over, that American missionaries of nonepiscopal Churches have laboured in the regions under review, with a very signal blessing from the Lord. They have multiplied their stations in Asia Minor and Syria. They have numerous printingpresses; and are dispensing the Word of God and scriptural books in large numbers. Their schools are numerous: already a very considerable number of Armenian and Greek Christians have placed themselves under their instruction, and have formed themselves into Protestant communities. These and all other Protestant communities have been recognised in a recent firman from the Sultan, and have received ample protection, and have officers of government appointed to represent their interests. This Protestant movement is daily advancing throughout the East. Many appeals have been made to our Society by Christian travellers and residents in those countries, to send zealous and able missionaries of our Church. Many of the non-episcopal missionaries themselves, and some of their directors in America, have expressed a desire to see the Church of England taking a more prominent part in the scriptural revival of these Churches. Is this a time for hindrances and checks to be thrown in the way by faithful members of our own Church? If our missionaries are held back, these alternatives are before us: one, that Protestant truth will be overcome and driven from the land, and these Churches will be shut up in their errors and darkness; the other, that the Bible will prevail in the hands of non-episcopal missionaries, and that, together with the removal of the

error and vices of the Oriental Churches, the episcopal form of government will be lost in the newly formed Churches.

The state of these lands is not unlike that of the European kingdoms at the beginning of the Reformation. Shall the Reformation take the turn which it did in England and Sweden, or that which it took in Germany and Switzerland?

I believe that the door is still open to the Church of England, and to her alone, to interpose for the preservation of that which we hold to be an apostolic discipline-by persuading the rulers of the Oriental Churches to take part in the blessed reformation which has commenced.

I would very humbly submit to your Lordship, and the heads of our own Church, whether a new commendatory epistle might not be sent, either through Bishop Gobat, or some other messenger of our Church, to the Oriental Ecclesi-astical Authorities, to forewarn them of the danger before them, and to call upon them, for their own souls' welfare, as well as for the preservation of primitive discipline, to follow the example of the Episcopal reformers of our Church, of blessed memory, and to place themselves at the head of the movement for the "purification" of their Churches.

I submit this proposal advisedly, having the means of knowing, from those best acquainted with the state of things, that the measure is feasible, and that the missionaries of different denominations would not look with an unfriendly eye upon its execution.

HENRY VENN.

your Lordships with the feelings of respect and reverence which are due to your sacred office.

"We beg to express our conviction that the almost indiscriminate use of

the Order for the Burial of the Dead,' as practically enforced by the existing state of the law, imposes a heavy burden upon the consciences of the clergy, and is the occasion of a grievous scandal to many Christian people.

"We therefore most humbly pray that your Lordships will be pleased to give to the subject now brought under your consideration such attention as the magnitude of these evils appears to require, with the view to the devising of some effectual remedy."

To this "Memorial" the signatures of "about 4,000" clergymen have as the subscribers to it are informed by a printed circular-been already obtained; signatures from clergymen of all opinions. It will be observed that their objection relates,-not to the burial service as it stands in the Prayer-Book, with the Rubric at its head, but-only to that practical disregard of its provisions which the circumstances of the times have induced. (Ezek. xxii. 26).* It is undeniable that this service does, in its more obvious and prima facie meaning, seem to assert the salvation of the party interred. Thus, the phrase "of his great mercy, to take unto Himself," if explained by other parts of the Prayer Book, would imply as much. So again, the expression of hearty thanks" for delivering the

66

• See a Sermon "The Burial Service, its legitimate use dependant on Church discipline," by Rev. P. Maitland, (Burns, 1842), and the Christian Guardian, July No., 1850, pp. 314317, and August, 1850, pp. 368, &c. Many a clergyman may be able honestly to subscribe that the service "may lawfully so be used" as it stands in the Prayer-Book under the limitations of the Rubric which is prefixed to it, who yet disapprove of its indiscriminate use, and the practical neglect of the provisions of this Rubric.

For example, "who of his great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins;" "by thy great mercy defend us from all perils and dangers of this night." Again, "Almighty God, with whom do live the souls of them that depart home in the Lord." (Burial Service).

Thus in the preceding sentence of the Prayer in which these words occur, we speak of "the souls of the faithful after they are delivered from the burden of the flesh" being "in joy and felicity;" and in the Churching service we give "thanks" to God that he has "vouchsafed to deliver" women "from the great pain and peril of childbirth."

+ The view may thus be briefly stated, viz., That it may always be said at the burial of any one, even the most wicked, that it has pleased God in the general Providential (Matt. x. 29, 30) exercise of "his" great and "tender mercies" which are over all his works" (Psalm clv. 9) -in mercy" if not to the deceased, yet to the survivors (as in Psalm cxxxvi. 15, 17, 18) either directly or indirectly, such as by the removal of a bad example, or as a timely

chastisement-to "take unto himself the soul," in that general sense in which it is spoken of mankind in general (see Job xxxiv. 14; Eccles. xii. 7; iii. 21), and even of the wicked in particular, (see Job xxvii. 8); that is, to summon it. into His own more immediate presence-"to take" it into His own hands for due disposal according to its character. In the same general sense, is the deceased termed a "brother," (see Isaiah lxvi. 5; Acts vii. 2, 5; 1 Cor. v. 11; 2 Thes, iii. 6, 15), and even a "dear brother;" for St. Paul seems to have regarded his unconverted "kinsman according to the flesh" as dear to him (Romans ix. 3). The "sure and certain hope" is the hope (not of his, but) of "the resurrection to eternal life," (i. e. "the resurrection of the just"), the word "the" having been purposely inserted at the last revision: and the word "our". "our vile body"-refers as it does in Phil. iii. 21, to the bodies of true Christians in general. The expression of "hearty

To the first of these three courses, it may be not unreasonably objected, That forasmuch as the funeral service is designed for the benefit of the living, rather than of the dead, it would be highly inexpedient thus to altogether deprive the surviving friends of the benefit of a religious service in so very many cases-especially as the general feelings of Society would be opposed to such a course, and would naturally shrink from it. To the second, That it would frequently place both Ministers and people in a very delicate and very trying position. The third course, then, alone remains to revise the service in some such way, as to render it мOST appropriate, indeed, at the graves of real Christians, but yet not so inappropriate at the graves of even the most ungodly, as either to wound the conscience of any Officiating Minister, or to bring any scandal on the Church herself; in other words to modify some of its expressions so as to leave all the sublime beauties of the present service untouched, and at the same time to leave the particular and individual application of its declarations and its hopes, to be supplied by those who know whether or not the lives and deaths of their departed friends have been such as to warrant their indulg ing those hopes. For it would be far better to omit certain clauses at the burial of good men, than to use them indiscriminately at the burial of wicked men. And it would still be possible to make a difference between those who are and who are not in Communion

of the Defence of the 39 Articles (Hatchards, 1849) at pp.5-9 quotes from a work by Archdeacon Sparke, published "by public authority" in 1607, and "allowed" by the very King and Primate who enacted the subscription to the 36th Canon, which touches upon this very point. Dr. Sparke maintains that in the case of such as "lived and died most profanely" it never was the intent of "the authorisers of" the Prayer-book to bind Ministers to utter all the words of the service over their remains. Yet Dr. Sparke very properly adds a caution against the rashness and indiscretion of some Ministers" in their omissions, and clearly refers to a few extreme cases only.

with the Church, by omitting the Psalms and Lesson in the case of the latter.

THE ANGLICAN FORM OF CHURCH
GOVERNMENT.

The Scriptural accuracy and moderation of the Church of England upon this point are very remarkable. In her 23rd Article, she does not dogmatically declare what is to be regarded as a lawful external call to the Ministerial Office; she passes, therefore, no sentence upon the polity of other Churches. But in her 36th Article, by sanctioning the Ordination Services, she plainly declares what polity she deems to be the most Scriptural and most proper, and also practically secures its continuance within her own pale. For in "the Preface" to the Ordination Services, while we are reminded of the Scriptural pattern of the three orders of Ministers,* we also find an assertion of the factbut without any declaration of the absolute necessity of a lineal and personal succession from hand to hand +-that

For we see Timothy and Titus to have been set over the presbyters or bishops-for the two names referred at that time to the same office, Acts xx. 17, 28; Titus i. 5, 7,-and the deacons (see 1 Tim. iii. 1-13; v. 1, 17; Titus i. 5, 6, 7), as chief bishops: and in Phil. i. 1, we find a reference to all three orders together. The whole subject is clearly and concisely stated in Bp. Short's History of the Church of England, s. 460 and 804.

This Mr. Lathbury shows in his History of Convocation, c. vii. pp. 174.5. At the same time the fact of the lineal and personal Episcopal Succession "from the Apostles' times" seems to be the most satisfactory view. Thus the Rev. E. Bickersteth remarks that "Episcopal succession is continued amongst us, a fact and a privilege, though by no means of the essence of the Church," (Promised Glory of the Church, c. iv. p. 41). The arguments in support of this fact are most lucidly and concisely stated in Dr. H. M'Neil's Lectures on the Church of England, No. ii. s. 2, pp. 68-71. The true doctrine of our Church upon the subject is ably shown in the two Sermons on "Christ's presence with his Ministers," and "the Apostolic Origin of Episcopacy" in the valuable volume of "Discourses on Tradition and Episcopacy" by Rev. C. Benson, late Master

these orders have existed in the Church of Christ from that time to this. It is further declared, that without Episcopal ordination "no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in the United Church of England and Ireland, or suffered to execute any of the said functions." Here, then, our Church, having expressed her own opinion as to the right and proper course, firmly and consistently adheres to it, so far as relates to ministering in her own Communion; while at the same time,-consistently with her doctrine as laid down in the 23rd Article-she passes no sentence whatever upon other Communions, or the polity of other Churches. (See Hooker

iii. c. 11, s. 19, and b. vii. c. 14, s. 11 and 12). This has been fully shown in a Sermon entitled "the Apostolical Succession" preached at the Consecration of the Lord Bishop of Chichester (Dr. A. T. Gilbert) by Rev. E. Hawkins, D.D. and published at the command of the" late "Archbishop of Canterbury" Dr. W. Howley, B. Fellowes, 1842), and in the Christian Observer, for November, 1851, pp. 763–803. The true Spirit in which we should regard Ministers who are not episcopally ordained— viz. according to our Lord's rule in Mark ix. 38, 39, 40,-is well stated in Rev. C. Bridges' "Sacramental Instruction" (Seeleys), c. vii. pp. 130133. And as to our refusal of "official ministerial intercourse" with those Churches which have departed from

of the Temple, (J. W. Parker, 1840). Also in Rev. J. Venn's "Christian Ministry and Church Membership," (Hatchards, 1842). In the 55th Canon (of 1603-4) we find "the Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland" to be spoken of, although no Bishops were consecrated for Scotland until six years afterwards, viz., in 1610. The promise of Christ's continual presence in Matt. xxviii. 19, 20, is contingent upon the teaching of His commandments. It is folly therefore to lay claim to the promise of His presence, without adhering to His doctrine.

The Preface of the American Ordinal is equally stringent with our own in this respect. See also the "Christian Observer," Nov. 1851, p. 787 and 789.

the Episcopal form of Church government, even that ultra-latitudinarian dissenter, Jacob Abbott, in his "Corner Stone," c. vii. pp. 212-214 (2nd ed. by Wightman) distinctly admits and testifies that "there is no bigotry or intolerance in this." He says, "If one denomination suppose some circumstances in the mode of ordaining pastors, or admitting members to the Churches, or some views of Christian duty, to be essential, while they are not so regarded by others, what ought the others to do? Why simply to allow them to pursue their own course, unmolested and in peace.

If a class of Christians think that a certain mode of ordination is the only valid one, or that certain views of religious truth are essential, they cannot of course include those who differ from them in these respects in the circle of official ministerial intercourse. There is no bigotry or intolerance in this. There is certainly no bigotry or intolerance in a man's doing what he himself thinks is right, if he does not molest his neighbours, or prevent, by other means than moral ones, their doing what they think right. Nor is there any, in a Church's confining its official measures, strictly to the field which is marked out by its own views of official duty. The world is wide enough for other Churches to act freely according to their ideas. No; the intolerance and bigotry is all on the other side. It is not in the quiet firmness with which a Church guards its doors according to its own conscientious ideas of duty, but it is in loud vociferations of the crowd which has assembled without, demanding admittance as a right." (pp. 212-214).* D.

It may not be here out of place just to notice a specimen of the misrepresentation sometimes resorted to in discussing this subject. A Mr. "R. M. Beverley" in a pamphlet entitled "The Church of England Examined, &c." thus writes: "the Deacon is directed to say he is [i e. moved by the Holy Ghost]: after which, the Bishop gives him authority, to execute the ministration, the authority of the Holy Ghost being considered as quite secondary to that of the Bishop," (p. 33)! Had this writer only turned to Acts vi. 3, 6, and xiii. 2, 3, we can hardly think that