England, while the Arches is properly only an appellate tribunal; the archbishops deprived of the right inherent in their sees of appointing their official principals, and instead appointing the judge of this new court, who is to become their joint provincial judge, their choice checked by the necessity of mutual agreement and also by the approval of the Crown, or, on their not agreeing, the appointment resting solely with the Crown; the judge of this new court no longer required to be a civilian or learned in canon law, but any judge of common law or barrister of ten years' standing; coercive power to enforce sentences, as we have seen, if need be, by imprisonment; and bishops required to act out the decisions of the new judge as instruments of the court. It has been thought, and no doubt is, an alleviation of the severity of the Act, that the bishop can stay its proceedings, and prevent a complaint coming before the court; but it is to be observed that the bishop has to give his reasons in writing, and it is thought by some that only some very strong grounds would warrant the exercise of this restraining power, and that the bishop would readily be compelled by mandamus to let the complaint proceed.

If we contrast the present state of things indicated by the facts which have been adduced with the Reformation settlement, as embodied in the statutes and documents already quoted, it is clear that the contract, if it may be so called, has not been observed. From whatever cause, the engagements on the part of the State obviously have not been carried out. The denial to Convocation of anything of coordinate legislation in Church matters, the modification of the Church courts at pleasure, the bringing the appointment of the judges of the Church courts under the control of Parliament, the retaining in its hands the power of defining and interpreting the Church's doctrinal and ceremonial statements through the Supreme Court composed of lay judges solely of its own appointment, the exercise of direct coercive power over the clergy in their spiritual functions-these assumed prerogatives, coupled with the appointment of the bishops without any consultation with the Church, tend more and more to place the Church in complete subjection to the State. And it is only that vigour of independent life instinctively animating Englishmen, in spiritual as in civil matters, brought out, perhaps, more earnestly into play as a reaction against unconstitutional wrongs, which has supplied in some measure what is wanting in the legitimate order, and, as one of the greatest wonders of this active period of our history, with the blessing and unfailing guardianship of Almighty God, together with much personal sympathy and kindness on the part of the bishops, has helped to develope the action of the Church spite of all her difficulties and in the face of all her adversaries. As the power of the Crown declined, Parliament, obtaining the preponderance in all departments of the State, has unavoidably assumed the rights of the Royal Supremacy; and as formerly the Crown

overstepped the limits which, by the presumed compact, defined its supremacy, e.g. in the case of the High Commission Court and the Star Chamber, so Parliament has usurped powers which properly belong and had been pledged to the Church. It would seem as if the State were avenging itself on the Church, in recollection of the days now long gone by when the Church, or rather, perhaps, leading churchmen exercising the power of the State, really oppressed it, and sought their own ends in the wrong done. But if the present tendencies of State autonomy continue to develope, and freer action of its divine powers be denied to the Church, it would be more true to alter the terms of the oath taken by priests at their ordination, and, instead of their vowing to minister the doctrine, and sacraments, and the discipline of Christ, as the law hath commanded, and as this Church. and realm hath received the same,' to spare them the scruples arising from the manifest inconsistency between what is assumed and what is actually done, and admit openly the change that is rapidly going on, in imposing on them what alone the realm has received.'

The danger of the present crisis arises from the pressure of coercive measures, resting on such authority as has been indicated, meeting with a determined resistance which is thought to be justified on constitutional principles. As, in our past national history, such conflicts between conscientious convictions on the one side, and unconstitutional authority on the other, have not ordinarily subsided till the principles contended for have triumphed, so in these theological disputes the question of the future must depend on the truth of the principles asserted; but there is surely ground to apprehend the continuance of the struggle till either the State has granted the liberty desired, or the Church has set itself free of its control. That a great impulse has been given to the disestablishment movement is evident, its promoters from without the Church deriving a fresh stimulus from the sight of our present disorders, and those from within cherishing the belief that truth can be asserted and real Church order be carried out only by such means. It is a time for most earnest thought on the part of all who regard the highest interests both of the Church and the State. Neither the Church nor the State has ever gained by wrong done to the other, and power unduly used never fails to react to the injury of those who thus use it. It will be most lamentable if there is no other end to the present disorder but disestablishment. Whatever may be the possible gain, whether to the State of the avoidance of a religious difficulty, or to the Church of the possession of the power to express her own mind and order her own affairs freely, yet for both statesmen and churchmen it is most necessary to consider what disestablishment means. Disestablishment, if accompanied, as it surely will be, by disendowment, means to the State the loss of its most powerful ally for promoting order and conservative principles, and the shaking to their very foundations of all institutions, even to

the peril of the monarchy. It would surely involve also the unsettling of the tenure of all property, as a new order of inheritance followed the disendowment of the Church at the French Revolution, and a Land Bill rapidly succeeded disestablishment in Ireland. To the Church disestablishment means the lowering the social standard of the clergy, and so the diminishing of their influence with the higher classes and the leaders of thought; the spiritual dearth of the country districts generally; a dependence of the country clergy on the chance squire or the vestry of farmers; great uncertainty as to the action of the ruling Synod; and the probable disruption multiplying the already numerous divisions of Catholic Christendom, and risking fresh seams in the robe of Christ. Disestablishment would be a portentous catastrophe both to Church and State, though worse to the State than to the Church.

In conclusion I would express my convictions that the true remedy of our sore distress and anxious forebodings lies, where it ever has lain in Church matters, in adherence or return to on ȧpxaîa, and to the principles of our reformed constitution. Peace can never be attained, except either by unreasoning submission or constitutional order. There can be no question which of the two is the peace befitting Englishmen, and which alone is true. Beneath all the disorder and seeming insubordination, there is a deep yearning for peace; but there are minds, and specially such are ever being trained on English soil, which can never rest till just rights are accorded, and an honourable liberty secured.

The strain of the pressure of these new methods of jurisdiction, and of judgments widely regarded as prejudiced expositions of the mind of the Church, lies at present heavily on the upper section of the High Church party. The wind may shift and the tide turn, and the pressure lie on the other side of the vessel. As the popular will inclines, the unpopular party will in turn feel the force of the State power. Popular prejudice must necessarily, according to such rule, become the dominant power ruling the Church. Delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi.' But such methods fail in the civil order, and can hardly be expected to succeed in the spiritual order. The Church is the channel of divine grace and the interpreter of the mind of God, and within the Church God speaks through her councils and by her representatives, and blesses the discipline carried out in faithful accordance with her divine constitution. Kings and queens' were to be her 'foster-fathers and foster-mothers.' Obedience to the powers that be' implies the fulfilment of relative duties on the part of the State to the governed. There was to be harmony, the one power to help the other,' and both, in mutual respect for each other's rights, to glorify Him Who appointed each in its distinct order to accomplish His will.

T. T. CARTER.

SOCIAL ASPECTS OF DISESTABLISHMENT.

An institution so ancient, so venerable, and having so many claims to public respect as the Church of England, ought to be able to stand on its own merits, or it is tolerably certain that it will not long be able to stand at all. The friends of the monarchy are content to leave it thus without special defence. The speeches from the throne do not bristle with sarcastic allusions to evil-minded individuals who are endeavouring to undermine its foundations. The Heir Apparent does not think it necessary, whenever he appears in public, to weave into his addresses some eulogium upon the Crown and its value to the nation. Prime Ministers and Secretaries of State never dream of entering upon elaborate defences of our political system, or speculations as to the possibility of its maintenance. An evil day will it be when this is changed. It is difficult to conceive of the monarchy being thus placed on the defensive, environed with dangers so serious and menacing that ministers of State should take every possible occasion of assuring the country that its enemies were as weak as they were malignant, and that nothing was to be feared from them, or, what would be still worse, exposed to the attack of an active body of Republicans who had established a government of their own, to which a large section of the people gave their exclusive allegiance, and whose power so far impressed the Sovereign and her Cabinet, that, instead of resolving to stamp out the rebellion, they gave its leaders full toleration, and even assured them of the most kindly consideration, provided they did not attempt to set royalty aside altogether. If, unhappily, such a state of things should ever be brought about, it would not be rash to predict that the days of our monarchy were numbered—that it had at last come to be of the things which, having decayed and waxed old, are ready to vanish away.

The same reflection is suggested to many minds by those defences of the Established Church which certain bishops, following the example of the Primate, are so fond of attempting. If, indeed, their arguments were so strong as to be convincing to all but those who are under the dominion of blind and invincible prejudice, or their survey of its position so hopeful and reassuring as to impart a new confidence to all its friends, there might be an excuse for occasional utterances of this kind, though even then their policy might be questioned.

But when their tone is apologetic rather than triumphant-when to all sensitive ears it tells of anxiety and distrust where there ought only to be courage and confidence-when, instead of a decided assertion of a right which ought to be maintained, there is little more than a plea for forbearance towards an institution which, though it may be an anachronism and an anomaly, is yet capable of accomplishing a large amount of good-it can hardly be doubted that these gallant attempts on the part of the bishops to stem the strong current of opposition to the Establishment are a mistake. They are, in fact, a tacit confession of weakness, which skilful strategists would be careful to avoid.

These episcopal manifestoes, of course, differ very greatly in character. The wild declamation of the Bishop of Bath and Wells is as unlike the forcible and practical reasonings of the Bishop of Manchester, as the somewhat supercilious and arrogant tone of the Primate's language differs from the easy and genial manner of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol in the first number of this Review. But all are alike in their devotion to the Establishment, and in their scarce-concealed anxiety as to the destiny which may await it even in the immediate future. No one can even suspect the sincerity of their belief in the value of the institution to the nation, and those who are able to read between the lines can have as little doubt that they are full of fear that the nation may be deprived of its inestimable benefits. If they are optimists, and speak with a confidence which few share as to the prospects of their Church, there are nevertheless signs of uneasiness which it is impossible to mistake, and which greatly detract from the comfort which their followers would fain derive from their addresses. They speak because the burden upon them is too heavy to allow of their keeping silence, and yet, when they speak, it may be questioned whether their words do not give as much satisfaction to the enemies as to the friends of the Establishment. They are, for the most part, under a sense of responsibility which prevents them from stooping to the level of the gentlemen who go up and down the country challenging discussions, making reckless statements as to the designs of Nonconformists, starting wild theories as to the nature of Church property and the rights of the nation over it, and carrying on a warfare with a zeal which is not always according to knowledge, but perhaps is not on that account the less serviceable. Now and then a bishop may so far forget himself as to condescend to imitate such examples, as did the Bishop of Ely in the somewhat notorious sermon preached in his own cathedral on behalf of the Church Defence Association, and the Bishop of Ripon in his violent speech at Wakefield. But offences of this kind are not common. Bishops know what is expected from them, and are therefore more careful as to their words. During the discussions on the Public Worship Regulation Bill, the proposal to give them a certain discretion in relation to the prosecution of clerical offenders was