perative upon the bishop personally, and with the assistance of those whom the Church names as his assessors, to examine every candidate for holy orders, both as to his faith and life, and his qualification for the special business of teaching; and sternly to refuse ordination to all such as cannot make good their pretensions to the character of a Christian minister,-one, sound in the faith, pure in life, apt to teach, and moved to take upon him the sacred office by no motives of a worldly kind.

They (the bishops) have a duty to perform, and on the neglecting or faithful performance of it depends the rising or falling of the church. Let them, then, as men of God, consider this, and constantly remember their fearful responsibility. The right of receiving or rejecting is entirely in their hands. No writ or prohibition from civil courts can either restrain them in the due exercise of their duty, or fetter them in the objects of their choice. Let them, then, in the fear of God, exercise, unfettered either by prejudice, favour, fear, or friendship, an honest and impartial judgement; and receive none, high or low, rich or poor, who do not bring with them all the qualifications which the church demands; else there can be no hope of regaining the ground which we have lost; so that in a very short time the church will certainly fall. p. 40.

But do the bishops generally acquit themselves faithfully, and as 'men of God', of their serious responsibility as holders of the keys of the Church? Mr. A. thinks, not,

How far this is attended to in general practice, every one knows, who has been examined for the sacred office, either of deacon, or of priest. The examinations are generally by the chaplain alone; not by the ordinary, as the canon and the law directs. There is therefore a total, or nearly total deviation from the intention both of the church and the state; and that man in my opinion must possess a more than common hardihood, who can undertake alone to examine and decide on so grave a question, as whether the persons called before him for about an hour, have all the qualifications for the sacred office which the church designed and the word of God demands. But that it was not the design of the church to intrust so weighty a matter to the decision of any individual, however high his rank, or great his attainments, is beyond dispute. The 35th canon, and which is entitled "The Examination of such as are to be made Ministers", positively says, "That the bishop, before he admit any person to holy orders, shall diligently examine him in the presence of those ministers that shall assist him at the imposition of hands; and if the said bishop have any lawful impediment, he shall cause the said ministers carefully to examine every such person to be ordained. Provided, that they who shall assist the bishop in examining and laying on of hands, shall be of his cathedral church, if they may conveniently be had, or other sufficient preachers of the same diocese, to the number of three at the least: and if any bishop or suffragan shall admit any to sacred orders, who is not so qualified and examined, as before we have ordained, the archbishop of his

province, having notice thereof, and being assisted therein by one bishop, shall suspend the said bishop or suffragan so offending, from making either deacons or priests for the space of two years." To ask how many of the bishops, from their non-compliance with the injunctions here contained, are liable on information to the penalty denounced, might be considered a strange, though a grave and important question. Some there may be who strictly comply with the direction of the canon: but having never heard of such, and I have made some enquiry, I shall leave it to those whom it most concerns, to investigate a matter in which the interests of the church are so deeply concerned. I am aware that it is attempted to be understood, that the examination enjoined in the canon, applies only to the questions put to the candidates, in the presence of the assisting ministers, in the ordination service. But the canon itself entirely confutes this supposition, positively stating, "that the bishop shall admit none to sacred orders, who are not qualified and examined as we have before directed." And what was before directed? why, that every man must be able to answer, and render in latin unto the ordinary, an account of his faith, according to the thirty-nine Articles, and to confirm the same out of the Holy Scriptures. This, I take it, not only confutes the previous supposition, but also distinctly defines the line of examination which must be followed, in regard to the candidate's belief in, and understanding of all the doctrines contained in the thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. But which of the bishops, or which of the examining chaplains, conducts his examination according to the directions here contained? I do most solemnly declare that I was never asked one single question about the thirty-nine Articles. I have questioned others at different times and from different dioceses, and they have distinctly stated the same, excepting, in one or two instances, some ensnaring question about the 17th Article. I will not say with some, that the examinations are in all cases trifling. In many, they are close and difficult. But I will venture to say, that they are not generally in the way and order which the church designed. This, I take it, is such a sad and fatal circumstance to the candidates themselves, and so deeply affecting the interest of true religion and the church, that it cannot be justified, nor ought it to be persisted in by the bishops, or tolerated by the state. Enough, and more than enough of mischief has resulted from this sad deviation from the declared design and order of the church. To this, more than to any other thing, must be ascribed that great difference of opinion which exists among her ministers, on some of the most important doctrines of religion, dangerous to the souls of men, and inimical to her peace and stability. Nor can this be remedied or prevented, but by a speedy return, and a steady and faithful adherence to her declared and original intentions.'

pp. 41-44.

On these important and delicate matters of fact, it is better that we should employ our Author's language, than advance the same statements in our own: and we presume that whatever particular exceptions may be made to his strong and appalling allegations, it will not be attempted to maintain that they

are substantially calumnious, or enormously exaggerated. Mr. A. goes on to argue upon the solemn language of the Ordination Service. This is a subject often insisted upon, and which, on There is no the present occasion, we may hastily pass over. doubt that the profession put by the Church into the mouth of the candidate for either deacon's or priest's orders, is such as loads the profane, the inconsiderate, and the interested with a guilt fearful to think of. If it were not that the commonness of this lamentable abuse of the awful terms of Christianity renders individuals insensible to its enormity, no man conscious of being undevout in his habits and temper,- -no man who cannot pretend to be chiefly intent upon the glory of God and the edification of the people, could pass through the mockery of ordination, and again shew himself in the company of honest men.

And shall not God', exclaims our Author, reckon with those who, pretending a motive they never had, and making vows and promises they never intended to fulfil, have thrust themselves into the fold of Christ; not to feed his sheep, but to enrich themselves by the spoils of the church? Yes, fearful indeed must be their account at the last great day, who, living by the altar they hardly ever serve, and the gospel they never preach, leave their flocks in the hand of strangers, whose own the sheep are not, constantly exposed to the ravages of the enemy; and thousands perish for ever in their sins.'

Mr. A. then proceeds to complain of a deviation, on the part of many of the clergy, from the doctrines of the Articles and the Homilies. The consequence of this inconsistency between the pulpit and the formula of the Church, has been, of course, the departure of the great bulk of the people from the principles of the Reformation.

In this state were matters at the time of the appearance of the Wesleys, the Whitfields, and some few other names in the church, Those holy, able, and trulyworthy to be recorded to the end of time. devoted men, seeing the evil in question, sounded the alarm, and called both ministers and people to consider from whence they had fallen. In the spirit of Jeremiah, they proclaimed, "Thus saith the Lord, stand ye in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls." But how was this met by the bishops and clergy of the day? Were they willing to hearken, to inquire, to see, and to return to the good old way, and to co-operate with them in the great and holy work of The very op cleansing the sanctuary, and in repairing its breaches?

posite was the case. They said, in effect, with the Jews, "We will not hearken; we will not enquire; we will not return to the old paths, neither will we walk therein." They closed their pulpits against them; spurned them; raised the most impious outcry against them; and manifested a spirit which, had it not been restrained by just and equitable laws, made in former and better times, would have gladly

chained them to the stake, and destroyed their zeal for God in the martyr's fire. The consequence was, that they drove them and their adherents away; and we see in their descendants, and in others who from the same quarter have joined their ranks, a rival party, which, in point of the number of devoted worshippers, may, perhaps, more than equal the religious establishment of the land.

Had the rulers of the church been as wise and politic as the Pope, they would instantly have taken advantage of the talents, piety, and zeal of these great and worthy men; enlisted them in the best of causes which the human mind can conceive, and turned the whole for the advancement of true religion; for raising the church from her decayed and fallen state, and making her reflect again something of her pristine glory. It was in their power to have done this. These men whom they hated, persecuted, and opposed, were, from principle, conviction, and education, sincerely attached to the established church. It was with the greatest reluctance that they adopted any measures inconsistent with her union and order, till they were forced, by being absolutely shut out from exercising their ministry in the church that they loved, and which they had sincerely devoted themselves to serve. But their opposers were blind! they were worse than blind! nay, I will go further; I will challenge the contrary to be proved, whether in any one instance, for more than a hundred years, the rulers of the church, or even the state, have ever adopted any measure for her good, which was not forced upon them by the rapid and formidable advances of her dissenting rivals, and then, perhaps, too late.' pp. 59, 60.

In support of his allegation, that a large proportion of the clergy have thus swerved from the line of doctrine to which, in subscribing, they have pledged themselves to adhere, our Author appeals to the evidence of multitudes who excuse their Dissent altogether, or chiefly, on this ground; that they cannot hear in the parish church the doctrines clearly professed in the articles, liturgy, and homilies. Were we called upon or admitted to arbitrate in the great question at issue between the evangelical and orthodox parties, we should really deem it a satisfactory method of reaching a conclusion, thus to appeal to the common sense of the people;—we mean of that class who pay any attention to what they hear from the pulpit. It matters nothing that there are thousands who quietly laud the parson's sermon,' let him say what he may; and who would very obediently allow him to preach Mohamedism, unrebuked, if he were so inclined. The question is, whether, when the minds of the people are, by any means, quickened from the death of indifference, and turned actively and with solicitous attention towards the Scriptures and the creeds of the Church, they do not, in the large majority of instances, begin to feel dissatisfied with what is termed by the High-Church party orthodox preaching, and run after what is termed evangelical, wherever they can find it, whether in church or chapel. At the same time, many, or most of these malcon

tents, explicitly and loudly profess their consent with the articles and homilies of the Church, and actually prove their attachment to its forms, by adhering to them if they may be found conjoined with evangelical preaching. This sort of unbribed, popular testimony, abundant as it is, ought, we say, to be received as strong, as conclusive proof of the claim of the evangelical party to be regarded as the true sons of the Church.

But we are travelling a little out of our intended path. We regret that Mr. Acaster has, on this subject, done so in a manner which is likely to prejudice his argument. He has a strong case before him; and would have done well to adhere to what is unquestionable, and unquestioned. For example; the residence of the clergy, which is his next topic, is one upon which much may be said to great effect, without hazarding a sentence that will be controverted among-honest men. Mr. A. asks:1. Has every parish in the kingdom the sole and undivided labour of its minister; and is this labour in strict conformity to the regulations of the church, both as to the nature and quantum of the duties to be performed? 2. Has every parish in the kingdom its constantly resident incumbent? 3. Has every incumbent in the kingdom no more than one benefice with the cure of souls? To these questions, it is obvious, an answer in the negative must be returned. The intentions of the founders of the Church, therefore, have been thwarted, and the religious welfare of the nation set at naught. In calculating the extent of the alleged dereliction of duty on the part of the clergy, Mr. A. rests on the authority of statements advanced by the Bishop of Winchester, in a charge delivered to the clergy of the diocese of Llandaff; and arguing upon these facts as affording an average for the country at large, he assumes, that the in'habitants of something more than seven-eighths of the parishes throughout the kingdom, have no more than one weekly opportunity afforded of assembling together in the church for ' religious instruction and worship.'

We cannot profess an acquaintance with facts extensive enough to justify our calling this statement in question; and, yet, if asked roughly to estimate the proportion of parishes in which service is performed only once in the day, we should certainly have rated it much lower than Mr. Acaster has done :we should even have hesitated in supposing that so many as twothirds are thus lamentably neglected. There is probably a great difference, in this respect, in different districts. In some, the influence of public opinion operates strongly to enforce a decent discharge of duty: in others, it has no power whatever; and the people, willing enough so to be abandoned, are abandoned to the more or less of conscience and honesty that may exist among their parochial ministers. But for the purposes of