nation Tractarian is uniformly adopted. We rather object to the use of names, though in some cases the term has been used in this journal; but our surprise was unbounded to find it adopted by the Quarterly Review.

Our readers will remember, that we have offered a uniform and steady resistance to the Tracts for the Times, on those points respecting which we have considered them to be in error. Our opposition has never been marked with violence, but it has been characterized by firmness. We, therefore, in common with all who love the formularies of the Church, rejoice to find that the Quarterly Review has changed its course; but, at the same time, we cannot acquit that journal of inconsistency. Either its former or its present views are erroneous. If its present views be correct, it follows that there must have been inconsistency heretofore. Nor can we get rid of the uncomfortable reflection, that the Quarterly reviewer is anxious to shape his course according to the times. We know well, that certain articles in that journal, during the last few years, did more to advance the progress of the opinions advocated in the Tracts, than any direct defences from their acknowledged advocates. If, therefore, the reviewer imagines, as appears to be the case from the tone of the article, that the peculiar views of the Tracts are mischievous, he himself should remember, that he has something to answer for, since no one can doubt that his former articles tended to promote the circulation of those publications. This circumstance must deprive the reviewer of the merit, which otherwise would have been his due, for the opposition which he is now directing against his former friends and allies. The public, indeed, will scarcely fail to remark, that the tide is now turned in a different direction. This circumstance is sufficient to account for the change of tone in the Quarterly Review. We rejoice, as we have said, in the change; but we cannot shut our eyes to the inconsistency which has marked the course of our contemporary.

Having made these observations on the evident change in the Quarterly, we now proceed to consider certain points in the article to which we have already referred. We aver our belief, then, that, in some of his statements, the reviewer, though opposed to the Tracts, is decidedly in error. Of course our mere assertion will not be received without proof. We intend, therefore, to submit to our readers the statements against which our objections are directed; and we shall quote certain extracts, in the order in which they stand in the article, so that the points may be distinctly seen and understood.

In our opinion there is some little discrepancy between the statement at page 233, and that at page 238, respecting schism. In the former page the reviewer expresses his apprehension of "the danger of a serious and mischievous schism;" but in the latter he says, "however a few unreflecting or over-imaginative persons may persist in some foolish singularities, either of doctrine or ceremony, there is no longer (if ever there was) any danger of extensive apostasy or serious schism." We enter not into the question, whether there be or be not any danger of an extensive schism; for our object in making the quotations was simply to point out the inconsistency of the two. The reader will perceive that the assertion of the former is flatly contradicted by the latter. This circumstance, trivial as it may appear to some persons, is, we think, calculated to shake the confidence of the public in the reviewer, if not materially to weaken the arguments which he has put forth in his lengthened article. We leave the discrepancy without further comment, feeling that we have performed a duty in pointing it out.

We proceed to notice the reviewer's statement respecting the mode of interpreting the rubrics and canons, and the authority by which doubtful matters are to be settled. He remarks—

"Before we arrive at these details, there is a grave preliminary question to be disposed of. By what law, and before what tribunal, are we to try the cause? The strict rubricians will say, the canons and the rubric are the law, and Convocation should be the tribunal. Now we will readily concede the first of these propositions--the second we must question. We admit the articles, canons, and rubric are the law, established and sanctioned by the supreme power in Church and State; but not all, at this day, of the same practical authority. We must observe that these three codes, as we may call them, are specially adapted to the three great branches of Church concerns-the articles are doctrinal, the canons disciplinal, and the rubrics ritual; but rites, and, above all, discipline, are liable to change and derangement from the lapse of time" (p. 239).

The conclusion at which the reviewer arrives is, that the rubrics and canons are to be interpreted by custom―

"Which practice and usages ought, in our opinion, like precedents in the courts of law, to be admitted to explain and determine whatever may be obscure or conflicting in the literal expressions" (pp. 239, 240).

It is true that the law of the land is interpreted, in all points where obscurity exists, by usage and custom; but we cannot conceive how this principle can be applied to some of the rubrics adduced by the reviewer. In all cases, in which the law of the land is clear and express, the strict letter is followed; but the

writer of the article in question would apply the principle, which is applied to the common or unwritten law, and to doubtful points in the Lex Scripta, to those rubrics of the Church, respecting the meaning of which there can be no difference of opinion; and this strange method is adopted merely because irregularities have arisen in the practice of the clergy. Why the principle should be applied to the rubrics, which are clear and obvious, we cannot imagine; and we are surprised that the Quarterly Review should countenance such a latitudinarian sentiment. Should such a principle be generally admitted (but we are thankful to add, that the notion is not general), any changes, even such as would tend to the subversion of the Church-might be introduced and defended. The sentiment is so unlike the views which have usually been put forth in the Quarterly Review, that we are at a loss to account for the change. True it is, that, on many topics, that publication has adopted a principle of expediency; but we never imagined that, in such solemn matters as those discussed in the article before us, so latitudinarian a principle of interpretation would have been admitted.

The reviewer, however, feels the difficulty of his position. He perceives that an authority to settle disputed points should exist somewhere. The bishops, in their collective capacity, have it not, as the writer seems to allow; the Parliament has no concern in the matter, for that would be to place the Church in subjection to the State; neither is any plan proposed in the article under review. Further, it is admitted that the Convocation is the proper authority in such cases; yet the writer deprecates the meeting of that assembly. He admits that the attention of enquiring persons is naturally directed to that body still hesatisfies himself, that the present is the wiser course. He prefers the present uncertainty to any measures which might originate in Convocation. And why does he arrive at such a conclusion? Simply because he chooses to assert, that the members would employ their time in strife and discord, rather than in consulting the good of the Church. Thus the writer remarks:

"Instead of an occasional crisis, which produces temporary regret at the absence of the Convocation, we should inevitably have, if Convocation were to be restored to the actual exercise of its theoretic powers, a constant agitation in the Church-a never-intermitting fever of feud and faction, more intense, more uncontrollable, and more passionate than that which Parliamentary elections create in the political world; and a development, we fear, of individual vanity, paradox,

and ambition, which could not fail to multiply sects, schisms, and contentions, and, within no long period, to scatter the Church and religion itself to the winds-not of heaven! We need not, for our present purpose, enter into any details on this subject" (p. 241).

The reviewer expresses his conviction, that his views will be unpalatable to many, "especially to the clergy." He is aware that the course which he has adopted is a doubtful one. We think, too, that we shall be able to show that his views are unsound and dangerous.

It will be seen, from the above extract, that the writer supposes that the clergy in Convocation would spend their time in quarrelling with one another. We ask the writer on what ground his conclusion is formed? He will probably reply, that for some years prior to the period when Convocation ceased to act, there were frequent collisions between the two houses, and frequent squabbles among the members of the lower. All this we admit; but the circumstances of the times must be considered before we can arrive at a sound conclusion on the matter. The confusions which existed arose entirely from political feelings. Whether the opinion were well or ill founded is now beside the question; but that there was a prevalent feeling that the Church was in danger cannot be disputed. This notion arose out of the changes which occurred at the Revolution. The bishops were generally well inclined to the Government; but many of the clergy were apprehensive of danger to the Church from the principles introduced by the Revolution. This is the key to the proceedings of that period; and with the feelings which were so common it was not possible for the bishops and clergy to act together. But no such causes of dispute exist at present. It is a libel on the clergy to suppose that they cannot meet except to quarrel. Facts, too, are against the reviewer's theory. We have shown that no example can be drawn from the period subsequent to the Revolution; yet the writer evidently alludes to that only, passing by those important seasons in our history when the gravest questions were discussed and settled. Look at the year 1661, when the Book of Common Prayer was revised! Look again at the year 1603, when our present canons were arranged! Did the clergy quarrel on these occasions? No; because there was no cause for strife, as was the case subsequent to 1688. Had this writer's principles always been acted on, the Prayer Book would not have existed, nor would the canons have been put forth. As to the assertion that the election of proctors would be attended with greater evils than the election of members of Parliament, we must say that it is most foolish and absurd. How is it possible that danger could arise?

In the first place, the ex-officio members would constitute a very important part of the lower house; while the proctors for the parochial clergy would necessarily be the most deserving of the body. What analogy there can be between an election of a proctor and that of a representative, we cannot pretend to have discovered. Incumbents only would be empowered to vote; and surely they would quietly exercise that important duty. Assuredly the reviewer has no just ground for forming a different conclusion. It appears to us quite ridiculous to imagine, that the possession of a vote for a proctor by one man in a parish, and that man the incumbent, could lead to such consequences as sometimes take place in the election of members of Parliament.

Now, so far from apprehending danger from the meeting of Convocation, we clearly see danger from the want of such meetings. We would not advocate the cause of Convocation, so far as to wish the members to meet annually with the Parliament: we think that occasional meetings would be sufficient. But we are so apprehensive of Parliamentary interference, that we should most gladly consent to a proposal for allowing the bishops to act, in their collective capacity, in the name of, and for, the Convocation. If the Convocation were to assemble, we feel convinced that the lower house would be quite ready to yield certain powers to the bishops. To accomplish this end would be most desirable, if nothing more were attempted; and we think that some such ineasure would be carried.

In our opinion, therefore, the reviewer is guilty of a libel on the clergy, by insinuating that they could not assemble in Convocation without strife and contention; and we have proved that the peculiar circumstances of the country subsequent to 1688 afford no ground for any such conclusion.

The reviewer admits the necessity of uniformity in our various dioceses, though he does not tell us how it is to be effected. He seems, however, to intimate that this desirable end is to be attained by an agreement among the bishops, the archbishop taking the lead. Whatever is decided for one diocese should, he thinks, be extended to the whole. We too are of the same opinion; but no agreement among the bishops could effect this desirable end. It could be accomplished in one way alonenamely, by Convocation. The unseemliness of different practices in different dioceses is thus described :

"It is, for example, not seemly-if the matter be at all worthy of episcopal interference, as we think it certainly is that a preacher should be enjoined to wear a white gown at one end of London-bridge, and a black one on the other, as it must be the case till the Bishop of Winchester shall have adopted the Bishop of London's views; or, which