Service-it was without exception the most shockingly scepticism, so far from being what Freethinkers pretend, a sign of the world's progress, is in point of fact a retrogressive movement in theology and philosophy. His present effort is distinguished by the same lucid style and incisive reasoning, with just so much originality of treatment as to give additional zest to its persusal, without detracting from its merit as a work of exact and scientific learning. The topics discussed are four in number, viz., the Catholicity of the Anglican Church; the claims of England versus Rome; the futility of attempts at reconciliation with the Church of Rome; and the (so-called) Ecumenical Council of 1869-70. These form the subject of letters which the author was induced to write to friends, and the epistolary style is retained now that they are given to the world. In reading the following extract from the third letter it must be borne in mind that Lord Lindsay habitually uses the word Protestantism to represent the 'reasoning view" of the truth or Deposit of the Faith, allied with the instinct of liberty; as such he considers it nearly equivalent to Orthodoxy or Apostolicity. By Catholicity he means the "imaginative view "of the same truth, allied with the instinct of Order. The propriety of this choice of appellations may be questioned, but the advantage of possessing an exact definition of terms is unquestionable. A writer who carefully defines his technical words and adheres to the meaning imposed, is entitled to the respectful approbation of every one who reflects as well as reads. Speaking of those who have quitted the Anglican to join the Roman Communion, Lord Lindsay says : We have often found in travelling abroad that the two most difficult places to find in a foreign city are, first, the banker to whom you are recommended in Coutts's list, and secondly, the Anglican Church. What hours we have lost in the search of both! We recollect many years ago at Munich, after a toilsome hunt beneath a burning sun, finding at last the building which was devoted to our worship, round which a group of English were assembled. On enquiring why they did not go in, we were told that there was no key; the Chaplain had departed for a holiday, and locked up his Chapel. Being the only one of the party who understood the language, we were asked to make an attempt to They overlooked the fact that the principle of Catholicity, as held get the key, as there were three Priests, among the be ore the division of the East and West, and as now represented by the expectant group, willing to perform the Service. Pene- Church of England, was balanced throughout in the Ecumenical trating into a house connected with the building, we discovered testantism; and that the very formula "Quod ubique, quod semper, Church by that of Orthodoxy, Apostolicity, or what we now call Proa young female arranging her hair, from whom, after a short quod ab omnibus," by which the Church appealed, century after century, parley, we obtained the key. It was not till past eleven that to the genuine and unbroken tradition of the Apostles against local and we entered the gloomy building. But now a sudden fit of partial corruptions of the Faith, was just laid down by the spokesman lassitude seized our Priests, and they proposed that we should Catholic Church of Gaul, St. Vincent de Lerins, in the fifth century. It of the Protestant or Conservative party (as I might call it) in the wait till twelve o'clock, because then we could have the is impossible, in fact, to say whether the Early or Ecumenical Church Evening Service, which was shorter. To this some demurred, was more Catholic or Orthodox, the two elements were so nearly but the majority consented, and accordingly at 12.30 we balanced. Had our friends argued thus, the Catholic Church must assembled again, but with greatly diminished numbers. necessarily be Protestant, contending against novelties; Rome, as introThe ducing and enforcing novelties, violates Catholicity; England, as Procrowning of this edifice of absurdity and laziness was the testant against Roman novelties, defends Catholicity. Had such been officiating Priest giving out before one o'clock the hymn, "Glory their argument (and it is the simple truth in the matter), they would to Thee my God this night," which caused an irreverent titter have distinguished clearly in their own minds and vindicated to others the difference which exists between the Protestantism which is the glory among the small congregation. We relate this scene as it of the uncorrupted Catholic Church and of England, and the ultra or happened, many years ago. We do not believe that it could pseudo Protestantism, the birth of unchecked Private Judgment, of which occur now. Church teaching and reverent feeling have Romanism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism, are the incarnation and the made so much progress among us that if victims. Priest proposed And lastly, had they been thus preoccupied. they never would such a Service no congregation would allow him to carry it impassive vis inertia of Rome-as manifested, for example, just now have mistaken, as they have done again and again, the immobility and out. Consular Chaplaincies are generally appointed to by the once more in the rejection of Dr. Pusey's "Eirenicon "-for a sign of Government at home. They used to be refuges for the strength instead of what it really is, a sign of weakness. (Pp. 54-55). destitute, and were generally sought and obtained by Clergy- In the fourth letter the meaning of the well-worn names, men, whom circumstances of various kinds-which it is need- Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and Ecumenical, is treated of less to enter into―did not allow to reside in England. We with considerable force and lucidity. The writer proposes to believe that there is a great improvement in them now, though apply "Ecumenical" to those portions of the Church Unithere is room for more. Many of them are now connected versal which continue to hold the Faith once delivered to the with the S.P.G. and the Colonial and Continental Society. Saints, and defined by the General Councils, without diminution or addition. Thus he would distinguish our own Communion as an Ecumenical Church, but would refuse this title to the Roman, on the ground that She has added to the Faith anciently received by the Undivided Church. This novel use of the word is justified partly from its original signification and partly by reason of the perversion of "Catholic' which has become so inveterate as almost to defy its rehabilitation : any By far the most numerous of the Chaplaincies abroad are under the control of these two Societies, especially of the latter, which was first in the field. (To be Continued.) Reviews of Books. ECUMENICITY IN RELATION TO THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. By Alexander Lord Lindsay, Earl of Crawford and Balcarres. (London: Murray, 1870.) This is by no means the first time that Lord Lindsay has distinguished himself in the field of historical theology. Nine years ago he published a valuable treatise, demonstrating that occupies part of every Sunday in professing their allegiance to the "Holy Catholic Church" within the House of God, and spends the remainder of the week in denouncing the Catholics." Such are human inconsistencies. The effect of this is, of course, to obscure the force of arguments founded on "Catholicity" as addressed to Englishmen, the term having been narrowed and twisted from its original meaning. The words "Ecumenical" and "Ecumenicity" may be said (fortunately) to convey to the generality as yet no meaning at all; and I would fain hope, therefore, that it may not be too late to preserve them from perversion, and vindicate their appropriateness henceforward as expressing the characteristic marks of the Church of England. (Pp. 69-70.) By many persons the Appendix will be deemed of equal or superior value to the body of the work. It consists of an analysis of the remarkable Essay "Du Concile Géneral et de la Paix Religieuse," by Monseigneur Maret, Bishop of Sura. To this is attached a commentary, in which the strength and weakness of the Gallican position are clearly estimated, and the lines of demarcation which sever it from the Anglican and Roman standpoints laid down, with a precision which could be gained only by a long and extensive survey of the whole field of thought and argument. In fine, without being supposed to agree in all that Lord Lindsay has written, we may commend his latest work to our readers as a small book of great value, one which will exercise their reflective faculties, and furnish them with timely information on several of the questions now earnestly debated in different sections of the Ecumenical Church. Literary Notices. Six Lectures The History and Conquests of the Saracens. To those who are unacquainted with the History and tenets of Mohammedanism, this little volume will be highly useful, giving, as it does, in a convenient form, and at small cost, some account of the world when Mahomet first enunciated his tenets, with an explanation of what these were; showing how, from an attempt at first to improve the morals of the time in which he lived, his system being of human and not of Divine appointment has, in fact, become a hindrance to morality, and been the ruin spiritually of the nations which embraced it. Mr. Freeman sets forth most strongly the greatness of his hero :— Call him Prophet, Reformer, or Impostor, as you will, the Camel-driver of Mecca, the Conqueror of Medina, soars above every other man recorded in the history of the East. Nowhere in the history of the world can we directly trace such mighty effects to the personal agency of a single mortal. He found a barbarous and disunited people; he left a flourishing empire, which actually existed for centuries, and which in its effects exists to this day. He put forth a new religion; so have others before and since; but his religion was not destined to influence a single sect or a single nation; it was to stamp the mind and destiny of the whole Oriental world, to be at once the truest of false religious systems and the deadliest antagonist of the truth itself. No man was ever more emphatically a reformer in the history of his own age and country; no man was ever more emphatically a destroyer in the general history of the world. (Pp. 6, 7.) Our author's enthusiasm, combining with that Protestant spirit which prevents so many of our able and learned men from comprehending the Catholic system of the Church, leads him to view Mahomet's, teaching in many points far more favourably than we can at all agree to, but he ably points out the failure of its claims :- It preaches the Unity of God in a sense which denies His Trinity; it utterly casts aside the distinctively Christian doctrines of Mediation and Atonement. (P. 61.) A system, originally the greatest of reforms in its own age and country, has proved the curse and scourge of the world for twelve hundred years. There are lands in which we may still wish God-speed to the peaceful Preachers-for such there are-of a creed which teaches that "there is no God but God," even though it adds that "Mahomet is the Apostle of God." But within the limits of what once was Christendom; on the site of vanished Carthage, in Alexandria, in Byzantium, in the Holy City itself, what sadder sight can a Christian behold than the ensign of him who in deed, though not in will, has been the Antichrist? Let us hope yet to see the Cross gleaming upon the dome of St. Sophia; let us hope to see peace preserved around the Holy Sepulchre by other means than the scimetar of the infidel. And once more to those who expect to see a Mahometan state become tolerant and civilised without ceasing to be Mahometan, I would again hold up the solitary example of the illustrious Mogul. If European Turkey is to be reformed from within, without the coercion of either enemies or priests, the career of Akbar must be the guiding star. Let the individual Mahometan have the fullest equality with the individual Christian, but let not the individual Christian have to recognise a Mahometan master as his Sovereign. So long as a Government remains Mahometan, so long must it be intolerant at home; so long will it only be restrained by weakness from offering to other lands the old election of "Koran, Tribute or Sword." (Pp. 217, 218.) With this true and wise remark, our author concludes his last lecture. Our readers will find here pleasant reading, neither dry nor diffuse, but well filled with information and matter for thought, more especially at the present time, when the war between France and Prussia is only too likely to bring the anomaly of the Turkish Moslem power upheld by Christian sovereigns prominently before us. (Mowbray, Oxford; Simpkin and Marshall, London.)—A wellThe Little Neapolitans; or, the Feast of Corpus Christi. written story of simple faith and its reward, unfortunately it only reached us after the Feast in regard to which it is written. We cordially commend it. The Curate's Budget (Hodges) seems to contain an inexhaustible supply of interesting stories. The one for this month, on "The Foster Brothers "-though the idea of a poor nurse substituting her own child for the heir is not a new one-is interestingly told, and the ultimate triumph of principle well pointed out. Sketches from the Border Land. By a Daughter of England. (Bowyer Kitto: London). If any one wishes to have a specimen of slovenly ungrammatical English, in some sentences indicating a foreign authorship which however is belied by such translations as Les Anglais pour rire being rendered "The English for laughing," we should advise him to buy this most dull and stupid book, which has only a pretty outside and good frontispiece to commend it. Correspondence. (The Editor is not responsible for the opinions of his Correspondents.) SIR, I have received from you (as I presume) a copy of the last number of the CHURCH HERALD, containing various strictures on my presence at this Service, and on my letter republished in your columns from the Guardian. Some of your remarks appear to me to proceed upon a misunderstanding, and I shall be glad if you will allow me to offer a few words of explanation to your readers and yourself. Whatever our differences may be on some important points, I can scarcely doubt that you will receive what I have to say with the fairness which we usually expect one Englishman to exhibit towards another, even in theological and political controversies. I am anxious, above all things, to say that I went to the Service with no other purpose than that of a reverent and earnest desire to join in what I considered a becoming and a sacred rite of our religion, open to all alike who might wish to come, as it is one also in which I am section of the Church. Had I gone in any other spirit, with any feeling accustomed to join, from time to time, with the members of my own akin to levity or irreverence, I should certainly be deserving of your severest censures; but such was not the case. It may have been illadvised on my part to respond as I did to the notice that was sent to me, but at any rate I did it in a perfectly sincere and upright spirit. I am glad to have the opportunity to say this, because I hope it will tend to allay or remove the irritation which seems to have been, strangely enough, caused in some quarters by my presence, as if, in coming, I had deliberately intended to offer an indignity to the Church. Of course I am aware that your idea of the Church, and of the nature of the Communion Rite, is a very different one from mine. But for this I am in no way responsible. As you do not claim to be infallible (I assume), you can have no right to condemn me from differing from you, any more than I have to condemn you. The utmost we can properly say to each other is, that we will tolerate our differences. I may add the expression of my sincere regret that I was so greatly mistaken (from your point of view) in supposing that I might sit down freely at the "Lord's Table," in the National Church. I was aware that some of the sects require that an official permission, or even, as I may say, a ticket of admission should be obtained, by an intending communicant; but I did not previously understand that the Church of England was, in this point, so like them, and I would still at least hope that it is not. And here I would venture to remind you, that the Communion is not your private property, nor that of your section of the Church, nor, indeed, the private property of any Church whatever. It is surely "the Lord's Table; nor can I admit that any individual has the right to dictate the terms of participation to another. This remark applies equally to a Church which, in one sense, is only a collection of individual disciples If, then, from any circumstances, a Church should have set up terms of Communion other than those of the Christian Master, and if, at the same time, by its Ministers, or by the open and usually unrestricted character of the Service, it should invite strangers to come in and partake, it clearly has no right to expect that any one, in accepting its invitation, will make a sacrifice of his own private conviction. Hence, thinking thus, while I certainly could not habitually communicate at Church, I yet felt that I could properly join in that Special Service, retaining my own idea of its nature, and without committing myself to expressions in the legally imposed form of admission which I could not accept as Scriptural or true. You say, indeed, that in thus doing I showed, not that I did not compromise my principles, but that I had no principles to compromise. If this be true, why should I remain a Nonconformist? It would probably be pleasanter for me, and perhaps more profitable if I conformed; and why should I not, long ago, have done so if I have no principles? You say that my profession of discipleship to Christ, of which the Communion Service is to me the especial symbol, does not make me a Christian, and I am no more a Christian than Chunder Sen. May I remind you that it was "disciples" to whom the name Christian was originally given? And thus again, as you are not infallible, I would humbly suggest that you may possibly be wrong in this point. You say that I countenanced what must, in my own estimation, be "idolatry," by my presence at the Communion. I do not think you ought to say this, seeing that I do not consider one who sincerely worships Christ as God to be an idolator; nor, I imagine, would Dr. Priestley, whom you quote, have so termed him. In one point, I must confess, you appear to me to have the best of the argument, namely, in holding that no one should be considered a member of the Church who has not been at least baptized into the Church. Whether in this you are legally correct I will not presume to say, but I admit that the claim of Church-Membership, on the mere ground of being an Englishman, was a little inconsiderate on my part. But even so, I can myself claim to be a Churchman by Baptism; for I was Baptized into the English Church, and it was an accident, as much as anything else, that I was not Confirmed. But, supposing the latter had been the case, would this have made any difference? A person Confirmed at sixteen, might, twenty or thirty years afterwards, be a Unitarian; and how would the fact of his Confirmation improve matters in your estimation, if, at this latter period, he should present himself for Communion? On the whole, may I venture to suggest that a little charity in judging this occurrence would not be misplaced? The very utmost that you, or any one else, can allege against me is an error of judgment; and I submit, we ought all to remember that there is an Apostolical precept (and more than one) against the evil tendency of judging and condemning "another man's servant," and that we are taught by the same authority that "to his own master" every one standeth or falleth. July 23rd, 1870. I remain, &c., G. VANCE SMITH. [We willingly give admission to the Rev. G. Vance Smith's letter, in compliance with his request. How his position is mended by the further explanation here offered we confess ourselves at a loss to discover. Were he to receive the Holy Communion next Sunday at the Roman proCathedral of St. Wilfred, York, would it not be reasonable to conclude that he went there with the same intention as the other worshippers, and joined in the worship therein offered? We said exactly the same of his attendance at Westminster Abbey. It would never have occurred to us that he was merely bowing down in the house of Rimmon, holding his own private opinion that, after all, as Rimmon was not really a god, his action was of no significance. Nor did we claim or imply infallibility for ourselves; it is not the CHURCH HERALD but the Church of God which is infallible. It is not by us, his fellow servants, but by the Church that he has been judged, and stands condemned. Is it a breach of charity to tell our brother his fault? or to bid him God speed in his error?-ED. C.I.] SIR-It seems to me that the miserable scandal at Westminster Abbey would, perhaps, never have been successfully carried out, and probably never have been afterwards excused in Convocation, had it been remembered that the ground on which members external to the Church were permitted to co-operate was intellectual and literary not religious. The wording of the Report adopted by Convocation was this: "It is desirable that Convocation should nominate a body of its own members to undertake the work of revision, who shall be at liberty to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong." (Chron. of Convo. Upper House, May 3, p. 211.) The motion of the Bishop of Winchester, which was founded on the Report, and carried, is thus worded: "That the Committee be empowered to invite the co-operation of those whom they may judge fit from their Biblical scholarship to aid them in their work." (Ibid. p. 227) Most plainly, therefore, the co-operation of men of sufficient learning, and other scholarly qualifications, was allowed absolately irrespective of nation or creed. They were to give aid of an intellectual character, and that alone was their sufficient qualification. Archdeacon Denison scarcely, or rather not at all, exceeded the limit of truth (though he was mistaken in fathering the phraseology on the Dean of Canterbury) when he spoke of Jew, Turk, Infidel and Heretic as being admissible. They were admissible on the grounds I have stated. How far it was prudent or desirable to make the terms so broad is another question, or, it might be more true to say, two or three other questions in one, of which I shall not speak further, as the thing is done. But what is material is this, that the very breadth and comprehensiveness of the permission necessarily removed it from the category of religious questions. A Jew, a Turk, a Brahmin, a Parsee, or a Chinese, given the requisite condition of knowledge, would be as eligible as a Wesleyan, a German Lutheran, a Scotch Calvinist, a foreign Catholic, or an English Churchman. The mistake was in confusing literary associateship with religious. The work is one of the highest religious value and importance; but it is one in which what I may be allowed to call (though it is rather a cant phrase now) "the human element" must necessarily play a most material part, room being given for the exercise of the highest intellectual powers in many departments of purely human learning. It by no means follows that those who possess, and may be willing to use those powers and that learning on this work, must have any religious bond of union between them and the Committee of Convocation empowered to invite their co-operation. As co-operators under authority of Convocation the bond is exclusively intellectual. To preface their common work with a solemn act and pledge of spiritual oneness was to introduce a totally distinct element into the idea expressed by the Synod. It might be good or bad in the abstract; had they been all worthy of the blessing and truly one in One Body and One Faith it would have been most good; as it was it was most evil; but in either case it would have had nothing whatever to do with the design or decision of Convocation. It did not follow from them in any degree as a necessary or even a seemly consequence. To assume, therefore, as some appear to have done, that it was, as it were, wrapped up in, and virtually approved by, the Synodal act is a total mistake and shows a great confusion of thought. Rather one would say the very terms of the resolution of the Report and of the consequent motion in which outsiders were admitted were in themselves and ought to have acted as a very serious warning and caution to those who contemplated any such addition to the proposal, to take care who might be invited to communicate. For my own part I think Dean Stanley acted advisedly in what he did. I should be very loathe to think the same of any of the Churchmen concerned. They were entrapped into an outward act of communion with one (to say no more) whose presence was profane and whose communion sacrilegious; the really astounding part of the matter is that when the fact was brought to their notice they seemed, with scarcely an exception, indifferent to the very verge of complicity after the fact. For that and all its consequences they must be responsible. It is not surprising that those who deeply feel what communion involves should not share their indifference, nor is it likely that they can forget the startling lesson they have learned. It has been proposed that pressure should be brought on the Committee to remove the Socinian from the number of the co-operators. I do not think this could be done without a revision of the resolution of Convocation by that body itself. The Committee are, I presume, the judges of his intellectual fitness, and granting that, he has a right to his place. Perhaps it may make the Synod sorry that it entrusted to its Committee such large powers. Intellectual unfitness is the only ground on which, so far as I see, his position could be challenged. Conscience and piety have no voice here; and he acted, we will suppose, as such a being ("of whatever nation or religious body") might be supposed likely to act. If we invite the companionship of such folks, we must not complain of their acting according to their kind. If the communion was meant as an invocation of the Divine favour and blessing, think it was as unlikely a way to obtain them under the circumstances as could have been devised by man. Putting aside, however, the consideration of what further representations should be made to the Bishops or to the Synod of the Province, I think what we have to do is to keep steadily in view the literary character of the union of the Committee and their coadjutors, to decline to recognize their labours in any other light at present, and to insist, when the time comes, on the Synod of the Province exercising such a supervision over their results as A meeting in behalf of the Disestablished Church in Jamaica was held at Willis's Rooms, on Friday afternoon, Lord Lyttelton in the chair. Letters of sympathy were reported from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Gloucester, who were unable to be present. The Chairman explained that he had always held that whilst it was the unquestionable duty of Churchmen in the Colonies to provide for their own current expenditure, they had an undoubted claim upon us for support at any critical period. Such had now come to the Church in Jamaica, which had been Disestablished and Disendowed with more rapidity and suddenness than in the case of Ireland, and might have been treated with more forbearance. The Church being thus suddenly thrown upon its own resources, the people had an indisputable claim upon us to lend them a hand, so as to give them a hope of a renewed and prosperous career. After a few more remarks the noble Lord left to attend another meeting, and the chair was occupied by the Earl Nelson. The Earl of Shaftesbury moved the first resolution, as follows: "That this meeting cordially approves the action of the Jamaica Church in sending a deputation to England to make known its present position and prospects, and to secure such aid as may enable it to carry on its great parochial and Missionary work, as a Disestablished and Voluntary Church." He said that without going into the question whether such disendowment was right or wrong, they had to meet it as an accomplished fact; and he urged them for heaven's sake not to destroy the well established parochial system of the English Church in that Island, when it was in their power to preserve it. The negro population had all been imported by the English for their own purposes; we had brought them there, and having done so had engaged ourselves in responsibilities for their temporal and eternal welfare. Left to themselves, thousands would revert to the foul and degrading practices of au idolatry which had never been quite exterminated from among them. had thought of such a thing. They were determined te give their services as long as they were able to work. Yet, unless the laity came forward and begun to form an endowment fund, there was no hope for the future of the Church. Already they had begun to do this with great alacrity, and except one or two misled congregations, every congregation in the Island had determined to contribute to this fund. We ask you to help people who are trying to help themselves. They expected to raise among them 19,000l. annually, and trusted that enough to make up 25,000l. would be subscribed in England. With less than this, a proper staff of Clergy, &c., could not be maintained. Sir Henry Barkly, K.C.B., formerly Governor of Jamaica, in seconding the resolution, said that his knowledge of the country reached back nearly to the date of the Emancipation of the Slaves. He desired to bear testimony to the fact that there was no ground whatever for bringing a charge o supineness against the Clergy. The Church had done all that it possibly could with the comparatively small means at its command. The third resolution, expressive of the duty of England as a Christian nation to complete the work of Emancipation by providing means of religious instruction, &c., was moved by the Bishop of Gibraltar, seconded by James Carson, Esq., a large proprietor in the Island, and supported by the Rev. E. Nuttall, who gave statistics of the position of the different bodies of Dissenters. A vote of thanks to the Chairman was moved by the Bishop of Guiana, and put to the meeting by the aged Bishop of Jamaica, who said that he had been induced to come from his retirement to attend this meeting, and that he could assure them that every one of the statements to which they had listened might be relied upon as God's own truth. A collection was made, but we fear that the amount realised was very small, as the meeting was scantily attended. The deputation have not yet learned the art of organising public meetings; this one had been fixed at a bad season of the year, and for an inconvenient hour, whilst sufficient pains were not taken to give it publicity in those channels which would reach the people most likely to sympathise in its objects. CONVENTUAL AND MONASTIC INSTITUTIONS. The Select Committee of the House of Commons upon this subject met on Monday week, the Right Hon. C. P. Villiers presiding. Mr. Adams, a member of the Scotch bar, was examined, and said that he had been asked by the Lord Advocate to attend and give information to the Committee in respect to the law of Scotland in relation to Conventual and Monastic Institutions. The first statute to which he would draw attention was an Act of 1700, termed a Law for the Prevention of the growth of Popery, and it provided, among other things, that unless a person purged himself of Popery he should not be entitled to purchase property, &c. This law continued until the passing of the 33rd of George III. (about 1793) which substituted for it the oath of abjuration and declaration, and that went on till the Catholic Relief Act of 10th George IV., cap. 7, modifying the oath of the former Act and granting relief generally. By Mr. Newdegate-At present the oaths required in Scotland were the same as those required in England. The resolution was seconded by the Bishop of Manchester, who pointed out the injustice to which Jamaica had been exposed in having to submit to such a fate with no longer notice than three weeks. If he might venture to tender a little advice, it would be that their Church should act as a general would who found that he was occupying too large a territory, contract their basis of operations, gather themselves into a more compact legion or army, and work with all that increased energy which arises from a closer association. The parochial system may be a source of weakness instead of a source of strength; and parishes may be made too large so that it is impossible to work them. It was so in his own Diocese, and when he saw a parish with a population of 20,000 people, he was not altogether surprised that local newspapers should complain of the deserted condition of the Churches in Manchester.perty, whether it was left to individuals or to a body of persons. The The conclusion at which he had arrived was this, to gather his forces together if possible into a compact form, and starting as it were from one centre, try to radiate out right and left, east and west, spreading himself out from this centre over as much ground as he could reach. So he recommended the Jamaica Church to attempt no more than their means would allow, to have no scamped work, but to do all that they undertook well and thoroughly. The second resolution, affirming the sympathy and support of the meeting, was entrusted to Archdeacon Campbell, one of the deputation, who pointed out the difficulties into which they had been plunged by the precipitate action of the authorities. This disestablishinent was not the act of Jamaica itself, but of the Home Government. It was brought about by the agitation of persons, who falsely represented that it was not the Church of the people, and was not performing its mission as it ought to do. No statement could have been more contrary to the fact. Our Church was educating two-fifths of the negroes, and was becoming stronger, whilst other denominations were growing weaker in number. In the first week of December last instructions came out that on the 31st it was to be disestablished! This, of course, implied disorganisation as well, and led to innumerable difficulties from the suddeness with which action was taken. There were 26 Missionary stations hitherto supported by Island congregations, but these would now need all their resources to support their own Pastors. Instead of ninety-six, the full complement of Clergy, only fifty-three or fifty-four were entitled to receive a continued stipend from Government. But this life interest they were not permitted to commute for the benefit of the Church as a whole. So long as they were able to work, their stipends were to be paid; when disabled by infirmity, they would receive a retiring pension; or they might take this pension at once, and leave the Island. This might be a benefit to the Clergy, but not to the Church. It was a great temptation to them to take this pension and come home to England. But not one By the Chairman-The Law of Mortmain did not apply in Sootland. There was no law restricting the disposition of property. No doubt there were provisions for an inquiry into a deathbed disposition of propurpose of the gift did not affect the validity of the disposition of the property. He had no knowledge of monastic institutions in Scotland. By Mr. Matthews-His opinion was that under the Roman Catholic Relief Act Convents were legal. He had no opinion to offer derived from practice as to the legality of leaving property in trust for a community of men. There was no law now, he believed, making the saying of mass illegal in Scotland. Whether a bequest to say mass for the repose of a soul was illegal or not he was not prepared to say. In registering the title of property in Scotland it was not necessary to declare the trust. Mr. Matthews said that the only evidence of a deed was its production. The witness produced the deeds deposited with the Society which advanced the money on them, in order to verify the names, and then, at the request of Mr. Newdegate, referred to the Catholic Directory, and expressed his opinion that the gentlemen there named as owners were the vendors. By Mr. O'Reilly-He had no reason for describing the persons named as Monks, except that they performed the duties of Priests. (Laughter.) By Mr. Sherlock-It had always been understood that the Priests were the owners of the property, but he did not know it for certain until the title-deeds were seen. By the Chairman-He was satisfied with the title-deed, otherwise he should not have accepted it as security. Mr. Matthews complained that nothing had been proved, and that the time of the Committee had been wasted. Mr. Newdegate said that he would prove the matter further by a legal witness on a future occasion. Mr. O'Reilly proposed that Mr. Newdegate's proposed witness should not be called without the leave of the Committee. Ultimately the Committee-room was cleared, and the Committee remained in deliberation till the sitting of the House, when it adjourned. APPEAL and WARNING.-Churchmen who invite attacks | Luxemburg interposes between France and herself, unless, upon the Church by prophecies of disestablishment, and Churchmen who would make the National Church a mere Episcopal sect by appropriating (as at present) Parish Churches to the well-to-do minority-a tenth or twentieth-of the families in a parish. are equally helping on the Liberation Society to overthrow the Church. Every true Churchman will seek to save the Church by restoring the ancient freedom of Churches to rich and poor alike, as in all other Christian countries; thereby alone regaining the electoral masses whom the un-Christian pew-rent National Association for Freedom of Worship, 16, Northumberland-street, system has driven into irreligion or hostility. Charing-cross; and Manchester. Subscriptions, 5s. Papers sent free. The Church Herald. LONDON, JULY 27, 1870. The Week. THE text of the Constitution de Ecclesia is now published; we therefore are free from doubt as to the Infallibility which was accorded by the majority of the Vatican Council to the Pope. The language is somewhat guarded, and only acknowledges his Infallibility when "speaking ex cathedra he, as Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, defines by his supreme Apostolic authority the doctrine as to faith or morals held by the universal Church." This will no doubt be considered by many as affording a convenient opportunity for their acquiescence, on the ground that they may always maintain that, when the Pope declares a novelty to be true doctrine, he cannot be speaking Infallibly according to this definition. But we understand that there is a large body of Roman Catholics both on the Continent and in this country who perceive the danger, and will absolutely refuse to profess their acceptance of the Dogma. What the result of this may be it is impossible to conjecture. The Council has not yet terminated, and we hope still, though the matter seems almost past hope, that in some way they may be led by the Spirit of Wisdom to acknowledge that it is only an Ecumenical Council which can infallibly proclaim the true faith. The publication by the Times on Monday of the text of a secret treaty will, we have no doubt, have a considerable effect in turning public sympathy against France. The way in which lesser Powers are to be treated is highly characteristic of the Napoleonic system. The Times remarks:"We might easily deduce from internal evidence, if we were not otherwise assured of the truth, that the proposed Treaty was submitted by France to Prussia as a basis for the removal of all difficulties that threatened to interrupt the peace between them. It may be assumed to have been offered to the Court of Berlin at a time when the neutralization of Luxemburg had not been completed, and when the stipulations of the Treaty of Prague were still seriously debated. Hence the Emperor proposes to admit and recognise all the acquisitions Prussia made at the end of the war, in Bohemia, while the King was to bind himself to facilitate the acquisition by France of Luxemburg by pressing a sale of Luxemberg on the King of Holland at a price to be paid by the Emperor. No opposition was to be raised on the part of France to a Federal Union of all the South German States, except Austria, with the existing Confederation with the North; and, again, the King of Prussia was invited to bind himself, in case the Emperor should be drawn by circumstances to throw his troops into Belgium or to conquer it, to furnish the assistance of his arms to France and to support her with all his forces, sea and land, against every power that might in such an event declare war against France. A covenant of offensive and defensive alliances concludes the draught agree ment. The proposed Treaty was rejected at the time it was tendered, and it is not easy to see what Prussia would have gained by accepting it, except the destruction of the barrier indeed, war was threatened as the alternative of the Treaty. It was rejected, but, unless we are misinformed-and, speaking with all reserve on a subject of such importance, we are satisfied that our information is correct-the Treaty has been recently again offered as a condition of peace." It is only fair to add that there are reasons for suspecting that the document in question is spurious, though the Times yesterday again strongly affirmed its genuineness. We fear there is little doubt that projects of at least a very similar character were seriously discussed by the two powers. Whether we shall ever learn accurately what really occurred is perhaps more than doubtful. The final stage of the Education Bill in the House of Commons gave rise to a rather sharp encounter between Mr. Gladstone and some of his Nonconformist friends, who, having the rapacity of the proverbial horse-leech, and knowing that this was the last chance, did their best to rob us of any slight advantage we might possibly derive from its enactment. This apparently was the cause of the discussion, but we must say it bore an unfortunate resemblance to one of those sham fights got up by certain furtively disposed persons to cover nefarious proceedings, and we feel by no means certain that it was not originated with the object of impressing on the Conservative_party the danger they would incur by hindering the Bill. It has since been brought up to the House of Lords and read a second time, and we look with great anxiety for the result of the Peers' treatment of it in Committee. They cannot make it a wise or good Bill, and we should be heartily glad if they rejected it altogether. Failing that, we look to them to secure, at least to voluntary schools, full liberty as to religious teaching, including the use of the catechism; and also that the supporters of a voluntary school should be exempt from being rated for another school when their contribution exceeds the full amount to which they might be rated-viz., threepence in the pound. This would be but justice, and we earnestly urge upon the Bishops and Lay Peers who desire to save us from irreligious teaching, that they should stand firm and either carry these reforms or throw out the Bill. On Thursday Lord Shaftesbury carried the second reading of his Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, which, however, after it had been severely criticised by several Peers, he withdrew for this Session. In the debate the Bishop of London defended his brother Prelates against a charge of inactivity, and deprecated, we are glad to see, the very mischievous proposal that a Bishop should be obliged to institute proceedings at the demand of three persons, in all cases not relating to doctrine. Lord Salisbury, in his remarks as to "Ritual Excesses," did not display his wonted acuteness, but we rejoice to find that he is disposed at least to advocate toleration for them. Lord Beauchamp ably pointed out the deficiency of the Bill in providing for the constraint of the Priesthood while the Bishops are left at liberty to break the law as they please. We trust that his Lordship will apply his great abilities and thorough comprehension of the Church's system to remedy this crying abuse, and put an end to the Episcopal lawlessness which is at present our bane and our disgrace. Had the Bishops felt themselves amenable to law they would not have dared to defend the profanation of the Holy Eucharist at Westminster Abbey. The Pall Mall Gazette remarks" that it may, perhaps, though even this is doubtful, be wise to allow three parishioners to institute suits in cases of ceremonial, if the Bishop refuses to move, but there is much to be said for the Bishop alone having the power of initiating proceedings in cases of doctrine. Those zealots who wish to settle all controversial differences in the Ecclesiastical Courts had much better be confined as at present to the columns of the Church newspapers. But |