Dr. Islay Burns's Catholicism and Sectaranism is really much more Catholic in spirit and expression than the Pastoral of him who claims to be the head of the Roman Catholics of England. Dr. Islay Burns's opinions are not ours, and his view is a view only as we believe, utterly impracticable when it goes beyond theory. But we think with him that every Body of Christians has something to learn from every other Body. Whatever is good in any system-and without elements of good it could not exist as a society for a single day-demands our attention and also our reverence. Take for instance in the Presbyterian system, "the marvellous power of concentrated action which its representative system supplies," and we have to say that no Ecclesiastical Synods have ever come near these assemblies in completeness. When assembled, of course, there is the lack of the controlling authority which the divine system of the church can alone supply. But the strength of the one was intended to supply the weakness of the other-and it was an evil day when such bodies as the Presbyterians and Congregationalists were driven to organise themselves outside the church, instead of lending to her their strength and fighting in her ranks. Dr Burns reckons the realisation of the common life of Christians as the particular excellence of Congregational system. We dare say it is their leading idea. But the incessant schisms in bodies thus constituted, beyond anything else proves the need that exists of a central body of which all ought to be living members. We may express our gratification at the appointment of one so large hearted and able as Dr. Burns to the office of Professor in the Free Kirk College at Glasgow. We know not how such a theory as he propounds can satisfy one who thinks so deeply, and whose sympathies are so large; but, at any rate, such a spirit as his is working towards a union which his heart yearns for, but of which he is so hopeless of the realisation in this world.

There is a fear lest, in defending the English Service Book against attacks of Revisers of the Liturgy of the levelling school English Churchmen should be betrayed into extravagant language in praise of "our incomparable Liturgy." It is a grand work, no doubt, but no man of Catholic instincts can pronounce it perfect. There is much need to "supply what is wanting" to it. If men wish to be really awakened from the pleasant dream that our Baptismal Offices are perfect, let them read the second number of the Panoply, printed and published by George H. Forbes at the Pitsligo Press. We intend to devote some space in our next number to an examination of this learned work. Our readers, who meantime should read the treatise itself, will not need to be guarded against the one-sidedness and hair-splitting which are characteristic of Mr. Forbes' mind. They will find abundance of learning and able argument to counterbalance these defects.

Perhaps in this connexion we may mention Mr. Benson's series of Sermons entitled Redemption. A careful perusal of these will induce the Catechist to remodel several parts of his instructions. Many parish Priests have lately felt, that the seeming strength of free-thinking is, in its opposition to the current inadequate hold Christians have on this all-important doctrine. Our pulpits ring with jejune repetitions of the Calvinistic dogma of vicarious sacrifice. And even those who see beyond this view of our blessed Lord's death, are still corrupted by thinking it needful to extend the formula. It is indisputable that Christ's sufferings resulted from our sin. It is, therefore, merely a different way of expressing the same truth, to say man sinned and Christ suffered. But redemption extends much farther than this, indeed infinitely farther. The sufferings and death of Christ are only the human aspect of the doctrine, which is underlaid by all that is Divine, and thus extends as far as the Infinity of the Godhead. We are not quite sure that it is quite logical to speak of the sacrifice of praise as the first topic in treating of redemption. Mr. Benson himself well points out that this idea of sacrifice is involved in the very fact of creation, and is common to angels and men. Suffering is involved in it simply by the circumstance of the fall. The whole subject, however, is so interesting, in connexion with modern scepticism, that we hope to devote an article in an early number to its consideration. Such sermons as these, however, ought to stop the mouths of those who seem to wish that all ability should be thought to have departed from the English Church with the secession of men like Drs. Manning, Newman, and Wilberforce.

Perhaps we have little cause to wonder at Dr. O'Brien's lecture when we read the Cardinal Archbishop's Pastoral. The tone of it is vastly different from what we recollect from the same pen twenty years ago. We trace in it the spirit of so manythank God, not of all-of those who have left us. Where there is a want of charity there must also be a want of justice. To put down the Home and Foreign Review with the one hand, and with the other to attack the Church of England as the special home of Free-thinking, is, we submit, scarcely just, unless it could be said that with the suppression of the Review, the sentiment which there found expression was stifled too. But this no one knows better than the Cardinal is not the case. Some who left us for Rome have gone through her portals to blank infidelity. Is it not more becoming then to lament the common injury? The Church of England is not Antichrist nor possessed by the spirit of Antichrist. The future revelation of the enemy of God and Man is being prepared for by his many emissaries now abroad in the world-in Paris, as well as in London, at Munich, as well as at Oxford. But for a mistake having occurred, we should have been able to treat of the Pastoral in a leading article in the present number.

We have always thought that Bishops' Charges reverse the natural order of things. In England, where the Diocesan Synod has ceased to be a reality, perhaps it is impossible to avoid some such arrangement. But, surely in Scotland, when Bishop and Clergy meet, it is that the latter may advise the former. After a fair discussion has elicited the real wants of the Diocese, the Bishop may then speak with authority, supported by his councillors. But the charge is a cut and dried document containing the results of the Bishop's private judgment, and is of no more value than we may choose to attribute to it. "The Coadjutor-Bishop of Edinburg," as Bishop Morrell styles himself, gives as a charge of the regular English character, pointing out what he wishes done, after he has been a year a Bishop, the very much larger portion of which has been spent in England. The Bishop of Brechin published his Primary charge after having been Bishop ten years; and then he spoke not of practical duties, on which he had called his Synod together to advise him, but of doctrine of which the Bishop in each Diocese is the constituted guardian. The only mistake in that case was calling the address, what it was not, a charge. Let us ask Bishop Morrell one question: Were the curates of Henley coadjutor-Vicars, or coadjutors of the Vicar? Bishop Morrell is guilty of more than an error of taste in assuming a title which does not belong to him.

Mr. Wroth's Sermon, entitled Free and Unappropriated Churches, with the Weekly Offertory in lieu of Pewed Churches with Pew Rents, is earnest and able. Probably Š. James ii. 2, refers to S. religious assemblies, but many men have thought otherwise. Mr. Wroth builds upon the passage rather more than he is entitled to do, when he draws a picture of the scene which he supposes present to the mind's eye of the Apostle. At any rate, in a passage of such doubtful meaning, it is a proof of strength to take for granted nothing at all, but merely to draw the general conclusion that partiality is utterly repugnant to all Christian principle.

With regard to the question raised, we imagine there can be but one opinion of the evils of pews and pew rents. But it is also, we think, only needful to cast one's eyes over Scripture to see that the Offertory is not the cure. St. Philip's, Clerkenwell, is a large parish, with an overwhelming population. Let us suppose a small country church, with three or four hundred souls. Would the Offertory, in such a case, support the Clergyman and relieve the poor? If the Offertory could do everything, we may be sure that other modes would not have been adopted. But from the earliest times, compulsory payments, as well as free-will offerings, have been required. Where would have been our Clergy if, during the deadness of last century, they had had to depend on the liberality of their people? The Offertory is of Catholic institution, but tithes are probably as old as the creation. Free-will offerings were received for the restoration of the temple, but the half shekel per head per annum was an enforced contribution.

Dr. Irons's two sermons, on the Old and New Testaments, are by far the most striking and original sermons we have seen for some time. They were preached at St. Paul's also. That entitled The Scripture Cannot be Broken, on the Old Testament, is especially valuable. We do not think it possible to find two short treatises more suitable for circulation among persons of competent education, whose faith may have been unfortunately disturbed by recent events. Dr. Irons insists, over and over again, that the meaning of Scripture is Scripture; that this version may or may not be accurate, but if it gives the general purport of the Books, it is in fact Scripture. Questions of readings are really very secondary questions, because, when settled, if settled at all, they do not affect any grave doctrine which we have learned, not from Scripture but from the Church, which taught it before Scripture was committed to writing. Dr. Irons's information, which will be new to very many persons, of the small regard paid to the written documents in the early ages, and the great regard to primitive tradition, is peculiarly valuable in this age. We can most conscientiously recommend these sermons.

A new candidate for public favour comes out with the grotesque title, The Anti-Teapot Review. No University man will need to be told what a Tea-pot is, and for the general public a prefatory article explains the title. Our only fear is lest, having chosen a funny title, the contributors should feel themselves constrained to strive after the funny. Satire may be witty and deep, but it is an edged tool. There are indications in this first number of something approximating to ribildry in the use of Scripture phrases to give point. We need not say that this is offensive, In the main, however, the Review is wise as well as witty, and is thoroughly right in aim and intention. Avoiding the dangers we have named, we see no reason why it should not succeed. Let the Editor remember that no living man reads Punch from end to end. Jocularity, to be endurable, must be sparingly used.

Bishop Colenso's Pastoral is, as might be expected from that quarter, scornful, and all that that implies--self-sufficient, onesided, and confident. We are not sure, however, that the confidence which is expressed, does not betray the fear that is felt that the law may, after all, not be so efficient a weapon as truth and candour. Certainly the appeal to the Protestant feeling of his laity, seems to indicate a doubt as to whether they may be disposed to regard him as the confessor of our true Protestant faith. not a little curious to observe how little confidence is felt by sceptics in the ultimate triumph of their principles. The four topics on which the Doctor dilates, as giving him assurance of victory, are, one and all, connected with legal quibbles, about the constitution of the Court that tried him, and the Queen's Prerogative. The laity of his late diocese are not likely to feel intense interest on either point.

It is

The strength of our sober contemporary, the Ecclesiastic, does not consist in brilliancy of any sort, either external or internal. But for good sober sound sense, conveyed in good nervous English, it is unrivalled among Church periodicals. The May number is no exception to the character it has gained and maintained for so many years. Trench's Synonymes is reviewed very favourably by one who is able to estimate the labour bestowed. There is a good and fair criticism of Lord Robert Montague's Four Experiments; and the interesting Inquiry after the Secondary Causes of Success in Christian Missions" is continued. The June number is even better. A very interesting and Catholic article, entitled The State of the Departed, but really giving a very Catholic exposition of Purgatory, will well repay perusal. The article entitled Cathedralia is an interesting digest of authorities on all matters connected with Cathedral and Collegiate Churches.

By the same publisher, Theodore Wright, we have a new catechetical manual, The Cathechist, ushered into the world. It is in general good and Catholic, but in a few points it fails. Thus, for instance, when we are told that Hell does not in the Creed mean "the wicked place, but a place where the souls of the departed abide till the Resurrection," there is a complete obscuring of the fact of our Lord having gone thither to free the souls detained, in order to readmit them to Paradise. Hades, St. Augustine tells us, is never used in a good sense. Again, we are told that a sacrifice is an offering for remission of sins," which is only one fourth part of the truth. The faithful are defined as being "all true believers," which is more than questionable. We have pointed out these understatements and mistakes because, generally, the tone is good, and the instruction sound.

66

The course of lectures delivered by Mr. Carter during last Lent at All Saints', Margaret Street, has been printed under the title of The Life of Sacrifice. The sermons are, as all proceeding from Mr. Carter's pen is, very beautiful. There is a mistake in the Third Lecture, p. 40, in which Mr. Carter says "they bore a pair of turtle doves, as His offering, according to the universal law observed in the redemption of every male child of Israel," thus confounding the offering for the purification of the mother with the five shekels' redemption money required in the case of every first-born male. We are bound to say that Mr. Carter errs in respectable company. The Breviary for the Second of February reads, in the versicle safter the second lection, "Obtulerunt pro eo Domino par turturum aut duos pullos columbarum."

The May and June numbers of the Scottish Guardian afford ns little hope that this Magazine will serve the purposes of the Church. The Editor displays incredible unacquaintance with what is passing in the minds, not of the Clergy alone, but of the better informed laity also. He treads on people's corns with the blundering insouciance of an awkward man.