retreat was impossible. We believe, then, that the measures of the Whigs which were directed against the Church have tended very materially to strengthen her, and to plant her still more deeply in the affections of the people. No thanks to the Whigs. They intended evil, but their attacks were overruled for good. The country was aroused; and though Papists, Dissenters, and Radicals raised a great outcry, yet they could not arrest the progress of the movement in favour of the Church.

Since the year 1830, therefore, the Church has been steadily advancing. The people of this country are not prepared to quit her communion for the ranks of Dissent. They know that Dissent is unscriptural, and contrary to the primitive pattern. The great bulk of the community will always adopt sound and scriptural views on Church matters, whatever may be the case with a mere section of the population. The enemies of the Church may make a great noise, but they will never be able to bring over the people to their own views.

During the last twelve or fourteen years there has been a very extensive diffusion of sound and consistent views on the government, constitution, discipline, and ceremonies of the Church. The efforts of the Whigs to weaken and destroy the Church led her friends to examine afresh her claims; and the result was a conviction that she was apostolical in her constitution, as well as in her doctrines. Hence the determination to resist innovation, and to preserve inviolate our ecclesiastical institutions.

What, then, are the Church's prospects? In our opinion, they are of the most cheering description. Notwithstanding the clouds which sometimes arise to darken the horizon, we have no fears whatever respecting the issue of the contest which is now going on between the Church and her opponents. She has advanced under the most trying circumstances, even under Whig ascendancy, which was employed against her; and, therefore, we may reasonably anticipate a continual progression, now that the Government are her friends. We expect to see her making her way against Popery and Dissent with still greater rapidity. The religion of Dissent is now extinct, or nearly so; and Dissenters have no creed except a political one; consequently there is no comfort in their system for the poor and the distressed-for those who have nothing to look for in this world; but, on the contrary, the Church holds out the prospect of support, of consolation in trouble, in poverty, in affliction, and the hope of a glorious immortality beyond the grave. The clergy, as the ministers of the Church, are the friends of the poor. To them the needy can look in their distress; nor will

any efforts on the part of Dissenters shake the confidence of the great mass of the people in an order of men who have been tried and not found to be wanting in the day of trial.

We therefore assert that the Church's prospects are cheering. At the same time, we must caution our readers against lukewarmness or listlessness. They must not imagine, because the Church has prospered under circumstances of an unpromising character, that no exertions are necessary on their part. The enemies of the Church are all activity; and the ground which was gained by Dissent during the twenty or thirty years previous to the passing of the Reform Bill, was gained, not so much by the energies of Dissenters as by the apathy of Churchmen. Activity, therefore, is a duty. Every member of the Church must feel that he has something to do-that a task is committed to him and that inactivity would be sinful, and a desertion of a sacred cause. He must resolve to do something for the Church in that station in which he has been placed by the providence of Almighty God. Every man is the centre of a circle, larger or smaller, according to his situation, over which he has considerable influence; and it is his solemn duty to use that influence in favour of the Church. Let this rule be observed by all her members, and it will not be possible for Dissent or Popery to injure the Church of England. If ever the Church is injured, the evil will arise more from the indifference of her members, than from the hostile attacks of her enemies.

CHURCH EXTENSION.

We have given our opinion respecting the Church's prospects. We have pointed out the necessity of exertion on the part of her friends; and one of the means to be used is Church Extension. Our readers are aware that the building of churches and the appointment of clergymen are comprehended in the object of Church Extension. Our manufacturing districts have an overwhelming population, which must, unless churches are erected, be left a prey to infidelity or dissent. Her Majesty's Government are alive to the importance of the question. A scheme, as our readers know, was sanctioned by Parliament during the last Session, by which certain revenues, accruing from the suppression of certain canonries and prebendal stalls, are to be devoted to the support of additional clergymen. A considerable sum will also be raised by private liberality. But we view the measure as most important, inasmuch as it is the commencement only of a great work, which can never be left unfinished. As Parliament has sanctioned the plan, it will not be possible, at a future day, to refuse a public grant, in order that the scheme

may be completed. It is not our intention, at present, to dwell at length on this important subject. We shall wait a little, until the measure is carried into effect, and then it will be our business to submit the various details to the notice of our readers. In the meantime, we urge upon all the members of the Church the duty of constantly keeping the object in view, and of raising funds by all means in their power in support of the measure. After private liberality has been tried, it will scarcely be possible to refuse a public grant.

THE EPISCOPAL FUNCTIONS BILL.

This bill, we believe, originated in the state of the diocese of Bath and Wells, the bishop having for a considerable period been prevented from attending to his episcopal functions. It was necessary to devise some means for securing a due performance of episcopal duties in that important diocese; and hence the present bill, which will be applicable to any see, when circumstances may render it necessary.

We do not hesitate to avow our sorrow that the bill should have been passed; for we are of opinion that the archbishop could have interfered, and have appointed one of his suffragans to administer the affairs of the diocese, without resorting to Parliamentary interference. We do not like Parliamentary legislation in such matters. If Parliament interferes in one case, what is to prevent the same interference in another? The Church has its own legislature; and if any new regulations or rules are necessary, they should be framed in that assembly, and not in Parliament. Our objection, therefore, lies against the principle of Parliament interfering; and we are fearful of the measure as a precedent. It appears to us to be a most objectionable course to resort to Parliament on all occasions. In many of the cases in which Parliamentary legislation has been called in, the law, as it stood, was sufficient for the purpose. Such we conceive to have been the case with respect to the end contemplated by the present bill. And the necessity, in other instances, of procuring Parliamentary authority, shows the greater necessity of allowing the Church to legislate for herself by means of her own Convocation. We hope that our bishops will unite in a representation to the Crown to permit the Convocation to assemble, in order that the necessary laws may be enacted in that assembly, which alone possesses authority to legislate in Church matters. We say that the Convocation alone possesses such authority, and we make the assertion with a full knowledge of what we are saying. Of course we know full well that the authority of Parliament cannot be resisted; but still we

contend, that the constitution recognizes the Convocation, and that, by the constitution, Church matters are to be settled in Synod, rather than in Parliament.

Having stated our objections to the principle on which the bill rests (for we have no objection to its provisions), we proceed to give a brief account of the measure. In the first place, it is provided, that when an archbishop (or in the case of the archbishop, the Lord Chancellor) has reason to believe that any one of his suffragans is unable, by mental incapacity, to discharge the functions of his office, it shall be lawful for him to issue a commission to enquire into the state of such bishop's mind, and to make a report to the metropolitan. After the report, the archbishop is authorized to appoint another bishop, of the same province, to superintend the affairs of the see of the prelate who has been declared to be incompetent. But as there are many things in a diocese which may be executed by commission, and are not peculiar to the episcopal office, the bill enacts, that it shall be lawful for the acting bishop and the archbishop to nominate a spiritual person, who shall attend to those duties, which may be performed by a clergyman. To the person thus appointed, one-sixth, or a sum not exceeding one-sixth, of the income of the see is to be assigned, out of which are to be defrayed the expenses incurred by the acting hishop, in his necessary attendance in the diocese for confirmation, ordination, and the consecration of churches. There will, of course, be an appeal from the spiritual person to the bishop appointed, and to the archbishop, in all cases in which parties may feel dissatisfied. The remainder of the income of the see will necessarily belong to the family of the diocesan. Such is a brief sketch of the main provisions of the bill. In itself we see no objection whatever. Our objections lie solely to the principle of appealing to Parliament for authority to do what we believe might have been settled by the archbishop, or what, supposing there was no provision for such a case, should be settled in an ecclesiastical assembly.

CHURCH AUTHORITY.

During the last session the Archbishop of Dublin presented a petition in the House of Lords, praying that some power might be created to which all Church questions might be referred for settlement. As we understood his Grace, he did not himself care one way or the other about the Convocation: he was only anxious that some authority should exist by whom doubtful points might be decided. His Grace contended that ecclesiastical matters could not be permitted to remain in their

present state. We gather, too, that the Archbishop sees the inconsistency of allowing all Church matters to be settled in Parliament. On this point he and ourselves are agreed. At the same time he is not anxious for the revival of the Church's lawfully constituted assembly; but he will be satisfied with any other plan which will secure to the Church a power of acting and deciding in cases of doubt aud difficulty. His Grace did not even hint at any particular plan: he merely pointed out the necessity of doing something. The Bishop of Salisbury, however, spoke plainly on the occasion. We are grateful to his lordship for directing the attention of the house to a power or authority already in existence, possessing all the requisites alluded to by the Archbishop of Dublin, but which is not permitted to act, namely, the Convocation. His lordship remarked that no other assembly was necessary. He also alluded to the objections usually urged against the revival of the Convocation, showing that they were of no weight whatever. It appears to us that an objection might just as well be raised against Parliaments. It is urged, that when the Convocation met last for business, the two houses could not agree, and that the members spent their time in disputes. Now certainly, whatever may have been the errors of Convocation in this respect, the disputes were not to be compared with those which occur every Session within the walls of Parliament. It will, however, be replied, admitting the truth of this statement-we cannot help having a Parliament, since the business of the State could not be carried on without it. We grant all this; but who does not see, that while the civil legislature is necessary for the State, the ecclesiastical legislature is as necessary for the Church? We trust, then, that the views entertained by the Bishop of Salisbury may be entertained by the Bench of Bishops, and that they will make such a representation to the Crown as to cause the assembling of Convocation. That Parliamentary interference will become common, unless such is the case, we are convinced; for every year, in the present state of the Church, some new measure is necessary, and this is settled in Parliament, instead of a Synod. Our hope is, that the clergy will bestir themselves-that they will see the necessity of action; and that they will not shut their eyes to the danger of allowing all Church matters to be settled in Parliament, instead of being arranged in the lawful assembly, which undoubtedly is THE CONVOCATION!

THE EDUCATION BILL.

It is not our intention to go over the ground which we have so frequently trodden respecting this bill. Our object is simply