their testimony for 1260 years, devouring their enemies, shutting up heaven that it should not rain, lying dead for three years and a half, coming to life again, and ascending to heaven in a cloud. Both the old Pauperes and the Vaudois from Switzerland are respectable communities in certain respects, but they seem to have differed in their characters, opinions, and errors, in no slight degree, if human testimony, and the favourable testimony of enemies, be entitled to credit. At all events, the former were essentially and notoriously distinct from their pretended co-witness, the Albigeois.

Mr. Gilly's work will be interesting, the more so for the labour and delay he bestows on it; always providing, that it is not composed in the spirit of an advocate and panegyrist.

Alanus was an eminent man in his day, very learned in its learning, and a high authority for what was passing around him. His Latin poetry was long celebrated, and by no means of a low order. An attentive reader may detect, under the guise of poetical imagination, errors and delusions of a most antichristian tendency in the heart of Alanus. But his life and outward professions were, I believe, entirely orthodox. Of кaðaρòs, or any other Greek words, he certainly is not likely to have known anything; and Greek criticism has nothing to do with the estimate of a Latin schoolman's merits. That the heretics of his day osculabantur posteriora cati was a statement of fact which it would, in my judgment, be more cautious not to term an absurdity.* If testimony, the basis of historical belief, may be contemptuously trampled, then any people may be anything their advocates please. The Templars were notorious in Europe and the East above all other orders for their pride, treachery, and licentiousness. But when the Prior of Montfaucon and the Chevalier Noffo dei Noffodei had divulged their strange heresies and loathsome vices, and the papal sec had condemned and dissolved the order, it gradually became the fashion of both free-thinkers and protestants to pretend that they were innocent. It is sharp practice with the pope in this particular respect; for if he supports and encourages the religious orders, he is a Babylonian villain for so doing; and if he suppresses a religious order because of its crimes and abominations, he is a still worse tyrant for doing that. But more recent antiquarian researches have too clearly established the apostasy and disgusting extravagances of those knights. One of the formal charges against them was, quod adorabant quemdam catum sibi quandoque in congregatione apparentem. (Dupuy. p. 45.) No part of the charges is more clearly verified aliunde, for few monuments of them can be seen without the mystical catus keeping watch at the feet of the knight's crossed legs. As to their mode of adoring this beast, nothing is stated in the charge; but, whatever it was, it could scarcely be more abominable than their mystical salutation of each other, which was of such a nature as to justify the worst suspicions. The sculptured devices and strange written inscriptions of this fraternity, Tepi TоU TOWкTOU, would suffice to convict them in

Had it been a calumny, it would still have been nothing like an absurdity. A schoolman (to do them justice where they excel) would not have so termed it. VOL. XV.-March, 1839. 2 P

those respects, even if Sir Noffo and Montfaucon had carried their secrets to the grave. Long afterwards (I think it was full two centuries later) the sorcerers or sabbatarians of Zugarramurdi, and other Basque villages of the Pyrenees, became the subject of inquiry. They were a sect of Ophites or Satanists, who endeavoured to propitiate the devil by a ceremony called the Sabbath of Satan. In their depositions they gave themselves credit for many surprising operations of sorcery, for which they will not obtain credit with many. But they were agreed on this point, that there was a he-goat in their place of meeting, which they adored as Satan, and that they all of them osculabantur posteriora hirci. We may venture to say that Noffo and the prior did not frame their depositions upon anything that Alanus had written about the Cathari, near 150 years before; and that the sabbatarians of Biscay had no knowledge of either. I regard no fact in connexion with the wicked aberrations of magic more certain than this obscene veneration of a quadruped. And if Alanus had never spoken a word less true than was the existence of that degrading superstition, he would have deserved the praises that were somewhat too lavishly bestowed on him. That he was correct in supposing that some of the several sects called Cathari were of the number of those who made use of such orgies, I know no reason to deny; certainly, no pretext for treating him with any derision. I am disposed not to augur very well of historical labours carried on in that spirit, because it is apt to lead us into making history to our wishes instead of writing it. Yours, &c. A. H.

ON CHURCH SOCIETIES.

SIR, The question asked by one of your correspondents in your last number, "What constitutes a church society ?" will be best answered by another "What constitutes a church?" And the answer to his question will then probably take something of this form :-A church society is a society episcopally governed, as the church is, and promoting, in union with the church, the glory of God in the salvation of man. To be truly a church society, therefore, it must have these two notes-subjection to the rule of bishops, and an evangelical object. Suppose a society in this country to want the first of these marks-not to have the bishops at its head, yet at the same time to be composed exclusively of churchmen, and to employ in its service episcopallyordained ministers only, which, I believe, is the case of the Church Missionary Society-is it one of "the church societies ?" Surely not; correctly speaking, it is at best but "a church-men society." By way of illustration: a chapel is occupied by some seceders from the parish church; they meet in it for the purpose of public worship

Indications may be seen of a disposition to inquire, both philosophically, theologically, and testimonially, into the questions concerning the art magic. They will obtain fair examination; and whatever fate they may experience, the time is nearly past in which human testimony could be crushed by mere vulgar derision.

strictly according to the forms of the church, and under an episcopally-ordained minister; but the congregation and the pastor withhold themselves from episcopal jurisdiction: which is truly the church society in the parish-that at the chapel, or that in the parish church? I do not say that a greater difference does not exist in the case supposed than in the case of the Church Missionary Society and the other societies; but in principle it is the same, and surely enough so to make the title of "the church societies' strictly appropriate to those only that are episcopally governed, as well as pursuing similar objects with the church.

There is another view of this subject, which to some perhaps may put the difference between the societies in a still clearer light. A church society, to attach to the word church the meaning which it properly carries with it, is, in other terms, the church itself in action, in one particular department of its operations, for the glory of God in the salvation of man. But to be the church in action, it must be the whole visible body in one movement. Is it the whole body, if the head be wanting? Is it the church, without its bishops? Shall the feet say to the head, "we have no need of you"?

On this principle, then, no religious society in this country can, strictly speaking, be a church-of-England society if the bishops of the church are not at its head. I am, yours &c., JOHN.

P.S. If I might also ask a question of your correspondents, it should be, What is the reason that the Church Missionary Society and the Pastoral Aid Society object to placing themselves by constitution under the episcopal heads of the church? Ignatius, who was personally intimate with the apostles, and consecrated to his high office by St. Peter himself, is express to the point-"Let nothing be done without the bishop in matters pertaining to the church."

ON CHURCH SOCIETIES.

MR. EDITOR,-If your correspondents "S. I. E." and "A Country Parson" will look to the construction of the Church Missionary Society, and the four societies included in the Windsor Union under the title of "The Church Societies," they will find that there is an essential difference in their very constitution. The archbishops and bishops of the church are ex officio at the head of the four societies; those societies, therefore, are governed on church principles. The archbishops and bishops of the church are not ex officio in any power at all in the Church Missionary Society; that society, therefore, is not governed on church principles.

I think that your correspondents will acknowledge that there is a difference here in the very constitution of these societies that gives to the four societies in question the character of church societies, on grounds to which the Church Missionary Society purposely declines offering any pretensions.

Whether this difference is such as to make subscription to the Church Missionary Society unadvisable is a question that will be differently determined. But your correspondents will probably allow thus much-that, if the principle of ouder xwpis ETLOKÓTOV is well known to have been one upon which the movements of the primitive church turned, we not unreasonably or unkindly use it now as a test of what are, and what are not, strictly speaking, "the church societies."

It is, I apprehend, with a view to that very peace and union which your correspondents so sincerely desire that these unions of churchmen are now so generally attempted on grounds upon which we can all agree to stand. It is well known that objections are entertained to the Church Missionary Society by a large body amongst us; by some on one ground, and some on another, but generally to its constitution, those that have other objections to urge against it believing its errors in conduct to have their origin in its want of proper episcopal government. To have included the Church Missionary Society, therefore, in the proposal for the union would, in all probability, have prevented the union. It was surely, therefore, the better course to let the union be composed of such societies only as, being unobjectionable to all, would be cheerfully supported by all. Such a union, in which churchmen stand together upon a definite, acknowledged, primitive church principle, will lead ultimately, it may be reasonably hoped, to one more comprehensive, embracing all societies supported exclusively by churchmen, and yet admitting none not under the government of the bishops of the church. I am, &c., Č. H.

P.S. Let me call your correspondents' attention to the following extract from the Bishop of London's last Charge (1838) to his Clergy :

"The great church societies,—the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, the Incorporated Societies for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, and for Building and Enlarging Chapels, the National School Society for the Education of the Poor, and the Society for supplying Additional Curates in Populous Places,all present distinct and unquestionable claims upon the liberality of churchmen...... I mark these societies more particularly as being framed in strict accordance with the principles of our ecclesiastical polity, and as being under the direct and effectual superintendence of the bishops of our church."

ON CHURCH SOCIETIES.

SIR,-In the January number of your periodical, "A Country Parson" asks, "Is there any real ground for saying that the Society for Promoting the Gospel in Foreign Parts is one whit more a church society than the Church Missionary Society ?" (page 71.) He then appears to take it for granted, that an answer in the negative must be returned, because the parties concerned in the formation of the Society for Promoting the Gospel in Foreign Parts might not have been exclusively of the episcopal order, and because several bishops now sup

port the Church Missionary Society. (page 72.) Now I submit that this is altogether beside the question. In order to try the merits of the two societies, we are not to regard so much who were the founders of the one, or who are among the supporters of the other, as what is the principle which distinguishes the constitution of each. By reference, then, to the rules of the two societies a wide difference in this respect at once presents itself. I would first draw the attention of your readers to the 24th rule of the Society for Promoting the Gospel in Foreign Parts, whereby it is enacted

"That every missionary, catechist, and schoolmaster in the employment of the society be subject to the ecclesiastical authority of the country in which they may be placed."

And to rule 26, which directs

"That no catechist or schoolmaster be allowed to read prayers or sermons, unless he be first nominated by the missionary and licensed by the bishop or other chief ecclesiastical authority."

We here perceive the Church principle, "Do nothing without the bishop," [Ep. Ignat. to Tral.] expressly enforced. But from the Church Missionary Society this principle is carefully excluded; for it is worthy of notice, that throughout the whole of its thirty-two rules the name of bishop is not once mentioned, nor the office once recognised. Have we not then substantial ground for saying that the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts is, and the Church Missionary Society is not, a church society? Little to the purpose is the assertion of "A Country Parson," that "the Church Missionary Society, both its managers and its agents, have uniformly shewn a willing obedience to church authority, and a reasonable submission to ecclesiastical order and discipline," (page 72;) for inasmuch as this obedience and submission are not enforced by any standing rule of the society, they can only be permissive, and what the society may choose to permit at one time it may choose to withhold at another; it, in short, merely yields as a matter of courtesy what, were it a church society, it would feel itself bound to render as a matter of duty.

The absence, however, of church principle in the constitution of the society has, notwithstanding your correspondent would lead us to believe the contrary, been really productive of very serious inconvenience in the church, as the following extracts from the correspondence of Dr. Middleton, the late Bishop of Calcutta, too plainly shew :

“A church missionary here has advertised for a congregation at Garden Reach, within four miles of Calcutta, recommending himself by his being regularly ordained in the church of England; though he has no licence, and is actually under no bishop."— Le Bas, Life of Middleton, vol. i. p. 398.

Again

"If the Church Missionary Society will supply ordained clergymen wherever they are wanted, the company may be relieved indeed from a heavy expense; but then what becomes of the bishop's jurisdiction? Not one of these missionaries are licensed by me, or known otherwise than as a person sent out to convert the heathen, and yet the conversion of the heathen is with missionaries of almost all classes but a secondary concern; it is laborious, and obscure and hopeless work, compared with preaching in English among Europeans. In this way in a few years there will be a bishop in