'was an evangelical, the other an Anglo-Catholic movement. Both had good objects; both were full of zeal; both organized by persons of deep piety and fervent self-devotion. But the Methodists found no response, ' and so have long since separated from us. The Sisters of Mercy, isolated ' and suspected, have much to tempt them to leave us too. I am in no degree prepared to stand up in defence of the imprudence or extravagance 'which may have characterized either of these bodies, but I deeply regret 'that wherever unusual zeal presents itself we seem powerless to direct it 'rightly, but of hard necessity must cast it off.

If, then, our gracious Sovereign, by the advice of yourself and your 'colleagues, and especially of that illustrious nobleman who is your leader, should be pleased to permit the two houses of Convocation to sit and deliberate, there are many practical subjects (and many more to which 'I have not alluded) which may well occupy its attention, without neces'sity for bringing in disputes on doctrinal differences. Of course, some 'fiery spirits may find their way into our assemblies; but there is no reason to fear that they should do more mischief in them than in Church Unions, at Exeter Hall, or in the meetings of our religious societies. Nay, 'there is good reason to hope that they will find in Convocation much more ' restraint than they can meet with elsewhere. I believe, too, that if the clergy be fully and truly represented, but very few, if any, of such spirits 'will be returned as their representatives.'-Pp. 18-20.

The value of Mr. Boothby Barry's Thoughts on the Renovation of Cathedral Institutions' (Ridgway) will now be tested by the Commission, which it is announced that the Government is prepared to issue. Mr. Barry's suggestions are not new, or where new, as, for instance, that service should be celebrated in the nave of the Cathedral, not desirable. Still his pamphlet condenses useful hints and reflections. By the way, we wish that scholars would remember that the term sinecure' is a technical one in ecclesiastical matters. It does not mean a preferment and income to which no duties are attached: but an ecclesiastical function to be exercised sine curá animarum.

A Few Words on the Progress of Socialism and Infidelity: a Letter addressed to the Earl of Shaftesbury,' (Rivingtons,) by Mr. Brudenell Barter, is one of the most calm and severe appeals, to one on whom every appeal embodying principles of moral truth and justice is thrown away, which we can recal.

A good cause, that of protesting against the absurd and wasteful fattening of cattle for prizes at the agricultural shows, would have stood a better chance in other hands than in those of the Rev. Henry Cole, B.D., who has addressed a 'Reflective Letter' (Seeleys) on the subject to the various patrons of these institutions. With Mr. Cole's position we entirely sympathise but his style is very odd, especially in a schoolmaster. He thus describes a fat pig:-The pitiable swine were so distorted by swollen 'obesity, that the shape of their heads as swine, to except the extreme ' nostril circle, could not possibly be traced. And as to the eye, it was utterly 'hidden by large lumps of overlaying fat, which it appears had rendered 'them utterly blind for several of the last weeks of their inhuman pingui

:

tion.' (P. 7.) One is tempted to inquire whether Mr. Cole desires porkers of human 'pinguition.' In his narration Mr. Cole, challenging, sensibly enough, the cattle-show people to prove that such a process of fattening is scientific, useful, or justifiable, uses this language:-'That the 'important and serious subject-point may not be lost... I would admonish 'the responding defender of these procedures,' &c. (P. 14.)

We cannot concur with Mr. Paul much further than in his amiable temper and good feeling. No contribution to the cause of 'Christian Union,' on which he has printed 'Six Sermons,' delivered at Blackheath, (Rivingtons,) can be passed over without sympathy and acknowledgment. We fear, however, that compromise rather than comprehension would be the result of this writer's suggestions. He fails to see that in some very important particulars, such as the constitution of the Church, the matters of discipline are matters of doctrine, and involve the purity of faith, once for all delivered to the saints.

We can never have an excess of such works as Mr. Stretton's 'Guide to the Infirm, Sick, and Dying,' (Masters.) It is not designed as a substitute for the valued Visitatio Infirmorum ; ' but is a more condensed, and, in its introductory part, a more literary work. It has been felt that some devotions to accompany the act of confession would be useful in such a manual. Different tastes require different aids; and it is a platitude to say, that a multiplication of such aids is an incontrovertible proof of the growing inner life of the Church.

A Review of the voluminous, and, we may be pardoned for saying, occasionally tedious, 'Reports of her Majesty's School Inspectors,' has been published by Messrs. Longman, under the title of Extracts from the Reports,' &c. It is specifically addressed to school managers not receiving Government aid;-by way of bait, we presume.

Mr. Sandham Elly has published a reply to the work, 'Quakerism, or the Story of my Life,' which it is announced is the work of Mrs. Greer. Mr. Elly's work is to come out in parts, of which we have seen No. I., under the title, Ostentation, or Critical Remarks,' &c. (Dublin: Hodges and Smith.) The reply, as far as it has gone, is destructive rather of the authoress than constructive of the systems which she attacks. We make the announcement because we reviewed the original work: not, as will be remembered, without distinct strictures on the writer's tone.

The clever and condensed history of England, which we have spoken well of under its unpretending title, Kings of England,' (Mozleys,) has reached its fourth edition, judiciously enriched with examination questions.

A Hymnal, from the same publishers, is far above the average; and to those who can reconcile themselves to the use of unauthorized hymns, entirely to be recommended. We ask for hymns, and we suffer loss by their absence from the public service. But whether this loss is so great as the danger of countenancing bad hymns by the surrender of the principle of authority, is a mooted point, and one of no little practical difficulty.

'Landmarks of Ancient History,' (Mozleys,) is by the author, or

authoress, of Kings of England,' and the care and accuracy which we have commended in the former we find in the present publication. A companion on Modern History is promised.

Mr. Jameson's 'Norrisian Essay on the Analogy between the Miracles and Doctrines of Scripture,' (Macmillan,), though clever, we thought too much in the style of sermons.

The 'Anticleptic Gradus,' [Anti-Crib, as schoolboys say,] (Rivingtons,) is one of Mr. Kerchever Arnold's useful school-books. Its value is in its richness and precision; it omits the collection of epithets, so useful to boys and so annoying to teachers in the old manual. The old Gradus ad Parnassum, if we remember, was a Jesuit production. It is quite a reflection on the Protestant institutes that they have so long allowed it to corrupt the hope of rising England.

We have received the second edition of Professor Archer Butler's "Sermons.' (Macmillan.)

Mr. W. Spark, 'Organist and Choir-Master, Leeds,'-we presume at S. Peter's Church,—has just published (Novello) a ' Lecture delivered before the Yorkshire Architectural Society, on Choirs and Organs, their proper Position in Churches.' It is a cheering sign to observe the general attention paid to all ecclesiological questions. Mr. Spark seems very well intentioned, but a little too much inclined to the theory that services are made for organs. His ritual views are somewhat vague, as he is a patron

of antiphonal services, but stickles at their being said in the chancel. We note with interest that he singles out the position of the organ in S. Mary Magdalene, Munster-square, as the most successful example he ean adduce of the position of an organ near the choir and not in a gallery.

We have so frequently in these pages called attention, in various ways, to the 'Irvingite' theory of the Church-we use the word in no offensive sense, but simply because we can find no other-that we have perused with great interest the recently published History of the Christian Church' by Dr. Thiersch, son of the Greek Grammarian. Our excellent contemporary, the Theological Critic,' has commenced a translation, but Mr. Arnold has been forestalled by Mr. Carlyle, of the Scottish Bar,' in a version of which we have received the first volume, published by Bosworth. A notice of the work, which has appeared in a newspaper, speaks of the translator's notes as indicating Irvingism :' but Dr. Thiersch himself belongs to the same body. His History-and it is an extremely able and interesting compositioncomes before us under circumstances of the greatest interest. He grapples with the difficulty which has always been urged against these views. If the Church has for seventeen centuries been suffering under the abeyance of the Apostolate, how came it, we have asked, that the Apostles made no provision for the continuance of their special and paramount office?—how came it that the Episcopate, without protest or complaint, superseded it? Did the Apostles neglect their duty-we desire to speak reverently—or did the Church conspire to prevent the transmission of their special authority

and gifts? These are questions which have been hitherto answered or ́evaded in a very declamatory fashion. Dr. Thiersch, however, as an historian, could not escape the difficulty: the transition from the Apostolic to the post-Apostolic age must compel him to speak out. We turned, therefore, with the greatest anxiety to the conclusion of the first volume, where this period is discussed. We looked for documents and authorities to prove the fact; and we examined Dr. Thiersch's disquisition under the influence of the dilemma which has always presented itself to our minds as fatal to the Irvingite claims-Either the Church submitted to the greatest possible loss and fall in spiritual and hierarchical powers, by permitting the Apostolic Office to glide away without an effort to retain it, and this without a protest or murmur against this treason in the matter of a Divine ordinance; or, it was not part of the Christian economy to preserve the Apostolic Office in such distinctness as the Irvingites claim for it. Dr. Thiersch's point, therefore, must be to show that the transitional Church did know its loss, and did reclaim against it, and did something to retain the Apostolate. It is only fair to this writer-especially as he is the first to acknowledge the pinch of the argument-to let him plead his own cause. And the importance of the subject will excuse the length of our citation, which we present without comment, simply remarking that this is what we have so long looked for, the historical evidence which the 'Irvingites' have to produce for their claims.

'The time came when the rule of the Apostles was either to cease or to 'pass into other hands. Each individual Church, which had received a bishop from the Apostles, was protected and provided for, as long as he 'lived. But who was to undertake the oversight of all Churches, and of 'those set over them? From whom, in the event of uncertainty or discord ' among Bishops, could instruction in the truth, and decision as to right ' and wrong, go forth, in a way which should both bind and satisfy all? Who 'had authority to ordain elders and bishops, as the Apostles had hitherto 'done, and to found new bishoprics? Who had confidence to impart, with 'the same power and efficacy, that establishing grace and seal of confirma'tion, which the first believers had received from the Apostles themselves? The primitive Church knew nothing of the confused and confounding 'modern doctrine, that all ecclesiastical power rests in the multitude, and 'that a majority can elect, commission, and empower to all spiritual func'tions. There is, in all antiquity, no trace of the idea, that, when the 'Apostles died out, their authority devolved upon the whole body of the 'faithful, to be by them committed afresh to individuals. And men were then too cautious and scrupulous in holy things, to interpret any inward impulse to labour for the good of the Church, however powerful and 'genuine, into a divine commission, legitimate call, and adequate endow'ment, for such momentous functions.

The majority of apostolic functions had been performed by apostolic 'delegates, as well as by Apostles. Else the Church could not have been 'planted in so short a time throughout the whole Roman empire. The 'commission of these delegates, however, was not only personal to them, 'but not even for life, being limited to certain occasions and services. Hence we nowhere find that, on the death of John, any survivors, who

had been used as delegates, undertook the care of the Church universal. The most of them, as Mark, Luke, and Timothy, were indeed, by later ' writers, called Apostles. But this was evidently in that vague use of ⚫ the name which is common to this day. It is, indeed, not impossible that 'one or other of these men may, like Paul or Barnabas, have been actually 'called to and qualified for apostolic labours. Yet there is no proof whatever of this. Tradition informs us, on the contrary, that the most of 'these delegates afterwards laboured as bishops. Their calling, to serve the Church as a whole, fell into abeyance; and they became exclusively 'chief shepherds of particular Churches. For this is the difference between a bishop and a delegate; that the former is permanently set over and 'wedded to a particular Church, as Christ to the whole. That ancient 'canon which provides, that no bishop shall be taken from one Church to be set over another, save on the most special and urgent grounds, was, doubtless, founded on apostolic recollections.

'Thus we see also the difference between apostles and bishops. The former are bound to no one diocese; the latter are. Each bishop has authority in Christ's stead over his own Church, to teach, exhort, bless, 'exercise discipline, and send out the Gospel; but not to judge other bishops, or labour in a foreign diocese. It is well known how clearly the principle, that no bishop was responsible to another, was expressed by 'Cyprian, as late as 256, in the Council of Carthage. And that certainly 'implied that none could be regarded as set over the whole Church.

If it were true, that the Apostles had appointed bishops, in conse'quence of feeling that they were about to depart, or in other words, had 'made the institution of the episcopate part of their testament to the 'Church, so that, by their dying directions, their power should be in'herited by bishops, the usual episcopal theory would be well founded. 'But the fact is not so. This episcopal office was, in its essence and origin, no continuance of, or substitute for, the apostolic. The absence of Apostles was not the condition of its origin or agency. It did not come into life as apostleship died. On the contrary, it existed simultaneously 'with apostleship. It was instituted to co-exist with apostleship. And 'the condition of its right operation and development was that it should 'be upheld by apostleship. While John was yet in the plenitude of his authority and labours, he had seven bishops, at least, under him in Asia. Episcopacy, therefore, is not only quite a different thing from what mere Episcopalians would make it, but is, in this respect, a much higher thing, that it is properly no accidental substitute or surrogate for any higher office, but an essential and distinct member in the original organization of 'the Church according to the will of God, with functions as definite as, yet wholly different from, those of Apostles. Apostles, bishops are not. Although they have been in fact successors of Apostles, they were not appointed to be so.

'Equally erroneous is the opinion that episcopal government was intro'duced by the surviving Apostles, after the fall of Jerusalem, to provide a basis of unity for the Church, and bind the many congregations into one 'corporation. The very Apostles who are supposed to have done so, were the basis of unity themselves. The Church, as an organic whole, is as old