the Communion book was published in 1548, but not the Liturgy. The first book was published in the year 1549, the second in the year 1552. The man who could be guilty of such a blunder on such a subject is not competent to be a guide and director of others, as he professes to be in the article from which the preceding extracts have been taken. Let his assertions on all other subjects be carefully examined before they are credited.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON AND THE CHURCHWARDENS OF ware.

We have already expressed our opinion that the laity would not trouble themselves to oppose the return to all the directions of the Church, if they were not secretly supported by clergymen of loose principles and inconsistent conduct. At Ware the churchwardens have ventured to address the Bishop of London on certain customs observed by the clergyman in the performance of divine service. They have chosen, too, to designate these customs as innovations and unauthorized practices, though, with one exception-turning to the east-they are all positively enjoined by the rubrics, and consequently are obligatory on the clergy. At Shoreditch, also, the most scandalous scenes have taken place in the church, under the pretence of opposing Puseyism; though, with perhaps the single exception above alluded to, the clergy merely complied with the directions of the Church. For the laity to interfere with the clergy, so as to dictate to them how they are to conduct public worship, appears to us to be a species of tyranny to which no one can possibly submit. It is unbecoming too, on the part of the laity, to interfere in a province which does not belong to them, and which is entirely under the control of the laws and of the ordinary. But that a set of men at Ware and at Shoreditch should call certain rubrical injunctions "innovations," surprises us : and we should be still more surprised, did we not know that certain disaffected clergymen are at the bottom of the whole affair. We think that the Bishop of London adopted the only course which, under the circumstances, was open to his lordship. It would not be possible to continue a correspondence with men who could so far forget themselves as to publish his lordship's letters without his permission. As long as the clergy comply with the directions of the Church, the bishop cannot interfere; and we are quite sure that the Bishop of London will not attempt to stop practices which are enjoined, even though they may have been disused in some places. If the laity in some parishes are so sensitive on certain points, how is it that they are not equally so in cases where clergymen mutilate the services, and violate

their vows by gross rubrical irregularities? The men of Ware and of Shoreditch, who are so extremely sensitive in this matter, and who wish to abide by the customs of their fathers, never venture to complain of those clergymen who violate the injunctions of the Church by altering the services. Their consciences are very tender, but only on certain points. The bishops and clergy must not swerve from their purpose in consequence of such representations. Let the parties threaten to quit the Church if they please. The very threat proves that their Churchmanship is questionable; for no man could desert his principles because a clergyman complies with the letter of the rubric. To such men it is a matter of indifference whether they attend the church or the conventicle; and we feel sure that it is perfectly indifferent to them whether they quit the Church or remain within her pale. It is perhaps better in every way that they should leave the Church altogether, than profess to remain in her communion, while they secretly hate her ordinances.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.

The bill for the regulation of these courts was not carried through Parliament, consequently the law remains unaltered. That certain alterations are necessary we freely admit, but we could not approve of the changes contemplated by the bill which was introduced in the last session. We rejoice, therefore, that it was not passed into a law. The changes were of too sweeping and too radical a description. In these days of change, it behoves the friends of the Church to proceed with all possible caution. Any extensive alteration in the structure of our ecclesiastical polity would lead to still more radical changes. Indeed, it would be impossible to stop if the work of destruction were commenced. In all probability, a measure of ecclesiastical reform will be introduced in the next session; but we trust that it will be of such a character as to commend itself to all the friends of the Church. Into the particulars of the measure of the last session we need not enter. We notice the subject for the purpose of keeping awake the attention of the public; for we may rest assured that the supporters of the views contemplated by the recent measure will be ready to introduce another, not materially different, unless the friends of the Church are on their guard. Let it be our object not to be taken by surprise next session. We could, indeed, wish that some ecclesiastical lawyer in Parliament would prepare a bill to submit to the two Houses as early as possible after they are assembled, for we think that a sound and safe measure of ecclesiastical reform could easily be carried.

CHURCH SOCIETIES.

Nothing can furnish a stronger reply to the assertion, that the Church is not the Church of the majority of the nation, than the state of our various societies. Vast sums of money are annually raised by Churchmen, and expended in Church objects. The erection of churches and schools may be marked in every direction. Two points, therefore, are clear-the one, that much money is raised by Churchmen for churches and schools; the other, that the people are ready to attend the one and to send their children to the other. Were the Church unpopular, as various Dissenting organs pretend, we should see empty churches and empty schools; but the reverse of this state of things is the case. But besides the sums raised by the Church for home or domestic purposes, a very large amount is collected for various foreign objects. The voluntary subscriptions of Churchmen constitute a very large annual amount; and we appeal to these contributions as an evidence of the falsehood of those who assert that the Church of England is declining.

We take this opportunity of strongly recommending to all our readers, especially to the clergy, Mr. Sinclair's circular in behalf of the National Society. It is most important to support this Society, since it is, and must be, the great instrument of Church education throughout the country.

All our societies are in a flourishing condition; and though so many fresh objects for pecuniary aid are continually presenting themselves, yet the old institutions are not only supported, but supported with increasing zeal and energy. It is quite refreshing to contemplate the great works which are accomplished by the voluntary contributions of the members of the Church of England. May the divine blessing rest upon our societies! May they be eminently instrumental in diffusing the knowledge of eternal life both at home and abroad.

THE BISHOP OF CALCUTTA AND THe bishop of LONDON.

In our last number we stated, as a fact, that the Bishop of Calcutta had printed the charge of the Bishop of London, for circulation among the clergy of his diocese. We found afterwards that the circumstance was also mentioned in the Christian Observer, in which the matter was treated with candour and liberality. Since our last, various letters have appeared on this subject; the writer of which, in addition to the fact above-mentioned, states, that he had seen a letter from the Bishop of Calcutta, in which his lordship expresses his approval of the sentiments of the charge. This was, it appears, communicated to the Record,

because a series of attacks had been circulated in that paper against the Bishop of London. The writer very naturally thought that a paper, professing to be conducted on Christian principles, would readily give insertion to a letter containing a statement which, if incorrect, would easily have been disproved. In this reasonable expectation, however, as we learn from the letters which were subsequently published, he was disappointed. After some time, the Record reluctantly admitted the fact, that the Bishop of Calcutta had reprinted the charge; but it asserted that his lordship's views of the charge were similar to their own. The writer then addressed a second letter to the Record, stating that he had seen a second letter from the Bishop of Calcutta, written three months after the former, and re-asserting his lordship's approval of the course taken by the Bishop of London. This was unnoticed by the Record, and the letters were published elsewhere. The Record then, in its answers to correspondents, alluded to the letters without alluding to their publication, stating that they could not publish statements on anonymous authority; and adding, that the Bishop of Calcutta had cautioned the clergy of Islington against such innovations as were recommended by the Bishop of London. In reply to this statement, another letter was sent to the Record, in which it was stated that the Bishop of Calcutta had spoken in the strongest terms of approbation of the charge of the Bishop of London, on those very points which were condemned by the Record, and that it was impossible to imagine that his lordship had given any such caution to the Islington clergy. We give the purport as far as we remember it, for we have not the letter in our possession. This letter, however, was refused by the Record, and it was printed in the Morning Post.

Now let our readers mark the dishonesty of the whole proceeding. The Record had made many attacks on the Bishop of London, and had quoted the names of such persons as were calculated to give weight to their opinions. The Bishop of Calcutta expresses his approval of the charge: the fact is made known to the Record, in the hope that the editor would gladly allow his readers to know the opinion of Bishop Wilson; but still the insertion is refused, and the supporters of that paper, who were not likely to have seen the letters elsewhere, were permitted to remain in ignorance of a fact which, from the character of the individual alluded to, would have very materially influenced many of the parties who had formed their views of the charge from the Record's statements. Let us suppose Bishop Wilson had pursued an opposite course, and had condemned, instead of approving of the charge; can any one

that

doubt that the Record would have been the foremost to quote his authority against the Bishop of London? The refusal, therefore, to insert the letters, after so many ungenerous attacks, was most unjust, and consequently unchristian. Nothing could furnish stronger evidence of the prejudices and party feeling of this religious newspaper. To suppress facts, which may tend to set the public mind right respecting a man whom we have injured, is a crime of no small magnitude.

But where are the Record's proofs that the Bishop of Calcutta has cautioned the clergy of Islington against the practices recommended by the Bishop of London? We deny the thing altogether. The Bishop of Calcutta has not called the practices recommended in the charge innovations; neither has he cautioned the Islington clergy against compliance. We defy the Record to the proof. The assertions of a paper, however, which can suppress the truth, are of very little value. With respect to the Record's assertions in this matter, we can state that they are untrue. We know, on the best authority, that the Bishop of Calcutta has approved most cordially of the charge. Had he not approved, indeed, he must have been little better than a madman to print the obnoxious charge for circulation among his own clergy. We will add only one other remark, namely, that in our estimation the opinion of the Bishop of Calcutta would have more weight with the reflecting portion of the community, than that of the Record. So thought the editor, or he would never have refused to do an act of strict justice.

General Literature.

Of the Moral Principle of the Atonement; also of Faith: and of its two sorts, Conviction and Confidence; and of the connexion between them. By the Rev. JOHN PENROSE, M.A. London: Fellowes. 1843.

MUCH praise is due to any theological writer who brings the doctrine of the Atonement prominently forward, especially in these days, when so many attempts have been made to keep it in the background. Reserve in preaching, commonly so called; or, in other words, the drawing a veil over the cardinal doctrine of our faith, has been the great error into which the new Oxford school has fallen: and perhaps this has got them more enemies and opposers than any new opinions they may have endeavoured to circulate. The true Christian will not have his