considerable number of them were restored to the friends and relatives from whom they had been torn, or adopted into families of respectability; others were given in marriage, with a small present from Government. Two hundred were placed, at the expense of the state, in mission schools, and three hundred settled as cultivators in different villages. "And thus," to borrow the language of an eloquent writer in India, "in a country where bits of flesh, cut from living men, were strewed on the ground a miraculous manure; where the land, so to speak, was guanoed with human blood, this crime, worse than any known in Europe, has, in eighteen years, ceased to exist; and fifteen hundred human victims have been rescued from a horrible death. An entire people have been induced to forego a crime sanctioned alike by antiquity and superstition, and a district as large as Wales has been raised a whole grade in the career of civilization. All this has been effected by a Government declared to be oppressive, and by a class whom India honours, and England stigmatizes as politicals."

On a review of these various rites which have continued to pollute India with innocent blood for twenty-five centuries, it will appear to be a matter of no ordinary gratification that the establishment of British authority has been the

instrument of extinguishing them. We leave it to others, to whom it may be more congenial, to dilate on the political crimes, which are said to have marked the growth of our power in India; though we may be allowed to express our satisfaction that they are so much fewer than have ever attended the acquisition of so extensive a dominion at so vast a distance from the centre of authority, in any age and country,. and that the more dispassionately they are scrutinized, the less aggravated do they appear. To our feelings it is more agreeable to dwell

on the auspicious effects which have resulted from the introduction of our power, more especially in regard to the universal extinction of these diabolical practices. We think that as men, as Englishmen, and as Christians, we have just cause for exultation that the triumph of our arms has been invariably followed by the triumphs of humanity. Viewed in this light, it may not be considered presumptuous to connect with the designs of that higher economy to which all human movements are subordinate, the position we have attained in the east, and which enables us not only to exterminate human sacrifices, but to communicate the blessings of civilization and the treasures of divine Revelation to a hundred and fifty millions of people.

WE should be far from understand

of the Privy Council in the case of

decision of the Judicial Committee

suppose that they have fortunately

escaped the penalty adjudged by Dr. Lushington, the Dean of Arches, and that only by the skin of their teeth." The judgments of the two. courts contain interpretations of the Articles and Formularies of the Church of England, which henceforth will possess the force of law. Judicial constructions not only act as precedents, but, until reversed or set aside by another or superior judge, have all the binding effect of the enactment they are intended to explain. It is one of the manifold inconveniences to which her connection with the state subjects the Church of England, that in addition to her well-known standards she is bound by the decisions of the Civil Courts, and those decisions and constructions of her formularies may, in practical effect, add new doctrines to her creed, or so change the ordinary understanding of the words as to admit persons to her pulpits who hitherto have been held to be excluded therefrom. Thus the decision of the Privy Council in the Gorham case, made it perfectly legal for parties holding the most opposite doctrines on the question of baptismal regeneration to enjoy the emoluments of the establishment, and to interpret at their pleasure what seems to many persons the very precise language of the language of the Prayer Book.

A similar effect follows from the judgments given in the cases of the two Essayists, Dr. Williams, and Mr. Wilson, and the constructions put upon the articles and formularies by Dr. Lushington and the Committee of the Privy Council, have an authority equal to that of the standards themselves.

What, then, is the effect of these decisions on the standards of the Church of England? What are the opinions that a clergyman may

.

or may not hold on the questions that have been the matter of litiga-. tion? In attempting an answer, we must combine the conclusions of the Dean of Arches with those of the Privy Council; those of the former remaining in all their force, except so far as they have been modified by the latter on the particular points referred to them on appeal.

1. In the first place it is distinctly laid down by Dr. Lushington, and remains unaltered by the Privy Council, that the standard of truth for the Church of England is not Holy Scripture. To this she can-not appeal; her appeal lies to her articles and formularies alone. Both courts re-assert the principle established in the Gorham case; viz., "The Court has no jurisdiction or authority to settle matters of faith, or to determine what ought, in any particular, to be the doctrine of the Church of England. Its duty extends only to the consideration of that which is by law established to be the doctrine of the Church of England, upon the true and legal construction of her Articles and Formularies." It is of no importance, on any theological question that may come before the Courts, what Holy Scripture may say; nor what the most eminent divines of the Church of England may understand; nor that the right of private judgment, on which the Reformation was founded, may be denied to clergymen ; nor that the decision may impose on the clergy the profession of a doctrine contrary to modern discoveries in science or history. The Articles and Formularies are the only legal tests of doctrine. The Judicial Committee have decided, "It would be a departure from our duty if we were to admit any discussion as to the conformity or nonconformity of the Articles of Religion, or any of

them, with the Holy Scriptures." So also Dr. Lushington; "I will not be tempted in the trial of any accusation against a clergyman to resort to Scripture as the standard by which the doctrine shall be measured." And if this course should lead to unscriptural errors or to other evils, or if redress is desired, "recourse must be had to the highest authorities." And who are they? Apostles, prophets, evangelists? No. They are "the Legislature, which established the Articles and Book of Common Prayer."

2. On the nature of subscription, both judgments are clear that the meaning of the Articles and Formularies is the plain the plain grammatical grammatical meaning. "I have no hesitation," says Dr. Lushington, "in declar"in declar ing my opinion that the subscription is a most solemn act-and that the law will hold a clergyman to have taken the obligation secundum animum imponentis; and that to my mind is the plain grammatical sense of the Articles themselves." But, when the judge comes to apply this dictum to the case of Mr. Wilson, the following most extraordinary conclusion is maintained: -"It is in law a very different offence to violate a statute and to advise others to do so. Mr. Wilson has not violated the 36th Canon; he has conformed to it [by subscription] though he may have advised others to evade it." Mr. Wilson, then, may advise a clergyman to subscribe the Articles without any regard to their plain literal meaning, and at the same time to repudiate the essential doctrines contained therein; but he himself may not disregard the obligation. He may teach another teach another to do an immoral act, but is guiltless if he only refrain from the act he inculcates. We cannot abstain

from quoting the just, though severe, reproof administered to such teaching by Professor Goldwin Smith in his recently issued work on the Abolition of Tests :

"Such a system may serve the political interests of the Establishment, but is it pos. sible that it can serve the spiritual interests of the Christian church? Can it stand long before the awakened moral sense of mankind? If we were not made callous by offi. cial custom and party casuistry, should we fail to perceive that no imaginable sin against the God of Truth can be greater or more

deadly than that of deliberately corrupting the spirit of truth in young hearts."—p. 9.

the

3. On the inspiration of Holy Scripture, Dr. Lushington decided against the Essayists. He regards the Bible as of Divine origin, "emanating from the extraordinary and preternatural interposition of the Almighty." To say, therefore, that the Holy Scriptures proceed from the same mental powers as have produced other works, impairs their Divine authority. But Dr. Williams calls the Bible an expression of devout reason,' written voice of the congregation." Mr. Wilson denies the Scriptures to be the Word of God. These expres sions, in the judgment of the Dean of Arches, are contrary to the doctrine of the Articles. But, according to the Privy Council, they are not so; the Articles nowhere affirm every statement of every part of the Old and New Testaments to be "God's Word written." It is, therefore, lawful for a clergyman to teach with Dr. Williams, the human origin of the Scriptures; or with Mr. Wilson reject the entire Bible as being the Word of God throughout.

On the other hand, Dr. Lushington, uncontradicted by the Privy Council, allows an almost boundless liberty of criticism and interpretation. A clergyman may not reject any entire book of Scripture; but he may doubt its

evi

alle

authorship. He may reject the "biblical narratives as inherently incredible, or precepts as dently wrong." He may interpret Scripture idealogically or gorically to any extent. The Messianic prophecies he may wholly set aside, and hint with impunity that prophecy was first history, first history, and uttered without any predictive purpose whatever. The early histories of our race recorded in Genesis may be regarded as half-ideal, half-traditional notices, compiled from many documents, and scarcely to be reconciled with other sources of knowledge. All this is a mere question of interpretation; article of the Church is infringed thereby. It is no part of the duty of the highest judicial authorities of the Establishment to enter into questions of divinity, or "on the correct construction of any part of the Bible."

no

4. Graver still are the errors of the Essayists on the doctrines of regeneration, the propitiation of Christ, justification by faith, and the everlasting punishment of the wicked. But the courts declare that on these points the Essayists have not transgressed the Articles. A sceptic has only to tread carefully in the footprints of these heresiarchs, and he may enjoy, unchallenged and uncondemned, the best living in the Establishment, and even wear the mitre unharmed.

To pass by the question whether these decisions are not fatal to the character of the Church of England as a Church of Christ, we shall briefly call attention to two conclusions which seem naturally to follow from the premises.

1. Subscription, for refusal of which our forefathers lost their all, has utterly failed to secure the object of its imposition-the avoiding of diversities in religion. All grades of opinion, from the barest scepticism to the superstitions of popery, may now quietly nestle in the snug retreats of the Church of England. What with the decisions of the Courts, and the costs of these failures to vindicate the Church's orthodoxy, no one will again venture to promote the office of judge" against transgressors.

2. An era of the broadest latitudinarianism has risen on the Establishment. The last century was characterized by indifference; this will be marked by the admission into the Church of religionists of every hue. We have the prospect of an Establishment that, like the national churches of Germany, may possess articles and formularies of the truest scriptural character, and yet its ministry be filled by men who evade the promises they have given, and deny the truths they have solemnly bound themselves to teach.

PRAYER is the breath of the newborn soul. It is the homage we pay to God; acknowledging his

supremacy, and our dependence. It is a duty, springing from our nature and circumstances, and en

joined by God's command;-an honour, we, "dust and ashes," being thus admitted to an audience of the King of Kings, to speak to him face to face, and plead with him as a man doth with his friend ;a privilege, the worth of which who can estimate? Judgments have been averted, armies have been conquered, the sun in the heavens has been arrested in his course, by the power of prayer. Prayer brings all our supplies from heaven, and prepares the heart rightly to receive, appreciate, and improve them. Prayer quickens our graces, and subdues our sins; conquers Satan, and cultivates our friendship with God; weans the soul from earth, and prepares us for heaven. What can be more necessary to the child of God amid the toils and trials of his perilous pilgrimage? Hence, when the Apostle suits the Christian warrior with his "whole armour," he places this above all; praying always with all prayer and supplication in the spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance.' "This arms man and his armour both with the strength and protection of God." If prayer be thus so vitally important, well may we put up and plead the petition-"Lord teach us to pray." All acceptable prayer must be grounded on God's word; be the breathing of God's spirit; be offered up in faith; and be presented in the name, and trusting to the merits, of our Great High Priest. He who died to redeem us ever lives to intercede for us. Our risen Lord stands at the "golden altar" in the temple on high, having the "golden censer," with his "much incense," which he offers with the prayers of "all saints;" and no prayer of ours ever "ascends to God as pleasing incense but when it passeth through that golden cen

ser, and is perfumed with the sweet odours of His merits and intercession." He who thus presents our prayers can best teach us how to fashion our prayers; and this he does by his blessed word and his Holy Spirit.

Our Lord gave his disciples a pattern and model of prayer; the closer we keep to this, the more our prayers resemble His ;-will they not be the more acceptable? "It is a wonder, then," as holy Leighton says, "how any can scruple the use of this prayer itself: for if other prayers are to be squared by it, what forbids to use that which is the square, and, therefore, most perfect? If they be good by conformity to it, itself must be better. The mumbling it over without understanding and affection, is indeed no other but a gross abuse of it, and taking the name of God in vain, as all other lifeless prayer is. It is a foolish superstitious conceit, to imagine that the rattling over these words is sufficient for prayer; but it is, on the other side, a weak groundless scruple, to doubt that the use of it, with spiritual affection, is both lawful and commendable."

In other portions of God's word, we have much instruction respecting the matter and the spirit of prayer. The Book of Psalms is a precious manual of devotion. In all ages this has been the cherished resort of God's people, for aid in their intercourse with heaven, amid all the vicissitudes of their life, and variety of their experience. Luther strengthened his courage and constancy, his faith and fervour, by feasting on his favourite Psalm, the 46th-"God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble." "The older I grow," wrote one of the many excellent correspondents of Hannah More,