vaunted principle of Chillingworth, which briefly sums up the attitude of the Reforming party towards the Scriptures- The Bible alone, the religion of Protestants'—can now only exist in narrow circles where the fresher and freer air of the Catholic teaching of the Church has failed to penetrate'" (p. 262). "The sole appeal to Scripture, as interpreted by each man's individual reason and conscience, has been found, in practice, to favour mental servitude" (p. 64), and "it is almost incredible that men of sense and maturity should in these days fly to Scripture for a text to sanction everything they do" (p. 215). "The Bible, which is only one among the many instruments of grace committed to the faithful usage of the Church, is wrongly made the sole code of statutes, treasury of doctrines, directory of worship, for the Christian Church" (p. 292). "To attempt to settle controversies by an appeal to Scripture texts," betrays "extreme simplicity" (p. 292). "As Christians, as Churchmen, we are (thank God) enfranchised from abject slavery to the mere letter of Scripture" (p. 219).

Equally impossible is it to believe that "the doctrine of Election” will form any part of the doctrine of the ideal Church. (Pref. p. xiii.) We confess that we were all along under the impression that Divines who hold this doctrine found standing room, at least, in the Church of England; but this, it seems, is an entire mistake! At any rate, in Mr. Curteis's conception of a Church, they must abjure or decamp. "The Church was never really Calvinist, and to make her so was simply an impossibility" (p. 68). "Calvinism is the natural enemy of the Church" (p. 574). "Its childish philosophy about the Divine decrees" (p. 253) is " the mere brain conception of a narrow dogmatist, a French lawyer of the sixteenth century." "It is a mere piece of fine-spun logic and French system-making. It is not itself religion" (p. 265), but "a dreadful heresy," against which, by the important and much "overlooked doctrine of the universal inward light, the Catholic Church has protested" all along (p. 261). This "attempt to save the credit of half-a-dozen misinterpreted texts of Scripture at the expense of all for which Scripture was given, and Christ came into the world" (p. 265), will wholly disappear, we suppose, along with the Holy Scriptures themselves, from the bosom of the " Old Catholic system' when once it is established.

From an expression of opinion by the author (p. 137), "that there is not nearly so much essential divergence, either in doctrine or practice, among English Romanists from the Church of England as is popularly imagined," followed by an approving reference to Dr. Pusey's "Eirenicon," we may form some idea of what he considers the real doctrine of this ideal Church to be. Dr. Pusey, as our readers will probably remember, offers (in

that very remarkable book) so to "explain" our formularies, that, with the help of a certain amount of " explanation" on the other side, they shall be consistent with the whole doctrinal system of Rome as defined by the Council of Trent, including Transubstantiation, the Mass, the Seven Sacraments, Purgatory, Indulgences, Invocation of Saints, and, as a matter of course, the absolute submission of conscience to the authority of the priesthood assuming the name of the Church! We are landed historically in the conclusion that no change took place in the religion of England at the Reformation; that Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley suffered martyrdom for nothing; that Pole was entirely mistaken in supposing that a counter-revolution had taken place at the accession of Mary; and that the Armada sailed to extirpate a faith which, in all material points, was identical with that of Philip II.! "The English Catholics' view" (says an admiring reviewer of Dr. Pusey's work) "is, that no vital change, no important change even passed over the Church of England at the time of the Reformation, except the misunderstanding with the Court of Rome."

We hesitate to pronounce these to be the sentiments of our Bampton Lecturer, especially as, in the note above referred to (p. 137, n. 5), he goes on to say, "such profound gulfs sometimes open between the Roman and Anglican views, not merely upon religion, but upon the very orоixela of common morality, that one is forced (almost involuntarily) to concur in Dr. Newman's opinion, that Roman "Catholics and Protestants, viewed as bodies, hold nothing in common in religion, however they may seem to do so." Still, his sympathies are so unmistakeably with the "traditionary," rather than the Scriptural, school, his aversion to Calvinism, Puritanism, the infallibility of Scripture, the right of private judgment (p. 295), and the whole theology of the Reformation period, so decided, that it is not easy to set down his words as a mere slip of the pen. With Ultramontane Romanism, indeed, he has no sympathy. His third lecture is an able and telling exposure of the enormous falsehoods on which the Papal tyranny is based; but with the sacramental system of the Latin Church-its ceremonial worship, its imaginative form of religious character, its painting, sculpture, music; "its ritual drama of the altar and the font," and its preference of the authority of the Church to that of the Biblehe has a very manifest sympathy, and would fain graft it all upon the ideal Church, to which he would invite the five millions of our countrymen who now secede from us.

If the six denominations would naturally shrink from his gloomy pictures of the Church of the past three centuries, are we to suppose that the picture he paints, from imagination, of the Church of the future is likely to prove more attractive? He tells us that two schemes for the organisation of Teutonic Chris

tendom alone present themselves: (1) The scheme of the Evangelical Alliance; (2) The scheme of the Old Catholic Church. While he magnifies, as we have heard, this latter, the former he treats with contempt as wholly impracticable. But he seems to forget, that while the latter has barely an existence-if an existence at all-the former is at any rate a living and flourishing organisation, and has been so for nearly thirty years. Increasing numbers of Nonconformists swell its ranks from year to year: its last great meeting in the United States was more largely and influentially attended, both by Churchmen and Dissenters, than on any former occasion. There were seen, in united worship, united reception of the Holy Eucharist, united brotherly conference, Christians of all denominations; not surrendering one iota of the principles on which they differ, but all rejoicing in the principles which they hold in common. The spectacle was one which inspired respect, and even enthusiasm, in the minds of those without. And when the great Christian gathering separated to return to the Churches of the lands from whence they came, every member felt that at least one step was taken to a higher and better union; that the narrowness of party spirit, and the bitterness of party strife, had never before seemed so utterly detrimental to the true life of Christianity; and that, without breaking up their various external organisations, the different sections of the Church might still realize "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace and in righteousness of life." Now, whatever may be thought of the principles of "the Evangelical Alliance," or of its sufficiency as a basis of future union, here at any rate is a fact. Independents, Quakers, Baptists, Wesleyans, and other Christian bodies, could meet in brotherly and loving union with members of our own Church; "sinking,” in our author's own words, "their mere opinions while uniting in a common ritual and lifting up their hearts in common psalmody" (p. 430). Yes, and all together partaking of one common Bread as members of one Body. Now, we cannot but ask our author how long will it be before the various denominations whom he invites to union by the silvery sounds of the "Old Catholic" Church trumpet, will ever come so near to him and to each other as these Christians have already done? One grain of fact is worth a world of theory. What has the Old Catholic theory yet done to win Dissenters to the English Church? What does our author, what does Dr. Pusey, what do all the eulogists and advocates of this baseless ideal, in their hearts, believe it will do? We differ widely from our author in much that he has written; but we are sure that every Christian, of every conceivable name, will heartily agree with him in, and thank him for, his concluding words :

"If even united worship be too much to hope for, if we must still—

on God's own day of peace and reunion and brotherly love-go apart from one another, and 'forsake the assembling of ourselves together,' if the divisions of Christendom touch us with no compunction, and the threatening array of vice and infidelity touch us with no fear; then there is nought else to do but to do but to hope for and pray for and labour for a return of that great tide of Christian love which may lift us all once more to higher levels, and flood our oozy creeks and separate harbours with the desire and with the means of intercommunion once more. And then we may smile to see how long and how strangely we misunderstood each other, we may weep to perceive how wicked and unchristian were many things in which we thought we were 'doing God service.' And we may determine that no future dissensions shall ever attain the fatal growth which past disputes have attained; or ever hereafter blot from view those golden words of old prophetic inspiration, Behold, how good and joyful a thing it is, brethren, to dwell together in UNITY."

A PLEA FOR THE BLIND.

HAVING frequently been earnestly requested by the Blind to bring some of their peculiar thoughts and wishes before the public mind, we feel that conscience forbids silence on this important subject. Our hope is, that a greater amount of active benevolence and sympathy than has hitherto been exhibited towards them may result from the publication of our remarks.

The philanthrophist, did he turn his attention in this direction, would be startled to find how numerous are those dwellers in a land of darkness, enduring for the most part their many ills with exemplary patience. The most careless would reap their reward in the heartfelt gratitude of these unmurmuring sufferers for efforts made in their behalf; for the smallest word kindly spoken, and the slightest opportunity afforded for an interchange of ideas, is not wasted upon the Blind.

A few general observations respecting the Blind, as a preface, may not be uninteresting.

The history of the Blind, as far as it is known, is very similar in most countries. Excepting in America and France, and perhaps one or two other continental countries, they are left entirely to the small and fitful efforts of private individuals and voluntary charity. We in England have remained more apathetic than foreigners in our duties towards the Blind. But we are not the only delinquents. Mr. Whiteside, in his "Italy in the Nineteenth Century" (p. 70), writes thus:

"Let me stop in my translation to observe how astonishing it is,

that in many other parts of Italy, as in Tuscany, no Institutions exist for the reception of the most miserable and helpless of mankind-the blind! The national benevolence is misapplied, and charity frequently mistakes the objects of her choice; vice is encouraged by Foundling Hospitals, while the blind are abandoned to mendicancy and despair."

Dr. Myers seemed also much struck with the wretched state of the Blind in that country, where superstition reigns supreme; the poor and helpless are kept in a state of ignorance and degradation closely resembling that of the heathen. As an instance, he relates his impression of the probable thoughts and feelings of a blind beggar, whom he saw daily standing in a public promenade waiting for alms.

"The blind beggar stood, leaning against a wall, hearing the pattering of feet passing by, but no one stopping to render him any assistance. He saw not the kind looks cast upon him by some of the more tender-hearted--he knew not what deep regrets were felt by others owing to their inability to bestow aidpossibly longing to give, but not having the means, their last coin just spent very likely on some trifling bauble. The blind man imagines himself neglected, scorned, and hated by all men; his heart feels chilled beneath that hot sun; he is seized with despair, for he thinks that he only is uncared for and isolated in that city of palaces-that he must starve whilst others wrap themselves up in their luxuries."

But did his pangs of mind end here? Was there no vision before his mind? Sick wife, and naked children crying aloud for the food he has not to bring home? And, alas! worst of all, he was taught to place his hopes in the Virgin Mary, instead of our Blessed Redeemer, and to pray to wood and stone, and to dead men who cannot help him. The consciousness arises that all which his priests have told him is but lies and mockery; he curses them, himself, and his fate, and becomes an infidel!

Tangible proofs of kindness, then, are requisite towards the Blind. The electric flash of sympathy piercing through the eye is lost upon them; therefore we must lay our hand upon their shoulder-we must speak, and give to the Blind.

In some parts of the East, Syria for instance, blindness is considered as coming so directly from the hand of God, that the natives say it is wrong to show them any mercy, as though they would thereby frustrate the intentions of providence. They therefore persecute them in every possible manner; so co-operating with the Divine will, and doing that which is well pleasing in God's sight. They chase them away from towns or villages; boys hunt and pelt them with stones, they are forced to take refuge in the surrounding solitary places; they are to be seen crouching behind ruins, or sharing the