No. 10.-VOL. I.]

T

THE NEED OF MORE PARSONS.

HE undoubted and alarming falling off in the calibre of candidates for ordination is remarkable enough, as every Bishop's chaplain could point out, if he would; now we have a further and rather startling falling off in their numbers. A few archdeacons, with unusual mathematical capacities, and by the artful arrangement of puzzling calculations, have been endeavouring to show that there is no falling off either in numbers or calibre at all; and air their questionable statements with an official jauntiness and obvious self-satisfaction, which, to say the least, is bold. To take a recent and notable example of our own convictions, however: -At the Bishop of Durham's Trinity Ordination, (an unusually large one, as regards numbers) twelve priests and twenty-two deacons were admitted to their respective offices. Of the former, only four were graduates from Oxford and Cambridge, while, of the twenty-two deacons, only three hold that position-the rest appear to be literates of one sort or another. There are eleven from St. Bees' and St. Aidan'sa tolerable indication of the changed state of affairs, and of the truth of a Conservative contemporary's timely wail. The same state of affairs is apparent in more than half the dioceses of England and Wales-as a careful study of the current Ecclesiastical Gazette will serve to point out; and this, notwithstanding the large show which the Theological Colleges of Wells, Lichfield, Chichester, Lincoln, Cuddesdon and Salisbury make in each list of the newly-ordained.

But even our old Conservative friend the English Churchman (which, with painstaking care, represents the stupidity of the party) sees the danger and utters a spasmodic squeak. Here it is "The Trinity List is painfully discouraging, for not only is the actual addition as shown by the number of deacons ordained below that of the year 1875, but it is also below the average of the last ten years. This is an ominous fact, and suggests food for thought, not only for the Bishops, who will doubtless take it seriously into account, but also for Churchmen generally. Such a state of affairs ought not to be permitted to exist for an instant without some effort to remedy the evil, and, difficult as it may be to suggest the form of the remedial measure, there ought to be no delay in providing."

Later on the "brilliant thinker" who penned these lines, gives it his opinion that men stand aloof from offering themselves for the ministry of the Established Church because, forsooth, "the assistant Clergy are unrepresented in Convocation"!!! Either this week-kneed scribe is a literary wag, (and he is unaware of the fact) or he obviously dwells in perfect and admirable serenity, within a Fool's Paradise. The real reasons why young men hold back from ordination are, firstly, that the once freehold and secure position of a beneficed clergyman is now gone, for he is at the mercy of any three sham-aggrieved parishioners. As the well-known squib

has it

Any three self-selected rap-rascals

Can now settle what Parsons shall teach-
Cat's meat-mongers, cadgers and costers,-
Brought by Tait to help stop up the breach.

And, secondly, because the spiritual jurisdiction of all the Bishops has-at their own particular request-been formally placed in the hands of Lord Penzance. Young men, who are neither idiots nor infidels, are not likely, with their eyes open, to put themselves in an official position, where they will have to take their faith and practice from an ex-divorce judge, who, by the august authority of a non-Christian Parliament, masquerades at Lambeth Palace in the cast-off gown of a now non-existing Dean of Arches. Idiots, if allowed by their keepers, might do so; but no person in his senses would contemplate

[PRICE THREEPENCE.

the occupation of such a thankless and unsatisfactory position. The statistics which we recently gave from Oxford and Cambridge, on the first-hand authority of College Heads and Tutors, as to the large number of youths who came up to those Universities intending to take orders, and who, having gone through their course and taken their degrees, went home The Public again with altered intentions, are ominous. Worship Regulation Act of Dr. Tait is doing its work well: not, however, by the action of Primate Penzance, who is doing nothing at all but pocketing his large pay for doing nothing (squeezed out of the charitable Funds of Queen Anne's Bounty,) but in efficiently cutting off the "due supply of persons qualified to serve God in the Church."

CASTING OUT THE CHILDREN OF THE POOR.

EOPLE who purposely decline to walk in "the old paths are, with over-confident self-satisfaction, certain to mark out some very rugged ruts for their own personal perambulations. In the Church of England, where the Catholic tradition, having been broken, has had to be gathered up and reunited, people would have done well to have asked themselves whether new inventions of their own imagining were likely to be of the same inherent value to put into practice queer ideas, "convenient arrangements," as tried customs of the living Church, before they presumed

and ritual-inventions of their own interior fancy.

66

for Policemen," "Special Services for Monthly Nurses," These novel crotchets stand out in the "Special Services Special Services for Soldiers," Working-Men," and "Special Services for Children," which Special Services for Soldiers," "Special Services for have been recently tried, and about which such a canting fuss is often made at Congresses and elsewhere by the chattering popularity-hunters. Why, let us ask, should Policemen, Monthly Nurses, Soldiers, Working-Men, and

Children be marked off from the rest of the Christian

Family? Moreover, why should they need Special Services any more than Lawyers, Peers, Pianoforte-makers, or Pastrycooks? If the restless Anglican parsons, who seem to be always on the look-out for something new, would only run in the old groove, walk in the old paths, and-where they for it-they might do more good by a humble and respectful don't know the way, seek for the grace and sense to enquire following of ancient precedents (never dropped in the Roman Communion,) than by continually making new ones for themselves and their long-suffering flocks. An Early Communion at 8 a.m. for communicants; with Matins and High Celebration at 11 for worship, promptly and vigorously sung -with a short sermon after the Creed-are services at which everybody of every class, duly instructed, can obtain all they need. Here the child can be taught to be as much at home as the old woman, the Policeman as the Peer, the Working-Man as the gloved and Eau-de-Cologned exquisite.

We are led to make these remarks because of a most able pamphlet recently received by us,* in which we learn that a great and grievous injustice has been done, as well to the subscribers towards the building of St. Mary's, Brookfield, Highgate, as to the poor children of that parish. Mr. William Ford, a gentleman of energy, principle, and zeal, has done battle for those whom so many parsons talk about but quietly neglect. Mr. George S. Ram, the Vicar of this church, seems to be as resolute in disallowing the presence of the children during Divine Service, as Mr. Ford is in maintaining his position of their right to be present. Mr. Ram,

* St. Mary's, Brookfield: Correspondence with the Bishop of London, on the Denial of the Right of the School Children of the Poorer Classes to attend Public Worship. London: Ridgway, 1876.

appears, has a sort of "Service" for them at the school, where sitting, shuffling of feet, and screaming of hymns are, possibly, the good deeds done-a fine mode of breeding irreverence, want of care and love for church, and a totally false notion of what Christian worship is. Here is Mr. Ford's complaint:"Churchmen are invited to consider whether it is right and fitting that the children of the poor should be treated differently from other children. Are those children because they are poor to be deprived of the spiritual privileges, universally accorded to the children, of both sexes and all ages, of parents in easy circumstances? Is Poverty to operate as a ban, to be kept out of sight, and relegated to Services conducted by a Sunday-school teacher in a schoolroom, while Affluence is accommodated with services conducted in churches and chapels by a Clergyman? Unless we are prepared to treat the younger boys at Eton, Harrow, Bradfield, Highgate, Rugby, Uppingham, and a score of other places, in this manner, we have no right to exclude the children of the poor, entrusted to us by their parents, from Services in church. Is not this 'respect of persons' a phase of that unchristian spirit denounced and condemned by St. James?"

This forms part of the "Preface" to the Correspondence in question. In one of his Letters to the Bishop of London, Mr. Ford asks the following pertinent questions and makes the forcible remarks which we quote:-"Your Lordship speaks of 'Sunday weariness.' You must be well aware that there has been reason enough for it in past time on the part of school children everywhere. They have been stowed away in lofty western galleries, so precipitously arranged as to be positively dangerous, on seats without backs, with no provision for, nor possibility of kneeling, without Prayer Books, with drearily conducted services, and with everything to promote discomfort and weariness. To crown all, this inevitable 'weariness' has been treated by the school teachers as a crime, and punished with severity. And now that we are arranging our churches to receive the lambs of Christ's flock with a warm and kindly welcome, they are at St. Mary's, Brookfield, and as your Lordship tells me, in other cases, being banished from their Father's house. Surely this is a new fact in the history of the Church. What hope can there be for the future, if children, because they are poor, are to be treated as unworthy and unfit to participate in the privileges to which they were admitted at Baptism? If this custom is to be allowed, we are simply playing into the hands of secularists, and are depriving children of their best chance of being trained as members of Christ's body."

At present it appears that Mr. Ford has not yet attained his point. Mr. Ram, who belongs to that estimable institution, the Church Association, is evidently gifted with the grace of pious obstinacy. He stands firm. Wrong is wrong; and he is not going to alter his line. Mr. Ford, however, having Justice and Right on his side, is sure to be successful ere long. Let him be patient and work on; we need not recommend him to be zealous, (for that is a quality obvious in all his Letters on the subject, here collected ;) let him not give up an inch in principle. He evidently knows where the strength of his position lies; and though he should be in a minority now, (which, after all, however, may not be the case,) depend upon it his labours will not be in vain. He is standing up for the sound principle that Christian Children (whether rich or poor) have rights, and that they ought not to be relegated to a school-room when God's House is their proper place for joining in Christian worship-in this case, a House of Sacrifice reared by charitable donations for their express and special behoof.

fast qualifying itself for the class of "extinct animals ;" and Parliament, reasonably competent, no doubt, to deal with Permissive Bills and Contagious Diseases Acts; but neither "fish, flesh, nor fowl," as a body professing to legislate for the Christian conscience or the Christian Church, perfectly understand, no doubt, that Englishmen, in the name and under the authority of law, would stand a good deal which, as a matter of individual principle and Christian feeling, they would distinctly repudiate. Hence the "indecent haste" with which, as it was said at the time, the primuni mobile of the P.W.R. Bill did its work. Hand over the Faith and Worship of the Church to Lord Penzance by Act of Parliamentmake Lord Penzance Anglican Pope by Law-and Englishmen a law-abiding people," will bow their necks in the obedience of secular faith! Such was the scheme-such the Erastian programme.

as

66

But the Archbishops, their suffragans, and Parliament, in their wisdom, did not altogether estimate the Christian and Catholic element in the English Church at its true value. They unfortunately ignored the fact that Christianity, as understood by the English Laity, is not yet quite correlative with Erastianism-they reckoned without their host. The Public Worship Regulation Act and Lord Penzance were received by all but the Infidel, the Dissenting, and the Secular element as anti-Christian and unconstitutional institutions. Englishmen are a "law-abiding people," but, even in the nineteenth century, they still retain some slight belief in Christianity; and they cannot understand how Divine Revelation is analogous to a Permissive Bill or a Contagious Diseases Act!

The meeting of Churchmen which took place last week at New Cross, near Hatcham, was simply and emphatically the result of the fact that we are a people who love law and are at the same time Christians. Its object was thoroughly constitutional-the repeal of the "Public Worship Regulation Act" by purely constitutional means; and its utterances and resolutions proved it to be a meeting which believed in the Authority of the Divine Founder of the Church to administer. through His own appointed channels, His spiritual kingdom on earth.

This very earnest and well-attended gathering will doubtless inaugurate a most important, as it is an entirely new, line of action antagonistic to Erastianism. It originated amongst the parishoners of St. James's, Hatcham, whose courageous Vicar was the first beneficed Clergyman who publicly refused to plead before the secular Court presided over by Lord Penzance, as to his right to conduct the worship of God in accordance with the Ritual of His Church. The meeting was, however, attended by Churchmen from all parts of London, and we can bear witness to the reverence and thoroughly Catholic and undeniably constitutional attitude of the speakers one and all. Three important Resolutions were carried with merely twelve dissentients, and the meeting pledged itself to work (1) for repeal, (2) for the non-action of the Bishops in presenting their Clergy to Lord Penzance, and (3) to support priests who may be prosecuted under the Act. It was the first of a series of proposed meetings-the second of which took place on Monday last at the Cannon-street Hotel, at which the parishioners and worshippers of St. Vedast's took the lead-to be held, as occasion may suggest, throughout the parishes of England. Copies of the Resolutions passed have been forwarded, we understand, to the Archbishops and their Suffragans. For their Lordships' sake we regret the present state of the thermometer. To everyone concerned in the conduct of these gatherings we give our hearty sympathy, for the proposed line of action is the true

one.

We were glad to notice also that a reference to the necessity for the Corporate Reunion of Christendom was received at the New Cross Meeting with vigorous applause.

means.

nature.

3rd June, 1876.

Rector of West Hackney, N.

EIGHT REASONS FOR NOT AGREEING WITH THE DOCTORS' MEMORIAL TO, AND ARGUMENTS BEFORE, THE HOME SECRETARY IN FAVOUR OF VIVISECTION.

1. Because, although we anti-Vivisectors have the greatest respect for the medical profession in general, and are most happy to believe that the majority of its members are sincerely opposed to cruelty in its every form, we cannot allow a section of them to raise, as they attempted to do yesterday, a false issue on so momentous a subject as that now before us.

2. Because it is a false issue to assert that there are probably not more than twenty persons in Great Britain who have ever subjected an animal to Vivisection; whereas it is well known that many teachers and hundreds of students are constantly and systematically employed in this atrocious and odious practice.

3. Because it is a false issue to assert that "the results of such investigations have been in the highest degree conducive to improvement in the knowledge and treatment of disease;" whereas some of the most eminent professors of medicine and surgery have stated their unhesitating opinion that no discovery of real value has been made by their means.

4. Because it is a false issue to assert that Vivisection is practised with the greatest reluctance, and under most humane motives, and that the experiments are unselfish, reluctant, rare, and careful; " whereas it is notorious that the most revolting cruelties are recklessly, carelessly, or designedly inflicted, as integral parts of the experiments themselves, and by men who have without shame declared that the sufferings of their victims do not enter into their consideration.

5. Because it is a false issue to assert that "the pain incidental to such investigations is largely annulled by the use of anaesthetics;" whereas experiments of their use have notoriously led many who have conducted them to an entirely opposite conclusion."

6. Because it is at once absurd and delusive to argue for an immunity of Vivisectors because cruelties are practised by other people, "farmers, farriers, trappers, hunters, fishermen, and others; inasmuch as the cases are entirely different, and inasmuch also as, if the charge were true, the errors of one class of persons offer no right reason for the toleration of the still worse errors of another.

7. Because, although it may be allowed to be true that "mitigation and prevention of suffering has sprung from the doctors' researches and is due to their daily labours," such result has either not been obtained by Vivisection; or, if so, Vivisection must be of that "daily" occurrence which their Memorial expressly states that it is not.

8. Because the bad temper displayed before the Home Secretary by several of the speakers is very conclusive of the existence of the evils against which we solemnly record our protest. THOMAS HUGO,

11th July, 1876.

Rector of West Hackney, N.

SIR,

IT

(To the Editor of THE PILOT.)

T is impossible for me to have read the four able and important Letters, which your learned and excellent correspondent, Mr. Charles Walker, has done me the honour to address to me in the pages of your journal, without feeling a sentiment of deep emotion, and without addressing a few words in reply, I will not say to him alone, but to those of your readers also who may sympathize with him, and with the very important subject on which he has treated so solidly and so well.

I am not one of those, who think, as the late admirable Madame de Swetchine expressed it in one of her beautiful letters to that illustrious Dominican Père Lacordaire, that St. Peter has, or ought to have, laid aside his Apostolic net, or substituted for it a fishing rod. Our Blessed Saviour's commission was that His Apostles should teach all nations; and this commission was to endure until the end of the world.

Doubtless, this included the conversion of each individual, for nations are made up of individuals; but it opened up a more comprehensive scheme, one that answered better to the burning thirst of Apostolic zeal, and afforded a wider scope in working out the welfare of mankind. Where nations could not be gained, the Church must be content with the few souls that listen to her message-but St. Peter never lays aside his net, nor that universal scope which the Master Fisherman has placed before his view. Sometimes, indeed, he may be constrained sorrowfully to complain, "Master, I have toiled the whole night and I have taken nothing." There are those seasons of darkness and of fruitless labour, those moments of sadness and despondency, when we may hear the holiest and the most eminent of our Prelates exclaim, "I was promised a miraculous draught of fishes, and I have only caught two fish!"

How I wish we could hear that Divine Voice, that spoke two thousand years ago on the shores of a Syrian lake, once more repeating the same words, "Launch out into the deep and let down your nets for a draught." When those words were uttered, what followed? Simon let down his net, but such was the multitude of fish, that the net began to break, and then we read that Simon had to beckon to the fishermen of another ship, that they should come and help them. And they came and filled both the ships, so that they were almost sinking" (St. Luke v. from 1 to 11).

68

I fancy I can descry in this wonderful portion of the everlasting Gospel something that may relate to our own times. There were two ships, one was presided over by Simon: there was another also described as belonging to his partners, but still separated from him, for the Scripture says that they were in another ship. Simon, at the word of the Great Master, had indeed the preference, he alone was addressed, he cast in his net, and so great was the multitude of fishes, that it began to break, whereupon he beckons to his partners (as they are called) in the other ship for assistance, and at once the booty is secured, so vast that its weight almost caused both ships to sink.

Now, I have often thought that these two ships may signify the Latin and the Greek Churches, the Eastern and the Western Church. The one is the ship of Simon Peter, and we know what mysterious privileges are recorded of him in the Gospel. The other is a most majestic ship, but unhappily for many centuries it has been separated from its Sister, though still floating nobly on the surface of the mystic deep.

Is there nothing in the circumstances of the present times to indicate some further fulfilment of the Gospel words?

What can the breaking of the nets mean? May it not mean that after the successive enclosure of so many nations within the net of the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the "Fisherman's Ring" we at length behold one nation after another breaking from the Apostolic net, and falling into the gulph of heterodoxy and infidelity, so that Holy Church is menaced with the total loss of all those magnificent conquests, which during so many ages of her victorious career she had gathered in all parts of the habitable globe. From one end of the world to the other a cry goes up, the

net is breaking! How many nations fell from the grasp of Simon's successor three centuries ago? But that was only the beginning of evils, now it is worse still. Is there one nation upon earth which in its national capacity can be said truly and unhesitatingly to belong to St. Peter, to the Catholic Church? Every day that we live the evil grows worse and worse. The Church is everywhere stripped of her possessions; all her rights are trampled under foot, whether they appertain to things temporal or to things spiritual; her hold upon the nations is well-nigh gone; the scientific men scoff at her; statesmen legislate against her, and the mass of the people declare that they are wearied of her yoke. Her festivals are profaned, her public processions are forbidden, her ministers are even torn from the sanctuary and forced to bear arms amongst a godless and a lawless soldiery. Her seminaries of learning and holy instruction are either closed, or deprived of their lawful rights, in the midst of a population that once belonged to her, that once loved her and listened all the day long to her voice. Is this not like, in some degree, to the breaking of the Apostolic net? And what seems to have been its cause? The multitude of the fishes. So many nations had entered in, and they had not truly renounced their unregenerate ways, they clung to their old leaven of Pagan ideas and Pagan principles, instead of to the holy doctrine of the Catholic Church. To this may be mainly traced, as I think, the falling away of the converted Gentiles. This falling away is most distinctly foretold in Holy Writ, and this prediction helps the believer to meet the dreadful scandal which he now beholds, and which, but for such a timely and gracious warning, might have swept him within the vortex of that same flood. But is there no hope? is there nothing left to vindicate the truth of Christ's everlasting Gospel? What says the Word of God? And they beckoned to their partners that were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came and filled both the ships so that they were almost sinking." Let us mark these words "almost not “quite.” So heavy was the draught, that it was enough to sink the united ships, but we are left to infer that it did not sink them.

66

Now, what are we to gather from this remarkable passage of Holy Scripture, but that the union of the two ships-that is, the union of the Churches-is the divinely-appointed remedy for all our evils? I think I hear some one objecting, What is your authority for saying this, for giving such an interpretation to the inspired Word of God? Who are you to take such a daring responsibility on your unconsecrated head?

My answer is, it is not I who thus interpret-I, who am but the least of all the servants of the Church; it is the Church herself, whose whole history stamps such an interpretation on those mysterious words. For what else did she convene her Councils at Lyons and at Florence? For what else did she beckon in former days "to her partners" in Armenia and Ethiopia? Do we not ourselves remember a Uniat Church in Russian Poland, that counted several millions of pious believers, a happy plank between the two Ships of East and West, until the miserable politics of that fraction of the Polish nation, urging them on to a fruitless rebellion, awakened a horrid struggle between them and the mighty Emperor of all the Russias, and so in a moment all the work of so many hely Pontiffs was undone, and one more fracture was made within the meshes of the Apostolic net? But there are other parts of the world in which Uniat Churches still flourish, and testify the existence of an ecclesiastical polity, which none can either deny or gainsay on Catholic grounds.

It would be mere waste of time to insist on the evils of disunion, or on the hindrance which the divisions of the Christian lody has interposed in the spread of Christianity, but we will rather turn our attention to the proposal which has been so ably discussed in the Letters of Mr. Charles Walker.

I must confess that my own view had always been rather to promote the gradual growth of Catholic principles and practices in the Church of England herself, than to encourage any secession from her ranks. It seemed to me a contradiction to talk of re-uniting Christians, and to begin by making a fresh severance, and yet I am aware that a skilful surgeon will often mend a broken limb by breaking it afresh. thought, however, that the growth of Catholic principles in

I

the Church of England was something so remarkable, and notwithstanding all obstacles and anomalies so real and so continually progressive, that the members of our own Communion might reasonably hope a day would at length arrive when, under the sanction of the Holy See, a healthy Re-union might take place between that Church and the Catholic Church; in other words, that what Mr. Walker asks for his Uniat Church might be conceded to the Church of England. I am quite aware that in the High Church Press a distinction was continually drawn between what is called Catholic and what is termed Roman. But I also observed that, in proportion as enquirers among our separated brethren dived deeper into the records of Primitive antiquity, many practices, which, at one time, they stigmatised as Roman, they gradually acknowledged to be Catholic, so that the points of separation were constantly diminishing, and those of agreement becoming more and more prominent; and if the Erastianism of the Church of England were pleaded, as a ground for a disruption, there never was a time subsequent to the year 1535 when a similar plea could not have been urged. Her Erastianism was a consequence of her severance from the Apostolic See, and a part of the penalty she had to endure on account of that act. No doubt the Public Worship Regulation Act was a fresh instance of State tyranny, and a most galling violation of the traditions and practice of the English Church, while any connivance with it on the part of the authorities of that Church was one more proof of their Erastianism, and of the bondage to the State, which was necessarily entailed by a departure from the central unity of the Catholic Church. Still I had hoped that in spite of all this the progressive growth of Catholic opinion within the limits of the Church of England would sooner or later make itself felt, as it had done in spite of the Gorham Decision or the Purchas Judgment-and that the undeniable Catholic movement, more and more pronounced every day, would in the end neutralise the force of that hasty legislation, which sprang from the violent prejudice of the moment, and the ignorance of Church principles so fatally predominant in the British Parliament.

It was obvious to me, that legislation intended to crush a few Ecclesiastical practices could never permanently change the current of religious thought-and my own faith in the intrinsic force of Catholic ideas and Catholic principles convinced me that sooner or later, when once a candid investigation had set in, they must inevitably triumph. I had always drawn the widest distinction between the genuine dogmas and practices of the Church and those abuses, which had gradually been engrafted on them, and those revolting exaggerations, which ignorance and mistaken zeal had substituted for them. I had, elsewhere, in two Articles, addressed to my Right Honourable and most excellent friend, Mr. Gladstone, endeavoured to show that, apart from these unauthoritative exaggerations, neither statesmen, nor our separated brethren themselves as a body, had any just cause to complain of the legislation or definitions of the Vatican Council: that its dogmatic decree in favour of the Infallible Teaching Authority, inherent in the Successor of St. Peter, was nothing beyond what all Catholic theology had asserted as far back as the days of St. Irenæus, or in a single iota beyond what was necessarily implied in the whole language of the New Testament Scriptures and the very words of Christ Himself. It is true that while the Council was yet sitting, I was one of those who thought a fresh definition was inopportune, but this was because I thought the faith of the Church was sufficiently clear, and needed no fresh exponent, and also because I was led to suppose that the Council might define in favour of an extreme school, that aimed at a total revolution both in Church and State. Happily this was not the case, and the sanction which has now been so emphatically given to the legitimate claims of our highest central authority, does but confirm our ancient belief regarding St. Peter's office, and its unspeakable value in deciding all Church questions at such a revolutionary and sceptical period of human history as that in which our lot is at present cast.

Mr. Charles Walker, in his able Letters, seems to think less favourably than I am inclined to do of the future of the English Church; and if the Protest, which a hundred distinguished High Churchmen made to the Proposals of "Presbyter Anglicanus," could be taken as the final limit of her progress, I might indeed despair for the realization of my hopes,

It is not for me to thwart the yearnings of individuals for the blessing of Catholic communion. If I did, my whole life would have been one flagrant exhibition of personal inconsistency; and so also with regard to the proposed secession and the formation of a Uniat Church, I am the last man to oppose a proposition which is so reasonable, and which is supported by so many precedents in the history of the Catholic Church.

But still, before men embark upon a scheme, which may perhaps have some of the characteristics of a desperate remedy, I would say, is there no hope left of an under standing being at last made between the Church of England and the Catholic Church? Why should there not be an amicable conference between her divines and those on our side? Why should we not, in a spirit of peace and Christian love, examine into the points (and I say, confidently, they are very few) on which we are still divided? I must confees, when I look at the vast surface of the British Empire, when I reflect on the Christian spirit which still in the main pervades it, when I look at the organization and endowments of the National Church, when I think what that Church might effect for the whole human race, if only she could possess that which still she lacks, if she could regain her ancient standing, which for fifteen hundred years she so nobly bore, it seems to me the gain for the whole human race would be so enormous, that I shrink from any step that might precipitate her destruction.

Those of her members who are labouring for her full and perfect restoration to her ancient Catholic privileges must bear with the occasional secession of perhaps a very near and dear relative to what we believe to be the only normal type of Catholicity, for they cannot deny that there is something anomalous in the present position to which they themselves belong. For if they did deny it, they would find it hard to justify their own endeavours to promote the work of restoration and of Catholic Reform.

On our own side, I trust a greater spirit of conciliation and charity may extend itself, and I am sure it is extending; and if we add to this more fervent prayer for the unity of Christendom, and for the spread of real sanctity in every department of life, we may hope to aid effectually for this grand object. I have trespassed too long upon the patience of your readers, with many apologies to you and to them, I conclude. Your faithful servant in Christ, A. P. DE LISLE.

Garendon Park, July 7, 1876.

Reviews and Notices of New Books.

E

By

ST. THOMAS OF CANTERBURY: A Dramatic Poem. Aubrey de Vere. London: H. S. King and Co. 1876. RASTIANISM, with all its bad principles and burdens, is now felt to be more weighty and unbearable in the English National Church than has ever before been the case. It is not now so wrapped up and covered over with extraneous garments that its true features and actual form cannot be adequately defined. For it stands out at last in all its naked ugliness. No one can doubt whence it comes. Its parentage is apparent: its features are well known. Its aim is to mar and destroy God's beneficent Revelation. If, therefore, Christians do not soon set about casting it out, it will speedily cast them out. For our official leaders and generals are obviously in league with the enemy, to betray, to corrupt, and to ruin. And if the rank and file do not open their eyes, seize their weapons and make a good victory, the battle will be surely lost.

This being so, any reference to past history, when a noble fight was made, and triumph was secured by suffering, must be of great interest at present. By consequence Mr. de Vere's new Dramatic Poem is certain to be studied, not only for its inherent beauties, dramatic art, and poetical characteristics, but because it deals with the history of a period when a very great English saint suffered on behalf of God's Truth, and marked out the confines of Truth and the limits of Error in a manner which has left its due and deep impress on the history of the National Church ever since. Laud and Sancroft trod in the path of their great predecessor.

The book before us is divided into Preface, of 40 pages; Dramatic Poem of Five Acts; and Notes occupying about

15 pages in addition. The Prefatory Essay is an able statement of Historical Truth, in which the various assertions of those writers who have recently dealt with the Life and Martrydom of St. Thomas are duly and faithfully criticised, and the author's own position carefully defined. The complex strife between Church and King is told with singular art. Every character drawn and depicted, aids, someway or another, in bringing out the conflict of great principles which underlies the whole drama. For ourselves we believe that Mr. de Vere has taken a most just and righteous judgment of the position of the case, as regards Church and State, under Henry II., and that while his poetical characteristics receive their full meed of praise, his historical apprehension is remarkably keen and just. These events, however, are deliberately narrowed in order that all may centre in, and lead up to, the death of St. Thomas. The different characters introduced-strong in their contrast-all serve to bring out the true nature of the struggle. Here and there, with great art and success, a single thought, an expressive simile, or a carefully-prepared sentence, embodies some particular truth, which it is necessary for the reader to remember and gather up, in order adequately to appreciate the important and sustained action of the drama as a whole, and to realize its obvious teaching. And in this way, many of the characters, notably Herbert of Bosham and Idonea de Lisle, stand out with power and emphasis, as beautiful studies of the past. The poetical level chosen is high, and the effort to take it constantly, is perfectly easy and unstrained. There is a dignity and force in the verse throughout which is remarkable. The fantastic tricks of some spasmodic moderns are altogether avoided: simplicity being the method by which both effect and power are secured and exhibited. Moreover there is nothing weak, watery or wire-drawn in any of the numerous scenes.

As to details, the Eight Scene of the First Act strikes us as very powerful, and dramatically most successful-though, of course, eminently ecclesiastical. In the Third Scene cf the Third Act there are some very remarkable passages spoken by Pope Alexander III., notably that on page 88. St. Thomas's description of St. Anselm is also very fine. Here it is :

Then comes to me this book,

And saith, "Thy cause is Anselm's: -who was he?
This was no brawler, and no voice of war:
This was a soul that in the cloistral shade
Had reached the bright fair decade of his life.

O'er stepped the threshold of the eternal Sabbath;

This was a virgin spirit-one to whom

Man's praise seemed blot and blame; an infant spirit

Whose meekness nothing earthly could affront;
An angel spirit that, with feet on earth,

Saw still God's face in heaven:

Certes he sought no battles; yet he found them;
Long agonies of conflict in old age,

An exiled man, as fronting hostile kings.

The following powerful passage, while giving a true conception of the lofty theme considered, is of sustained interest and simple eloquence. Its perusal cannot do other than induce a desire on the reader's part to study the whole volume :

BECKET.