difference in the professing church-living Christians and dead ones; those who are united to Christ the head, and those who are not, but all of whom still profess and call themselves Christians.

In short, his Grace seems to have solved the riddle, how little Christianity goes to make up a Christian. For ourselves, we make answer, mutatis mutandis, with St. Paul: "For he is not a Christian who is one outwardly, neither is that Christianity which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Christian which is one inwardly, and Christianity is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Should Laymen preach? asks A Member of the University of Cambridge. (Wertheim and Co.) By all means, we answer, if he can do so with good effect. Only let us be careful to understand what is meant by this vague term, preaching. The Wesleyans have all along allowed of a lay ministry; but no layman of their body is permitted to preach until he has been admitted a local preacher; and this implies a previous ordeal, and some proof of his consistent life and general qualifications. And within the last few weeks the church of Scotland has issued a monition, cautioning its clergy against the indiscriminate admission of lay preachers into their pulpits. If the Great Head of the church should be pleased to pour out his Spirit abundantly upon us, some test or probation will no doubt have to be applied, that all things may be done amongst us decently and in order; and that our lay preachers may carry with them the sanction of the church of Christ. Meanwhile, we cannot but rejoice that they should begin to lift up their voices on the most stirring of all themes. Many an admirable exposition is delivered to the assembled household by laymen. Some few go further and preach-admirable sermons too-on commons, in waste places of the city, in barns, and school-rooms. All this is "good for the present emergency," and we wish them God speed. If any of our readers think that we are precipitate, we pray them to lay out fourpence, and answer, if they can, the arguments, and facts, and criticisms of this well timed and wellwritten pamphlet. Do they object that theology is a science? If so, we further beg them to expend another sixpence and read

Is Theology a Science? If so, What are its Technicalities? By James Hearne, Rector of Hatford, Berks. (Hatchard and Co.)— We are not surprised that a knot of learned and pious clergymen, before whom it was delivered at a clerical meeting, should have wished to read at leisure this short address, full as it is of research, and deep thought, and real piety. On preaching, Mr. Hearne remarks :

"Leaving the vexed question, and a most unprofitable one it is, of the exact character of bishop, priest, and deacon, which are found clearly defined in our offices, so far as all practical purposes are concerned ;there is one office which can never be sufficiently considered: an office

which our blessed Lord was during his ministry always exercising, and which Paul the apostle called his office, the office to which as the missionary or apostle to the Gentiles, he was specially called—the office of prophesying or preaching the glad tidings, the gospel of God, or the glorious gospel of the blessed God.

"Here I think we specialize a great deal too much. It is the message of mercy through a crucified Saviour, in whatsoever way or manner conveyed, so it be plainly conveyed, which constitutes men prophets and preachers, and heralds of salvation. Still its characteristics are, publicity, plainness, earnestness, a crucified Saviour, a regenerating spirit, the word of faith in our own language, so that all may hear and understand it. Then, whether it be in the Areopagus, or the river's side, or a synagogue, or in the school of one Tyrannus; whether in a didactic or a Socratic form of question and answer; so that it be Jesus held up as our Sacrifice, our Righteousness, wherever the gospel is so preached, by whatsoever method, it will be the power of God to salvation to every one that believeth,

"Let it be ever remembered, in converting men through the office of preaching, our blessed Lord and the apostle Paul were simply preachers, and never themselves performed any rite or ceremony in effecting the new birth or conversion of men.

"The one any one can do; an unconverted man can, and often has, administered the ordinances of religion, under the Jewish and Christian dispensations; but, with scarcely an exception to the contrary, God's prophets and preachers in the times of the apostles were men called specially and sent by God to preach the gospel.'

Brotherly Communion with the Foreign Protestant Churches, desired and cultivated by the highest and best of the Divines of the Church of England. By W. Goode, M.A., &c. (Cambridge, University Press; Hatchard and Co.)-If the name of the writer should not be a sufficient commendation, we must add that this is the substance of an address delivered at Cambridge, at a private meeting of some of the senior members of the University, and published at their request. Those who have been perplexed with the attempts, renewed of late years, to unchurch foreign churches, for their supposed want of the apostolic succession or of episcopacy, will find here an array of evidence which proves that not one of our reformers, or their immediate successors for fifty years at least, felt a scruple on the subject; "though these foreign churches had been, at first," as Burnet expresses it, "irregularly formed, and still continued to be in an imperfect state." Further, they had no hesitation in admitting Presbyterians from Scotland or the continent to hold benefices in England without any further ordination. Bishop Cosin, a contemporary witness of the highest authority, and a high-churchman in his day (anno 1650), states the fact and defends the practice. So does bishop Fleetwood, at the beginning of the last century. "This was certainly," he ," he says, "her practice [that is, of our own church] during the reigns of king James and king Charles I., and to the year

1661. We had many ministers from Scotland, from France, an d the Low Countries, who were ordained by presbyters only, and not bishops, and they were instituted into benefices with cure, . . . and yet were never re-ordained, but only subscribed to the Articles." It is surely a painful anomaly that we admit a Romish priest to minister amongst us, or to hold a living without re-ordination, but not a Presbyterian minister. It cannot be too widely known, that this was not the spirit of the reformation, nor is it in accordance with the original constitution of the church of England. We owe it to the Act of Uniformity of Charles II.

A number of Letters, Charges, and Remonstrances, not to speak of a dismal blue book, remind us painfully of the present state of the question of church-rates. The Rev. W. H. Jones, M.A., Vicar of Mottram-in-Longdendale, Cheshire (son of the archdeacon of Liverpool), in a Letter to the Earl of Shaftesbury (Hatchard and Co.), throws out some good suggestions; though we cannot agree with him in thinking that there is but little force in the argument that a churchman is not aggrieved who has to support the old parish church as well as the new district church in which he worships. Indeed, Mr. Jones has answered himself sufficiently in stating the case: It is said there is and will be a sense of injustice." Yes; this is both said and felt by thousands of good churchmen. While that continues to be the case, no argument will weigh a feather in the scale. The sense of injustice is impatient of logic. Other suggestions deserve attention, and several of them are new to us. In a small compass we have met with nothing more satisfactory. But we must refer to the pamphlet.

The same reasons which lead us to be neutral with respect to the Evangelical Alliance, and the wisdom of joining it, or otherwise, have kept us silent on the question of Liturgical Revision. The best men among us differ widely. A few years ago two thousand of the clergy of all parties memorialized the archbishop of Canterbury in favour of a revision of the Burial Service. A memorial has been issued within the last few days, signed by some of the leading men of all parties in the church; or rather, we ought to say, by Evangelical and Tractarian clergymen—for the so-called broad church or liberal party are unrepresentedearnestly deprecating any change whatever. It is evident, then, that the difficulties of the question are increasing. There is more ground for apprehension; at least, there is supposed to be. And it arises, no doubt, from some deep misgivings as to the probable character of the royal commission, if the queen should be advised to issue one. We can only repeat, earnestly and respectfully, our advice to the Evangelical clergy to be prepared to act together, and to act with caution. And mere resistance to change is not always caution, though precipitation, it is true, is always rashness. The question of revision, though still "looming in the distance," assumes larger proportions daily. Lord Ebury's motion was

received with great attention in the house of Lords, and he has pledged himself to repeat it. We think the clergy are bound to consider the subject; though we are by no means sure that a thorough consideration of it may not lead to opposite results in different minds. Whatever else be read, Liturgical Revision Illustrated and Vindicated on Orthodox Principles, by the Rev. C. H. Davis, M.A.; with an Introduction by Lord Ebury (Seeley,) ought not to be overlooked. It contains the whole marrow of the subject on the side of moderate revisionists. Mr. Davis is indeed thoroughly master of the historical points on both sides of the question, and always writes with candour and perfect tempergreat things in a controversialist. Church Questions; or Practical Methods for the Arrangement of an Abridged Morning Service, a Revision of the Liturgy, &c. &c., by the Rev. C. Robinson, LL.D., (Hatchards,) deserves to be consulted. It is full of information on all the questions of which it professes to treat; such as the Restoration of Dissenters, Church Rates, A Royal Commission, Convocation, A National Council, &c.

We have said that the subject of a revision of the Liturgy ought to be approached with caution. We have upon our table an illustration of the want of this in a well-meant, but, as it seems to us, ill-advised pamphlet, by the Rev. C. Proby, (Simpkin and Co.,) in the form of A Letter to the Bishop of Winchester on the Revision and Re-arrangement of the Liturgy. Mr. Proby demands, "as the first thing to be particularly attended to, a careful revision of the prominent doctrine of the Liturgy:" and he proceeds thus :-

"But here I shall be asked, What is this peculiar doctrine of the Liturgy? I reply, without hesitation, baptismal regeneration, which is opposed to the grand doctrine of the fall of Adam and the utter alienation of the human heart from God. That this doctrine exists amongst us is plain that it is stoutly held by a very learned and influential portion of our clergy, cannot be denied. The Gorham controversy is a proof of this. Where do they get it from? Certainly not from the Scriptures, in the sense and manner taught in the Liturgy. It has no divine authority. It is at best a tradition of the fathers revived in the church of England, and not known elsewhere. I maintain that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration will be found to run more or less transparently through the liturgy of the church of England, as it has done through much of the preaching and teaching of some of our clergy."

Now believing, as we firmly do, that the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, as held and taught by " that very learned and influential portion of our clergy," is perilous to the soul, we at the same deny that it is the doctrine of the Prayer-book, and we must deplore the rashness of any evangelical clergyman who, publicly addressing his bishop, can stoutly assert the contrary. But what is to be said of the sentence printed in italics? Does Mr. Proby really believe that the Liturgy teaches any peculiar doctrine on the

subject of baptismal regeneration? Be it true or false, scriptural or unscriptural, it is not peculiar. Let him take up The Harmony of Protestant Confessions and compare the Prayer-book with them. It appears to us that the doctrine of our own church is precisely that of the churches of Helvetia, Bohemia, France, and Belgium: the same which is taught in the Confessions of Auxburg, Wirtemburgh, Saxony, and Sweveland. And later still, the Westminster divines, in their Confession of faith, in 1658, speak thus :-"Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church unto the end of the world."

The same doctrine, almost in the same words, is taught in their greater catechism; and this after the Laudian superstitions had directed attention to the subject of the opus operatum in baptism, and, indeed, after Laud's death. If there could be a doubt as to the identity of this doctrine with that of our own church, even a caveat that follows (which we would gladly have seen in our own rubric) places the matter beyond dispute:-" Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it; or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated." We cannot admit, with Mr. Proby, that "the doctrine of the Liturgy, if carefully examined, appears to hold that all baptized members of the church of England are so sufficiently born of the Holy Spirit at their infant baptism, as to become members of Christ, children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven." On the contrary, it is the want of this "careful examination" that has led to this conclusion: a comparison of the Liturgy with the lives and letters of the reformers will place this beyond a doubt. And let it be borne in mind, that the Confession of the Westminster divines is that of the church of Scotland, the Free church, and the united Presbyterian church; and was till very recently, if it be not still, a standard to which our English orthodox dissenters made their appeal, even those of them who rejected it as an authority. How, then, can the doctrine be described as exclusively that of our Liturgy? The day is far distant when Lord Ebury will succeed, if the doctrinal teaching of the Liturgy is to be the point submitted to a royal commission! We agree with Mr. Proby in wishing, were it possible, for a larger catechism, as well, indeed, as for a more comprehensive and simple initiatory one. But there is nothing to prevent our clergy from supplying this deficiency-as, indeed, most of them, we suppose, are in the habit of doing-by making