of modern date has the symbolical principle been so completely carried out" as in what was to have been " Holy Cross Church" in that emporium of the "petrifaction of religion." Did we "banter" when we estimated lightly the prediction of the Tracts for the Times, (Vol. III. No. 72, p. 54) that they would "erect safe and substantial bulwarks for the Anglican believer against the church of Rome, and draw clear and intelligible lines, which may allow him securely to expatiate in the rich pastures of Catholicism, without the reasonable dread that he, as an individual, may fall into that great snare which has bewildered the whole Latin church-Popery?" Or did we banter when we lifted up our hands and eyes in admiration of Mr. Gresley's prediction that there was no more likelihood of any writer of the Oxford Tracts becoming a Romanist than of the Archbishop of Canterbury doing so? Who banters now? The banter was not our fault, but our mishap. The grotesque features were in the originals, not the daguerreotype portraits. And now one concluding word, which shall be deeply serious. We said at the close of our notice of the Bishop of Calcutta's Farewell Sermons, Preach-preach-preach. Anglicanism is not a petrifaction; its services are not spectacle. It is scriptural and energetic; it addresses itself to the heart, the conscience, and the understanding, and not merely to the eye and ear. Yet with the word it conjoins the sacraments. It neglects neither. It is like the tempest-tossed mariners in the Acts of the Apostles, in a place where two seas meet; it is placed between Puritanism on the one hand, and Popery on the other; and if we"run aground," we shall "be broken with the violence of the waves." We have been "driven up and down in Adria ;" and should we be shipwrecked, it is doubtful whether our overland retreat will be to Geneva or Rome. To describe our condition, two scraps of quotation may serve instead of a multitude of words. There lies on our table a pile of the writings of that eminent Puritan divine, Jeremiah Burroughs. There lie beside them the Tracts for the Times. In the Tracts we read (Vol. III. Adv. p. iv.), "The Sacraments, not preaching, are the sources of divine grace.' In Burroughs we read: "The ordinary way of God's conveying grace is by the ministry of the word. Did God ever appoint any other way to convey Christ and grace to the soul?" (Gospel Remission, 1688, p. 101.) What dogmatising on either side is this! What right has either the Tractite or the Puritan thus "to limit the Holy One?" How different the scriptural sobriety, the evangelical expansion, of the Anglican church. Let us honour the word of God; let us honour his sacraments also. Our religion consists not either in symbolism or anti-symbolism; in ritualism, or abhorrence of ritualism. It were not worth a rush to be a martyr for either, or a bigot to either. "Let all things be done decently and in order." So much for ceremonial matters; and as for doctrines, we accept what Mr. Ward says in his "Ideal of a Christian Church "" as his reason why he could not sign the twelfth Article except in "a non-natural sense," after having "explained it away," that "It is as plain as words can make it on the Evangelical side." And so are all the others; and so is our Prayer-book; and so are our Homilies. We ask no more. May God in his mercy graciously preserve to us our beloved and honoured Church. VIEW OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS. IN our November Number, in the absence of parliamentary discussions, it was proposed to touch upon a few topics of general interest. We had referred to some questions arising out of the efforts to adjust the balance of European power; and we adverted to Dr. Hook's education scheme; the Evangelical Alliance; and sundry church affairs; and we were noticing Tractarian proselytism, and had penned a paragraph upon the dearth in Ireland, when our printer cut us short. We propose taking up our remarks where we broke off. Of the dearth in Ireland, what can be said but that it is a heavy affliction from the hand of God; that, religiously regarded, it cannot but be viewed as a national punishment for national sins; that, subordinately, it is connected with a wretched state of social arrangements, which may be amended, and must be, if Ireland is ever to be a settled, peaceful, and prosperous land; but that, whatever may be the causes, as respects God or man, of the infliction, charity and humanity demand the most prompt and liberal measures for alleviating the calamity. The pressure was so sudden and extensive, that it was impracticable to bring at once into operation a series of measures adequate, both to relieve the distress, and to prevent its recurrence. The emergency requires the first; and much is being done, though we fear not as wisely and efficiently as could be desired; for everything in Ireland is apt to be vitiated by jobbing, party-spirit, and improvidence. The second is of great importance; and to it the attention of statesmen, landowners, the clergy, and all persons of influence, ought to be directed. The permanent relief most strongly urged by many is a poor law such as we had in England before the introduction of the present system. But a poor law cannot generate work, or money, or food, or clothes, or fuel; it only takes from one to give to another; and if recklessly managed, in Irish fashion, with an overwhelming needy population, idleness and improvidence would ruin all. It is easy to talk of the duty of providing sustenance for every body; and many a lady whose delicate fingers could not repair her own watch, finds it not difficult to devise plans for managing the social economy of a nation. But the hard conditions of supply and demand, consumption and markets, population and produce, cannot be extensively interfered with, without serious disarrangement. In the strait last year, Sir R. Peel found it necessary to introduce food artificially at the moment; but such a system, if continued, would have prevented much larger supplies coming in through the ordinary channels. Charity is a helpful hand-maid; but the affairs of a nation must, for the most part, be ma naged as matters of business. Many of the popular maxims, such as "a fair day's wages for a fair day's work," are intangible. What is fair, is not what either party may wish; but what, in the end, circumstances will allow. It is a distressing, because disappointing, fallacy, to argue that in the present dearth in Ireland, the mass of the afflicted people may get as good wages and food as if there were no pressure. Mr. Poulett Scrope demands "a law which shall oblige the landowners of Ireland to find work for the starving population." Such a law would be waste paper. There is a limit to a landowner's making productive work for a dense multitude; and to pay wages for unproductive work, must soon bring him to beggary, and in the end ruin all parties. The Times Newspaper asserts that "The land ought to supply employment for those who can labour; and sustenance for those who cannot.' It is useless to say it "ought," where it will not. It is either ignorant folly, or wilful mischief, to hold out to the people, as some of the Romanist priests and political agitators are doing, that the legislature, or the government, or individual landlords or capitalists, can do what is impracticable. True it is, that in such a crisis they must not be merely just, but largely generous; but this can be only as a temporary alleviation of pressing evils. The most benevolent efforts of the government drive away private trade; the public competitor ruins the merchant, and in the end injures his customer. In no part of the world is this more conspicusly case than in Ireland; where the mass of the labouring population never think of looking to themselves in an emergency, but expect parliamentary grants, or public or private charity, to rescue them. It is a false and mischievous system; and the sooner it is relinquished the better. e We are far from meaning that the government cannot do much,—and the landlords, and the clergy, and others, much,-towards rendering Ireland better able to sustain its present, or even a still larger, population. It has vast tracts of land unreclaimed; its valuable fisheries are too much neglected; and other sources of relief or wealth are undeveloped; its potatoe fields are demanding oats, wheat, and barley; and its miserable con-acre, or hovel allotment, system, needs a thorough reform; as well as many other matters in its agrarian arrangements. But, after all, the people must do for themselves, not others for them. If they expect that abstraction of their alternate hopes and execrations, "The Castle," to find work or food for millions of men, except remotely by aiding them to aid themselves, they look for impossibilities;-simply impossibilities; not anything depending upon pact or party, Repeal or no Repeal, Popery or Protestantism, but sheer impossibilities. What is required for Ireland is to induce habits of patient industry, providence, and thrift; and still more, popular respect for law, property, and life: for agricultural and commercial capital, and the blessings of persevering industry, cannot be secured in an unquiet and lawless country. A corn-mill stormed, a baker's shop rifled, a mob embargo upon the export of any commodity, a landlord threatened if he removes a worthless tenant, or a rent-agent or process-server shot behind a hedge, in short every violation of the public peace, drives away property, generates absenteeism, and beggars and starves the very classes whom the outbreak was intended to benefit. These things are now beginning to be so strongly felt that it may be hoped the present exigency will lead to great and permanent benefits. The day of humiliation and prayer appears to have been seriously observed; and may we not hope and believe that the supplications offered were heard, and will be answered? The visitation was visibly and directly from God; and it was therefore peculiarly meet that his hand should be acknowledged, his mercy implored, and the special sins of the nation lamented and forsaken. Among those sins may we not too truly enumerate-taking the numerical mass of the people injustice, lawless strifes, the violation of God's holy day, political and religious factions, a direful spirit of revenge, a profligate recklessness of human life; and that crying sin of the nation, the retention of popish superstition, false doctrine, and idolatry, which have ever been found, in the providence of God, adverse to the welfare of every nation which has upheld them? In the midst, however, of this visitation we discern that alleviation which usually accompanies the inflictions of divine Providence; that when it pleases God to smite one portion of the fruits of the earth, he spares others, so that man and beast are not utterly cut off. It was so even in the judgments upon Egypt: "The flax and the barley were smitten; for the barley was in the ear, and the flax was bolled. But the wheat and the rye were not smitten: for they were not grown up." So, in the dearth in Ireland; it is chiefly the potatoe crop which has suffered; other articles of food have escaped; and supplies in aid are procurable from other lands. The Indian corn, which would not have been known in Ireland but for this extremity, has been largely procured from abroad, and is likely to become a great blessing to the nation in future years; and the permanent food of the country will be raised, it may be hoped, to a higher and safer standard. It may be that God intends to educe this good out of evil; and that while he smites for present chastisement, he remembers mercy; and is teaching that important lesson: "Let the people praise Thee: O God, let all the people praise Thee: then shall the earth yield her increase, and God, even our own God, shall bless us." The Evangelical Alliance has not yet issued its "Report of the proceedings at the Conference at Exeter Hall." We are in no haste; and will still defer our remarks till it appears. The institution has now pretty well sealed its own doom, by bickerings, secessions, and, worst of all, the miserable petty jealousies and partyspirit which have guarded its proceedings under lock and key, no reporter being allowed to be present at its discussions, and no member being permitted to divulge what passes at them. Sometimes, however, an individual more zealous than discreet, breaks out in the newspapers with a statement which he thinks will recommend the institution; but which produces a contrary effect among wise and calmly-judging men. An instance of this kind has just occurred at Manchester. A letter has been published in the Liverpool Courier, and been extensively re-published in various other newspapers, which shows how little the wisdom and discretion of this "Ecumenical Council for Christendom,"--for such is the pompous title given to the Alliance by its most zealous advocates of the periodical press, theConductors of the Wesleyan "Watchman"can be relied upon by their fellow Christians. We have several times had occasion to speak of the confident manner in which they have told the world that they were acting under the special direction of the Holy Spirit; whereas the very documents for which they claimed this Divine sanction, have been again and again obliged to be altered and amended. We wrote last March, (p. 180,) "What warrant had the Liverpool Conference to intimate that their decisions were the special dictates of the Holy Ghost, as when the Apostles said, 'It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us?' For they affirm that 'The hap piest tokens [what tokens?] of the Divine favour had been sensibly [how?] experienced;' and that the truly delightful state of feeling which we have witnessed and experienced, was to be ascribed to the personal presence and influence of the Holy Ghost.' These are very serious words; and we cannot say that the results appear to us to warrant them." After One of the members present at Manchester, for the formation of the British Branch of the Blessed Evangelical Alliance," has published the following proof, as he and others deem it, that "the Divine favour has been seasibly (!!!) manifested." It is headed in some of the newspapers, "Blasphemy encouraged by the Evangelical Alliance;" in others, "Miraculous Occurrence;"but we copy it as it stands. stating the general proceedings, he writes: "I must now tell you before I conclude, of one peculiarly remarkable incident which occurred on the present occasion. On Friday the 6th, just as dinner was over, attention was drawn by a sudden simultaneous clapping of hands at the upper part of the room, wherein it was observed that a beautiful dove had at that instant alighted. Dr. Raffles's voice was then heard calling on the assembly to desist from clapping, lest they should drive away the little messenger of peace,' instead of which he called them to express their joy [joy at what a pigeon!] by joining in singing Cowper's sweet hymn, 'Oh for a closer walk with God,' the fourth verse of which has a direct reference to the Heavenly Dove. (!!) The hymn was accordingly sung by the whole company of between 200 and 300 persons standing: the fearless bird still retaining its position at the window, regardless of the noise, and appearing, by the movements of its head, to participate in the pleasure of the sacred song (!!!) But what was our astonishment (!!) as soon as the 4th verse commenced, Return, O Holy Dove, return, Sweet messenger of rest,' to see the little visitor actually fly into the room, and take its seat on the top of a cupboard, overlooking the assembly; after which it quietly took its departure by the same window through which it had originally found an entrance. What our feelings were on the occasion of this very extraordinary and auspicious occurrence, I cannot describe to you. Dear Mr. Stewart, in his farewell address, made a suitable scriptural allusion to the circumstance; and after observing that as the very hairs of our head are all numbered, and there is not a sparrow that falls to the ground without our Heavenly Father, he asked, who would be bold enough to say that that beautiful bird had not then come to us by His direction, (!!!) as he sent the dove with the olive-branch to Noah in the ark, to which, as we know, our blessed Alliance has been frequently contemptuously assimilated in derision, by some of our adversaries. As then it was our undoubted privilege to realise the spiritual presence of the Comforter in our hearts, as on all former occasions, in answer to our prayers, and as our Lord has promised to manifest himself to his people as he does not to the world, why should we hesitate gratefully to acknowledge this visible sign of His Personal Presence, (!!!] in this his own appropriate emblem, and to thank God, and take courage from it, as a token for further good to our cause?" Need we make one single remark on this fan ticism? Whether the entrance of this pigeon was casual, as we make no question it was; or whether it was a pious fraud practised by some member who knew the popish tales of doves visiting œcumenical councils, fathers, and bishops elect; or whether some Jesuit has intruded into the Alliance to damage it, there being nothing in the articles of union which prevents a Romanist being a member; or whether, as the members present evidently thought, it was-what we will not be profane enough to write ;this "Ecumenical Council of Christendom" has proved itself to be as superstitious as any assembly that ever disgraced that usurped name. Turning to several of the volumes of the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum, we found some ten stories of precisely the same kind in each volume, which, multiplied by the 53 volumes, make more than five hundred of these popish juggles pretending to be manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Alas! alas! What can we say to Rome now? ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. M. J. M.; Q. V.; U. C.; K. P.; R. H. W.; An Old Subscriber; and W.; are under consideration. The Rev. R. C. Whalley's Memoir of Miss James, entitled, "It is all True," (alluded to at p. 676 of our Number for November,) was designed, as we stated, for the use, in his own words, of "My narrow sphere, and to benefit my neighbours:" but we have ascertained that he yielded to the request of friends to give it a wider circulation, and that it was accordingly published in 1814 by our own worthy Publisher;-but anonymously; so that, though we took pains to look for Mr. Whalley's name among the living authors of that day, it did not appear. [APP. We regret, but are not surprised, to find A Pacific Presbyter" addressing us in such words as the following, respecting our remarks upon the Religious Tract Society's mutilations of Matthew Henry's Life of Philip Henry, and all other works of Nonconformist, or other, writers, which touch upon the duty of believing parents dedicating their children to the Holy Trinity in baptism, and urging upon them the privileges and responsibilities thence resulting. Our reprover says: *If the (Popish) Tablet,' or the fiery Prebendary of Lichfield, had done this, we should not have been surprised: it would have been according to their vocation. But I must acknowledge that I account your doing it, a greater aberration from the right path of duty, than I ever knew your Periodical guilty of; and I took it at its very commencement." We are not surprised, we say, at being thus addressed; for we predicted that it would be so; (page 598, Oct.), and we said by anticipation, and now respectfully repeat: "We know that we displease a large and powerful body of persons in our own church, as well as out of it, by objecting to the Religious Tract Society's expurgations. We have been often admonished by kind friends that every time we have touched upon this subject we have given offence and lost subscribers. Our only reply is, that we must afford to keep a conscience. It is necessary, if we write at all, that we should write what we believe to be scriptural truth; it is not necessary that what we write should be popular, or should sell. Does the evil which Mr. Sherman notices exist? and, if it does, will be, or will any man, say, that it is not aggravated by the laxity or false policy of the 'Congre gational Churches?' Oh for a Calvin or a Baxter, a Philip or a Matthew Henry, to teach their spiritual descendants the privileges and the responsibilities of the youngest child who can understand the nature of the 'baptismal covenant.' Let them remember Philip Henry's remark, that If infant baptism were more improved, it would be less disputed.'"-Our pacific correspondent does not attempt to disprove any of our statements. But if they were true, did they not refer to a matter of too much importance to be silently shelved? What is it come to this, that to urge the duty of baptising our little ones, and bringing them up for Christ, is Popery or Puseyism? only worthy of the "Tablet," or Mr. Gresley? Is all Christendom bound to be silent, because our late respected friend, Joseph Hughes, a zealous Anti-pædo-baptist minister, declared that the Religious Tract Society was founded with a settled determination to oppose infant baptism, as being grounded "merely on parentage and practised chiefly by proxy that is, sponsors. Well may Popery and Puseyism make converts, if such be the opinions of Anglican Presbyters. Our Reverend correspondent does not attempt to grapple with our facts or inferences; or to show that they are unimportant; he merely says that we have "tossed an apple of discord." Is Gospel doctrine, is Gospel practice, discord? Must we shut our eyes, and go with a party wherever it may lead us?" Am I become your enemy because I tell you the truth ?" The Tract Committee advertised last month, upon our cover, that they would publish a "a full notice" of our remarks, which any applicant might have gratis, and post-free. We beseech our readers to apply for it. For peace sake we have not ourselves looked at it; as we have no wish to rejoin. We stated facts; they cannot be denied; and no reasoning which any body of men can urge, will convince us that the baptism of the children of believers in right of "parentage" is a doctrine fit only for the Tablet and Mr. Gresley; or that it is right secretly to garble deceased authors in the manner in which the Life of Henry is treated, so as to misrepresent and contravene their sentiments upon the most solemn religious questions, respecting which their opinions and practices are referred to. We hold one rule and measure for the Christian Knowledge Society, the Religious Tract Society, and the Benedictine and Jesuit Editors of the works of the Fathers. If our religious institutions are to have secret Expurgatorial Indexes, what faith or confidence can be placed in their publications? They need not print what they do not approve; but if they mutilate and garble for the purpose of reducing an author to their own opinions, they ought to say so. They may mean well;-that is not the question. Archbishop Laud may have meant well, in those mutilations of Protestant Evangelical writings, which the Puritans urged, (see a list of them in Prynne's "Canterbury's Doom,") as a reason for taking off his head; and the Romish Congregation of the Index may have thought they acted rightly, in secretly expurgating books which they considered heretical. Men may be honest and well-meaning; but all the world is not obliged to defer to their censorship. The more we value great numbers of the publications of The Religious Tract Society, the more we are bound to speak faithfully upon this subject. We must not "do evil that good may come." |