Let the Education Committee of the Congregational Board in London (or let a county or district committee) adopt a systematically-arranged organization similar to that developed in the "Revised Code." The details would probably involve

1. The appointment of a thoroughly competent inspector (or inspectors) to traverse the county (or country), and—(A.) to inspect and report upon day-schools already existing; (B.) to survey districts or localities now without and needing day-schools, and to report as to the money, &c., required for building and afterwards sustaining such schools.

2. The apportionment and grants of money for (A.) building purposes; and (B.) for the annual maintenance of schools, on a plan of payment by results ascertained by inspection and examination.

3. The improvement and extension of the present training college for teachers (perhaps the institution of others), and the adaptation of the present collegiate system to such a plan of denominational aid and inspection.

4. For the help of the Central Board, it might be desirable to have an Education Committee in every church and congregation, composed of deacons and members of the congregation (not necessarily church-members) with the pastor ex officio. The secretary of such committee should be an active, if possible, an enthusiastic and intelligent person, able and willing to prevent the burden of the necessary duties of the post being thrown upon the pastor.

The

At first sight such a scheme may appear too large and costly for realization. Whether it would prove so or not, will be matter of careful calculation dependent, of course, upon the liberality of the congregations. All depends upon the zeal we have for the extension and improvement of day-school education. money required by a central board for such a scheme could. only be known after such an authoritative body had declared the necessity of every church taxing itself honourably for edu cational purposes. Missions to the heathen of foreign countries touch our sympathies and open our purses to an amount which ought to suggest an enormously-increased contribution for the education and social redemption of the heathen of our own land.

- This "flesh-and-blood" argument has never yet had its de weight with us; but it ought to and will have in any honest consideration of our responsibilities as a large and wealthy sect to the body politic. At some risk, I will venture a calculation on a limited scale. Last year we had in the county of Lancaster 233 Congregational "places of worship." We had something over 20,000 members in our churches, and the yearly collec

tions for the London Missionary Society reached in round numbers £6,000, or an average of 6s. per member for the year. There are nearly six times as many sittings as church members, so that we gave 1s. per sitting to that society, or allowing a sixth for unlet sittings; we gave 1s. 3d. per "member of congregation," including the members of the churches. Would it be a difficult thing to raise for the use of a County Board of Education, say, twice that sum? Or an average of half-a-crown a-year per let sitting for the adaptation and expenses of a thoroughly satisfactory system of education, assisted by the voluntary gifts of the whole body, and inspected under the direction of a committee of men commanding the confidence of every member of the body? It ought not to be difficult to find means and appliances for such a scheme. If we were all sufficiently alive to our duties as citizens, and pre-eminently as members of that divinely-instituted society which has laid upon it the renovation and elevation of the whole nature of man, we should do it speedily.

I close by stating my belief, that the two courses so imperfectly suggested, are the only ones open to such an influential denomination as ours. If we refuse, as a body, to accept State aid supervision, still believing that day-school education is a part of our Christian work in the world, I think we ought to be ready to sacrifice as largely as needful for such a complete denominational system as I have sketched out.

THE RITUALISTS.

THE Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into the differences of practice which have lately arisen in the Church of England have reported, as to vestments, "that while they are "regarded by some as symbolical of doctrine, and by others as a 'distinctive vesture whereby they desire to do honour to the Holy Communion as the highest act of Christian worship, they are by "none regarded as essential, and they give grave offence to many;" and being of opinion that it is "expedient to restrain all variations in respect of vesture from that which has long been the established usage," they think they may be best secured " by

providing aggrieved parishioners with an easy and effectual process for complaint and redress."

If this were a dispute which had suddenly arisen about ceremonies and decorous external observances merely, the verdict of the Commissioners would be worthy of all commendation for its good sense and moderation, but in view of the actual state of affairs in the Church of England, nothing could be more pitiful or more mischievous than this Report. Consider the situation. A party has risen in the National Establishment which avowedly sets itself to reverse both the principles and practice of the Reformers, boldly re-introduces into the service of the Church all those usages which were indissolubly associated with the corruptions and superstitions which the Reformation was intended to displace, and striking at Protestantism by the root. For the Ritualists-or Anglicans, as they desire by way of eminence to be called-are developing Sacerdotalism in a manner upon which Popery itself has never ventured. The faith of Rome is professedly established by Universal Councils, and its practice fixed by a multitude of venerable precedents; the oneness, the central authority, the antiquity of its customs, the solemn sanction of its decrees, seem to present a stable resting-place for those who can find no security for their faith in the exercise of the reason with which God has endowed them, or the answers of their hearts to Divine Revelation. But the Anglican Sacramentarian clergy have none of these pretensions. They demand the submission of the laity in their own name. It is hardly too much to say that they have no head either in earth or heaventhe Pope is nothing to them, the Queen is nothing to them, the Archbishop of Canterbury is nothing to them; and according to our notions they set at naught the plain directions of the Lord Jesus Christ. They are a law unto themselves; and Roman Catholics who should drop their Romanism to become Catholics in the Anglican sense, would find that they had exchanged one Pope for many Popes, in the persons of the Anglican priests. Each one of them makes his own doctrine, fixes his own usage, and arranges his own service. They try to conjure with the words "English Church," and talk about the "Saxon use" and the "Sarum use," as though they were but restoring the ancient customs of an old National Church, which was altogether independent and self-governed. Their plea is that they only are the true interpreters and obedient servants of the rubrics and canons of the Church of England, but all this is a sham. They put their own gloss upon the rubrics, and when these do not serve their turn they look anywhere, everywhere, for a pattern or a precedent. If they cannot find what they want in pre-Reformation records, or in the "Sarum use," or in the Fathers, or in Levitical appoint

ments, or even in " the Church of the Apocalypse," they manufacture it according to their own sweet wills.

The evidence of the leaders of the Ritualistic movement, when questioned on their authority for their various garbs and ceremonies, was astounding, and ought to be better understood by Englishmen. The Rev. C. Le Geyt, of St. Matthias, Stoke Newington, was asked where he got the patterns of the vestments he uses, and answered that he got them from pictures, from brasses, and "various other sources." He "believed" they came from "old authorities." They "slightly differ" from those used in the Church of Rome, being of the "old catholic shape." As to the colours of the vestments, he was "unable to say" whether they were the same as those used in the two years of Edward VI., " because there had been the Sarum use and the Roman use, and various uses with regard to colour." Pressed still further, he said—" I believe our authority for using the different colours is the practice of the whole of the Western Church. It is so very doubtful what the practice of the Sarum use was." Presently the Earl of Harrow by took this subject in hand, and questioned Mr. Geyt thus:

What guided you in the selection of the vestments ?-Do you mean in the kind of vestments to be used?

Yes. The use of the Church at the Reformation, and, as far as we could ascertain, as I mentioned before, the English use, especially the ancient Gothic vestments.

I think you said the Sarum use had been abandoned for that of the Western Church ?-The details of the Sarum use were so very obscure that we were almost obliged to take the Roman use.

Is there any recognized authority by which a clergyman wishing to act according to the rules of his church can be guided authoritatively in knowing what vestments to use and what not to use?-He would be able to ascertain without much difficulty what was in use at the time referred to in that rubric. His great difficulty, perhaps, would be about colour; he would find various colours used, but he would have no difficulty about the kind of

vestment.

It would be left open to him to take some interpretation of the use of Sarum, or to take that which is common in the Church of Rome ?—I imagine so. I do not know what authority is to decide the question.

There is no book of authority to guide a clergyman in the Church of England, if he uses vestments, to ascertain what vestments he ought to use? -As to colour, there is none that I know of.

Therefore you conceive every clergyman, in regard to the colour of the vestments, has it left to his own discretion ?-At present it is so, as to which use he adopts.

Changes in the order of the service may also, according to this clergyman, be made to suit the convenience of the vestmented priests:

Do you always preach in the morning after the Nicene creed ?-No, we do not; rarely. We preach before the Communion service, immediately after the morning prayer.

Is that a recent alteration ?-Within the last two years.

Had you any particular reason for making that change?-Partly from the length of the services and the inconvenience of it, and partly from the fact that it was more convenient in consequence of wearing vestments.

The "mixed chalice" was a usage for which the Royal Commissioners were at a loss to find a precedent, and they were anxious to know how Mr. Le Geyt justified it. "By the same rubrical authority," he replied, " on which I justify other usages. There were certain usages authorized at a certain period which have not been forbidden."

You do not then in any way justify that by any rubric, or the omission of any rubric in our present Prayer-book, as compared with other Prayerbooks, but you base it wholly upon pre-Reformation authority ?—No; I cannot say that, because it has been a custom of the Church of England, which has been left out simply, not prohibited. I am afraid I can hardly give the date for the authority.

Do you then infer that what has been specified and omitted, the omission notwithstanding, is permissive ?—I think in some cases it is: omission does not amout to a prohibition. That is my opinion merely.

What would be the sources of authority from which a person wishing to conform to the rules of the Church would get all these directions ?-From the old service-books of the Church, which were the authorities before and at the Reformation.

Then you do not think that the Prayer-book with the canons and rubrics would be sufficient guidance to a clergyman performing his duty?—I think not. It never has been so in the history of the Church. There never has been one book only.

Dean of Westminster.-You said, I think, that in cases where the rubric says nothing, you are justified in going back both to the general usages of the Western Church, and also to the usages prescribed in the Levitical law? -I said this. I would fall back on the united action of the Western and Eastern Churches, provided it were scriptural-Levitical and the Church of the Apocalypse.

Now let us hear what the Rev. George Nugee, of Wymering, has to say on this matter. He began by telling the Commissioners that he had "retained the bolder features of ritual, but had not adopted its very great minutiæ."

For instance, changing the epistle and the gospel side, the deacon coming and taking the book away, and changing about; all that kind of minutiæ I have particularly avoided. The Saxon character is a simple, grand character, and should be treated as such. What the Saxon wants is a grand ritual in its bolder and nobler features, without all the minutia which would suit an Italian. That would not suit a Saxon.

However, he observes both minor and major, black letter and red letter festivals, and honours, in a secondary degree, the saints in the English calendar. He "slightly" elevates the elements, not, as he assures the Commissioners, from any superstitious purpose, but as "a custom of the Church throughout the world, east and west." Amongst his vestments is an "alb