Her house is a Bethel to us in the Ministry it looks like a College. We have the Sacrament every morning, heavenly conversation all day, and preach at night."

Some of us in the present day might take a lesson from the daily course here marked out. But whatever credit may be due to the revivalists of that age, more is due to the Church system in which they were educated. However low the English Church might at that time have fallen, as a branch of the Church Catholic it could not but have had a revival; and so, whether it be from Wesley and Whitfield, or Venn and Simeon, or Pusey and Keble, the awakening must have come. Every movement has had a purpose and the Tractarians were but carrying on the crusade. The first thing was to put more vitality into religion, to make it personal, to rouse individual hopes and fears; but this was no resting point; the individual is but an atom of the human The Church was enlarged abroad and at home, public worship demanded greater attention, Christian art revived, and our churches and ritual testify to the vast change which has taken place. The Cross has become once more the symbol of our hope and the standard of the Church. The work to be done is indeed a mighty one and is yet incomplete. The pew system still remains here and there, shutting out the poor from their parish church; patronage is still misused, though pluralities are doomed; our Bishops, with here and there an exception, are only respectable,

race.

keeping up the traditional exclusiveness in palatial retirement; issuing orders indeed to check a movement here, or an advance there, but not leading the way. They too often stand in the way of improvement, and they are backed up by a party calling themselves evangelical, but having nothing in common with the Evangelical spirit of the past. It becomes us then to honour duly those who are bright exceptions to the ordinary Erastian type. We rejoice to do so, and the emblem of pastoral superintendence is no unfit testimonial to be bestowed on a faithful Bishop. The Evangelicals of the last generation laboured to raise up the Church; these of the present day would pull it down, destroy its liturgy, and carry us back to the very worst times of apathy and deadness. Visit the churches of these modern evangelists, and you will see no worship properly so-called, but you may see a congregation sitting through a mutilated service; you may see altars turned into sofas on which the clergy symmetrically recline on soft pillows; you may see luxurious lecture rooms for the rich, and mean iron churches for the poor,-where both incumbent and curate teach that when our Blesssd LORD said "eat," He only meant believe, and when He spake of His flesh and blood, He only meant His doctrine. Such are the men who profess to believe the Bible and venerate our LORD's words, who urge on the Bishops to persecute all those who cannot take our LORD's words as unmeaning nothings, who profess the profoundest

respect for episcopal authority so long as it winks at their violations of the rules of the Church, who recommend the blindest obedience not to law and ordernot to any Bishop supposed to favour Tractarianism, but to those who are of the same persecuting spirit. We have only to observe a gathering of Low Churchmen at a Visitation or any other religious service, and see how they loll through the prayers, stare about and talk, to be convinced that modern Evangelicalism is effete, and that if these men were to have their way we should speedily be re-plunged into the paganism of the last century.

AN ARCHIEPISCOPAL PARADOX.

['Church Review,' June 30, 1866.]

HEN the summer sun shines out upon the landscape, lighting up hill and valley, there are many dark corners in the picture, and lights and shadows are strongly contrasted. Never perhaps did a more glorious light fall upon the Church in this country than at the present time. The worship of GOD has become a reality; and where before all was darkness, now is light and life; but as a contrast to this revival, the shadow falls here and there more gloomily than ever. The addresses presented last week to the two Archbishops from what is called a Church Association are in their way quite unique. Churchmen are accustomed to any amount of ignorance and scurrility, but it is something new to see it formally paraded in the presence of an Archbishop, and one can only admire the patience with which the Archbishop of Canterbury listened to the grossest nonsense. The utterances respecting the Christian Sacrifice showed such ignorance, however, that the

Archbishop could not pass them over unnoticed, but was obliged to remind those novel theologians, who seem to revel in darkness, that the Sacrament of the LORD's Supper is not a sham, but a reality. It surely is the height, or depth rather, of bigotry and ignorance when men give the lie to our Blessed LORD's own words, for no other reason, apparently, than because they are received with reverence by others to whom they have assumed an attitude of opposition. It is to be hoped that the Archbishop's patience will have its reward, and that the mild reproof will bear fruit, and that good may come out of evil, for it was an interview sought unquestionably for an evil purpose.

The interview with the Archbishop of York affords no such hope it has not one redeeming feature. His Grace hopes, indeed, that "English clergymen will obey with alacrity the laws by which they are governed." But when he encourages and fraternizes with men who set all the laws of the Church at defiance, the most charitable might surely be excused for doubting his sincerity. Indeed, he very plainly intimates that the obedience he advocates, is not obedience to law, but a mere blind submission to the will of the Bishop. Thus the worship of the Almighty becomes an act of insubordination, and accordingly he says, ex cathedra, "I protest against these insubordinate proceedings." Will his Grace of York set, in his own person, an example of obedience to the laws of the Church of which he is an officer? Does it never occur to him