"6. Are those who are privately baptized, afterwards publicly received into the Church?

“7. How often is the Sacrament of the LORD's Supper administered?

"8. What is the average number of communicants, as far as you can judge?

9. How often does your minister preach ?

“10. Does he publicly instruct and examine the children in the Church Catechism; where and at what times?

"11. Does he duly prepare the children for Confirmation? "12. Does he visit the sick regularly and diligently?"

Surely, if any of the Laity say that the Clergy are irresponsible, they may be answered, that it is because they themselves do not use the power of looking after them which the Church by her laws and officers has provided. What new developement of the “ Lay Element" could provide better than these articles of inquiry for lay influence in the administration of every parish in England? But, some would answer, these inquiries are either not answered, or answered without much regard to facts. That, at least, is not the fault of the Church or her arrangements, but of those very laity for whom large powers are asked. It is indeed in the power of Clergy and laity alike to make larger reformations in the choice of Churchwardens, but if they do elect conscientious men to the office it will probably be found that these inquiries will be less barren in their results in future than they commonly are at present.

Of the guardianship over the fabric and ornaments of the church we shall say nothing. It may be fairly hoped that more attention is being paid to the conscientious discharge of these duties than has been formerly; but before parting with the Articles of Visitation,1 let us transcribe one which yet contains in itself the germ of a large disciplinal power.

"Are there any persons in your parish known or notoriously suspected to be guilty of adultery, fornication, or incest ?"

The Clergy press for the punishment of notorious crimes of unchastity, and it is looked upon as a respectable clerical zeal which no one need pay any more attention to than by receiving or listening to their complaints with that respectful deference in which polite people always clothe practical indifference. Let a five-andtwenty thousand laymen-power be applied to this mountain which lies in the path of Church progress, and we quite believe it will begin to move at the first touch.

But a negligent attention to the duties of the churchwarden's office is not the only way in which the "lay element" has given up the power which it already possesses, of "strengthening the

1 The Visitation is a real Synod, for a definite purpose, (hence the fees paid are called "Synodals "): and here the laity have a place given them. See Archdeacon Denison's Charge.

hands of a wise, earnest, and judicious Clergy." There are complaints, or have been, that our Bishops have not been such men as were calculated to make the Church's means go farthest for good. Who is responsible for this? Certainly not the Clergy; for, with the exception of a court favourite here and there, they have the least possible influence in the matter: and so it has been for a century and more,—that is, since the famous commission of Queen Anne's reign was dissolved.

"Had the laity of the Church of England cared about the right exercise of their legitimate influence in the selection of Bishops, they could have obtained it. With the single exception that the Archbishops and Bishops collectively for the time being, could, in an extreme case, refuse consecration, the laity had the selection of Bishops wholly in their own hands. The majority of the laity virtually selected the Prime Minister of the Crown; the Minister of the day and his friends virtually nominated the Bishops. It is not necessary here to enter into the miserable principles, or want of principle, upon which, in the last century," (to say nothing of the last year,) "persons were taken out of the priesthood for the higher office of Bishop; whence there grew up that habitual mistrust of Bishops, which is not easily shaken off. The laity bartered their birthright for a mess of pottage.' Church patronage was, at the best, employed for purposes of this world. The laity had the Bishops whom they desired; and when they had them, despised them."—P. 14.

Because the better laity neglected to use their power in the Confirmation of Bishops, that ancient usage has fallen into a state of formal inanity, which can only be changed by a vigorous pressure on Ministers of State by those through whose fault it has so become. If it is wanted to control the evil exercise of powers usurped by statesmen, let such pressure be exercised; and it will soon be found to have effect, if used by laymen: though, when the Clergy strive for the same object, they lay themselves under a charge of seeking their own aggrandizement and power.

One other particular, and we have done. All acknowledge that it is desirable to exclude from the ministrations of the Church's spiritual offices and powers every man who has already shown by his conduct that he is unfitted to take such sacred responsibilities upon him. We have heard in time past of a worldly clergy and so forth; though happily there is less and less room for such charges among modern parish Priests. Temptations to use the Church as a mere profession may again arise, and mere worldly men seek her offices to the scandal of the faithful. Let then the laity look well to their existing powers, and not, by allowing the "si quis" of candidates for Holy Orders to pass unnoticed, give themselves cause for saying afterwards, to think of such a man being a clergyman !' To draw our remarks to a close. We are convinced that the question of lay co-operation requires far more thorough consideration by those who undertake to bring it before the public, ere they

propose any change whatever in the existing relation of laymen to the Church. There is much to lament in the present difficulties of our position as a Church, and it is very desirable to use every effort possible, in a legitimate and prudent way, to reform it. But the past history of the Church since the Rebellion, (if not since the Reformation), shows that however great have been the shortcomings of the Clergy; however much their laxness and neglect may have helped forward the degeneracy of her spiritual influence, it is the laity who have been the instrumental cause of all such changes in law and government as have weakened her hands; and that we are not yet in such a position, if we ever shall be, as would justify us in creating new powers for them.

If we find the laity craving after work, let the Clergy show them what work there is already to be done, not invent some novel kind for them. Let them point out how the lay offices of the Church may be made forcible realities by their faithful vigour, instead of shameful inanities: let them ask them to relieve their hands of those many secular burdens which are undertaken by clergymen because no one else will undertake them, but which hinder many a parish priest in the proper fulfilment of those spiritual duties of which such. secular ones are no necessary or even fitting adjunct. And in no way would the laity gain such information about the Church, in none arouse themselves to a practical interest in her welfare so much, as by actual participation in her labours of love. Some might think a seat in the Synod a more exalted honour; but those of the better, holier, and more thoughtful class, would soon learn that the very essence of lay co-operation, is a sharing in the good deeds of the Church among her flock, and not a sitting 'in Moses' seat.'

We cannot help ending with a further word of caution in very plain language. It appears to us that this agitation on behalf of the laity for their greater ascendancy in the Church bears indications of a subtle connection with that great struggle of secular powers against sacred which characterizes the times, and stamps them with a seal of awful significancy. At the very least there is so much analogy between the one and the other as to give good grounds for hesitation before we allow the necessity of any change at all beyond greater energy on the part of laymen in their existing position. There is, however, no ground at all for hesitation in respect to any scheme for lay co-operation which would place the laity in a position that would make them in any sense antagonistic to their clergy, that would tempt them to domineering interference with the latter in their sacred duties, or in any way limit that independence in spiritual things which is,-not the privilege of a faithful clergy, but the very necessity of its life. In the face of such an attempt, if it is or should be made, we could even sympathize with those who would paraphrase the old political maxim, and say, 'the power of the laity has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.' Let us be warned in time.

LIFE OF BISHOP ARMSTRONG.

A Memoir of John Armstrong, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Graham's Town. By the Rev. T. T. CARTER, M.A., Rector of Clewer. With an Introduction by Samuel, Lord Bishop of Oxford. J. H. and J. Parker.

THE task of collecting the scanty materials for an account of Bishop Armstrong's short but eventful career, has fallen into good hands. The Bishop of Oxford, in his affectionate preface, readily seizes on the main characteristics of that honest, loyal, sanguine temperament, which, when leavened by the grace of GoD and deep views of religious truth, was calculated to make its way with all classes of society, and impart a power of attraction to doctrines which, on account of their strictness, never can be very popular. He had evidently discerned Bishop Armstrong's powers of influencing the minds of those who came in contact with "his ardent, gentle, devout spirit." And the same appreciation of his character which induced the Bishop of Oxford to select his friend to preach to the candidates for Ordination' before he went out to Graham's Town, now makes him anxious "that such an example should not be lost upon the Clergy."

"Such tracks of light should draw our eyes upward to the living Fountain of Light and Glory; they should lead us more earnestly to thank God, Who has cast our lot in a Church which is still the mother of such sons, and which can so train her children for service, for rest, and for glory; they should lead us more earnestly to seek for and cherish in ourselves the gifts which were vouchsafed to him, and to make in the strength of CHRIST full proof, like him, of our ministry of love."-Preface, pp. xv. xvi.

Mr. Carter, too, who says "that though acquainted with him but a short time, his heart was drawn to his friend as to few others," (p. 3,) deserves every commendation, both for the trouble that he must have taken, in "gleaning the scattered memorials of one who scarcely wrote any letters that open to us his inner mind and thoughts;" as well as for the living portraiture which he has sketched, of a man, whose "whole life was devoted to constant action, ever carrying out some purpose, in which for the while he was absorbed."—(P. 5.)

I The sermon, which was printed in the Bishop of Graham's Town's Parochial Sermons, was on the text, "I will very gladly spend and be spent for you."

2 "It was but rarely that he wrote letters, except for some immediate call bearing on the work which he had in hand.”—P. 5.

Now, what is most striking in Bishop Armstrong's life is, the manner in which he influenced so many minds, both by his writings and ministerial labours, without being in any degree placed in a position that would command attention, or possessing talent of any high order. With the exception of the very brief term of his Episcopate, he never occupied a prominent station in the Church: in all his undertakings he worked his way toward success "by his single-mindedness and devotedness of purpose," (p. 2,) we would add, by the hopeful yet humble temper of his mind.

To give our readers a brief outline of his career. It does not appear that as a boy he evinced any signs of ability or of earnestness. At a preparatory school under Dr. Bond at Hanwell, and at Charter House afterwards, though a favourite with his schoolfellows, he did not do much in the way of study. He evidently was of a delicate constitution, which may to a great degree account for his want of application. Three-quarters of a year's hard work with a private tutor, however, enabled him to gain a scholarship at Lincoln College. But whether, or no, it arose from ill-health, when at Oxford he did not read hard,—at any rate, he did not throw himself into the studies of the place, and at the end of his residence found himself in that receptacle for clever men who prefer "music, poetry, and boating" to Aristotle and Latin composition, viz., a third class in Classics.

Soon after leaving Oxford, and apparently without any especial preparation for the ministry, he was ordained Deacon, as Curate of Alford in Somersetshire. Obliged to relinquish this charge at the end of four months, on account of ill health, he shortly afterwards took the Curacy of Wotton-Fitzpaine, Dorsetshire; while there, having been admitted into Priest's Orders. No reason is given why he refused a Chaplaincy in India; very probably, it was on account of that continued ill health which induced him to quit this second parish, and to undertake the Curacy of Clifton.

No doubt there were thoughts at work in his mind in these retired villages, that ripened out in after years into the peculiar characteristics of his disposition; and one of his sisters who lived with him in Dorsetshire relates "that he had strong ideas of reforming those considered past hope," (p. 21.) It was, however, at Clifton that he first began to attract notice. He was a good preacher, and his sermons were much admired.

"He was fond of society, and being gifted with more than ordinary social powers . . . with a beautiful voice... his society was much sought after, and at the earlier time of his residence there, he seems to have mixed in it more than was healthy for him, though being at the same time most earnest in his parish work, and much loved by his flock.”. P. 19.

This does not sound a very promising picture, and it is doubt