separatists and railers) should be carried into the Church, but that he should use the discretion given him by the rubric, and read the appointed service in the Churchyard. But another clergyman observed,"Surely, if you are compelled to call the deceased 'our dear brother,' you need not strain at the gnat when swallowing the camel." Besides, such a course would be a useless indignity, supposed to be shown towards the deceased, and not taken as a caution or warning to Churchmen, in which sense the above worthy clergyman intended it, and therefore it would be unwise and unchristian to offer such an offence, as it would be represented, to our differing brethren. Over many a dissenter heartily could the minister of the Church of England say," our dear brother," *-but this is beside the question; it is in the cases of the grossly immoral, impenitent, almost wholly unbelieving, and of the bitter sectarian, that the conscience of the clergyman is wounded, and hence seeks relief.

The Church may be said to pass no sentence respecting the state of the departed, and this is right; (Rom. xiv. 4; Matt. vii. 1;) she speaks and hopes the best,

At the same time, it must be said, that it would be well if dissenters, generally, would bury their own dead. If they will come to the Church in death, after reviling her in life, they can hardly expect to be treated on equal terms with consistent Churchmen. It is singular that dissenters, knowing the nature of the funeral service of the Church, and that it is adapted (strictly speaking) to her beloved sons only, should endeavour to force the consciences of her ministers, themselves not despising the claims of conscience. Still, let nothing savouring of indignity be offered; and if they will persist in seeking burial at the hands of the Church, let the Church meet them in a for getting and forgiving spirit. They are brethren.

which is charitable; (1 Cor. xiii. 5, 7.) Still, in certain cases her words might be better if not of so strong a nature: though, if discipline were restored, they would be unexceptionable. It is a grand, and affecting, and most comforting service, when used as the Church at first provided; and our "hearty thanks" may be truly offered up, though in heavy sorrow, over the corpse of a beloved friend-for, to die is gain.

"Oh what a difference," said Wesley, "is there between the English and Scotch mode of burial! The English does honour to human nature, and even to the poor remains that were once a temple of the Holy Ghost: but when I see in Scotland a coffin put into the earth, and covered up without a word spoken, it reminds me of what was spoken concerning Jehoiakim, He shall be buried with the burial of an ass." Southey, in his kind and masterly way, observes,* "It was indeed no proof of judgment, or of feeling, to reject the finest and most affecting ritual that ever was composeda service that finds its way to the heart, when the heart stands most in need of such consolation, and is open to receive it."

Life of Wesley, vol. ii. page 248.

CHAPTER X.

HIS CHURCHMANSHIP.

DR. JOHNSON defended the practice of requiring subscription to the thirty-nine Articles in those admitted to the Universities, thus,-"As all who come into the country must obey the king, so all who come into an University must be of the Church." May we not say, that much will depend upon the nature of the statutes of the University into which entrance is sought, together with the power of repealing or non-repealing such statutes? just as the law of the land is subject to revocation andaddition: in other words, it may be necessary to obey the existing statutes, but are those liable to alteration? On another occasion he alluded to the alleged wrongness of making boys subscribe to Articles they do not understand, and said,-"The meaning of subscribing is, not that they fully understand all the Articles, but that they will adhere to the Church of England." He had before asserted that the Universities were founded to bring up members for the Church of England, (quære, some Romish endowments?) and he went on to maintain, that if mere subscription of adherence to the Church of England were adopted, lads would still be puzzled to know what was meant by the term "Church of England," and wherein it differed from

the Presbyterian, Romish, Greek, and Coptic Churches. "But would it not be sufficient," asked Boswell, "to subscribe the Bible?" "Why, no, Sir," returned Johnson, "for all sects will subscribe the Bible: nay, the Mahometans will subscribe the Bible: for the Mahometans acknowledge Jesus Christ, as well as Moses, but maintain, that God sent Mahomet as a still greater prophet than either."

It is at once seen, that if the Universities are to educate for the Church of England only, subscription to the Bible merely would not be sufficient to keep them exclusive, for Roman Catholics, Socinians, Quakers, and all sects, (with little modern exception,) would readily do so, and at once enter the Universities: and thus we should, as Johnson expressed it, "supply our enemies with arms from our arsenal." The question is, whether it should continue to be " our arsenal" only, which forms a large subject, requiring for its solution much legal knowledge and decision. It was the debate on the petition of Archdeacon Blackburn, in favour of doing away with subscription, in the year 1792, (which was lost by a division of 217 to 71,) which called forth Johnson's observations.

At another time, in connexion with the subject of predestination, Boswell asked, "Is it necessary, Sir, to believe all the thirty-nine Articles?" "Why, Sir," replied Johnson, "that is a question that has been much agitated. Some have thought it necessary that they should all be believed: others have considered them to be only articles of peace, that is to say, you are not to preach against them."

The reasoning of Archdeacon Paley on subscription to articles of religion will occur to the reader's mind, and will serve to emancipate the over-scrupulous person. It is well that subscription should be required only to such articles as are of almost universal agreement.

Dr. Johnson approved of bishops having seats in the House of Lords: "Who is more proper," he asked, "for having the dignity of a peer, than a bishop, provided a bishop be what he ought to be?" But this is hardly the right way of putting a question which is one of the highest importance to the Church. Doubtless, bishops make good peers, and so would clergymen, with Johnson's qualification, make good baronets. But does the peer improve the bishop-or do the duties of a peer in Parliament interfere with the diocesan labours of a bishop? It is said, that the Church requires the advocacy of bishops in Parliament, and that no other persons can understand so well the wants of the Church. But is this true-and will not support of the Church come with better grace, and greater power, from the tongues of laymen-and cannot lay Churchmen be equally schooled in all the wishes of the Church? Indeed, bishops differ so much, and vote so directly in opposition to one another on many matters which involve the interests of the Church, that the Church herself is bewildered in attempting to distinguish between friends and foes on the episcopal bench: and after all, the main assistance to the Church must be derived from the lay peers, who form the very great majority of the House. In the House of Commons, where she needs most help, the Church is left in the hands of her