desirous to accomplish-to represent to them the inevitable effects which must follow from their suffering themselves to be seduced by the falsehoods of these individuals, who would make use of them as tools to effect their detestable schemes, and in the hour of danger would abandon them to their fate-to reason with them on the impolicy of their proceedings in a worldly point of viewto tell them that their masters, instead of being more inclined to increase their wages, will be only exasperated against them by their disorderly and violent conduct, and, finally, to state to them boldly and openly the fatal consequences, the disgrace and punishment, which must follow from any overt act on their part against the laws of their country. But when this has been done, when the right path has been pointed out to them, and they have shown a disposition to follow it, let it not be thought that enough has been accomplished, and that they may be left to themselves. The same watchful superintendence should be exercised over their conduct, a more careful attention than before should be employed to promote their comfort and happiness, and they should still be visited in their own homes. And, after all, as we have always thought, this is the great secret by which the connection between the higher and the lower orders in the country is to be kept up, by which a considerate regard and a charitable sympathy on the one side, and on the other an affectionate respect and a cheerful obedience are to be maintained and preserved. The rich must follow the poor into their cottages, must make themselves acquainted with their wants and necessities, must learn from their own lips the little history of the weal and woe of themselves and their families: in short, they must convince them that they do not think it sufficient to give them pecuniary relief, but that they feel an interest in their progress, and do not look with indifference on the details of their labours and proceedings. But why are we giving unnecessary advice? Why are we explaining their duty to persons who perform it so cheerfully, so willingly, who are so ready on all occasions to visit and relieve their poorer neighbours as the country gentlemen of England? Our advice and our explanations of duty are not addressed to the resident proprietors, for they, we are confident, will perform their part; but to the non-resident, and to those who are about or inclined to exchange their ancient halls and their beautiful fields for a foreign land: to such we say, as our parting exhortation, follow the poor man to his home, pay that attention to the cultivation of his temporal character which the clergyman of every parish in the kingdom renders continually and unceasingly to his improvement, both as a temporal and spiritual being.

387

William Gresley, M.A. London: Rivingtons. 1838.

THERE is no character more to be respected and valued than that of an English Clergyman. Yet, in the present day, by the ignorant and unthinking, his services are considered useless, and at times intrusive. It is to be expected that, among so large a body of men, many are to be found who by no means exhibit to the character of what a clergyman ought to be; but, taking that body as a whole, it is generally acknowledged, even by our bitterest enemies, that no other class of men can surpass or equal the clergy in the purity of their lives, in learning, in emulation, in doing good, and in a fervent desire to extend the kingdom of God upon the earth. A clergyman is a public character: whether his ministrations be marked in the pulpit, or in his parochial duties, there is the same evidence of the one great object he has in view, the same desire to bring about much good, and the same disinterested labour and love, which belong to no other man, whatsoever may be his calling. When a man enters the Church, his work is generally confined to some village curacy, beyond which he has oftentimes no hope; with his scanty pittance, we see him comparatively happy amid his professional duties: he feeds upon the consolation he administers to others--he is nourished by the bread that daily comes from heaven, which enables him to impart the same blessing to his poorer brethren. What other man could endure his life? With habits, with ideas, with occupations, far superior to the majority of his parishioners, he is transplanted from his college or his home to take up his abode in a strange land, oftentimes among an ignorant and overbearing set of people, hostile to the Establishment, opposed to all the good he is desirous to effect, and at variance among themselves. Yet is he contented: he is satisfied with his condition, because he is labouring as his Master laboured before him; he is imparting good to his fellowmen, and he is spiritualizing his flock upon the earth, that they may be found within the pale of the Christian Church in Heaven. Yet, with all his comparative happiness, he peculiarly claims a pity which we cannot fail to bestow. On the Sunday he may deliver the good tidings and preach consolation to the distressed-he may stamp upon the foreheads of the little children the cross of Christ crucified, and admit them into his Holy Church-he may perform the marriage rite, and call down the blessing of heaven on those so united-he may visit the dying, and present to his eye of faith that scene of im

mortal glory which lies far beyond the grave, he may comfort the mourner with those words of eternal life which cannot fail to give a warmth to the soul and a cheering to the heart, as the melancholy appendages of the death-chamber have nought about them but misery to offer: he may do all this in serenity and in truth. But his reward in this world is too often an ungrateful return for his services, the hateful scorn of the wicked, or the opprobious taunt of the unthinking. Yes, too often does he thus return to his lowly dwelling, at the close of every Sabbath as it rolls its hallowed hours into the abyss of time, forgotten by the sons and daughters of men, or only remembered to be ridiculed and scandalized. But his God has not forsaken him : his good deeds are entered in that heavenly registry which shall never decay, and at the distribution of rewards his will be allowed in proportion to the increase of that talent which is confided to his spiritual keeping.

With

We do not make these observations to discourage the laudable attempts which should be made towards attaining eminence in the Church. Temporal rewards for long and faithful service are the Christian minister's temporal due. But every one should endeavour to rise in his profession, for the more indefatigable a man is the more deserving is he of a larger field and harvest. respect to the Church, though there are many exceptions, there is no profession, perhaps, in which men stand so ill a chance of having their labours crowned with success and reward. How many poor but faithful men have died in comparative obscurity, how many are now living who have borne the heat and labour of the day, with large families unprovided for, who have exercised their christian ministry to the honouring of Jehovah, and, consequently, who have deserved better from the bishops and patrons, whose object should be to encourage the faithful ministers of Christ. We little know the existing wretchedness of many of the clergy. The generality of clergymen, however, are regarded as a wealthy race, and so they may be, as a body; but how often does that wealth, speaking individually, proceed, not from the Church, but from their own private sources, without which these men would be helpless, and without that power of doing good which should be extended to their poor parishioners. But we ask not for pity, we only require for the clergy that which they have a right to demand-REspect.

The

The work which we have placed at the head of this article rather solicits a review than any essay upon the present position of the clergy, however we may be inclined to write one. Portrait of an English Churchman is a title which considerably prepossessed us in favour of the work to which it is appended';

but we have been rather disappointed in the full satisfaction we anticipated to derive from an examination of its contents. The volume, as the preface says, is an attempt to paint the feelings, habits of thought, and mode of acting, which naturally flow from a sincere attachment to the system of belief and discipline adopted in our Church. The first chapter contains an account of the youthful difficulties of Arthur Ridley; but if youth had no greater difficulties to contend against than he had, we do not think that he would receive commiseration from his fellows. His greatest misfortune appears to have been the loss of his father; but that father, who had been his early and principal instructor, had well grounded him in religious principles, which enabled him to resist temptation and the dangers to which every youth is exposed. The second chapter treats of the Fathers of the Church, and the argument which is adduced in favour of studying the Fathers clearly shows to us that the author is inclined to a party which has lately sprung up at Oxford. We do not, as before we have had occasion to observe, disapprove of studying the Fathers, but we do warmly disapprove of the fallible word of man being set up as a standard against the Word of God, which we are told cannot err. Ridley says very little in this chapter upon the observations of his friend Herbert, upon whom he has just called, and whose study is covered with "dusty tomes," "crabbed volumes," as Ridley calls them. It is very true that Ridley asks his friend why he does not prefer the Bible and the modern commentators? But, instead of insisting on the Bible as the foundation of the truest wisdom, he allows his opponent to convince him of the high value of tradition, and declares that his reasoning is sound, and that he only objects to it for the sake of having Herbert's anThis is rather too bold: if we are to have dialogues, let the Bible, in distinction to all tradition, be the most prominent subject of discourse. Let it be shown that valuable as tradition may be, as an external evidence, the Bible is so mighty in itself that it does not absolutely require the aid of tradition to prove its verity.

swer.

The third chapter, upon the one Catholic and Apostolic Church, is not quite so full as it might, or rather ought, to have been upon so momentous a subject. The following quotation gives admirable advice to those who are disturbing the peace of our Church by causing divisions among us :

"It is one of the fundamental principles in the Gospel that there must be no schism or division in the body of the Church. No crime is more reprehended in Scripture than the sin of rending the body of the Church. And this, no doubt, is the reason why we find so pro

minent a place occupied in the ancient creed by the doctrine of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church."

Our wish, at present, is far from recommending the author of this work to apply his own advice to himself; but if he appear again before the public we would recommend him to be cautious. Young as he is in the doctrines of the New Theological School, he may advance too rapidly and heedlessly in opinions which he, in former years, as an orthodox clergyman, would have spurned. When Mr. Gresley talks of the Tracts for the Times" supplying principles of union, for want of which the Church was in the act of falling to pieces," he talks very unlike a fearless churchman, or one who believes that the Church of Christ shall never be destroyed, no not even by the gates of hell.

The fourth chapter is upon Schism: the first remarkable passage we observe is the following:

"If Scripture admit of different interpretations, then the best help to guide us to the right meaning is the testimony and practice of the first Christians, and in the case before us, the practice of the ancient Church fully corroborates the view which I have taken."

Now we deny that Scripture does admit of different interpretations: the denial may be a bold one, and appear, at first, somewhat strange; but we can support our opinion. Because different sects advance different interpretations of Scripture, it does not follow that the various interpretations are correct, much less that the passages really admit of those interpretations: in fact, there can be only one correct interpretation, and all that are at variance with other parts of Scripture must be incorrect. One part of Scripture generally interprets another; and where this is not the case, we commonly have analogy of doctrine to guide us. But our author admits of different interpretations, and prefers "the testimony and practice of the first Christians" to Scripture itself, which is so plain that he that runneth may read. And poor Ridley has become so far a convert as to declare thus: "I confess that you have described with tolerable exactness what has been the drift of my thoughts." How kindly anticipated! Will Mr. Gresley, in a future edition of this work, inform us what he means by the term primoprimitive? The following passage also requires an explanation:

“Church matters are so confused and involved, that it seems impossible to draw the precise line of demarcation between the Church and separatists."

The following passage also, in the fifth chapter, requires an explanation :