Easter to be celebrated at one time, and not with Apost. Can. 7; Arles, 1;

514

NOTICE S.

'DIVORCE and Re-Marriage' (Masters), is the title of a very good sermon, preached by Mr. D. A. Beaufort, of Warburton. We may say the same of Mr. Cowan's Christian Marriage Indissoluble' (Skeffington), which is even better. We select them, however, not so much because they are useful sermons; for their use has passed away; but for other reasons. The Divorce Bill, is the Divorce Act; and the fact that it is so, is, in our judgment, the most serious event which has happened in the history of the later English Church. We are not now speaking of the mere dangers, both to religion and to society, which must attend the relaxation of the law of Marriage. There is not one of our readers who requires this lesson to be impressed upon him. All that Christian eloquence in debate, especially of Mr. Gladstone,—all that practised experience in Parliament, such as that of Lord Redesdale,—all that grave and trusted piety, like Mr. Keble's, (we acknowledge with thankfulness bis important' Sequel to the Argument,' &c. (J. H. Parker), which has already commended itself to the whole Church),-all that the testimony of experience, as opportunely produced by Mr. H. Drummond in his republication of Baron Von Gerlach's Speech in the Prussian Chamber,'-all that the appeal of such laymen as Mr. Henley, Si. Wm. Heathcote, Mr. Hope, and others, in Parliament,-and, beyond and above these things, all that the Protest of more than nine thousand of the Clergy and an unexampled mass of petitions could do in the way of arresting the decision of Parliament, has been found unavailing. Chiefly because Lord Palmerston had nothing else to produce in the way of legislation, the Divorce Bill has been carried; and it is with little satisfaction that the Church notes what votes. in the last extremity of the case, in the House of Lords introduced that disastrous measure on the Statute Book. We are, however, now concerned with the future and that future is one which requires the very gravest consideration. Undoubtedly, the whole connexion of the Church with he State not only will be altered, but is altered by this legislation. The law of the State and the law of the Church are at issue. As far as this consideration goes, the so-called 'Concession' goes for nothing. A particular clergyman will not be punished because he refuses to do an act which his Church forbids: but the State has authorized and legalized an act which the Church forbids; and moreover, the State will punish any clergyman if he does not surrender his church for a purpose which he believes and knows to be scandalous, unholy, and profane. For ourselves, we cannot see how any clergyman who signed the Protest can himself marry divorced persons: nor can we see how any man of honour and feeling can permit his church to be used for a purpose which he himself considers forbidden by the word of God and the law of the Church. It must then come to this, not only that the clergy will not themselves marry divorced persons but that they will not surrender the keys of their churches for this purpose. Then comes the collision. But, as said the Baron Von Gerlach,

sermons.

'this defiance of the law is sacred: it is the germ of Divine right.' This, however, is a state of things which it is very painful to forecast: but we see no help for it, unless the next session gives us some new legislation on the subject. The concession to the Clergy,' it will be observed, is the most insidious and fatal blow which could have been offered to the Church. It actually destroys not only the whole parochial system: but, as far as the exclusive rights of the Church to the fabrics are concerned, it implies a principle which, sooner or later, must, if not cancelled, surrender the parish church to the use of all denominations. The parish church is not the property, and peculiar, and freehold of the incumbent, but is for the general religious uses of the parishioners. This is the principle. Parliament has the right to say what are the general religious uses of the parishioners. If incestuous and adulterous marriages are religious uses, then, à fortiori, Mr. Spurgeon's If the parish priest must give up his church for the Rev. Mr. Coupler to marry some noble or vulgar adulterer or adulteress, why should he not surrender it for the religious ministrations of those excellent persons whom the Bishop of Norwich invites as his brethren and fellow ministers to the palace, and whom the Dean of Canterbury recognises in the most solemn way as sharers in an equal office with himself? This, let the clergy remember, is what the 'concession' means; and this doubtless is what Sir Richard Bethell intended it to mean. There are, however, two distinct duties towards which attention should be concentrated. The one is as regards the State; the other as regards the Church. To attempt to repeal the present Act we consider not a very practical course. Rather, as things are, we should say that the next best thing would be for the State simply to recognise the civil marriage; in other words, to introduce into England exactly what obtains in many continental countries. The State recognises only the civil contract; and leaves all religious professions to administer or not to its own members its own religious sanctions. If it be said, this is a separation of Church and State, the answer is, that that fact is already accomplished. The Church has the right, independently of the State, to settle upon its own principles its own law of Christian marriage. The State, again, has the right to legalize for civil purposes whatever unions it pleases: but has no right to call upon the Church, or upon any other religious body, to superadd its sanctions. That is to say, the State must content itself with the civil aspect of marriage alone. As regards the Church, it is a painful consideration that, considering the votes which were given in the House of Lords, we are not likely at present to act otherwise than individually and by such voluntary and irregular associations as the times will permit. But unquestionably serious counsel ought to be taken. The Protest of the nine thousand clergy shows a spirit and earnestness in the question which is not likely to end in mere acquiescence in the law. If the clergy choose to be awake to their duties and responsibilities, the freedom of the Church is in their own hands. It perhaps but wanted an assault like this to assure us as to our real position. We should counsel, therefore, that in every legitimate mode, by mutual counsel, by ruri-decanal meetings, by means of the Church Unions, and in all clerical societies, the first and engrossing subject of discussion should be the duties and calls resulting from the Divorce Act. We are not prepared

to say what those duties are; but most distinctly we urge upon the clergy to ascertain and settle what they are. We believe that the Church little knows its own strength. The Protest to which we have alluded certainly enlightened ourselves, and, we may add, surprised the country, as an instance of general soundness and spirit in the majority of the English clergy and with this evidence of what we are, it is our own fault if after all even this Divorce Act is not overruled for good to the Church. A pressure upon our pages compels us to postpone most of our shorter Notices' this quarter; but the paramount importance of this subject induces us to give it prominent, and, had need been, exclusive attention.

Mr. C. H. Davis, of Wadham College, Oxford-we have not examined the Clergy List for his benefice-rather reminds us of that simple old lady who professed to be vastly edified by the cheering words, Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign,' because they happened to occur between the covers of the family Bible. Mr. Davis is possessed with a mania for making Prayers, and he extends a genial impartiality of affection to whatever looks like a prayer. His 'School-room Lecture Liturgy' (Seeley), is a specimen of his amiable and injudicious temper. We believe him to be an earnest and religious character, but only utterly ignorant of the rationale of a Prayer-Book. All is fish that comes to Mr. Davis' net. He says that he thinks the proposed alterations in the Prayer-Book of 1689 were 'mischievous,' 'meagre and verbose,' and 'utterly subversive of doctrine,' yet he has worked them up into his School-room Lecture Liturgy.' He is the soundest of all Protestants, yet he does not scruple to borrow from the old Missal, and for Saints' Days he suggests the magnificent Almighty and ever-blessed God, we yield Thee most high praise and hearty thanks.' With a quiet contempt, or rather ignorance, of what belongs to the divers orders of the Christian hierarchy, he proposes to use in his Confirmation Class the Episcopal Benediction, 'Defend, O Lord, these Thy servants;' and 'to secure a pleasing variety' in his school-room services, he suggests the use of certain portions of the actual Communion Service.' In a prayer for the beginning of a new year he forms a cento from the Collects, the Burial Service, and other sources; his principle, as he himself announces it, being to patch them up to form 'complete and perfect collects, by the combination of perfect collects taken 'from Holy Scripture, and from other parts of our Prayer-Book.' In one place, Mr. Davis' devotion to our national Church' leads him to a curious statement of doctrine. In a 'Prayer to be used on the vacancy of a Bishopric,' he parodies the Ember Week collect thus: 'Almighty God, our 'Heavenly Father, who hast purchased,' &c., and at this time so guide ' and govern the minds of those to whom Thou hast given power to appoint 'another Bishop in Thy Church, that they may faithfully and wisely make 'choice,' &c. For the statement which we have italicized, Mr. Davis refers to Rom. xiii. 1, and John xix. 11, which are very curious proofs of a Christian sanction to Lord Palmerston's exercise of the Regale. The joke, however, is carried too far. Thou couldest have no power at all against 'Me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered Me unto thee hath the greater sin.' This is John xix. 11: Mr. Davis' scriptural proof of the congé d'élire. The appointment of Bishops by the

Prime Minister is a power given unto him analogous to that by which Pilate condemned our Lord to death. Mr. Davis is a wag: but he should not introduce High Churchmanship of this very extreme type into a

prayer.

We can speak with nearly unqualified approbation of Mr. C. Yonge's History of England' (Rivingtons). To say that it supplies a gap in our school books, is saying little. It does more. It gives, for the first time, a really readable and compact summary of history, pervaded by right principles, never condescending to the conventional claptrap which represents some sovereigns, such as Elizabeth, models of perfection: but in a calm and level style, without the affectation of what is called the philosophy of history, which so often disdains the difficult necessity of dealing with facts, it illustrates the progress of civilization with a conscientious adherence to annals. It ranges from the earliest and mythical traditions, to the Crimean war and yet it is written to scale.

Mr. Carter's Life of Bishop Armstrong' (J. H. Parker), shows eminently the truth of the old heathen maxim about early death. Bishop Armstrong, with a vivid perception that his hour of work was a very brief one, laboured under the intense, and, in his case, consuming stimulus of the approaching night. It met him fuller of triumphs than of years; and it has been given to but few to have received such successes as the establishment of the Penitentiary work, and the Tracts and Sermons for the Christian Seasons. To those who knew the first Bishop of Grahamstown, few things are more striking than his rapid spiritual development: God was visibly training him for Himself. Without much apparent promise, and with a certain reserve of character, there were few possessed of deeper stores of general information, of kindly wit, of large charity, of sound principle, and, which his life consistently displayed, of working powers. The present biography, an able and affectionate composition, will be especially welcomed by our readers: for it is a satisfaction to recal the assistance which, on several occasions, we received from Bishop Armstrong, as a contributor to the Christian Remembrancer, especially in connexion with labours which, with many others, we shared in rousing public attention to,-the Penitentiary work.

The Bishop of Tasmania's Cruise of the Beacon' (Bell & Daldy), is not only an interesting sketch of missionary work executed in a simple, business-like, active spirit, but is a monograph of a neglected spot, very interesting geographically and geologically,-Bass's Straits. Some preity sketches, Bishop Nixon's own work, we believe, illustrate the singular vegetation and basaltic rocks of this hitherto neglected spot.

In connexion with the Colonial Church, we desire to call special attention to Proceedings of the first Church of England Synod for the Diocese of Melbourne edited by Mr. R. Perry.' (Rivingtons.) We cannot say that either in Church or State the first struggling attempts at constitutionalism are altogether satisfactory. But to say they are without hope would be both premature and unwise. Much difficulty must, from the nature of the case, attend the formative process in Synodical meetings; and Australian society is precisely that in which what people call individualism,—to give