ideas of religion. Can we then hope by a few isolated attacks to shake this compact fabric? Were it wise to do so, unless we were able to give them a fair equivalent for their faith by the shade and stream endeared, unless we had a well-arranged and holy system to offer them-a protecting, a fostering and a hallowing ministry? Alas! I fear we have treated these people wrong; we have dealt with them as we would with the peasant of Christian England, and have wondered that the gospel call has not been heard with equal avidity in the one case as in the other, whereas the dullest plough-boy at home knows more of the gospel by tradition than can be learned by the Hindoo in many years; besides, the one in a Christian country, baptized into the Christian church, has moreover every day something to remind him of his Christian calling, some church spire to point him to heaven, some opening grave with the solemn service over one of his fellows, the temple of God open for prayer, and praise, and teaching, with many a sacred truth vested in traditional tales. We might almost as reasonably look for the success of a few isolated Brahmins in Britain in shaking this faith of the olden time which yet is possessed by our community, as for the success of our past and present essays towards the shaking the Hindoo out of his deeply-rooted and early-acquired notions. I know there is a promise of success attached to missionary work; I know and joyfully acknowledge this truth; but does not God bless well adapted means? Are we not bound to use the best means? Was not the promise and exhortation (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20) addressed to the church as such? And is God bound to bless the exertions of those whom he never commissioned ? These are considerations which I hope will receive their due regard; and in humble trust that the subject may be taken up by those in authority, I remain, Rev. Sir, yours obediently,

PRESBYTER INDICUS.

ON THE SCOTTISH PRESBYTERIAL CHURCH.

DEAR SIR,-I avail myself of the permission which you offer in your note to make a few remarks upon Mr. Cumming's letter, printed in the last (the November) Number of the British Magazine.

There seem to have been three periods in the existence of the presbyterial heresy, from its outset, in Geneva and Scotland, to our own days. In the first, men's minds were so distracted by the varieties of opinion then held-namely, by that in favour of the immediately preceding form of the Catholic faith, in subjection to Rome; by that in favour of keeping the Catholic faith and discipline, and of reforming the church; and lastly, by that which proposed to keep neither, and to change church government into the new "platform"-that the generality of people were at a gaze, scarce knowing which way to go. And as the leaders in the new religion and "platform" were vehement in behalf of what they asseverated to be truth, and denied the lawfulness of any other discipline" than their own; so, in the amazement ensuing upon their hitherto unparalleled attempt, it came

to pass that men did actually debate whether it were justifiable or no, who by their own lives nevertheless shewed that it was one in which they could take no part. In this we find the bold invention, the amazement of the world at it, great violence to carry it into practice, and great tyranny to keep its practice in a state of establishment. This first period may be considered to end with the dis-establishment and final oppression of the church of Scotland, by the state, at the accession of William of Orange. The second period has continued from that time, it would seem, to a very recent date. In it, presbyterianism having succeeded in occupying the churches, and enjoying the revenues, of the church of Scotland, has been gradually sinking into the decency of an established religion, has been acquiring a strong national influence, and has harmonized the minds of a once Catholic people to itself. All trace of its original turbulent and anarchical spirit has of course long since disappeared; unless we choose to trace it in the persecutions of the clergy of the church of Scotland during the last century. But that irregular spirit which developed itself in presbyterianism, in independency, in fifth-monarchism, in Wesleyanism, and is still fruitfully developing itself in yearly additions to the catalogue of sects, needs excitement and agitation against the true church to keep up the vitality of its developments. While, therefore, the true church was even likely to be a competitor with the kirk for state establishment, the energy of the kirk was alive. But all hope of such competition passed away long since; and the kirk has arrived, it would seem, at its third period-the arrival of which was certain in the ordinary course of events; and should we be mistaken in supposing it to have begun already, churchmen will nevertheless continue to expect its coming. And whether it has begun or not, so as to claim general attention, the feeling exhibited by Mr. Cumming is that by which I am now supposing that it will be distinguished.

Presbyterianism having now had time to examine its own working in a religious state establishment, and to compare itself with the Catholic faith as held and taught by the church of Scotland and England, begins, it would seem, to have some doubts whether all is well. Whence is this kindly anxiety on Mr. Cumming's part? Why is he so anxious to let us know that the "old Scottish divines held apostolical succession not only to be the possession but the high and happy privilege of our [the Scottish kirk] presbyters"? We have not discovered any circumstance which should lead us to forget who are our brethren in Christ on the north of the Tweed-namely, the bishops, clergy, and laity of the true Catholic and apostolic church of that land. Nor have we invited the Scottish kirk "presbyters" to an union. Mr. Cumming must have some doubts of his being really a presbyter, as in this third period of the kirk many will have, to induce him to address to the English clergy through the British Magazine such a letter as that which now lies before me. But I will set down very briefly a few reasons against our admitting what he calls the "orders" of the Scottish kirk, and against union with it in any other way.

1. We hold that we differ irreconcileably "about succession;" and

that it is not "just possible," but certainly not the fact "that presbyters may be the line, and bishops merely presbyters elevated and raised," i. e., so raised as not to have any new and distinct power inherent in the office of bishop, jure divino.

2. We hold it quite impossible that any one can shew "that presbyters not only originally ordained, but that orders conferred without them were invalid ;" and on the contrary, that although, at the ordination of priests, as directed by the Council of Carthage, A.D. 398, the priests who are present are to lay on their hands while the bishop ordains the candidate, yet that no instance previous to the 16th century can be shewn in which priests were allowed to assist in ordaining, as of their own authority, without the bishop.

3. The churches of Scotland and England are not tied by the statements of Hooker or of any of their priests; and in particular where any statements of their priests are in opposition to their rituals and canons they are of no value whatever as proving anything either for or against them, inasmuch as such statements are obviously not commentaries upon their teaching, but rather refutations of it. Accordingly, if Hooker and others can be shewn to have expressed their conviction," by implication or totidem verbis, of the validity of presbyterian orders," still the ordinal at once nullifies any unguarded admission, in having always forbidden, as it now forbids, any ordination but the catholic.

4. A very few "Scotch and Genevese presbyters" were admitted to officiate in English churches in that which I have described as the first period of presbyterianism. But that this was not with the sanction of the church, but in direct violation of her polity, is demonstratively shewn by the exclusion of the intruding Travers from the Temple, on the ground of his not being in holy orders; and by the fact that the puritan Whittingham, the intruded dean of Durham, would also for the same reason have been removed had he not died before the steps for his removal were completed. The ejection of many of the puritan intruders on S. Bartholomew's-day, 1662, for the reason that they were not, and would not be, ordained, is so pregnant a proof of the mind of the church of England as to the nullity of all but catholic ordination, that the memory of that day is held in great abhorrence by all who pretend to any other sort.

But granting that, in the early part of the presbyterian schism in England certain intruders unordained, as Travers and Whittingham, did officiate, their officiating, though in them a sacrilegious act, yet does not affect the English catholic succession, for the plain reason of them were intruded unconsecrated upon bishoprics, nor even so much as pretended to ordain as bishops.

that none

5. Supposing a bishop ever so well inclined* (as there is of course

In the Notices to Correspondents (p.600) in the November Number of the British Magazine, I see the astonishing statement that in a cathedral city "divine service had been performed in one of the churches on the Sunday morning and evening by a dissenting minister according to his own mode, and in the intervening afternoon by a clergyman of the church of England according to its rites." But I confess I

no reason to suppose any are inclined) to license a presbyterian teacher in a diocese, yet were he to do so without previously ordaining him, his licence would be absolutely null and void, and he himself in schism for pretending to grant one; and it would be the duty of all to refuse communion with him, and of candidates to refuse orders from him till he was reconciled to the church.

6. Finally, we hold that nothing sacramental could be received from presbyterian "presbyters," because they have nothing to give, having received nothing, neither the power of giving orders, nor of absolution, nor of retaining sins, nor of celebrating the holy communion, or any other divine office.

And now in relation to Mr. Cumming's question, "May it not be just possible that presbyters may be the line, and bishops merely presbyters raised and elevated, &c.?" Here is an argument ad venecundiam, which, if he will overlook, we cannot. What have we churchmen been doing in Scotland ever since 1688? Have we not been "confessing" against this "possibility" to this very hour? Is it nothing that we have suffered the loss of all things in that kingdom, that our bishops have exchanged their inalienable temporalities for a bare subsistence, that they have been imprisoned for acting on their denial of this" possibility"? And, on the other hand, is there any meaning in the words found in the confession of faith and solemn league and covenant, still sanctioned and from time to time republished by the Scotch kirk, in which the government by bishops is expressly denounced as a thing to be extirpated, or any meaning in the position of the presbyterian kirk in relation to the church of Scotland at this moment? The mind of both parties, the catholic church of Christ, and the presbyterian establishment, have been long openly declared to all Christendom. Does Mr. Cumming suppose that we, the successors of the apostles, are now, while shewing by our untiring confessorship in Scotland our unchanged faith, to suffer to be brought down and made the subject matter of private compromising literary debate the inestimable treasures of our catholic birthright? Your faithful servant,

D. P.

ON 1 TIM. Iv. 14, & 2 TIM, 1. 6.

SIR,-I do not remember to have seen the argument which arises from a critical analysis of the passages, 1 Tim. iv. 14, and 2 Tim. i. 6, fully drawn out in any work upon the presbyterian controversy. Any one who attends to the force of the prepositions dià and μerà will,

venture with great deference to differ from you in the view of that statement. I quite disbelieve that the sacrilege was "sanctioned by the head of the church" in that cathedral city, whichever it was, for these reasons:-1st, Because I think we cannot believe that any English bishop would, in his own city, overlook schism and sacrilege. 2ndly, Because, supposing such an event to have occurred, it is not credible that the papists should have failed to ask and obtain a similar indulgence for the Roman mass. Should my view not be the correct one, I must leave my remarks in the paragraph to which this note is appended to be appropriated according to the circumstances. [See the Notices to Correspondents in this Number.-ED.]

I think, perceive (on taking the passages together) four things to be expressly distinguished in them-First, the gift; expressed by the same word, and evidently meaning the same thing, in both. Secondly, the giver; not expressed in the former, but in the latter passage stated to be God. Thirdly, the means by which the gift was given; expressed in the former passage to be "prophecy," in the latter, "the putting on of My hands." In both places the preposition dà is used. And, lastly, the accompaniment of those means; mentioned in the former passage to be "the laying on of the hands of the presbytery;" in the latter not mentioned at all. The preposition here is μɛrù.

I need not draw the inference, which seems to me as inevitable as it is important; and I can hardly suppose it has been overlooked in the long controversies on this subject. My reading, however, has fallen chiefly among writers who have been contented to assume a defensive position in the discussion of these two passages. Perhaps others of your readers may be in the same predicament.

With regard to the word translated "prophecy," am I wrong in supposing that it means the authoritative declaration of God's will concerning Timothy from the apostle's mouth? Such an interpretation is obviously suggested by a comparison of the two passages, and seems to be supported by the use of the word "prophet" in various passages of the New Testament, especially Acts, xiii. 1, 2. DISCIPULUS ECCLESIÆ.

I am, Sir, yours, &c.

ON READING PRAYERS FROM THE ALTAR RAILS.

REV. SIR,-Perhaps you or some of your correspondents can inform me as to the propriety of reading the prayers from the rails or steps of the altar. Is there any authoritative decision of our church forbidding such a practice, which may be set against the sanction of ancient custom, and the manifest advantage which would in many cases follow from its restoration? For instance, in this parish in which the festivals and fasts of the church are duly observed, the building would contain from 1500 to 1600 persons, and our congregation on these occasions seldom exceeds 150 or 200. So small a number seem lost when scattered about in so large a place; and, setting aside the difficulty some have in hearing, does not the cold and comfortless appearance of the church, and the chilling effect it is calculated to produce on the devotions of the most sincere worshipper, afford sufficient plea for a return to the old ways, where the chancel will accommodate the congregation?

The chief objection in my own mind, which arose from a fear of making the altar too common, has been removed by some remarks of your correspondent of this month on "Anglo-Protestant Church Architecture," from which it appears that the old custom was laid aside at the instance of the Genevan Reformer, and Hooper, his disciple, who thought it was making too much of the altar. Another objection might be, that many who are not communicants would be