their means he would hold the strings of the ecclesiastical purse. The regulation that each power of the Synod, the clergy, the laity, and the bishop, should vote separately, valuable as regards the two former, would give the bishop a veto upon everything. But beyond this would lie the whole unbroken force of episcopal power, with a discretion absolutely irresponsible. The utmost which the Bishop of Lichfield affirmed was, that he would exercise his discretion with the advice of the executive council. Control there would be none; not even the control of public feeling, for this would be silenced by the authority of the Synod. The responsibility of a wrong act would rest with a bishop's councillors, but the power would rest wholly and solely with himself." (p. 15.)

Where the bishop is in favour of the Protestant principles of our Church, he would be able to check and arrest the majority. But suppose that he is fond of power, or, like the Bishop of Salisbury, tainted with Romanism; the Synod would forthwith issue a decree, declaring, as Bishop Hamilton affirms, that the clergyman is a priest, who ought to require confession, and has power to absolve from sin; that the communion table is an altar, that the Eucharist is a mass, that daily prayers are indispensable, and that the daily sacrifice should be offered on the altar. Preaching would be discountenanced; the reading of the daily prayers would be insisted upon; hymns in which the Virgin would have her due reverence, and the adoration of the Sacrament, would be sung in choral symphonies.

What, then, would happen to those voluntary societies to which, for sixty years, England has owed so much, and which have raised within that time, for religious and moral efforts at home and abroad, not less than £20,000,000? On this point Mr. Gorst, the Member for Cambridge, gave us, at the Dublin Congress, an instructive warning. He is reported to have said that all missionary effort should pass through the Church, and that to leave these in private hands, under separate societies, was a waste of money and strength. On this point also Bishop Selwyn is explicit. If ever his scheme of Diocesan Synods shall prevail, every society but the two or three he sanctions as Church societies will disappear from his diocese. The friends of the Church Missionary, we suspect,-certainly of the Pastoral Aid, the Jews, the Bible Society, Irish Church Missions, Colonial, Foreign Aid, and others,-may shut up their books and retire. At Shrewsbury, Bishop Selwyn denounced the policy of allowing "irresponsible societies to set up their rival camps in all their large towns, whether for attack or defence; to make every parish a house divided against itself; to widen every breach, and to embitter every controversy." At Derby, he spoke of "party societies centralized in London, with lay presidents and irresponsible committees, with branches

in our chief towns to carry into effect the edict of the metropolitan centre." It is plain that Bishop Selwyn would speedily issue a ukase against all these.

We admit that the action of these societies is informal and variable, and that the varieties of freedom are always disagreeable to arbitrary power; but they are the accompaniments of English liberty and its characteristics. The mere idea that these precious rights are endangered has roused a feeling of alarm from one end of our great manufacturing counties to the other. An assault upon them, such as Bishop Selwyn contemplates, would raise such a spirit of resistance as we in England understand, but as Bishop Selwyn, fresh from the Colonies, cannot appreciate. It will be beneficial to him if we warn him of the results.

In the first place, the question, as in the celebrated case of Dr. Marsh, Bishop of Peterborough, would be raised in Parliament. Bishop Selwyn would then discover what was really thought of his scheme, not by a few biassed clergymen, but by the great body of independent opinion. There is no doubt that it would be proved to be illegal and unconstitutional, and to the feelings of an overwhelming majority of lay churchmen unpalatable. It would be asked, by what statute of the realm, or by what delegation from the Crown, Bishop Selwyn assumed a sovereign power over the acts of his clergy or the judgment of the laity of his diocese ?-who authorized him to convene legislative councils?-who directed him to control the action of the English clergy, or to modify the services of the English Church? The use of that Church has been prescribed by statute; by statute, the freehold rights of the minister are secured; by statute, the rights of the laity to a certain Ritual and certain Articles of Faith are laid down and enacted by the authorities of the realm.

It would be a dangerous precedent, and of yet more disastrous issue, if any bishop were to set himself, by his own authority, above the statute law. Both clergy and laity will do well to bear in mind that our safety as a Church depends on the restraints as well as the protection of the laws. Within the lines we may defend ourselves from encroachment, whether it be the introduction of new ceremonies, the intrusion of false teaching, or the arbitrary interference of episcopal power. Once suffer these to be broken in upon by a voluntary compact, and no man, and no principle, is safe. Therefore, respectfully but firmly, temperately but with unbending resolution, let all true churchmen refuse to mix in self-constituted Synods, or to allow our Constitution to be set aside. by new and perilous theories.

The other organization which invites our attention is that of

Church Congresses. On that point our space forbids us to dwell at length. In a regular condition of the Church, we should think them innocuous, even useful. But this objection occurs to us: If we go there, we must meet, as churchmen, men who are, in fact, not members of the Church of England, but schismatics of the Church of Rome. To meet, as if he were orthodox, a heresiarch like Dr. Pusey, or a blustering schismatic like Archdeacon Denison, whose heresies have been condemned by the Archbishop's Court at Bath; or Ritualists, who are defacing the order of the Church of England, and substituting the rites of the Church of Rome,-this is to extend the countenance of honest churchmen to notorious schismatics. It was remarked, at one of the Conferences of the Church Association, that the lay members of Protestant congregations did not like to see their pastors associated with such men. We confess to the same feeling; and the instinct which shuns this communication is reasonable. We are not prepared to condemn it, nor can we blame those who, acting upon it, avoid such gatherings in the present condition of the Church. The time, we trust, is approaching when these men, having gone to their own place, and finding themselves in position, as they are now in heart and doctrine, within the Church of Rome, follow their proper leaders in Dr. Manning and his brother prelates, and find their proper rank among the priests of the Church from which England separated, after which they yearn. Then it would be useful and seemly that the two legitimate parties in their Church, the High Church and the Low Church, should meet and confer; and for them there would be found ample room and common ground for friendly discussion. Nor should we feel any objection to conferences with the members of the Broad Church party, provided always that they accept the standard of Holy Writ on which our Church is built, and without which it would have no basis at all.

Mr. Thorold's opinion, that the great Protestant party in our Church should remain without any opportunity for conference and co-operation, is so utterly untenable that a few words suffice to handle it. The remarks made at Winchester, by the Rev. Mr. Blackley, are the best answer :

"Any weight my words may have rests simply on these facts, that I am one who has never bound himself to any party; who has never, till to-day, attended what may be called a controversial meeting; who has never subscribed a farthing to any party purpose; and who, while holding fast the firm basis of simple Evangelical truth, can yet in all honesty declare himself a staunch and hearty Churchman. I confess that for a long time I held it better to be no partisan,' and to leave the extreme men, the so-called bigots on the one

side, and the so-called Jesuits on the other, to fight out for themselves the battle which is now set in array. But I have lately thought more, and learned to feel differently as to the duty of a 'moderate man,' (if he be a Christian man and faithful member of our Church) in a crisis like the present. . . .

"For a long time I thought that the follies and noise of Ritualism might be best left to wear themselves out: that the world would see the practices of its upholders to be silly, their doctrines unsatisfying, and their arguments (whenever they condescended to offer any) frivolous and shifty.

"But it seems to me, and I doubt not to men even more moderate than myself, that the time has come for speaking out against these things, as feeling that the worship of God should be regarded as something too solemn for fantastic trifling; and the truth of God, whereby alone men's souls can live, as something too high and holy for quibble and chicane. Therefore, when things have come to such a pass as this, that in an English church, and in our own diocese, a congregation of misguided men can publicly join together, not only in addressing homage, but in offering prayer, to the Virgin Mary under the blasphemous title of Queen of Heaven,' I think the member of our Church who fancies himself neutral in keeping silence and taking no side, is practically a partisan, and a partisan of error, is at least tolerant of an idolatry he might himself shudder to commit-is undiligent in upholding the pure worship of the only God. To such a man, further hesitation is unfaithfulness, further doubt dishonesty, and further silence sin."

The utter powerlessness of the Bishops, the inertness of the great body of High Churchmen, these are the causes which have given to a limited but organized section within the Church the power which they now wield. To leave these causes in operation without check, is to tell a person through whose veins poison is coursing, that you recommend him to be quiet, and expect that the virus will be expelled. It is impossible; to do this, it will need all the aid of science and the appliances of skill and experience. To expect that a cure will be found without the use of means, is to look for a miracle. There is no way of safety but in the way which God has prescribed; it will be found in calm deliberation, united supplications, and the prudent action of thoughtful men. These means, with God's blessing earnestly sought, are sufficient; but there is no time to be lost in applying them. Nor can those who have for two years tried them, and felt the comfort and strength which Christian sympathy and counsel have brought, doubt that in the loyal association of kindred hearts and minds help, strength, and cure are to be found. If Mr. Thorold had taken part in these deliberations, he would not have made them the objects of his censure. Experience corrects fancy. No one who has joined these great Protestant

Conferences has ever doubted either their efficacy or their use. Among the lowering signs on our clouded horizon, this growing union of true-hearted men is the bright line, the rainbow in the sky.

LIFE OF JOHN NEWTON.

John Newton of Olney, and St. Mary Woolnoth. An Autobiography and Narrative, compiled chiefly from his Diary and other unpublished Documents. By the Rev. Josiah Bull, M.A., Author of "Memorials of the Rev. William Bull." London: The Religious Tract Society, Paternoster Row.

It is no disparagement of the value of the man whose name stands at the head of this article, to say that, had his life commenced at the corresponding period of the present century, instead of the beginning of the last, he would not have stood forth so remarkably as he does in this history, and others which have preceded it. John Newton's name owes its notoriety to the times in which he lived, and the state of religion in the country at that period. Long before the present book appeared, indeed as far back as 1757, came forth the relation by himself of that memorable change in his heart and character by which he is marked in the memories of all who know anything respecting him. "Finished to-day" (is a passage which we find in his journal of that year) "the brief account of the Lord's gracious dealings with me from my infancy to the time of my settlement here. I pray God this little sketch may animate those who shall peruse it to praise the exceeding riches of His goodness to an unworthy wretch." "This work," (says the Note,) "in a somewhat extended form, constitutes the well-known 'authentic narrative' of which we have already given the substance, . . . . the narrative of a most remarkable conversion to God."

....

In the Preface, the author admits that "several memoirs of John Newton have already appeared." Anticipating therefore the question, "Why publish another?" he informs us by way of reply, that "the life of Newton had yet to be written; for this reason amongst others, that the materials for an adequate memoir have only recently been accessible. They include a diary unknown to previous biographers, covering a period of fiftyseven years, and a very large correspondence, together with other documents of great value and interest, the greater part of which have never yet been published." These, with certain