Ambrose spent the rest of the day in the Basilica (the Portian); at night he went to his own house (probably close by), that the civil power might have the opportunity of arresting him, if it was thought advisable.

The attempt to gain the Portian seems now to have been dropped; but next morning troops were marched before day-break to take possession of the New Church, which was within the walls. Ambrose, upon the news of this fresh movement, displayed both the dignity and the peaceableness of an apostolical prelate. He did not seek to disturb them in their possession; but, attending service at the Portian, he gave orders that all of them should be visited by a sentence of excommunication Meanwhile the New Church, where the soldiers were posted, began to fill with a larger congregation than it ever contained before the persecution. Ambrose was requested to go thither, but, desirous of drawing the people away from the scene of imperial tyranny, lest a riot should ensue, he remained in the Portian, and began a comment on the lesson of the day, which was from the book of Job. First, he commended them for the Christian patience and resignation with which they had hitherto borne their trial; which indeed was on the whole surprising, considering the usual inflammable nature of a multitude. "Rogamus, auguste," they had said to the emperor, "non pugnamus, non timemus, sed rogamus." It is common in the leader of a multitude to profess peaceableness, but very unusual for the multitude itself to persevere in doing so. Ambrose went on

to observe, that both they and he had in their way been tempted as Job was by the powers of evil. For himself, his peculiar trial had lain in the reflection that the extraordinary measures of the government, the movements of the Gothic guards, the fines of the tradesmen, the various sufferings of the saints, all arose from what might be considered his obstinacy in refusing the Basilica to the Arians. Yet he felt that to do so would be to peril his soul; so that the request was but the voice of the tempter, as he spoke in Job's wife, to make him "say a word against God, and die," to betray his trust, and incur the sentence of spiritual death.

Soon

Before this time the soldiers, who had been sent to the New Church, from dread of the threat of excommunication, had declared against the sacrilege, and joined his congregation at the Portian; and now the news came that the royal hangings had been taken down. after, as he was continuing his address to the people, a fresh message came to him from the court to ask him, whether he had an intention of domineering over his sovereign. Ambrose, in answer, shewed the pains he had taken to observe a passive obedience to the emperor's will, and to hinder riot; then he added

Priests have of old time bestowed sovereignty, never assumed it; and it is a common saying, that the state has coveted the priesthood more than priests the functions of the state. Christ hid himself, lest he should be made a king. Yes! we have a dominion of our own. The dominion of the priest lies in his helplessness, as it is said, “When I am weak, then am I strong."

And so ended the dispute for a time. The court gave way; the guards were ordered away from the Basilica, and the fines were re

mitted. I end for the present with the view which Ambrose took of the prospect before him :-

Thus the matter rests; but, alas! it is not ended: the emperor's words are of that angry sort as shew that a more severe contest is in store. He calls me an autocrat, or what is worse still. He implied this, when his servants were entreating him, on the petition of the soldiers, to attend the catholic service. "Should Ambrose bid you," he made answer, “doubtless you would give me to him in chains." These words shew what little hope there is of peace. Persons present were all shocked at hearing them; yet there are parties who exasperate him. N.

BURIAL SERVICE.-DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH.

MY DEAR SIR,-My own attention has been so painfully called to the rubric at the beginning of the burial service, and my feelings so much wounded and excited by circumstances connected with it, that I am, perhaps, hardly qualified to speak impartially upon it. I therefore wish merely to throw out the following suggestions for the consideration of others, as it seems to me that very mistaken notions respecting it are held and acted upon. From the office itself, the rubric attached to it, and the ancient rules and canons, I am inclined to think that it never was intended, in any age of the church, that any adults should receive Christian burial, who were not communicants. It seems to me contrary to the whole tenor of the writings of the early ages, that Christian and gospel hope should be pronounced authoritatively, by a commissioned servant of God, over those who by their sins, or by their own refusal, or by any other cause, were disqualified from joining in that high and essential part of Christian worship. If there be ground for this opinion, then let us apply it to the case of lunatics and insane persons, over whom it seems to be the received opinion of the lay judges of the Ecclesiastical Courts (ought judgment in cases so deeply affecting the vital interests of spiritual religion to be left to laymen?) that humanity requires us to perform the service. But surely it is a misapplication of the term to use it in such a case. The question seems to be this, Is such a person admissible to communion? If not, if by God's own act the person is rendered inadmissible, then is not our safe and proper course, as ministers of God, to leave such cases in the merciful obscurity in which God has left them? to hold our peace and say nothing? and not go out of our way, authoritatively, in his name, to pronounce a hope, when He himself has thought fit to deprive us of the only scriptural ground for pronouncing it? My own impression has long been in favour of this view of the case, but the general feeling, or, to speak more correctly, the prevailing practice, has been so much. against it that I should hardly have ventured to throw it out, even for the consideration of others; but in consequence of the transaction in which I have been engaged, and the doubt in which, by the opinions of the civilians, the matter has been placed, I was desirous of learning the opinion of those branches of the catholic church which use our liturgy and rubrics and are free from the thraldom which our unequal union with the state imposes on us. And I find upon inquiry that in Scotland the view which I have here expressed is

pretty much the same which is entertained there; and that in the case of suicides, for instance, it is the custom to refuse Christian burial, not only where the individuals were clearly of sound mind, but also where they were insane. And when it is considered that none can be injured by withholding the office, but many may by performing it, I own I consent to the opinion of the venerable individual who told me that he thought it the safest course.

But, setting aside the particular case of those who destroy themselves, let us consider generally, what the church contemplates by persons "excommunicate," who are expressly excluded by the rubric. Is it correct to say that all the baptized members of the Christian church must be divided into two classes-communicate, and excommunicate? If this is correct, then to which class do those belong who, from the time they have come to man's estate, and were old enough to choose for themselves, have systematically and in the teeth of all exhortation, refused to communicate both in the prayers of the faithful and in the holy eucharist? Are these communicants or excommunicants? Can it be necessary in order to apply the latter term that public sentence should be pronounced by others, upon one who has wilfully and deliberately pronounced it upon himself? Surely, this is worthy of consideration. I do not think that it would be in the power of a presbyter to act upon this acceptation of the term without the approbation of his diocesan; but I think there can be little doubt but that it is in the power of every bishop of every diocese to instruct his clergy that such is the acceptation of the term on which he wishes them to act.

And now let it be further considered whether such a proceeding would not at once restore to the clergy all the effectual power of discipline which it would be proper or safe for them to possess,―all that power the loss of which, since the Reformation downwards, has been felt and acknowledged by the clergy of all ranks and of every diversity of opinion in other matters? The chief purpose for which that power is so desirable is, that the church may faithfully fulfil her office of being a witness to the truth. It is not for the sake of injuring the wicked in body, goods, or good name, but to let all men see that she does not hold herself responsible for them; that by the neglect of the outward ordinances, and the appointed means of grace, men do put themselves beyond the reach of God's ordinary means of salvation; and that she dares not express hope concerning such, where God has given her no ground for entertaining it. Discipline would thus be established without interference of the civil power (which has been the chief cause of its falling into disuse), and without even the need to apply to convocation for an alteration of the existing laws.

What rule of charity or of truth would be broken, if it were agreed among the bishops, and directed by them to their clergy, that, (after due notice given,) no person of man's estate should be admitted to the privilege of Christian burial, who, for the three years last preceding his death (not being disabled by sickness or some other necessary hinderance), refused to join his brethren in the celebration of our Lord's death?

It would merely be a mild revival of the old canons which forbade Christian burial to all who did not communicate at Easter.-See Abp. Sudbury's Const. 4. 1378. I think that this would effectually revive discipline; because, if profligate and abandoned persons, with a view to secure to themselves Christian burial, in the event of their death, should present themselves at the table of the Lord, it would be the bounden duty of the clergy, as they tendered the commands and honour of that master, to repel them, at the hazard of their lives, if necessary.

The only possibility of abuse on the part of the clergy, namely, that of refusing communion through malicious or improper motives, would be obviated by the rubric, which requires them in all cases of refusal to "give account of the same to the ordinary within fourteen days after, at furthest."

Whether any or what legal inconveniences might result to the bishops or clergy from pursuing such a course I will not stop to inquire. But, supposing it to tend to the advancement of true religion, to the honour of God, and to the salvation of men, there can be no hesitation in saying that they who are not prepared to submit to any and every inconvenience and persecution in such a cause are unfit for the stations in which they find themselves.

I am, very faithfully yours, A. P. P.

PREPARATION FOR ORDERS.

SIR,-It seems to be generally agreed, that some improvement is requisite in our system of preparation for holy orders; indeed, to speak properly, we have no system, except that which is pursued upon a small scale at the clerical institution of St. Bees: this, as far as it goes, is excellently conducted, and the church has been much indebted to it; but it receives no graduates, and only a portion of those literates who cannot afford a university education. Now, if we are to have the benefit of such improvement, it must be made either amongst the students in the university, or after they have graduated and left. Allow me, therefore, first to offer a few remarks as to what might be reasonably and conveniently done, during a residence at college. Mr. Chancellor Raikes, in his admirable work on clerical education, has entered fully upon this subject: and whatever differences of opinion there may be with respect to the remedy, he has at least very forcibly represented the evil, and shewn that some remedy is absolutely required. If a school for theology be established in the university, the question is, whether it shall be attended before the first degree or after. The latter would, in many points, be decidedly preferable; but to this I apprehend the increase of expense thus occasioned would present an insuperable bar. I conclude, therefore, that we must confine our expectation of improvement to the period before the degree. I know that there are great authorities for leaving the present system undisturbed; but still, pace tantorum virorum, I do think that something advantageous might be devised, in order to wipe off from our church

the disgrace of providing no professional instruction for her ministers. My view of the matter is similar to that which the excellent Professor Pusey once espoused, but has since relinquished; I am proposing it however under certain additional regulations and views, which may perhaps tend to modify his opinion; at all events, they may not be unworthy of consideration, in our existing state of deficiency and helplessness.

I would not compel the student who is designed for the church to pursue the present routine of academical studies beyond the second year. He should pass with credit (in the first class) the previous examination, which might be somewhat more extensive than it is now; and then should be allowed to enter a school of theology, and there pass his final examination for degree,-with a scale of honours and prizes, if you please, open to his competition. In this theological school I would have every man approved before he received from his college a testimonial for orders; but it need not be required that he should attend a course of lectures in this school: let him, if he pleases, first distinguish himself, and take his degree in classics or mathematics, and then proceed to his theological examination, at any convenient period. The adoption of this plan would go far, as it strikes me, to remove the objections + which have been raised against any alteration in the course of study for undergraduates with a view to the church. 1. There would be no necessity for any one actually to determine, at the end of two years, upon entering into the church; but I have no doubt that the generality do determine before that time. 2. It would not abolish that system of general education pursued by the union of all ranks, and of mutual benefit to each. 3. There would be but little reduction in any instance "of that general education by which the mind is best formed;" and there need be no reduction at all in the case of those who are disposed to distinguish themselves in classical or mathematical learning. 4. And with regard to attainments in theology being either too elementary or premature, I do believe that this, which is perhaps the greatest objection of all, would be found of less weight than many seem to apprehend, especially as both classical and logical acquirements would go hand in hand with the study of divinity; and I should confidently expect that the knowledge of the clergy in general would be raised by this means far above its present standard. There might be exceptions, but there would probably result an aggregate of good. If, under the present system, every one made the best use of his opportunities, were obliged to devote his time and talents to academical studies, the proposed alteration might be thought less desirable, as interfering with the best preparatory education; but I think it would at least conduce, as matters now are, to the more industrious and profitable employment of those valuable years which are spent in the university, especially with reference to those who are intended for the church. I am fully persuaded that some system for the attainment of this end will ere long

* Remarks on Cathedral Institutions, p. 92, 2nd edit.

+ Ibid. p. 93.