "I don't:"-but it was uttered with a decision which precluded any discussion on that point.

They stood together at the table, at the communion-service (before the sermon), and nothing remarkable occurred until the Nicene Creed was to be recited. Here the incumbent turned his face to the wall, looking due east, and shewing his back to the congregation. The preacher, the senior of the two, at the other end of the table, placed his back against the wall, and turned his face to the people. At this strange sight, of two reverend divines so directly and palpably opposing each other, it was impossible that the lighter part of the congregation should suppress a smile: and this at one of the most solemn passages in the whole service.

Now had the Bishop of London been present, this most unseemly exhibition must have struck him with surprise, and would assuredly have excited his displeasure. In what way, then, would he have endeavoured to terminate this scandal?

If his lordship had sent for the Tractarian, and had endeavoured to bring him back to former and more customary usages, it cannot be doubted that he would have been met by a variety of pleas in justification. He would have been told of "antiquity," of fathers and councils, and would have heard canons and rubrics cited in abundance; which, if they did not command the practice, would at least be cited as "appearing to imply it." appearing to imply it." And then he would have been told of "conscience," and of the "obligation" felt, to carry out to the fullest extent, all the injunctions of the rubric, and all that, by any possible construction, could be held to be commanded in the Prayer-book and the canons.

Would his lordship, then, perplexed with "the voice of antiquity" and the "tender consciences" of men who find no difficulty in subscribing the articles "in a Catholic sense,”—would he submit to the urgency of the Tractarian, and resolve to bring all the hundreds of his clergy who never thought of such a proceeding as turning their backs on the people to whom they were ministering,-into conformity with Mr. Oakley and Mr. Newman? We are well assured, that he would do nothing so weak, or so absurd. Yet, when wrapped up in a variety of attendant circumstances, and thus rendered less nakedly preposterous, his lordship has been recently led into a proceeding which very nearly resembles what we have supposed.

Assembling the clergy around him, after his late confirmations, the Bishop of London gave them, day by day, certain admonitions and injunctions on rubrical points. In some of these addresses, when he had reason to know that his instructions were not likely to obtain an immediate and easy assent, he condescended to plead with the clergy, as to the necessity which was laid upon him, to take the course he was then following. It was not, he represented, voluntary on his part. Some of his clergy had represented to him that they were "pressed in conscience," that they had solemnly engaged to observe and do all that was prescribed in the book of Common Prayer;-while yet, if they conducted the service in the customary manner, they would be disobeying the plain words of the rubric. The offertory sentences were commanded to be read, and also the prayer for the church militant, every Sunday. How, then, could they avoid reading them? "And how could I," said the Bishop, "advise or command them to disobey the rubric? How could I avoid declaring, that the rubric must be obeyed? But having done this, it becomes clearly my duty,-as uniformity is desirable and necessary,-to extend the same rule to all; and, the system described being rubrical, to enjoin it upon the whole body of the clergy throughout my diocese, without any exception. You now, therefore, know my wishes, and I have no doubt that you will comply with them.""

Thus, though in another particular, the false principle we have at the commencement pointed out, was adopted, and agitators and innovators, instead of being promptly suppressed, as they ought to be, were enabled to plead the countenance of so eminent a man as the Bishop of London! The vagaries of half-a-dozen men, (in his Lordship's diocese they are probably not more) were adopted as a law of the Church, and the clergy at large were to be suddenly taught a new "use" of the Prayer-book; as if it were as easy and as unobjectionable a manœuvre as the "eyes right," or "face about," of soldiers at drill!