with a sense of the purity of the Gospel, in opposition to the corruptions of Popery; and to reform it from those crying sins that had been so much connived at under Popery, while men knew the price of them, how to compensate for them, and to redeem themselves from the guilt of them by masses and sacraments, by indulgences and absolutions." 66 ne Surely this applies to our own day with peculiar cogency; especially in Ireland: and it applied even at the period when Burnet wrote, though Popery was then unpopular; nor did he deny or doubt that it so applied. On the contrary, he said that the phrase cessary for these times," does not mean "that this was a book fit to serve a turn." The doctrine, he says, " if once true, must be always true," though some particulars might require to be pressed more at one time than another; and in Burnet's days Popery was in so depressed a condition in Great Britain and Ireland, and seemed so little likely to recover its lost ground, that the necessity of dwelling largely upon its errors in the pulpit might not seem at that moment so urgent as at some other periods. All that Burnet asserts is, that, "If the nation [he puts a hypothetical case] should come to be quite out of the danger of falling back into Popery, it would not be so necessary [he speaks only comparatively] to insist upon many of the subjects [still limiting his statement] of the Homilies, as it was when they were first proposed." This is undoubtedly true: yet even in this extreme case Burnet does not say that those parts of the Homilies which relate to Popery would not be necessary, but only that they would not be " so necessary as under less favourable circumstances. Burnet did not make them fit only to serve a turn; Dr. Jebb does. As for the theatrical start of "Let us figure to ourselves the consequences!-for my own part, I shrink from the consideration, much more from the discussion, of them," there was more of artifice than of simplicity in it. Bishop Jebb knew perfectly well that he could not state what he considered would be those direful consequences, without exposing his own inconsistency. For instance: one of the oft-repeated statements of the Homilies is, that the Church of Rome is idolatrous; and Bishop Burgess justly remarked, that "If the Church of Rome be idolatrous, there can be neither calumny nor absurdity in calling her anti-Christian, or the anti-Christian power: for nothing can be more anti-Christian than idolatry." And accordingly the Homilies so call her and Bishop Burnet observes thereupon, "There are so many of the Homilies that charge the Church of Rome with idolatry, and that from so many different topics, that no man who thinks that church not guilty of idolatry, can with a good conscience subscribe this article, that the Homilies contain good and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times; for according to his sense, they contain a false and uncharitable charge." Any who have such favourable thoughts of the Church of Rome, are bound, by the force of that persuasion of theirs, not to sign this Article, but to declare against it. Now listen to Bishop Jebb, in one of his letters to Mr. Knox: "I employed half an hour on Tuesday night in advocating the cause of Roman Catholic divinity against who appeared to think very slightingly of it." And again, in relating very flippantly* a con We are sorry to use this epithet, but it is too applicable to many of bishop Jebb's remarks, especially where he is speaking of what he calls "the soidisant evangelical fraternity." Even his grave dissertation respecting the versation at Cambridge with an individual not named-perhaps the venerable Mr. Simeon-he says that he replied, that" Divine Provi Homilies, he interlards, somewhat ludicrously, with the well-known smileprovoking diction of Royal proclamations: "So much respecting the unfitness of the Homilies for a premium book to children, unlimitedly in Ireland, England, Scotland, or the town of Berwick upon Tweed." The laugh may be settled by this playful allusion; but not the argument. Of that argument take the following sample. The article on Justification in the service-book of Edward VI. stated, that justification by faith alone, "in that sense in which it is explained in the Homily of Justification, is a most certain, and a most wholesome, Christian doctrine." The words which we have printed in Italics were very significant; for, as we have lately been obliged often to remark, in speaking of the Ŏxford Tracts, Mr. Newman's discourses, and Mr. Dodgson's Ordination Questions, the Papists themselves hold the doctrine of justification by faith only, in a certain sense; but not in the sense of St. Paul, or of the Church of England, or other Protestant Churches. This reference to the Homily was perhaps considered necessary at a time when the scriptural doctrine had been so generally lost sight of, that a brief naked declaration, without illustration or proof, might have given occasion to much doubt and cavil. Still, however, an Article of Faith ought to be complete in itself, and not appeal to a sermon as its expositor; it was therefore determined, in setting forth the Articles in the reign of Elizabeth as we now have them, to embody the doctrine of the Homily; which was accordingly done in the Éleventh Article. But the Homily was not lost sight of; and though there was now no absolute occasion to refer to it, yet, as if to shew that the Elizabethan reformers fully concurred in the views of Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, who drew up the Homilies, and also to keep prominently before the people the invaluable Homily on Justification, they even went out of their way to append a reference to it. The concluding statement of the Article is, "Wherefore that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort;" and here the sentence might have ended; but it is pointedly added "as more largely is expressed in the Homily of justification." Can any man who has not a favourite hypothesis to support, discover in this CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 13. a language any intention to lower the authority of the Homilies? Is it not, on the contrary-especially when connected with the general declaration of the Thirty-fifth Article that they contain godly and wholesome doctrine". as decided a reference to them as could possibly be made, short of embodying their text as a part of the Article itself, as was inconveniently done in the Edwardian Article? Yet Bishop Jebb argues as follows: "If, as is generally supposed, Cranmer himself drew up the first book of Homilies, it may not be uncharitable to conjecture that a parental feeling found its way into his articles." Now whether it be uncharitable or not, it is quite gratuitous to proffer such a supposition; nor is it very respectful to Ridley, Latimer, and the other reformers, to call the Articles exclusively "his" (Cranmer's) with italics, and to make the whole church ride behind him on the hobby of his "parental feeling." Bishop Jebb goes on to argue on this hypothesis that the Elizabethan reformers proceeded to divest the Article of its reference to the Homily as an authoritative exposition of the Anglican doctrine on justification; but there is nothing in the wording of the Article to countenance such a supposition; they expressly refer to the Homily for a fuller exposition of their statement than could be given in the Article itself; but if they had wished to set aside its authority, they needed not have mentioned it at all, as they had concluded their statement without it. Dr. Hey remarks, that in this Article "We are called upon to declare that the Homily expresses the doctrine more fully than the Article;" whereupon Dr. Jebb falls to word-splitting to prove that we are not called upon to declare that "the doctrine" is more largely expressed; but only its "wholesomeness and comfort." But surely to refer us to the Homily to shew that the doctrine is "wholesome" is to refer us to it to shew that it is scriptural; for doctrines not scriptural are very unwholesome. We never will believe that the Elizabethan reformers intended any such esoteric quibble; keeping up the authority of the Homilies to the popular ear, as in the former Article, but purposely leaving a loop-hole of retreat for the initiated Knoxes and Jebbs of a future generation. They had themselves no scruple about the Homilies; they highly prized them; and they could not fore Ꭰ dence had made me the superintendant of a Church of England flock [in Ireland]; to that little flock I endeavoured to pay attention; that the same Providence saw fit to leave the population of my parish under another pastor [the Popish priest]; and that with him I did not think it in any degree my duty to interfere." Here, then, Bishop Jebb is between the horns of a dilemma; for if he did not consider the Church of Rome to be guilty of idolatry, he could not, Bishop Burnet says, "with a good conscience subscribe the Article" which refers to the Book of Homilies; if he did, he makes Divine Providence, which had placed him as a pastor over a few Protestants in his parish, consign the general population to idolatry: so that it was not in any degree his duty to endeavour to rescue them from it. Mr. O'Connell would have asked him why, this being the case, he took tithes of the mass of his parishioners, when he considered it no part of his duty to look after their souls; and why, if Divine Providence left the great majority of the flock to the Popish priest, the Protestant pastor did not follow out the allotment of Providence, by resigning the tithes and glebe to him. The only legitimate ground upon which the temporal property of the Church can be rightfully conferred upon Protestant pastors, in a land where the great mass of the people are Papists, is taken away, if Bishop Jebb's notion of God's appointments and his own duties be well founded. There was ambiguity of phrase in the statement that God "saw fit to leave the population of my parish under another pastor;" but Bishop Jebb knew well what would be the result if he spoke out his meaning; for if he intended to say, as his argument implies, that God not merely permitted—as for a season He permits all the wickedness which afflicts the world-but that He directly sanctioned and appointed the Popish priest over the many, as he did Bishop Jebb over the few, then he makes God the author of sin; and attributes superstition, idolatry, and the works of Antichrist, to the Infinite Author of wisdom and purity. But if he meant only permissively, as Providence permits the sway of Paganism in India, and Mohammedanism in Turkey, then he was as much bound to oppose them, as a Christian missionary is bound to oppose the delusions just mentioned; and much more so, as he was solemnly invested with the charge of the whole parish consigned to him, and had pledged himself, in the presence of God, to do all that lay in him to bring all such as shall be committed to his charge "unto that agreement in the faith and knowledge of God, and to that ripeness and perfectness of age in Christ, that there may be no place left for error in religion, or for viciousness of life." Can a man who has undertaken "to seek and provide for the Lord's family to seek for Christ's sheep that are dispersed abroad, and for his children who are in the midst of this naughty world, that they may be saved through Christ for ever;" sit down contentedly with ministering to a mere handful of Protestants in a large parish, and systematically refusing see, and certainly did not shape their statements to suit, a class of divines who should arise in after days to endeavour to unreform the Reformation. What dotards Bishop Jebb must have considered Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and all the other Protestant martyrs, for being burned at the stake for their tes : timony against what he would not so much as lift a finger to oppose in his own parish, where he was eating the bread of that church which-grounded on the foundations of the Apostles, Christ Jesus being the corner stone,—was rescued from destruction by their efforts, and cemented with their blood. to watch for the souls of the great mass of his parishioners, whose temporal things feed and clothe him, or "in any degree" to use a single effort to rescue them from their delusions? If, as too often happens, they will not accept his spiritual services, that is not his sin but theirs; but Bishop Jebb avows that such services ought not to be tendered. To offer a word of religious advice to a Papist, or to place a Bible or tract in his hands-to say nothing of the pestiferous Homilies-is to interfere with God's providence, who has consigned him to the spiritual guardianship of the mystical Babylon! We every year estimate the Homilies more highly, nor do we think that their value is in general sufficiently understood; especially in regard to their copiousness. We have been much struck with this in various recent discussions; nor do we know that there is any considerable doctrinal or practical error afloat at the present moment, in or out of the Anglican Church, against which an antidote might not be found in those venerable documents. ON PREACHERS SITTING IN THE VESTRY DURING PUBLIC WORSHIP. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. MAY I call the attention of your readers to a practice that I fear is not uncommon in our Church, and that seems to be inconsiderately adopted by some of her faithful ministers, more especially in our large towns. It is, moreover, one that has been severely-I cannot think, unjustly-censured. Here I allude to the preacher remaining in the testry, while the reader is in the desk. I myself have occasionally witnessed the fact, on which I would now be permitted to offer a few remarks. First, that the practice here referred to is objectionable, since the preacher, by separating himself from the congregation during the time occupied by the prayers, appears to view them with indifference. Let charity throw her mantle over the individual in question; let his friends argue as zealously, as justly as they may, in favour of his pastoral fidelity, his fervid piety, and even of his admiration of the Liturgy, still among the persons present in the sanctuary, there must be some who will strictly judge according to the appearance of the thing. Such persons will infer that the preacher is either wanting in devotion, or blind to the spiritual excellences of his own Prayer-book. The worldly spectator will scarcely imagine that the preacher can be joining in the worship of the congregation, while he himself is shut up in the vestry. If the foregoing view be correct, it seems of necessity to follow that the people are encouraged, and that in spite of every opposite intention on the part of the minister, to slight our invaluable Liturgy. They might too naturally suppose, and perhaps perversely argue, that, as he who is "set over them in the Lord," to watch for their souls, does not himself take a part in the public worship of God, as conducted in the Church of England, that worship is of itself a matter of secondary importance, and may, therefore, by themselves also be very innocently omitted. And if at any time they have heard certain observations from the pulpit on the doctrinal soundness and spiritual beauties of the Liturgy, might they not in such a case be utterly at a loss to reconcile the tone of the sermon with the allowed practice of the preacher ? Will your readers, especially my respected brethren in the ministry, bear with me, if I next suggest that those who dissent from the Establishment will regard the ministers in question as evidently wanting in attachment to their own formularies? To be satisfied that such would be their impression, we have only to ask what construction we ourselves should put upon one Dissenting minister, who was about to ascend the pulpit, shutting himself up in the vestry, while another was publicly offering up the prayers and praises of the congregation ? But the point is far too plain to require the help of illustration. Dissenters, generally speaking, have that sort of prejudice, however conscientious it may be, against the use of a precomposed form of prayer, which would necessarily lead them to seize on the practice now under consideration, as an argument of no small weight in favour of their own extemporaneous public prayers. They would scarcely fail to inquire, "Can the clergyman value those prayers, in which he refuses to take a part whenever he has to occupy the pulpit, and stations another in the reading desk? How then can he expect us to set a high value on the Liturgy?" Next, it powerfully strikes me (though I desire to press this point, as well as the foregoing ones, with all the tenderness of charity) that the preacher, while retired to the vestry, at the very time that the congregation are engaged in worshipping their God, is doing an unsuspected injury to his own spirit. However confidently he may imagine that, by such temporary seclusion, he is collecting his thoughts, composing his mind, condensing the matter of his discourse, and spiritualizing his affections, by certain pious ejaculations made use of in the vestry, surely he is under a delusion of no considerable magnitude. For might not all these advantages be more or less gained by a fervent use of the inimitable devotions of his own calumniated Church? If they did not immediately promote a fixation and concentration of his ideas, they might at least serve to elevate his affections to his God and Saviour, and so the better qualify him to preach to the people the "unsearchable riches of Christ. Nor is it here to be overlooked, that, by devoutly joining in the public addresses of the people to Almighty God, the preacher might thereby obtain such influences of the Holy Spirit, as would best prepare him for his office; not forgetting, however, that his example might then be instrumental in leading his own hearers to value our ancient and scriptural prayers; and so to value them, as to use them " in spirit and in truth." Some have even ventured to animadvert upon the above practice, as if it indicated a consciousness, in the breast of the preacher, that he had not duly prepared himself in his own closet, and consequently must retire to the vestry in order to complete his preparation. I have also heard it remarked, that, under the circumstances here supposed, he is actuated by the fear of man; that is, by a certain dread of not acquitting himself well, and of incurring the censure of his hearers. Be this as it may, I can unfeignedly aver both the uprightness and charity of my intention, in thus bringing before your readers a subject of vital importance to the prosperity of the Church of England; to the spiritual welfare of her members; to the credit, and even to the spi |