I should be much obliged to any of your correspondents to explain this perplexing discrepancy. The question being whether Jewell, Bilson, Hall, Stillingfleet, Bramhall, Hooker, and Field, whom in respect to this very subject the Bishop of Exeter has pronounced to be" the soundest and ablest divines of the Reformed Church of England," did at the time of their writing the above passages, "by continuing to hold any station of trust or emolument in the English branch of the Catholic Church, commit an act of baseness which no words of man can exaggerate."

CLERICUS.

The names which Clericus copies from the Bishop of Exeter's Charge were not adduced by his Lordship with reference to the question of ordination, but of church censures. They occur in his protest against the Ecclesiastical Discipline Bill, where he is arguing that "judicial process is essential to the due exercise of episcopal authority;" which necessity, he says, "is recognized and asserted by all the soundest and ablest divines of the Church of England, who have written on the nature of the visible church;" from whom he selects the above as instances. We mention this, because Clericus speaks of a discrepancy where there was no comparison. He had, however, a fair right to allude to the men whom the Bishop eulogizes, with a view to inquire whether the eulogy is consistent with his Lordship's other statements.

There is another point which we ought to notice; namely, that Clericus has not cited the Bishop's words with the fulness and precision requisite for commenting controversially upon a document. By putting "viz." before Jewell,&c., and afterwards saying that the Bishop has pronounced them to be "the soundest, &c.," he makes the Bishop speak exclusively of these individuals, whereas he only instances them as specimens. We do not mean that there is anything polemically injurious in this; but controversialists should consider how such lapses are taken advantage of in reply. The passage in which the Bishop makes the accusations should have been cited in full. It is as follows:

"Now, I argue not (for the present, I repeat, is not an occasion for arguing) whether these several formularies be, or be not, sound, legitimate, Scriptural; but I ask, whether they who have; again and again, subscribed to this Book, as 'lawful,' as 'containing nothing contrary to the Word of God;' who have also subscribed to the 36th Article, which says of this same Book, not only that it doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering,' but that 'neither bath it anything that, of itself, is superstitious and ungodly' (as much of it must be considered to be, if the commission of the Ordered Ministers be not, indeed, from God);-who have even voluntarily received their own Commission in the very form therein prescribed;-can they, I ask, without the most shameful disingenuousness, deny, that it is the doctrine of our Church, at least, be that doctrine true or untrue,-that its Ministers receive their Commission from those who have themselves received authority to confer it in succession from the Apostles, and, through them, from our Lord himself?

If any think that this doctrine is erroneous;if, after using all the means of information which God has placed within his power,-above all, humble prayer to God for His Spirit to guide and guard him in the investigation ;-if, after this, he have convinced himself, or have been convinced by others, since he subscribed to the doctrine, that it is contrary to God's Word; that the ministerial commission is of human origin, and confers no higher than human authority;-in the name of God, let him no longer continue to exercise it. We would mourn for his loss; we would honour his sincerity; we would wish him all joy and peace in acting as his conscience dictates. But if, continuing to call himself a Minister of God in the English branch of the Catholic Church,-continuing to hold any station of trust and emolument in it,-he yet presumes to decry the Divine authority of its Ministry, and to slander and vilify those who uphold it, no words of man can exaggerate his baseness.'

CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 28.

2 D

It will be seen from this extract, that what the Bishop called "shameful disingenuousness" and "baseness which no man can exaggerate," was denying that "it is the doctrine of the church, that its ministers receive their commission from those who have received lawful authority to confer it in succession from the Apostles, and through them from our Lord himself;" and "decrying the divine authority of its ministry," "slandering and vilifying those who uphold it," and arguing that "the ministerial commission is of human origin, and confers no higher than human authority." The Bishop in his previous remarks had construed the formularies of the Church of England to the unchurching the foreign Protestant churches, in a spirit very different to that of the venerable writers mentioned by him, and quoted by our correspondent; but he does not distinctly say that the charge of disingenuousness and baseness extends beyond the immediate context. If he means strictly thus to confine it, he says no more than Presbyterians, Congregationalists, or Wesleyans would assert, namely, that the Christian ministry is not of human but divine authority; though they would have their own opinions as to the mode of its transmission and perpetuation. But if his Lordship intends to dilate his accusation in such a manner as would convict of disingenuousness and baseness, such divines as Jewell, Hall, Stillingfleet, Taylor, Hooker, &c., and innumerable other eminent bishops and clergymen, including the whole of the Archbishops of Canterbury from the Reformation to the present moment, with the sole exception of Laud-we might specially cite Sancroft, Tillotson, Wake, Faber, and Howley,-the denunciation is so preposterous that we must see it in the most direct words, before we could allow ourselves to consider it as being really intended. What our church affirms-namely, that "it is evident to all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ;" and "that no man might presume to execute any of them, except, having been first called, tried, examined, he were also by public prayer, with imposition of hands, approved and admitted thereunto by lawful authority"—we believe to be strictly true; but it would not be true that "it is evident to all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors," that the Lutheran church, for instance, is not a church. Why cannot we enjoy our own inestimable privileges, and firmly assert our own orders, as our church does, without going out of our way to pronounce sentence upon other churches?

What strikes us as unfair in the Bishop's statement, is not that he says it is disingenuous and base for men to subscribe what they do not believe; for assuredly it is so; but that he substitutes his own comment for the text, and then conveys the inference that those clergymen are base and disingenuous, who having subscribed the latter, will not subscribe the former. He takes for granted that the Church of England holds the doctrine of the apostolical succession somewhat after the Oxford Tract fashion; and then, without admitting that there can be any other honest construction, denounces those who think the church holds it in another manner. He once did the same upon the question of regeneration in baptism; so that according to his representation, such a man as Mr. Faber, who approves the Baptismal office as heartily as his Lordship, is a dissembler before God and the church. It seems to us that his Lordship is accustomed so strongly to fix his own sense upon documents, that he is not always in a condition to admit that other men of integrity may take a different view of their import; and thus he sometimes converts a conscientious difference of opinion into an imputation upon personal character.

TWELFTH-NIGHT ENTERTAINMENTS.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

I LEAVE to abler correspondents to consider your Twelfth-night querist's inquiry in its general bearings; but to one of his questions the answer is very obvious. He says, "the head of the family has hitherto endeavoured to keep the entertainment within Christian bounds; but ought he now to suppress it altogether?" Most surely a servant of Christ ought to suppress, if he is able, whatever he " cannot keep within Christian bounds." I reply only to this remark; not as determining what are, or are not, in every case," Christian bounds." I will only say that we are commanded to "abstain from the appearance" as well as the outbreaks of evil.

JEMIMA PLACID.

EQUAL LAWS AND THIER IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATION.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

MUCH private and public discontent originates in fundamental misconceptions of the unalterable condition of human nature. This remark might be applied to many particulars; but I will mention only one-the popular notions respecting equality. It is by many taken for granted that all men might be, and ought to be, equal; whereas no two individuals are, or can be, so. One is stronger, or wiser, or healthier than the other; their tastes, tempers, and habits differ; in some things, this has the advantage, and in others, that; but neither on the whole, nor in any of the parts, are they fac-similes of each other.

Men may arraign Divine Providence on account of this inequality; but their presumptuous discontent does not blot out the fact; and the ignorance as well as impiety of the arraignment will be manifest if it be considered that inequality is not necessarily injustice, since there may be wise and good reasons for it; and it is not necessarily accompanied by assumption and superior happiness on the one side, or a sense of degradation, oppression, and misery on the other; for there are orders and degrees in the heavenly hierarchy; and an angel does not feel himself debased, or his happiness lessened, because he is not an archangel. And even upon earth it cannot be proved that the inequalities of life diminish happiness. Sampson cannot be shewn to have been happier than the most puny mortal; nor Croesus than a village hind; nor Bacon than the most illiterate savage. The good of all, and thereby the good of each, is generally connected with the mixed averages of health, wealth, and all other allotments; but even where it is not so, the wisdom and goodness of God are justified by the consideration that man is a fallen and sinful creature; that he is in a state of moral probation; and that the doctrine of a future life, and a day of judgment, reconciles all difficulties.

Seeing then that the facts are as above stated, it is sheer nonsense to talk of equality in the popular sense of the expression. No law, tax, or institution, no domestic or scholastic, no civilor ecclesiastical regulation, no act whatever, can be made to bear with equal pressure upon all mankind. Justice may be injustice; kindness, harsh

ness; or severity, lenity. The same lessons, the same plays, the same food and treatment, affect unequally in mind and body all the children in a family or school; and in public society the same rewards or punishments, the same trades, the same measure of wealth or poverty, are not practically to one man what they are to another. All that can be done is to avoid intentional injustice; and though there is no person who may not be at times tempted to murmur, yet it will greatly alleviate his vexations, if, in addition to those religious con. siderations which are the only adequate cure, he distinguishes between what is intentional injustice upon the part of his fellow-creatures and what is only incidental inconvenience where no wanton infliction is intended. The sharpness of the edge of calamity is often caused by a sense of wrong; it is this which makes thousands of persons discontented with the laws and constitution of their country; but they would find their minds sustained, even under heavy suffering, if they did not unjustly attribute it to causes which irritate the spirit.

Perhaps I have not explained sufficiently what I mean by saying that there cannot be equality on account of the unequal characters and powers of mankind. A magistrate sometimes says, "I am determined to make no unjust distinctions, I therefore fine Mr. the maximum of £5." But Mr. being a wealthy man suffered no inconvenience from paying £5; whereas a poor man who was fined for the same offence only one fifth of that sum-the minimum allowed by law-went to prison for two months. Yet the latter could not rightly complain of injustice. The magistrate had done all he could to equalize the punishment; and the law had allowed as ample a range of discretion as seems reasonable; and it is impossible nicely to adjust mulcts according to men's ability to bear them; for how can lawgivers or magistrates know all the particulars of every man's possessions, claims, hopes, fears, and incumbrances; and even were all this determined, and two men were found under precisely the same circumstances, their character and habits would make the punishment bear more heavily upon the one than the other. The same inequality would have occurred if the magistrate had sent the wealthy man to prison; for it might be that his poor neighbour did not work much harder, or fare much worse, in prison than out of it; whereas to him the suffering would have been very severe; and the disgrace would in his station of life press with proportionate weight. Or had two persons of the very same class of society been imprisoned, the character, connexions, claims, and health and habits of the one might have rendered the punishment more galling to him than to his fellow-culprit. Yet he could not fairly complain of wilful injustice.

Of a number of boys in a class at school, to some the tasks are too easy, to others too burthensome, though to the average capacity and application they may be equitably adjusted. Two workmen, in performing the same labour, are unequally pressed; also two clerks in copying the same document; two soldiers in performing the same march; two competitors at the University or in the senate; or two factory children at the same employment in a mill. The man who declaims about injustice because men are not all circumstanced alike, does not himself give one gardener more than another for his potatoes, because, owing to having worse ground or less strength than his neighbours, the same amount of exertion does not procure for him

the same quantity of food; or pay one baker twice as much for a loaf as another, because he has twice as many children to maintain out of the profits of it. Yet the less successful gardener or baker has as much right to find fault with the exigences of human condition, as the declaimer himself. If Mr. Owen measured out the work of one of his parallelograms into tasks, the weak and inefficient would complain that they must work more hours than their stronger or cleverer brethren; and if he allotted it by the hour, the latter would think themselves unjustly used, because they produced in the same time more than others; or if to avert this they slackened their exertions to the level of their less able companions, the latter would murmur in their turn that they did not sustain as much toil as themselves.

There is, alas! much of injustice, oppression, and cruelty in the world; and every man is warranted in seeking by lawful methods the redress of grievances; but if he measures his wrongs by an ideal standard of human perfectibility, he will only chafe his mind, and make his yoke more burdensome. The Gospel is the only real alleviator of human sorrow, and blessed be God its aids are adapted to every necessity. The love of God shed abroad in the heart; a reliance on his wisdom and goodness; a passive submission to his will; a humbling conviction that all we enjoy is so much unmerited mercy, and that all that can befall us in the way of earthly calamity is infinitely less than our sins deserved, will brighten the darkest hour, and add new zest to all our joys. R. N.

MR. NEWMAN'S PAROCHIAL SERMON ON THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

FEELING deeply convinced of the dangerous tendency of the opinions put forth by the writers of the "Tracts for the Times," and by those who hold their sentiments, I shall be obliged if you will kindly insert, in the pages of your "Observer," the following extracts (with a few remarks of my own) from a sermon of Mr. Newman, (Eleventh) "Parochial Sermons," Vol. IV. The subject of the sermon is, "The Communion of Saints;" and I think no one can read it without coming to the same conclusion with myself, that it has a direct tendency to encourage the unscriptural doctrine of the "Invocation of Saints," or perhaps, to speak more correctly, to lead the church on earth to look to the church of the saints above--not to "her members one by one," but " as a body"-for that light and life which the Scriptures teach us are to be found in the Great Head of the Church alone.

In the sermon alluded to, the writer thus describes the invisible Church as having been made One in Christ by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon it on the day of Pentecost: "The living Spirit of God came down upon it at Pentecost, and made it One by giving it life" (p. 194). "That divine and adorable Form which the Apostles saw and handled, after ascending into heaven, became a principle of life, a secret origin of existence to all who believe, through the gracious ministration of the Holy Ghost" (p. 192). "Well then (he goes on to say) may the Church be called invisible, not only as regards her vital principle, but in respect to her members" (p. 195).