It is in the brief account of the accomplishment of this command that we meet with the record of the end of Balaam the soothsayer. Armed in battle against that very people on whom his unwilling tongue had pronounced blessings, when he would fain have uttered curses, and thus presenting a strange and awful contrast to that end which he had so emphatically invoked on his own behalf, Balaam fell in the slaughter of Midian, and perished amongst the enemies of the God of Israel. “And” (we read in Numbers xxxi. 8) “they slew the Kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian ; Balaam also, the son of Beor, they slew with the sword.” Disobedience to the Divine commands must, in all cases, be fraught with imminent danger, and, unless repented of and forsaken, must issue in misery and in destruction. But disobedience in conjunction with hypocrisy, spiritual wickedness veiled under the garb of religious profession, and rendered doubly heinous by the possession of clearer light and of higher privileges,—this is that sin which is pre-eminently calculated to provoke God's heaviest and most signal punishments, even the wrath of God manifested in a signal manner upon such children of disobedience. This is that sin of which St. Peter and St. Jude speak in terms of the strongest and most vehement reprobation. Its wretched victims are described as having “forsaken the right way," as “having gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness." They are “wells without water," “ clouds that are carried with a tempest," “ trees whose fruit withereth,” “raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame," " wandering stars to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.” And, finally, as if to impress yet deeper the momentous lessons taught by the history of Balaam upon the Church of all succeeding generations, the book with which the inspired canon is closed contains, in the epistle addressed to the Church of Smyrna, this solemn admonition :“I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, * which thing I hate.” (Rev. of St. John, ii. 14, 15.) The name of the Nicolaitanes seems name to them, but as designed to apply to point to a similar origin with that of to those who, like Balaam, seduce the Balaam. It is probably not to be un people of God to their destruction, derstood as designating the followers of the conquerors, or destroyers of the a particular person who transmitted his people.” Remarks on the Agitation consequent on the Judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Hebbert v. Purchas. By J. C. Robertson, M.A., Canon of Canterbury. London : Butterworth. 1871. The name of the author of this Pamphlet is well known in connection with questions of Ritual, and of Ecclesiastical Antiquities. His Church History has an established reputation ; and his work, “How shall we Conform to the Liturgy,” first published some thirty years ago, and recently republished with additions, is one of the most learned and accurate manuals on the questions of church ornament and ceremonial that form the subject of dispute at the present day. It is satisfactory to find such a writer coming forward at this moment, and we hope that his pamphlet will be widely read. His immediate object is to deal with so much of the recent decision as relates to the place of the minister in consecrating the elements, and he unhesitatingly .supports the view taken by the Judicial Committee. He shows that Wren, Laud, and Cosin cannot be fairly cited as treating the question as one of principle, inasmuch as we have their own express assertions, that when they stood on the west side of the Table, they did so merely from motives of convenience. Besides all these authorities date from a time previous to the Rubric being put into its present form, and have therefore no weight in its interpretation. On the other hand, a passage is cited from Gauden in 1681, who is a good witness as to the way in which the Rubric was understood when first framed, and who seems clearly to intimate that the manual acts took place in the sight of the people. Ritualists always argue as if the words “ before the Table” must mean before the long side of it, but that the words were deemed susceptible of another sense, and were capable of meaning before any side of it, seems to us to follow from a Rubric which Canon Robertson quotes from the Non-jurors' Prayer Book, viz. : “ Note, that whenever in this office the priest is directed to turn to the altar, or to stand or kneel before it, or with his face towards it, it is always meant that he should stand or kneel on the north side thereof." We do not say that “ before the table” necessarily means “ before the north side,” but that it may so mean seems evi. dent from this Rubric. For to direct that words should be always and exclusively taken to mean what it is grammatically VOL 70.-No. 401. 3 E that they to be impids" before the that the selves ambithen, the wordsed to any body of umsy phrase. co impossible that they can mean, would be such clumsy phraseology as ought not to be imputed to any body of men without cause. While, then, the words “ before the table” are in themselves ambiguous, the words “ before the people,” in the same Rubric, are unambiguous. The result is, that the unambiguous words must rule the ambiguous, and govern the construction of the clause. Such a sense must be placed on “ before the table” as makes it consistent with the manual acts being done“ before the people," and not with the back turned to them. In respect to these latter words, Canon Robertson pertinently says, – “If the words 'before the people' meant only that the priest himself should be in sight, while his acts could not be seen, it is impossible to say why they should have been inserted, since it has never been the custom of the Western Church that the priest should be out of sight.” (p. 8, note.) At the close of his pamphlet, he deals briefly with the outcry which has been raised against the Judicial Committee as a Tribunal for the decision of such questions, and draws attention to the fact, that the first precedent of an appeal to the Privy Council in matters of Ritual and Ceremonial was set by the Hon. and Rev. Robert Liddell in the well-known case of Liddell v. Westerton. And we may add, that, inasmuch as in that instance the Privy Council sanctioned the use of Credence Tables, and in one or two other not very important points mitigated the severity of Dr. Lushington and Sir J. Dodson, it was not uncommon to hear Ritualists at that time laud the superior learning and impartiality of the Supreme Court of Appeal. One thought, at all events, must, we should suppose, have occurred to the minds of many of us; viz., that the impetuous and reckless temper displayed by the clergy who dislike the recent Judgment, is such as to give rise to graver doubts than ever as to the propriety of entrusting an exclusively Clerical Tribunal with the power of deciding ecclesiastical disputes. Those of the clergy who desire to see their own order invested with such authority, will but defeat their own aim, until they can exhibit a more temperate and judicial frame of mind. But we must conclude. It is not our intention to write an article on the subject, but rather to draw attention to what has been written by Canon Robertson, whom our readers should study for themselves. POETRY. PASSION WEEK. With us to dwell ? Thy love to tell ? And pitying weep; We fall asleep. Our sins Thy shameful cross did rear,Pierced Thee with nails, and rending spear, And thorny crown ;- From sin alone. Our gain before ; “To die no more." EASTER. Through the grave's arch a glory poured, Where lay the body of the Lord, In strange repose. Earth quaked; the rock was rolled away, And in the calm of dawning day, Messiah rose. His grave before ; “To die no more.” ASCENSION. One quiet day, at sunset hour, Up to the sacred Olive bower, They climbed the slope; Sweet words of promise and of prayer, . Were heard upon the evening air, And songs of hope. Then with one look of sovereign grace, Smiled, and was gone. With hope move on. Far upward soar; " To die no more." A. E. MOULE. “ THINKEST THOU THAT I CANNOT NOW PRAY MY FATHER ?” The armies of the Heavenly hosts P. PERRING. NOTICES OF BOOKS. A Treatise on the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ. By William Stroud, M.D. Second Edition. London : Hamilton & Co. 1871.This book was written by a good man-one who, as we learn from the memoir prefixed, took an interest in every Christian and philanthropic movement. He was a member of the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society. We need not say, therefore, that it is written in a reverent spirit, wholly alien from the coarse and offensive speculations which now-a-days distress men's minds. The author brought to his task, on the testimony of his medical compeers, profound professional learning, and, what was quite as necessary for a right handling of the subject, an equally profound |