the Church have adopted the Management Clauses, and are experiencing their beneficial effects, the fanciful scruples, which usurp the name of conscientiousness, will vanish.

NOTE H: p. 20.

They who urge this argument forget that he who lays down a rule, binds himself primarily thereby. This is put very forcibly by the Bishop of Oxford, according to the report of his Speech in the Ecclesiastical Gazette. He is contending that, in having certain Clauses to regulate the management of Schools, "we get a safeguard for the Church in dealing with such a body as the Privy Council." For what, he asks, is the fact? "The fact is, that a number of schools in detail accept these Clauses without question, because they feel it of great importance to obtain money to build schools. What then is the Church to do? Is the Church to say, we will leave the question to be decided by the needy applicant for aid, in his particular parish, prest upon by a sense of the need of educating his children, hoping he shall be able to go in the right direction, trying to persuade himself that he gives up no principle? or ought we to say, we will see on what terms you can accept it, binding the Government on one side by these terms, and binding the management of the schools on the other, and thus affording protection against any possible abuses? This is the practical question."

After a careful examination of the whole Correspondence between the two Committees, it seems to me that there is no reason for hesitating to place full reliance in Lord John Russell's declaration in the House of Commons on the 18th of August, that "the Committee of Council have not the least wish to impose any terms which will give the Government further power of interference with these Schools."

NOTE I: p. 22.

In the English Review for June 1847, in an Article on the Educational Minutes of August and December 1846, the writer says (p. 419): "We confidently assert, that there is no person in any degree, whether theoretically or practically, conversant with the subject, but must welcome these regulations with that applause which they deserve, unless he be totally devoid either of candour or common sense. For our own part, we have no hesitation in declaring our mature conviction, that they are the very best which could possibly be produced to meet the circumstances of the case." Some sensible observations follow in pp. 425-427, on the great benefits which are likely to accrue to the English nation, and especially to the Church, from the regulations. The writer's object is to defend them against the Dissenters, and to shew the folly and sin of the Dissenters in impugning and rejecting them. Of course however his remarks will apply with still more force to the Church, who is to be the chief gainer by the regulations, if she allows anything less than an urgent duty and manifest necessity to draw her into breaking off that union and consort from which such blessings may fairly be expected.

NOTE J: p. 25.

The only objections I have heard of to this Bill, which appear to me of much weight, bear upon that portion of it which provides for a private investigation by the Bishop into the conduct of a Clerk under accusation. There are indeed many cases, which, it seems to me, would be best settled in such a manner, with an avoidance of much scandal and expense. The Act too provides that such proceedings shall not be instituted without the consent of the Clerk, and that sentence shall not be past upon him, unless "by some writing under his hand he confess the truth of the charge, and consent that the Bishop

shall forthwith pronounce sentence upon him." Still it is apprehended by many that fear of the Bishop, and of ulterior proceedings, would induce some Clerks to give their consent, even when they felt themselves innocent. I should hardly think such a case likely to occur in these days: but others are of a different opinion and in such a matter one is especially bound to distrust one's own judgement.

NOTE K: p. 25.

The only thing like authentic information that has got abroad concerning the intended Test of Heresy, as it has been called, is contained in a letter from the Bishop of Exeter to the Archdeacon of Exeter, which was publisht, apparently by himself, in the English Churchman. In this letter it is stated, that, at a meeting of the Bishops, held the day before, to consider the Clergy Offenses Bill, a Proviso was proposed to be added to the 3d Clause, enacting "that nothing shall be adjudged in any Court of this land to be heresy, or false or unsound doctrine, on any point treated of-in the xxxix Articles, that is not opposed to the doctrine of the Church of England, as there declared." This Proviso, it is further said, " was not adopted by the meeting of Bishops; but it was announced that such a Proviso will be moved in the course of the progress of the Bill through Parliament." As the other Bishops present took no public notice of this announcement, we may infer that they hoped, whatever they deemed objectionable in the Proviso might be removed by private discussions: for the Bishop of Exeter, in a second letter, written three days after, adds, “that the Proviso-was not proposed by any Bishop, as himself favouring it, but was laid before us in order that we might consider it, as it would certainly be moved in the progress of the Bill through Parliament." Or at all events they knew that it might be averted, as it actually was, by the dropping of the whole Bill. Probably too they were of opinion that the Church had already been sufficiently distracted by the previous controversies of last winter, one of which was still going on with some vehemence; and hence they

might be unwilling to throw in new matter of contention. But the Bishop of Exeter's well-known inflexible love of truth would not allow him to compromise it by any such pacific policy. As soon as he heard of the proposition, which was sure to kindle such a ferment in our Church, he immediately sent off a letter to the Archdeacons of his Diocese, publishing it at the same time to the whole Church through the English Churchman, in order that the Clergy might be roused to put forth all their energies in resisting this threatened anonymous innovation.

By the Clergy of the Diocese of Exeter, the letter of their Bishop would naturally be regarded as a sufficient ground to act upon. But it did not seem to me to be a ground for our adopting any measures in this Archdeaconry, so long as we were left without a similar intimation from our own Diocesan. I thought it would rather become us to wait until the proposition was actually brought forward in some definite form, that we might know what we had to apprehend and to contend against. For the very fact, that it had been laid before a meeting of the Bishops, seemed to imply that its author was desirous of consulting their opinions, and would probably be ready to be guided by them, if not in withdrawing, at least in modifying it. Hence, in my communications with the Clergy of this Archdeaconry, I strongly urged their abstaining from taking any step till we had more precise information concerning the measure which was to be submitted to the Legislature.

It may be replied indeed, that our prepossessions and prejudices in these days are so strong, as almost to unfit us for making use of the most precise information, even when we have it, and that therefore the vaguest serves just as well for us to form our judgements on. For instance, in a short article in the British Magazine for the month of May, subjoined to a reprint of the Bishop of Exeter's Letter, we find two objections urged against the announced Proviso,-first, that it would be very wrong to make the Thirtynine Articles the legal Test of heresy, though they "may fairly be taken as a Test of erroneous and unsound doctrine; -and secondly, that the measure would tend to lower the authority of the Creeds. From these objections one might suppose that the

objector can hardly have read the Proviso, its purport being that nothing shall be adjudged to be heresy, or false or unsound doctrine, but what is opposed to the Thirty-nine Articles; that is to say, heresy when it pertains to points on which errour is deemed heretical, in other cases false or unsound doctrine. He would also seem to have forgotten that the Articles declare that the Three Creeds "ought thoroughly to be received and believed," a higher authority than they venture to claim for themselves. Besides many of the condemners of the Proviso, one may infer from their arguments, must have overlookt that important limitation in it, that its purpose is not to constitute the Articles the sole Test of heresy, or false and unsound doctrine, but merely "on any point treated of in them;" on which, so far as they do pronounce, their decision would of course be held to express the judgement of our Church. So that the effect of the Proviso would probably be to leave our Ecclesiastical Law very much as it is already; since the practice of the Courts has ever been to take the Articles as the canon for determining what is heresy, or false and unsound doctrine, on any point treated of in them: and our other symbolical books would still be consulted as authoritative with a view to the right interpretation of the Articles.

The discussions which have arisen out of this controversy, may doubtless be useful in clearing men's minds on the subjects under debate. I am merely deprecating those public proceedings, by way of remonstrance or petition or address, which ought to follow, instead of preceding these discussions. Such proverbs as Look before you leap are valuable prudential maxims, of extensive application even in logic and morals. One should hardly have expected however that assemblies of Clergy would have needed such advice. But the dizzying speed and whirl of our railways seems even to have infected sober men with a desire of darting in a trice from the beginning to the end of their journey. In the proceedings of the rabble this is not surprising: but we have also seen a deliberative Assembly, supposed to contain the wisdom and prudence of the most cautious and considerate people on earth, condemn an armistice off-hand, without examining the negociations