kingdom? We must really remind our readers that we are not pretending to answer all the charges brought forward, we are only attempting to suggest a few thoughts upon the several heads which may, we think, have force with some who will think them out for themselves. Well, then, if the recognition by the English communion of the Royal Supremacy un-churched it, of course it must have done so from the beginning. The Church of England, for example, was no Church under Queen Elizabeth. How is it then that this was not asserted by the Church of Rome at that epoch? The Council of Trent was sitting, the voice was speaking, yet on this most knotty point it uttered not a word. Nay, rather what Rome then did went far to recognise and admit the ecclesiastical existence of the English Church. The seventeenth session of the Council commenced January 18th, 1562, but previous to that meeting the Pope we read despatched a nuncio to Elizabeth, among other sovereigns, inviting her and the Bishops of the English Church to the Council. The queen forbade the messenger, the Abbot Jerome Martimengo, to enter the kingdom, nor could the intercession of the Spanish king and the Duke of Alva prevail on her to allow him to proceed. No Bishops of the Parker succession were at Trent, but the fact remains that they were summoned; there was nothing like an ignoring them and their dioceses by what Rome calls an œcumenical council. The Royal Supremacy had not then un-churched the Anglican body. Who, moreover, were they who first recognised this supremacy? Let us hear Mr. Pugin again :

"It was in a solemn convocation, when England's Churchmen were assembled, a reverend array of Bishops and abbots and dignitaries, in orphreyed copes and jewelled mitres. Harry is declared the supremum caput of England's Church: not by vox populi, but by the voice of the convocation the Church is sacrificed, the people are sacrificed, and the actors in this vile surrender are the true and lawful Bishops and clergy of England."

Did then the Church cease ipso facto from that moment? Were the thousands of faithful laity from that hour without the ordinances of Christianity in their integrity? Who would assert it? Then the adoption of the Royal Supremacy did not per se destroy the life of the Church. The Church at any rate lasted for a while in spite of it, and if for a while, how long? At what moment subsequently did the poison then imbibed prove fatal? Not surely in the time of Elizabeth, who refused the title of Head of the Church.

The charge of schism is closely connected with the question of the supremacy. Mr. Gordon affirms, "If there can be schism, there is schism between Rome and England. If schism can be proved against one party, the Church of England is the guilty party." In another passage he asks by whom she is to be judged, and concludes that it must be by her fellows and superiors in the Church, of which she claims to be a part. This is of course true, but

it is idle to go on and urge that the Church of Rome condemns her. Why, the Church of Rome is her accuser. The quarrel is between England and Rome. They are plaintiff and defendant. The judge is the Universal Church. Rome claims to be this, and if she be, there is of course an end of the matter, but if we are not yet Romanists, but only examining whether we ought to become so, we may not assume the Roman theory in the outset. We must endeavour to place ourselves in the position of a third party, and thence view the matter. Such a third party does chance to exist in the Greek Churches, and beyond a doubt THEY would not affirm our sacraments to be vitiated or our orders to be invalid through want of communion with Rome. It is indeed remarkable that Rome herself has failed to affirm the invalidity of all jurisdiction not derived from herself. A fierce discussion arose upon this subject in the twenty-second session of Trent, the legates of the reigning Pope endeavouring to carry the affirmation that Bishops made by other than Papal authority were not true Bishops. The attempt however was a signal failure. The eighth Canon upon Holy Orders simply anathematizes "those who deny that Bishops, qui auctoritate Romani pontificis assumuntur, are true and lawful Bishops." This of course is allowed. The converse proposition that all others are no Bishops was dropped. The council, that is, declined to assert the sole right of the Pope to commission an episcopate. Oddly enough, this is very analogous to the "moderation" of the preface to the English Ordinal, of which the Archbishop of Canterbury and his friends are now trying to make so much.

We have left ourselves small space to dwell upon that class of objections to our Church which are grounded upon her lack of much which we behold in other Churches, such as the practice of Daily Communion, or as Mr. Wilberforce terms it, the Daily Sacrifice, monastic orders, and the unction of the sick. The neglect of the first and disuse of the second are faults chargeable rather upon the lukewarmness of individuals than upon the Church itself. The Church of England provides for a Daily Communion; she has never said a word against the ascetic principle, nay, even in the heat of the Reformation she pleaded hard with the rapacious tyrant on the throne that her beautiful houses of religion might be spared. The disuse of the Apostolic practice of anointing the sick is some

1 We do not of course object to a term which has obtained such very general use. At the same time it is to be borne in mind that the celebration of the Holy Sacrament fails in one very important respect to correspond with that Institution which is by the use of the name assumed to be typical of it-we mean that it is not and may not be offered "morning and evening." Doubtless all the Church's Services are accepted for the sake of CHRIST's alone meritorious Sacrifice. And the object of the Blessed Sacrament is to plead CHRIST's merits. But if it is admitted, as of course it must be, by the Roman Catholic, that one single celebration in the course of the twenty-four hours is sufficient, there cannot, it would seem, be any reason in the nature of things why the effects of such celebration should be limited, to those who look in faith to it, to that precise period of time.

what different in its nature; but take the worst view of this point, assume it to be an institution designed to be permanent, and you may prove that the Church has sinned in dropping it; but you do not prove that she is unchurched thereby, and this, as we started with saying, must be demonstrated before secession can be justified. That this cannot be demonstrated we are thoroughly convinced. We have examined very cursorily a series of propositions which are considered to amount to a demonstration of it; but these propositions are not themselves proved. Romanists are divided on them. Whatever modern Roman Catholics may say and do, the Council of Trent never denied Anglican orders, whilst large schools within the Roman pale have publicly avowed their validity. That our position is one deeply to be regretted, severing us, as it does, from the residue of Christendom, is readily acknowledged, but the evil is not to be met by the wilful action of individuals. Extra ecclesia nullam salus. If the English Church is a fiction, let each man depart, there is nothing to retain him, but if she is one jot or tittle short of a fiction, we are bound to keep our posts. "Let patience have her perfect work."

We think it of immense importance that the main principle of the whole preceding argument should be prominently adduced upon all occasions; the principle we mean that before secession can be justified, a demonstration is necessary of the non-existence of the Anglican Church. We cannot conceal from ourselves the feeling that the "kings of the earth are standing up and the rulers taking council together" against Catholic doctrines and practices. There is, we believe, flowing primarily from the very highest quarters, a plan, systematically formed, and to be systematically worked out, for breaking down the wall of separation between the Church of England and the heterogeneous mass of Protestantism by which she is surrounded. The ministry of the day is not, we have reason to know, at all displeased at the increasing cry of Convocation. They will eventually give Convocation, but it will be when they have sufficiently drugged both the Upper and the Lower House. We are prepared, therefore, to see every vacant See and Deanery filled by latitudinarians, with now and then a rare exception, in order to deceive the public vigilance. The Dean of Bristol, a recent appointment, and who it is known counts confidently upon his mitre, has said, "that as to the Gorham case he did not feel very strongly upon it. The Bishop of Exeter was wrong, and Mr. Gorham was wrong, but the point in dispute was not material, the point of real consequence is the getting rid of the notion of a Priesthood." This is of course the essence of the German principle; that the clergy are simply the State's officers for performing ecclesiastical duties. The Queen's own alternate attendance upon the services of the Church and at the Presbyterian place of worship is a practical commentary upon the principle. We expect then, we

repeat, more and more opposition, increasing hatred on the part of civil functionaries, increasing scandals (as is to be feared) amongst ecclesiastical dignitaries, such as now at Canterbury and Bristol; and under all this our support will be in the principle we have laid down, that no practical deficiencies and backsliding can justify us in abandoning our posts. By the UTTER and palpable loss of the Faith, by the cessation of the Apostolical succession, or by the condemnation of the Universal Church, the decease of the Anglican branch must be demonstrated, before, as individuals, we may move away to another. In this article it need scarcely be said, we have been taking only the lowest ground-that of self-defence. We have been here speaking only, ex hypothesi, of difficulties; it would be easy of course, were we called to do so, to reverse the picture.

THE MANCHESTER EDUCATION SCHEMES.

1. Report of a Conversazione of the Friends and Promoters of the Manchester and Salford Education Bill, held in the Town Hall, Manchester, on Thursday Evening, 28th of August, 1851, and attended by upwards of 600 of the most wealthy and influential inhabitants of the two Boroughs; the Right Rev. the Bishop of Manchester in the Chair.

2. Remarks on the Manchester and Salford Local Education Bill. By W. ENTWISLE, ESQ. Manchester: Powlson and Son. 3. The Church and the School. Two Sermons preached in S. Peter's Church, Derby, on the Eleventh Sunday after Trinity, 1851; with Preface, containing Remarks upon the Manchester and Salford Scheme, &c., and Appendix, containing Outline of a Plan for combining State Assistance with Safety of Church Education, &c. By GEORGE ANTHONY DENISON, M.A., Vicar of East Brent. Masters: London.

IN our last number we alluded to the indications which have been given in various quarters of a desire to organize a system of national education through the instrumentality of the State. In this movement, passing over the indirect and stealthy essays of the Privy Council, Manchester has taken a very decided lead. Two plans, in fact, have emanated from that great centre of commercial activity. Of these the one which owes its origin to Messrs. Cobden and Bright, and which, with some slight modifications, has been taken up by a body of persons calling themselves the "Public Schools Association," has been for some time before the public. The fundamental principles on which this scheme rests are, that the education of the working classes must be materially extended

and improved; 2ndly, that this can only be secured by taxing property for the maintenance of free schools; and 3rdly, that seeing there exist such great diversities of religious opinions, the only feasible plan is to leave religion to other hands, and to confine the elementary public school to the inculcation of merely secular knowledge.

Now with reference to this plan we will at once admit that there is conceivable a state of society and Church discipline which might render it harmless. But from any such state we are at present unhappily as far as possible removed. The great majority of parents among the lower classes have neither the time, nor the ability, nor their desire even to instruct the children in religion. Neither has the Church any sufficient machinery, nor is she likely to prepare it, for supplying generally what would be wanting in such secular schools; nor would she be able to insist on its attainment at any subsequent period, as a condition, for example, of Confirmation, or first Communion. The result, therefore, could only be, that our juvenile population under such a system would grow up in a state as well of indifference as of ignorance in al! those points which it most concerned them to know. Even now is this result appearing in the United States of America. A recent number of the New York Herald contains this very alarming picture: "By the report of the Secretary of State, which has just been published, it appears that crime, during the last few years, has been increasing as regularly as our imports and exports, or the growth of our population. In ten years, we learn by this Report, crime has doubled in this State. We have seen various causes alleged for this deplorable result; but none of them, in our opinion, are satisfactory, or reach the root of the evil. We suspect very much that the important revolution which has taken place in our system of common school education, during the last few years, has materially increased juvenile delinquency, and crime of every degree. Under the impulses of philosophy and socialism, which have operated very much on our politicians, and on our elections, for the last fifteen years, the school system of this state has been constructed entirely on philosophical principles, without regard to religion, revelation, Christianity, or any of those doctrines on which human society is best founded. In fact, under the present system of education, all moral and religious instruction seems to be banished from our schools, and the education of the youthful mind is confined merely to its intellectual and material developments. Materialism that modern system of philosophy, which ignores a future life, and looks on revelation as a blank-has seized on our school system, and given a direction to all the youthful exercises of the day. The consequences of rearing the youthful generation on intellectual or material principles merely, without reference to revealed religion, or Christian morals, are beginning to be seen in the ex