light by the clergy, and not applied at their will to such purposes as they may have most at heart; but, as far as possible, to such local uses as the offerers themselves might know and approve of, or the providence of God seems to present. It was undoubtedly meant to meet casualties-not for permanent provision or a constant supply.

And the use of the gown or the surplice should also be a question to be decided by common sense, and by the thing which is meant to be done in wearing the one or the other. There is no more virtue in a white surplice than in a black gown; but the surplice is an ecclesiastical dress, and therefore is provided by the parish-the gown is a scholastic dress, and procured by the individual. But preaching is become so general in its character as exclusively to belong neither to the divine nor to the doctor; yet, whatever its character, it is always delivered from the same place; and if we were to endeavour to determine the question by this principle, the same clergyman, in the same pulpit, should sometimes wear the surplice, and sometimes the gown.

It should be remembered that in the early Church there were two styles of preaching, wholly different from each other, and addressed to auditors in two wholly different conditions. The first kind of preaching accompanied the administration of the holy communion, when none but the faithful were present -that is, such as were established and experienced Christians. This kind of discourse was of the hortatory and experimental character, and it was the duty of the bishop or senior priest; and the subject was latterly taken from the portions of Scripture selected for the epistle and gospel of the day. And of this practice the " Postilla," the exhortation after those portions post illa, are supposed to be a remnant. But there was another kind of discourse, addressed to the baptized not yet admitted to the communion; and to the unbaptized and to strangers : this, of course, was not in the same place, nor at the same time as the former, and it differed in this-that it was preparatory and elementary, or, at most, only argumentative and doctrinal: never rising to the spiritual or experimental, because those to whom it was addressed could not comprehend this higher strain. It was, in short, the two kinds of discourse spoken of by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews, under the comparisons of milk for babes, and strong meat for full-grown men.

Such distinctions as these are not likely to be revived in our day: we do not expect our clergy even to revert to the times

of the Reformation, and preach sermons at Paul's cross. It is not wise, therefore, to make too much of the outward sign, when the thing signified thereby is departed. As the surplice is provided by the Church, those who insist so much upon it in preaching should be consistent, and preach only homilies or sermons provided by the Church, which would be attended with one good result-that the sermon would be in agreement. with the articles of faith, which unfortunately is not always the case with the sermons of those who stickle most for the observance of ceremonies and outward forms. The surplice is certainly a priestly or ministerial garment, and he who wears it should consider himself as occupied in a service of more especial solemnity, and requiring a corresponding gravity of discourse; and if it were thought allowable to deliver such discourses at the communion-table, where the bishop usually delivers his address when holding a confirmation, it would be the best way of connecting the communion with the sermon that occurs to us, and the nearest approach we could make to the practice of primitive times. And in such circumstances the pulpit might very properly be used solely for lectures on doctrine, or argumentative discourses, with the appropiate black garment or doctor's gown.

We cannot close this important subject, even for the present time, without adding an earnest exhortation to all parties, clerical as well as lay, not to allow inferior considerations of any kind, whether worldly or personal, to mingle with such holy things as the worship of God, and the right ordering of that house where the fear and honour of Him alone should occupy and engross all our thoughts. And in the discussion! of such questions, we would entreat them to remember that⠀⠀ this is one of those subjects in which the blessing of rule in the Church may be more especially discerned, and the duty of obedience may be most beneficially practised, for the good of the whole body. The Catholic truth is the thing we should seek for―unity of practice we should endeavour to attain; and id there all look to the heads of the Church for guidance, and to // some common standard or pattern as a model. It is a subject which, all past experience may teach us, requires the exercisen of great patience and forbearance, in ascertaining what can be done at any given time, as well as what in the abstract it may be right to do. And the appearance of partiality in choosing, or indifference in discouraging, the things which hasty men have set their hearts upon, might, with some show of plau sibility, rest upon any who were not so much above all such suspicions as the rulers of our Church.

At a time like the present, when contention is actually, begun, and when interested parties are endeavouring to enflame and embitter it to the utmost, the very existence of the Church may be perilled, unless we all speak and act under an abiding sense of the fear of God, and of charity towards each other. And as members of the Church, above all things is it incumbent upon us to show deference towards those who are over us in the Lord; to strengthen their hands, in the legitimate exercise of authority, by all the means in their power; that in these days of lawlessness, the Church, which is appointed to teach all truth, may be an example of the constant practice of the things which she teaches. According to the many commands we have received concerning both kings and governors-both Church and State-Fear God, honour the king. Remember them that have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation-Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Some most important proceedings have occurred in this diocese since our last number. The facts are very simple, and the judgment of the bishop is one of the ablest documents which ever proceeded from the episcopal bench. The facts are simply these.

Certain charges were alleged against the Rev. Walter Blunt, curate of Helston, by Mr. Hill, the churchwarden. The bishop issued a commission to enquire into the charges, which were 1. The use of the surplice in the pulpit; 2. An extempcrary lecture on the liturgy for a sermon; 3. The disuse of any prayer before or after sermon; 4. An extemporary lecture in the evening on one of the lessons for a sermon; 5. Compelling all persons to remain in Church on sacrament Sundays, until the conclusion of the exhortation, on pain of excommunication, ipso fucto; 6. Refusing to administer the holy communion to a man who had been baptized by a Roman Ca tholic priest, though he had previously communicated in the Church of England; 7. Refusing to bury the corpse of a

young man, who had been baptized by a Dissenting minister; 8. Refusing to marry persons, unless they could prove that they had been baptized.

Such were the charges exhibited by the churchwarden, at the request of the parishioners, against the curate of the parish and that members of the Church of England should have regarded them as offences appears to us most extraor dinary.

The commission, therefore, met on the 4th of October, and proceeded to consider the charges, all of which were admitted by Mr. Blunt, except the last, which, however, was allowed in part. It seems that he had refused, not to publish the banns, but to marry a person, who could not prove that he had been baptized. The commissioners, therefore, reported to the bishop that the allegations were proved. This, at least, was substantially their report to his lordship. The charges having been admitted, the bishop was called upon to decide whether they were really breaches of the laws and ordinances of the Church. Except that it was desirable, on Mr. Blunt's own account, that the matter should be submitted to the bishop, we cannot conceive how the charges could, by any ingenuity, have been magnified into crimes.

The bishop gave his judgment seriatim on each of the charges. Our readers have, doubtless, perused the document: consequently we need only offer some observations on the topics which are so ably managed by his lordship.

With respect to the use of the surplice, the bishop decided that Mr. Blunt was right. There may be a difference of opinion relative to the expediency, at the present moment, of adopting the surplice in the pulpit: but there can be no doubt in the minds of men acquainted with the subject; and the doubts of persons unacquainted with the matter are entitled to no consideration whatever. It is certain, that some persons express doubts respecting some rubrical questions, without taking the trouble to examine for themselves, just for the purpose of affording a cloke to their own irregularities. We need not follow the bishop of Exeter in his judgments. One argument has always satisfied us with respect to the intentions of the Church in the morning service, namely, that the officiating minister is to read the liturgy to the end of the Nicene creed in a surplice, and to read the prayer for the Church militant in the same garb: consequently, as two clergymen were never contemplated in every Church, and it would be most unseemly to put off the surplice before, and to put it on again after sermon, it must have been intended that the same

dress should be worn throughout the whole service. Into the question relative to the albe and the cope, we do not intend to enter; because, though they were among the ornaments in use in the second year of King Edward, and are therefore enjoined by the rubric, the Bishop of Exeter feels, as others feel, that their revival is unnecessary and inexpedient.

The bishop discountenances, but does not forbid, extempore preaching. It appeared also from the testimony of a neighbouring clergyman, that Mr. Blunt's addresses were not of that unedifying character which the churchwardens and parishioners pretended. In short, the people of Helston appear rather in the character of the teachers, than in that of disciples. The bishop would not pronounce against Mr. Blunt on this point.

As to the charge of not using a prayer before and after sermon, it is clear that he broke no order of the Church, though he may have acted contrary to the general practice. The bishop shows, that no prayer is enjoined by the Book of Common Prayer, while the clergy are restrained from using any form which is not prescribed: so that Mr. Blunt was strictly regular in his practice.

The question, as to the proper place in the communion service at which the non-communicants are to leave the Church, when the Lord's Supper is administered, is left in doubt by his lordship, though he evidently inclines to Mr. Blunt's practice. Unquestionably, the whole congregation is supposed to be present when the offertory is read: consequently, they are not to depart, until the communicants are exhorted to approach the Lord's table. But his lordship blames Mr. Blunt for his excited conduct in addressing the people on the subject, on one occasion, from the communion rails.

It appears that the churchwardens' statement, that the individual to whom Mr. Blunt had refused to administer the Lord's Supper had been a communicant, could not be sustained, so that the case assumed a totally different form. The bishop remarked, that it was abandoned-" yet the whole charge rested on it." This was not just towards Mr. Blunt certainly. The parties should have enquired into the matter, before they proceeded to arraign their minister before his diocesan. As to the Lord's Prayer, it seems that Mr. Blunt did not refuse to use it, but merely said, incidentally, that "a Catholic could not properly use it with a schismatic." The bishop of Exeter decides, that baptism by a Romanist in this country is schismatic. Mr. Blunt was ready to baptize Blake conditionally, who refused, not for the reasons alleged by the church