The Teacher's Companion; designed to exhibit the Principles of Sunday-School Instruction and Discipline: By R. N. COLLINS. With an Introductory Essay, by the Rev. DANIEL MOORE, B. A., Minister of Christ Chapel, St. John's Wood. London: Houlston and Stoneman.

We have often felt surprised at the various and conflicting notions entertained by the public concerning the character and claims of the Sundayschool system of instruction. Considering the extent of its operations, and the vast importance of the interests with which it has to deal, it is certainly somewhat strange that so little should be known of it except by those immediately occupied in its working. It has indeed met with occasional notice in the publications of our educational theorists, but in nearly every instance they have treated it with singular superciliousness and injustice, and exhibited a marvellous ignorance of its aim and practice. The blunders of a few teachers, and the irregularities of a few schools, have been pompously paraded as fair specimens of what the system can effect; and the casual reader has been naturally led to infer that Sunday-school teachers are a body of wellmeaning but weak-minded enthusiasts, who endeavour to enforce certain religious dogmas upon the faith of children, without any regard to their intellectual improvement. And a large number even of those who especially advocate a religious education as the "one thing needful," are disposed to look very coldly, if not contemptuously, on the voluntary and unprofessional labourers in a Sunday-school. It has, moreover, been asserted that these teachers are foolish enough to believe that their own exertions are so abundantly efficacious as to preclude the necessity of any other species of instruction.

Now, a long acquaintance with several able and persevering teachers, and a sufficient knowledge of their method and pretensions, warrant us in asserting that such statements are gross misrepresentations. No doubt it is possible to find instances of incompetency and absurdity in certain Sundayschools, but we utterly deny that they are characteristic of the system generally. Neither does the intelligent teacher think for one moment that his efforts comprise all that is meant by that important word, Education. He believes, indeed, that by the inculcation of the truths of the Bible the surest course is adopted to make people better and happier; and his business is to impart religious instruction, and religious instruction alone. But he seeks to enforce no unreasoning faith; his teaching is the teaching of the intellect, no less than of the heart. In the illustration and application of his noble Text-book, he has ample opportunities of enlarging the mind as well as of improving the morals of his pupils; but he knows that they have much to learn which he has neither the time nor the power to teach them. He knows, too, that the more enlightened the intellect brought to bear upon the truths which he imparts, the more complete will be their appreciation, and the more practical their influence. He is therefore the earnest supporter of

those systems of secular instruction which not only put into the hands of children the tools of knowledge, but teach their uses too-which, not content with decent caligraphy and a respectable amount of arithmetic, make known something of the sciences of the world in which we live, and their bearing on the comforts and progression of the great human family.

We think the author of the work before us has done" the cause" good service. The public generally may gather from his pages a juster appreciation of what Sunday-school teaching really means; and the teacher himself will find the book not only what it is modestly entitled-a Companion— but a guide and assistant of the soundest judgment and experience. It is not a mere dry historical detail of the rise and progress of Sunday-schools, neither is it a declamatory essay upon their advantages. It is the practical work of a practical man. It does not merely set forth principles, it shows how principles are to be applied. There is nothing which the teacher has to do, whether in preparing for duty, or performing it, for which Mr. Collins has not provided some direction and assistance. He deals with details as well as general rules; he goes with the teacher to his class, sits with him there, and does not leave him until the last—even the minutest-duty is accomplished. To quote the somewhat quaint but expressive words of Mr. Moore's Introduction" The characteristic feature of the present work, and one which should distinguish it from all others, is the exceeding minuteness of its directions, the undignified manner in which it takes cognizance of the smallest details-as if the author were utterly indifferent how far the stateliness of letter-press would admit of his telling a child how to rise from his seat, or whether the dignity of literary composition would be compromised by cautions against trifling with the hands and fingers."

A severe critic might perhaps find cause for dissatisfaction in the length of a few sentences, and the roughness of one or two words, but if in his anxiety to say all that he means Mr. Collins is occasionally beguiled into the use of many words, his "counsel" is not " darkened" by them; and if his language now and then prove rather homely, it is never coarse, and always to the purpose. We have no doubt a second edition will very soon be called for, when any faults of style may easily be amended. In the mean time, we cordially recommend his volume to all those who take an interest (and who should not?) in the religious education of the poor. It gives us the utmost pleasure to add, that although the author is the superintendent of one of the largest and most influential of the Church of England Sunday-schools, there is not a line in his book which should prevent it from being heartily welcomed and adopted by his dissenting fellow-labourers. It is perfectly free from the slightest touch of sectarianism.

It may be interesting to some of our readers to know that the work is prefaced by an excellent Essay from the pen of the Rev. Daniel Moore, formerly a much-respected member of the City of London Literary and Scientific Institution, and now the zealous and popular Minister of Christ Chapel, St. John's Wood.

A Charge delivered before the Metropolitan Clergy, by CHARLES JAMES, Lord Bishop of London.

THOSE who are experienced in the affairs of war know that, sometime, a protracted struggle between opposing armies, which have skirmished long and frequently without decided advantage accruing to either, may be at once terminated by a bold attack or skilful manœuvre of an able general. This idea occurs to us on a perusal of the Charge recently delivered by the Bishop of London to the metropolitan clergy. This distinguished prelate is one whose powers of mind are of no ordinary kind, and his high talents and great erudition have raised him to a position of great influence and authority in our Establishment. Meanwhile, an extraordinary movement has of late been

made in our Church, originating with men who have indeed gained a reputa tion for considerable learning, but of a private station, living in the cloistered retirement of an University; and progressing, till, in a few years, it has become the subject of universal attention and the most engrossing interest. The system, which it is the object of this movement to introduce into our Church, is one which, as it has been well observed by the author of "Ancient Christianity," reverses the Scriptures, by throwing into shade what the Sacred Writings have brought prominently forward, and on the contrary, making those things essential which they have passed over as comparatively unimportant. It is a system, in a word, which throws contempt on the Scriptural Doctrines of the Church of England, contained in her Liturgy, while it unduly exalts her ritual; with the greatest possible inconsistency, explaining her articles so that they need not be necessarily subscribed in their plain literal significations, while it demands the exact literal observance of the rubric in every particular-reviving obsolete ceremonials, whose chief feature is their unimportance, while it neglects to revive obsolete rules of discipline which would really tend to promote the influence and usefulness of the Church, of which the authors of this system are members. The system has from its very beginning been characterized by an undeviating tendency to Romanism-which is evident throughout the writings of its authors, and has become only the more apparent as the lapse of time has favoured its development. To prove this at large would extend our remarks beyond the limits we have prescribed to ourselves. Suffice it to say, that this circumstance alone may well account for the unparalleled notice it has excited. Hence, as might be expected, the friends of the Church have anxiously watched the progress of Tractarianism, doubting where it would end. In this state of uncertainty, it has been a natural inquiry-What will the Bishops do? And this question has been partly responded to by Charges published by several of their number within a recent period. The greater number of them have declared their unqualified condemnation of the modern innovations, and have lamented the disunion introduced by them, where all before was perfect peace and harmony. Of these, the first mention is due to the Bishops of Chester, Winchester, and Calcutta, for the decisive manner in which they have spoken-but we may also add the names of the Bishops of Gloucester and Worcester in England, of Ossory in Ireland, and of New York, to this list. Three, however, of our Prelates, namely, Oxford, Exeter, and Salisbury, have pursued a different course, and while they have censured what they deem the extreme statements of the Tractators, have pronounced a decisive approbation of the general character of their writings and the supposed services they have rendered to the Church. It will, then, be no matter of surprise that the Charge of the Bishop of London was looked for with feelings of no ordinary anxiety. We fear, however, that those who had hoped that his Lordship's authoritative disapprobation of the modern heresy might lead to the restoration of union in our Church will be greatly disappointed. He seems to endeavour, by such a skilful manœuvre as we have above described, by dealing an equal measure of praise and censure on all parties, to bring them at least into the semblance of union, and to silence where he cannot convince. Hence, this singular production, as might be expected, instead of promoting union, enders the prospect of it more hopeless than ever, by leaving opposing parties just where it found them.

The Bishop is remarkably dogmatical, yet studiously indeterminate; decisive in his tone, yet deciding nothing; making a wound, as it would seem, with reluctant severity, and then hastening with all possible tenderness to relieve the sufferer from the pain which he has inflicted. Our interest is excited in the opening of the Charge as follows:-" I have looked forward

* Isaac Taylor, of Ongar.

to our meeting on this occasion with mingled feelings of pleasure and anxiety *** of anxiety, as being sensible that I should be expected to speak with authority upon most important questions, respecting which the clergy are at this time divided in opinion. You have a right to know my opinions on these matters, and I shall proceed to state them as plainly and as briefly as I can." This is well. Parturiunt montes-alas! nascitur ridiculus mus. He then proceeds to place the functions of the minister of the Church in contradistinction to those unwarranted assumptions of priestly power put forth by Romanists, and Romanizing members of the Church of England. He, in the next place, turns to the subject of the Articles, and expresses strongly his disapprobation of "all attempts to give to our Articles a greater latitude of sense than the words on the face of them would bear, and especially all endeavours to make them look towards the errors of the Church of Rome." We could not desire a more explicit condemnation of the dishonest reasoning of Tract 90. We should exceed our limits were we to quote at length his remarks on this subject. He, however, speaks with justice on "the endeavour to give a Tridentine colouring to the Articles of Religion agreed upon at the Council of London of 1562"-that "if we are to seek for unity in our reconciliation with Rome, we must be prepared to traverse the entire space (mark this) which lies between us and them, for not an inch will the rulers or doctors of that Church advance to meet us." Proceeding from the Articles to the foundation on which they rest, he vindicates the Holy Scriptures as the sole rule of faith, in opposition to those who prefer "Scripturally-proved Tradition, or Scripture and Tradition, as the joint rule of faith.”—(See “Tracts for the Times.") Thus far, then, we have cause to rejoice that the Bishop has inflicted a deserved chastisement on those unfaithful members of our Church who for years past have been "straggling towards Rome." This he follows up thus expressly, in the latter part of his Charge:"It is a subject of still deeper concern that any of our body should evince a desire and longing to revert, not merely to some of the outward cere monies, but to the devotional formularies of the Church of Rome-that they should speak disparagingly and disrespectfully of our Liturgy, and prepare men of ardent feelings and warm imaginations for a return to the Roman mass book, by publishing not a few of its superstitious and unscriptural doctrines and practices-that they should recommend or justify prayers or addresses to Saints which began in poetry and ended in idolatry; intercessions for the dead; auricular confession, one of the most fearful abuses of the Church of Rome, and the source of unspeakable abominations-that while they protest in courteous terms against some of the errors of that Church, they should abstain from the uncompromising assertion of her antiscriptural character, and spend their lamentations on our own National Church, as sitting apart from the Mother of Churches-that while Hildebrand and Becket are held up to admiration,' (the fire-brands of discord and the subverters of civil government,) reproach and censure should be cast on those holy men, Cranmer, Ridley, and Jewell." He afterwards speaks of the Church of Rome " employing as her chosen defenders and emissaries a society of men (the Jesuits) so hideous in its principles, so mischievous in its effects, that it well deserves to be described as having embodied the very' mystery of iniquity."" We sincerely thank his Lordship for having spoken so fearlessly, at the risk of being thought intolerant by one party, and latitudinarian by another; and it is with much pain that we must now turn to other parts of the Charge, which seem to favour doctrines and practices revived by the very men whom he has in such express terms condemned. On the interpretation to be affixed to the Articles, his Lordship delivers the following singular opinion :-"In the interpretation of the Articles which relate more particularly to doctrine, our surest guide is the Liturgy. It may safely be pronounced, of any explanation of the Articles which cannot be reconciled with the plain language of our offices, that it is not the doctrine of the Church."

66

And his immediate use of this newly-discovered principle is, to uphold the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, which forms the leading feature of Tractarianism. The opinion, for instance, which denies Baptismal Regeneration might possibly, though not without great difficulty, be reconciled with the language of the 27th Article; but by no stretch of ingenuity can it be brought to agree with the plain and unqualified language of the office of Baptism itself." We must here beg leave to differ in toto from his Lordship, for instead of interpreting the Articles by the Liturgy, the more natural and the more correct mode of proceeding would be to interpret the Liturgy by the Articles. This is undeniable, if we consider the different

formation of them.

The Liturgy was gradually moulded into form between the years A. D. 1537 and 1562, beginning with the commencement of the English Reformation, and promulgated at the latter period by the Queen's authority. The ferment of the people's mind might be gathered from the changes through which it passed in the interval between these two periods. Its compilers had scarcely extricated themselves from the bondage in which the Church of Rome had held them, but as fresh light from time to time dawned upon them, made such alterations in it as they deemed expedient. Moreover, they had to deal with a population whose prejudices, enlisted in the superstitions to which they had been brought up, it would be dangerous needlessly to offend. Hence, as we might reasonably infer from these circumstances, there are certain expressions occurring in the Liturgy, which, though capable of a better interpretation, are accommodated to popular prejudices; but to know the minds of the compilers, we must consult the Articles. Till the latter end of the period above mentioned, the doctrines of the Reformation had not acquired consistency enough to be expressed in Articles of Faith. Forty-two, however, were drawn up in the reign of Edward VI., which were afterwards revised, their number reduced to Thirty nine, agreed to in Convocation in 1562, and published in 1571. Their express purpose was, by determining and defining what before had been doubtful, to put an end to existing, and to prevent future, controversies, which latter end, however, they seem unhappily not to have answered. This purpose is evident from the title originally affixed to them, which is as follows:-" Articles whereupon it was agreed by the Archbishops and Bishops of both provinces and the whole Cleargie, in the Convocation holden at London in the yeare of our Lorde GOD 1562, according to the computation of the Church of Englande, for the avoyding of the diversities of opinions, and for the stablishing of Consent touching true Religion. Put forth by the Queen's authoritie." Let us examine the question of baptismal regeneration by this test, without entering into its intrinsic merits. We find in the baptismal service certain expiessions, injudicious, but defensible without the necessity of admitting the doctrine we have referred to, from which, nevertheless, certain persons have lately argued that it is a doctrine of our Church. We accordingly go and ask our venerable Mother-Is it true that you hold the strange opinions imputed to you? She refers us to her 27th Article, and says " No;" and thus the question is set at rest. The Bishop next discusses the doctrine of justification by faith. This is manifestly a question into which it would be foreign to a publication like the present to enter; we may, however, remark, that though the Bishop states it so far correctly as to show how heretically this doctrine has been viewed at Oxford, he makes some incorrect statements which are plainly at variance with the 11th Article, as may be seen by those who will refer to it. We have next to notice what we will hope resulted from his Lordship's inattention. Having implied in one part of the charge that grace must be instrumentally connected with the sacraments, he tells us afterwards that "our Church has connected spiritual grace with matrimony." It does not require any extraordinary powers of reasoning to infer from